Mudug vs Ra's al Casayr https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=604062595264024

Haylaan vs Bari https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1455606395218279

Karkaar vs Nugaal ' https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=851457089661463

Cayn vs Sanaag https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=6600634046720952

I have heard of "niiko", but have no idea what it it. No, just sharing a nice Xamari song with an Indian twist.

See how much of this you catch.

You mean a male "niiko"? Is there such a thing. I am yet to see that.

No as much as I once did in my younger days when I was an avid reader of classics.

True, I became aware of her unique style quite recently after I was introduced to her by this group in Hargeysa. I had an interesting interaction with the local talent, and my critique of their style, dress sense, lyrics, and morals was too harsh for the young crowd. See if you could observe: the lead singer leaves his wife at home only to buy a fresh bundle of daisies on the way to hand them over to some femme fatale, possibly his concubine, with whom he dances the evening along. Normalising such a culture, where the young will find it not only acceptable, but advancing it.

We can definitely debate that, but at first, let us lay a good foundation for a rational conversation, for you are a rational being, and define certain boundaries, and parameters. I am familiar with European socialist system of governance of the devolved type, Federalism in the US, as being practised, and Chinese socialist system amongst other nations in Asia. Now, tell me about your exposure, and experiences.

Actually, she was a well known journalist based in Bosaso well before she became a singer, round the time she sang this song.

I see 3 on this stage. You must not be paying attention, and still listening to ilma Mooge.

Of course, and of those with genuine talent, even better, I believe, as young talent will be cultivated locally, and not overshadowed by talent at the federal level, the same way the likes of Qarshe, Xudaydi and walaalaha Hargeysa laid the foundation for modern music in Somalia, and spread it to the rest of the country. If anything, it would strengthen just the same way the likes of B Dillon, Prince, J Cash, Jacksons etc, from obscurity in rural America, had been nurtured locally prior to their breaking to the national stage. I work, live, and do business in 4 States in the US, and other than property taxes, hardly notice the difference, with the exception of the expected, if obvious regional idiosyncrasies, which enrich States, just like regions in Somalia. But I get the sense you might think otherwise. Do tell. I do not know if I did ask before: do you live, or ever lived in a country where Federalism is being practised i.e. US, Germany etc? In which country do you live?

Altogether, how many positions do Harti hold in Parliament, ministerial, gubernatorial etc?

Thanks for providing the background. Perhaps we could get the breakdown in real number. 80m is pittance in comparison, but is still a decent sum, if invested wisely in the region, esp. when only 150 thou is allocated for the region.

I was suspicious of the 80m per annum figure, but then again, I did not have anything to go by, compare, or reference except taking Galbeedi's "facts & figures" statement. He could not possibly be feeding us porkies, could he?

@maakhiri1 I shall argue in favour of Federalism whilst arguing against Centralism, and shall bring in how Islamic State, of Umawiyin & Abasiyin, had been governed on Federal basis, with autonomous Wilaayat (States) with Amirs as their Heads, and Amir al Muminin as the Leader of the Federal authority. I shall also discuss how the Roman empire tried to implement it by force, and to its sole benefit, and not to puppet States like Germania, Britannia etc.

Exclusive vs Concurrent powers: Fed vs State Exclusive powers are those powers defined, and reserved to the Fed. gov't, or to the States whereas Concurrent powers are powers shared between the Fed. gov't, and the States. Land is a good example of Concurrent powers, where eminent domain, or Fed. land is established, and designated post negotiations, and with State policy & laws harmonised with Fed. laws. Till Fed. laws, land specific or otherwise, had been established, State land policy & laws are effectively applicable, with no jurisdiction over such matters for the Fed. gov't, unless under extreme circumstance justifying proportionate mitigations. National defence is an Exclusive power to the Fed. gov't. Where, and when specific powers are shared or discharged, are subject to negotiations. Elections, incl. Presidential elections, are Exclusive powers to the States. In its current form [operative], Fed. gov't can not make laws to be applied to States, and in the event such laws are deemed necessary, some time in the future, deliberations must begin at the State level. States create the Fed. gov't, not the other way round. State laws form the bedrock of Fed. laws. and not the other way round. Power rests with the people in States, and not with the Fed. framework, which owes its powers to States ceding defined, limited powers to Fed. institutions. States make laws, and in turn, such laws make up the Fed. laws, and not the other round. The sole power base the Fed. gov't exercises its power and authority is in the nation's Capital of which governing rules & regulation must be established. There are numerous case laws, where the Fed. gov't attempted to unjustifiably increase, or unlawfully overstep its powers, and rejected by States. We'll discuss those at a later time.

Centralism is the scourge of the State. I was hoping centralists would present the case in its favour, but thus far, besides offing desires based upon perceived personal gains, they failed to come up with any meaningful defence. Let me offer the opposite. For fragile States, with .So being the quintessential textbook definition, amongst other things, centralism is: With the collapse at the centre, the whole nation collapses with it whereas in devolved government, where States independently operate, damage from the centre could be contained rescuing the nation. Case in point, when Xamar fell in 1991, imagine if there had been 5 or 7 regions independently operating beyond Xamar, where displaced people could be received till the malady at the centre had been remediated. Centralised government tends to be highly expensive to operate, ineffective to manage local affairs from afar, and poorly dispenses services to the public on the periphery. For instance, apportioning infrastructure projects at the centre not only delays, but creates undue bureaucracy, which potentially leads to corruption. Conversely, the cost of building, and/or maintaining infrastructure at the State level is cheaper, is swallowed by the State, which in turn allows States to prioritise projects based upon local needs. Centralised government poorly manages, or provides services, be it health, education, infrastructure building or maintenance, or security. Alternatively, decentralised authority could better manage said services at the State level more effectively, and efficiently, and where one State mismanages, it impacts not other States whereas if the Central authority abuses, or mismanages, it affects the whole nation. With centralised government, there is negligence at the local level, where a government, say in 2,000 miles away, with limited resources, could not effectively respond to local disasters, natural or otherwise. Alternatively, local State apparatus could plan, and respond to local emergencies quicker, better, cost-effectively, and is better-positioned. Centralised governments are more likely than not to abuse power, prey on citizens, where civil unrest followed by wanton imprisonment, followed by perpetual conflict leading to a total collapse, becomes the norm. With devolved power, there are multiple checks and balances, where should the State authority seeks to overstep its boundaries, legal or otherwise, the possibility of stopping it, or minimising the resulting damage are far greater. With it too, technical and professional classes are marginalised, for centralised government seeks loyalty over competence. With States, technical cadre is needed at the local level, with their expertise being put to a better use at the local level. Internal migration is a matter of concern in centralised government, where academicians, professionals, aspiring young people, and potential talent would vacate States seeking employment or fortune at the centre. Corruption is rampant in centralised government, where nation's resources, meagre or otherwise, are confined within small circles, where nepotism reins, alienating educated, and technical classes. Case studies of nations, which struggle with stable political order are those with past heavily centralised systems of governance, where current leaders inherited, or even had been indoctrinated in extreme authority, where they could not imagine devolved power to the periphery. If one considers successive leaders of the current Fed. government, one could see a trend, where they tend to seek greater powers than afforded to them under the law, and are constantly at logger-heads with provisions of the Constitution, and in violation of laws of the land. Their contaminated brain is conditioned to the authoritarian rule, under which they had matured, clones of their sires in essence. Postscript: With the focus here being devolved government, or federalism, I shall revisit benefits of federalism, as time permits, but had to make the case against centralised government.

If true, this is criminal. Again, depressingly criminal, if true, yet is more widespread, and is happening all over the country.