July 11, 2008

The Convoluted Logic of Doctor ‘Do-little’ and the New Gospel

Recall the strange scenes of the Doctor Dolittle move by Eddy Murphy, the comedian actor, where he was depicted as being half-crazed, renowned vet doctor who could speak a wide array of animal languages. For some strange reasons, the character became so much pro-occupied with the welfare of his pets at the clinic to the point in which he gave up all other routine and rational human activities, much less about the devotion of his family life.

At some point, he started hearing voices and acquired paranormal instinct to communicate with his subjects so much so that when he comes to the lab every morning he could easily talk with the animals and field their complains (dogs, birds, serpents, etc.) of which animal did what the night before or who needs what among: e. g., about minor scuffles and sleep spoilers or demand for food, water, entertainment, medical regiments and so on.

To the point, I’m referring to the pen name of Dr. Mohammed Megalommatis, an unmistakably compulsive writer and somewhat cyber-pugilist and combative character (might this comment bring down on me the verbal onslaught of the doctor soon?) Anyone who occasionally gets in his main playgrounds such American Chronicle web pages rarely could miss his relatively well-composed but at times piercing and acerbic tongue of political commentary on the Horn. I’m in the view that there are many good (at least it used to be) points in his writings. As someone who traces his backgrounds to the area, I was taken aback by his insightful comments about Ethiopian dominant linguistic and ethno-religious issues and their past roles as an instrument of socio-political depravity and oppression. He was also right about exposing the supremacist features and unjustified past exploitation inflicted by successive Ethiopian rulers from highlander ethnic groups upon other nationalities. His detest for the current Ethiopian illegal occupation in Somalia was also used to be another congenial subject for many people, but that is where it ends as far as topicality of mutual interest is concerned.

Lately, the Doctor waded into less glamorous territory, if not unethical one, as he is perhaps trying hard to get some insights on the “mud-still theory” and deceptive inner-working of Somalia’s political feuds and there by inadvertently dragging in his feet with other trivial topics including the role of S/land on the matter. He even made unflattering remarks about the wife of S/land’s president for no apparent reaso (http://www.americanchronile.com/articles/66074) calling disparaging names and titles even though she has no known power or saying in the government affairs.

The million dollar question is then why the busy Professor drifted away from the usual mantra and started taking pot-shots at every moving object in S/land scene? Why now this issue and never before? Or who are the sources behind of all these manufactured and less than gentlemanly material that muddied his hectic work? I’m too sure yet, except to say that only the doctor himself could shed some light on what is failing him and who is feeding what garbage and the motives behind it. But I can gather from his comments some lame accusations against S/land with respect to the political misfortune of the South Somalia. Rest assured, the government of SL, let alone its populace, has never felt schadenfraude about the misery of the southern counterparts. The mess and prolonged predicament of the South is primary self-inflicted wounds and people of the north had little say on the matters for long time.

Definitely, haphazard comments like “Tyrant of the Red Sea” and “Republic of Huda Berakat” are primarily side-kick and non sequitur line of arguments. They are worth of nothing except eyesore as far as substance goes. On the other hand, I’m curious why the Doctor is so reluctant to mention in his daily dosage other notorious characters, who are still championing for the destruction and chaos scenes of Somalia. There are plenty and he is well versed with that. It keeps me wondering what’s failing the doctor and his gospel nowadays. Look no further what he offers in his latest twisted logic ( http:/americanchronicle.com/articles/67695 ) The phantasmagoric message in between the lines, as the title imply, goes like: any chaotic environ of SL will have beneficial spin to the intractable chaotic situation of Somalia. It is something akin to a burning house except few rooms and one tells you let the nature take its course instead of trying to save what is left of it.

And one more caveat for anyone who is aspiring to become an objective pundit on Somali political talk-shop is that most Somalis are notoriously dishonest when it comes in inter-clan political interest and therefore unreliable as credible source. Asked by foreigner about his/her view, Somali will twist every historical fact in favour of his lineage and against others at any length: perpetrator will play victimhood card while at same claiming to be the invincible and undisputed majority; thieve will invoke sainthood and accuse the perceived rival to the vice versa; will beat the bush about purported superiority or material wealth of his group and contrast it with others as a mere beggars; invoke all the noble character and grandiose intentions while relegating others into the cast role. It is all about deliberate tug-of -war to extract maximum sympathy from strangers in order to get some edge on the fierce intra-group competition on the ground. That is why Somali conflict of the south is protracted over 17 years and no solution in sight, that is why some benevolent actors around the world couldn’t figure out the root cause and that is the reason, to some degree, Somali territory was divided into five parts by the colonials.

But let us assume he might as well be, with sheer naiveté, unwittingly mislead by flatterers and people with extreme nefarious agenda about Somalia’s political future. In that case, why the good professor shouldn’t take few comment sense precaution, not withstanding with ethics of scholarly standards, including;

1- cross-reference and double checking his source’s credibility, biases, political motivations or otherwise,

2- practical research work. Googling things are easy but it can never be substitute for or as much reliable as other physical work,

3- paying attention to the feedback materials from critics and different points of views which he could gain immense knowledge from,

4- desist from personal attacks and mudslinging with critics. If reaction of someone seems unwarranted why not just ignore it altogether,

5- admit and correct if mistake happen for one reason or another,

6- refrain from corrupting and taking out of context other people’s work

7- refine hard-hitting titles and offensive language. Again a common sense dictates the role and the type of lingo one uses in a given audience to the get message across. Why bring out sledge hammer while the same task could be done with needle?

Dr. Megalomattis has a right to express his opinion and take whatever position he likes. However, does the good doctor care about the reputation and objectivity of his trade anymore? How about offending so often fans and detractors alike? Is the charming and do-gooder old doctor morphed irreversibly into ‘Dr. Do-little’ - - the one possessed by the supernatural world and hears whispers of invisible voices? My moribund curiosity kept me following his material for a while. After I heard that some irate of Ethiopian nationals in N. America were attempting to silence past few months for good under the pretext of hate speech, I fired an e-mail to the said website in support of him and the readership. Now I doubt the whole effort and probably I’m not alone.