Laba-X;980187 wrote: An eye for an eye, my friend. That is just retribution. What justifies the senseless killing of women and children in Jilib or Kismayo for that matter? Is the blood of Somali civilians any less valuable than that of the Kenyans? As for Al-Shabaab being a foreign mercenary - that's a load of rubbish and you know it yaa Wadani. They are the sons and daughters of this nation ee cirka kama soo dhicin dadku. furthermore, a great majority of them have never set foot outside the regions of Southern Somalia let alone outside Somalia. Still -- you can't justify the wanton killings of innocent civilians. Anyone who knowingly and willfully kills innocent people is guilty of heinous crime. What transpired in Westgate mall is a grossly wicked offence. Understand it as such awoowe. Do not justify or rationalize the wicked. If Kenyan troops, as you say, have committed war crimes against civilians then they are guilty as you charged them. Document everything you know about these crimes, publicize the images, advocate for the victims... Laba-X war Allah ka baq awoowe

Cranberry juice.

You've probably heard quite a bit recently about the US Health Care Reform law, officially called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This law was put in place to make sure Americans have access to affordable health insurance. Come to next year (four months from today), the law require most Americans to have health insurance whether they get it from an employer, a private insurance company or from the government. The flip side of the law is that if they do not get health insurance, they may have to pay a tax penalty. It is important for nomads in the states to know that they have to either get health insurance (through their employer, a private insurance company or the government) or else they may end up paying a fine -- sort of tax penalty. It is also important to help other nomads who are having difficult time in understanding the law and its ramifications. Read the law from the primary source and do not rely on the partisan media for making informed decisions on this issue. The chance are it will effect you or someone in your family, friends, community, etc.

gooni;966226 wrote: Gabal awoowe,biti biti aan ciyaarnadu waa ka dhab iska sug ayagaa qoryaha goor dhow dhulka dhigan markii jidbada dhaantadu kusoo degtee Waa reer garoowe waxa siminaarka keenay kismaayo,ayadoon lo'gisidaan diyaaradaha wadata xal loo helina dagaal dhexdeenaa macno samayn maayo cidna guul gaari mayso. War taloow colka jooja. War bal kaalaya gogosha oo nabad tolka iyo jaarkaba la qaata. War toloow heshiiska nala qaata. Waar iddinku noo taliya oo na xukuma kaliya sida nidaamsan oo habaysan kula wareega hanaanka. Waar nabadu waa macaan tahay, Waar dadku waa daalay oo nabad, cadaalad iyo nidaam bay u bisil yihiin oo doonayaan. War wiil hoog baan ahay iyo jirrinimadu waa tan Luuq, Garbahaareey, Baardheere ka dhigtay kob aan maalin lagu hoyan karrin oo waa kuwaa dayacan.

aero;965849 wrote: "Kowdii luulyo, laba midoowdey" Oh! Nice. Many thanks aero. Timely song that fits the occasion quite nicely. Lyrics and melody are just right on. Hmm hmm haha haa haha ha...lala la laa... Kuwa yeeshay lixaadoow, la sinaaday adduunkoo, Liicin baa nahayee! Goormaan ladnaanayee? Lixdankii (1960), Lugooyadii na daysayee? Lix iyo labaatankii juun (June 26th). Goormaan lulanayee? Lixdii saac (12:00am). Goormaan liibanayee? Kowdii luulyo(July 1st), laba midowdey. Kuwa laan sare noqdoow, Lamaanihii ka maqan yihiin hmmm.... The last two lines of the song is the typical rallying cry for other Somalis under Kenya, Ethiopia and France rule. Here proponents of Somaliweyn or Pan-Somalism as was known then are saying -- as great and glorious as the June 26th and july 1st are the victory and the glory is incomplete till our brothers attain the chance to decide their fate through unfettered self-determination vote... Here the song-writer appeals to feelings of compassion and solidarity that are rooted in bonds of language, culture and history of the Somalis in the region. Kuwa laan sare noqdoow, Lamaanihii ka maqan yihiin hmmm....

That's progress. Looking good. Good for them.

Dawladda waa in si siyaasadeysan ay hawsha u abaartaa. Maanta ma aha maalintii Aways iyo AS la marin lahaa maxkamad oo xukun lagu ridi lahaa. Sidoo kale ma aha waqtigii gacanta loo gelin lahaa shisheeye. Haddii Hassan uu doonayao in taageerada uu Benaadir ka helo ay sideedii ahaato hadde waa in beeshaa mideysan ee isagga iyo dawladda uu hogaamiyo taagerta waa in uu isku hayaa oo aanu Ina Daahir Aways sarifin oo dartii la isugu dhicin.

In the interest of the state, SFG should take advantage of the internal power struggle within AS top leadership. From this prespective, SFG top brass should take the most prudent course available to them. In my opinion it is prudent to treat Aways as a political prisoner who repented from his past deeds. We know that is not true but they should spin the news and push that narrative. By treating him well will give SFG the credibility to promise other potential defectors a safe haven if they choose to come in from the cold.

Hambalyo dhamaan ummada Somaliyeed. Maanta maanta, waa maalin weyne maanta, Maanta maanta madaxeen banaane maanta! This day was and still is a great milestone for all Somalis wherever they are. Waa in la xusaa. Waa in la xasuustaa halyeeyadii u haray naf, maal iyo moodba sidii ay uga xaroobi lahaayeen gumeysigii markaa haystay.

The other end of the spectrum -- WSJ covers the news from the opposite angle. See how partisan ideology colors the media coverage. ====================================== POLITICS Updated June 25, 2013, 3:11 p.m. ET Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act In 5-4 Ruling, Chief Justice Roberts Says 'Country Has Changed' WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ended the federal government's aggressive supervision of ballot procedures in states that historically suppressed minority votes, ruling Tuesday that Jim Crow-era discrimination no longer justified requiring selected states to obtain Washington's approval before changing their election practices. The 5-4 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts nullifying a core provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act divided the justices along ideological lines, with majority conservatives framing the decision as a defense of states' rights, while dissenting liberals said the demise of the civil-rights landmark would undermine voter protections. Voting Rights Act provisions prohibiting discriminatory voting procedures remain in effect nationwide, and both the Justice Department and individual voters can file suit if they believe state or local authorities are in violation. But Tuesday's ruling substantially eases the path for lawmakers in covered states, which now can immediately implement changes in their election procedures without first obtaining clearance from the Justice Department. Those states primarily are in the South and largely under Republican control. Some, such as Texas, have clashed with the Justice Department over measures ranging from legislative redistricting to voter-identification laws. The court left standing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which authorizes the preclearance process for covered states. But it effectively nullified that section by ruling that the formula used for identifying covered jurisdictions, contained in Section 4, no longer is constitutionally valid because it derives from decades-old data on voter participation. While Congress could adopt a new coverage formula to meet the court's concerns, such action seems unlikely while Washington remains in partisan gridlock. In contrast to 2006, when most Republicans supported the Voting Rights Act's 2006 reauthorization—it was signed by President George W. Bush after passing Congress overwhelmingly—congressional Republicans today are far more skeptical of measures they believe would extend federal power. President Barack Obama issued a statement saying he was "deeply disappointed" by the blow to the Voting Rights Act. "Today's decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent," he said. He called on Capitol Hill to pass new voting-rights legislation, a call echoed by congressional Democrats and civil-rights groups. States that long have chafed under the Voting Rights Act supervision praised the Supreme Court for releasing them from federal supervision. South Carolina unsuccessfully challenged the Voting Rights Act immediately after its 1965 passage. On Tuesday, the state's attorney general said the court's ruling was long past due. "For nearly 50 years, Sections 4 and 5 have imposed an extraordinary intrusion into state sovereignty in certain states, including South Carolina," said the attorney general, Alan Wilson. "This is a victory for all voters as all states can now act equally without some having to ask for permission or being required to jump through the extraordinary hoops demanded by federal bureaucracy." Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state's voter-identification law, which has been held up in federal court by U.S. challenges, would take effect immediately. The preclearance provisions were enacted in 1965 after earlier federal efforts to protect voting rights had failed throughout the South. Courts would block one discriminatory practice only to find local white officials quickly moving to install another one in its place. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the preclearance provision was justifiable when enacted—and when the Supreme Court first upheld it in 1966. "This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting," he wrote. "But history did not end in 1965." The formula still used to identify states subject to preclearance involved past voting practices. In 1965 and through several subsequent reauthorizations, Congress identified states and localities that required voters to pass such obstacles as literacy or character tests, and had less than 50% voter registration or turnout in the 1964, 1968 and 1972 federal elections. In 1965, the chief justice wrote, the formula made sense. In Mississippi, for instance, 69.9% of whites were registered to vote, compared to 6.7% of blacks. In 2004, by contrast, black registration in Mississippi actually exceeded that of whites, 76.1% compared to 72.3%. He observed that Philadelphia, Miss., where civil-rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered in 1964, and Selma, Ala., where "Bloody Sunday" saw police beat voting-rights marchers in 1965, both have African-American mayors. While the Voting Rights Act was "immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process," it had done so by undermining "the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own," he said. Moreover, he said, in a 2009 case, the court had signaled its grave doubts over the preclearance provisions. "Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice," he wrote, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the symbolic step of reading her dissent from the bench. "Justices [stephen] Breyer, [sonia] Sotomayor, [Elena] Kagan and I are of the view that Congress' decision to renew the act and keep the coverage formula was an altogether rational means to serve the end of achieving what was once the subject of a dream: the equal citizenship stature of all in our polity, a voice to every voter in our democracy undiluted by race," she said. She recalled that the 14th and 15th amendments were ratified after the Civil War to prevent the defeated Confederate states from denying equal rights to freed blacks—and gave enforcement authority to Congress. The court said in 1966 that Congress could use "any rational means" to address racial discrimination in voting, and Justice Ginsburg said Tuesday that the evidence Congress compiled in 2006 demonstrated that the extension of the law was rational. Between 1982 and 2006, the Justice Department "blocked over 700 voting changes based on a determination that the changes were discriminatory," she wrote. That was enough to show that covered jurisdictions were still targeting minority voters—and suggested that the numbers would be worse without the deterrent effect of the preclearance requirement, she said. Justice Ginsburg argued that the intrusion on state sovereignty was limited, because jurisdictions that maintain a clean record for 10 years can apply for exemption from preclearance, a process known as "bailout." The Justice Department has approved dozens of such bailouts, particularly after the 2009 Supreme Court decision expanded the number of localities eligible to apply. The Obama administration approved the most recent such bailout, for Hanover County, Va., on Monday.

NYT editorial board weighs in -- that's a record in terms of reacting quickly and timely to events ========================== June 25, 2013 An Assault on the Voting Rights Act By THE EDITORIAL BOARD The conservative majority on the Roberts Court issued another damaging and intellectually dishonest ruling today. It eviscerated enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, in which Congress kept the Constitution’s promise of a vote for every citizen. But it did not rule on the constitutional validity of the idea that some places have such strong records of discrimination that they must seek federal approval before they may change their voting rules. Instead, the 5-4 ruling usurped Congress’s power and struck down the formula that Congress has repeatedly reauthorized to determine which states fall into that category. The court invited Congress to rewrite the formula, which has a profoundly disingenuous ring. It’s not the court’s job to legislate, but the justices know full well that Congress, which refused to expand the coverage formula in 2006, is extremely unlikely to take up the offer now. And so the preclearance rule lies dormant. The Justice Department is still free to sue jurisdictions over their voting policies after the fact, and should, as often as necessary, because such lawsuits will become an even more important tool to ensure justice. But that is not a long-term substitute for the preclearance rule. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her impassioned dissent, such suits have proven to be a less effective tool against politicians determined to find ways block access to the polls. The jurisdictions covered by the preclearance rule are for the most part firmly in that category. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, was right when he said that the formula used to determine the jurisdictions that are covered was written long ago — but if anything, the formula is too narrow. Chief Justice Roberts was entirely wrong when he wrote that the states can no longer “be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics.” A recent study by Morgan Kousser of the California Institute of Technology says that “five-sixths or more of the cases of proven election discrimination from 1957 through 2013 have taken place in jurisdictions” covered by the preclearance rule. In 2006, when Congress reauthorized the voting law after extensive hearings, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the conservative Republican from Wisconsin, said the formula is not outdated and that “states covered are not unfairly punished under the coverage formula.” Today, Justice Ginsburg wrote in dissent that Congress, “with overwhelming support in both Houses” had concluded that the preclearance rule should “continue in force, unabated,” because that would “facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made and second, continuance would guard against backsliding.” She said that decision was “well within Congress’ province to make and should elicit this Court’s unstinting approbation.” Speaking of racially motivated barriers to voting, Justice Ginsburg said: “Early attempts to cope with this vile infection resembled battling the Hydra. Whenever one form of voting discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in its place.” She added: “When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress’ power to act is at its height.” The problem with the invalidated formula, in our view, is that it does not cover all the jurisdictions that have imposed or tried to impose techniques like racially discriminatory voter ID laws. Such efforts have become widespread in areas not governed by the preclearance rule. The divide between the conservatives and the moderate liberals on the court was vivid today. They disagreed about the power of the court to overturn an act of Congress reauthorized only seven years ago. They disagreed about what the extensive record shows about the need for preclearance as it now exists, and devious efforts by local officials (in most cases, Republican officials) to block blacks and Hispanics from voting or to reduce their electoral power. Invidious and pervasive voting discrimination has not come to an end, as Chief Justice Roberts suggested with his complaint that “Congress did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions.” The future of the Voting Rights Act now lies in the hands of Congress, first, but also President Obama. If we had a federal government that was not paralyzed by partisanship, this ruling would serve as an inspiration to act. Congressional Democrats would quickly prepare a new and more expansive formula and the Republicans who voted for the old formula just seven years ago would support the new one. Attorney General Eric Holder should lobby for that very action. President Obama quickly said he was “deeply disappointed” at the ruling and called on Congress to enact a new formula. Tragically, in the age of blind partisanship on Capitol Hill and disappointing follow through in the White House, we cannot count on that happening. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/opinion/an-assault-on-the-voting-rights-act.html?hp

Live Analysis of Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-25-supreme-court

June 25, 2013 Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act By ADAM LIPTAK WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, ruling that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting nine states, mostly in the South, to federal oversight. “In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.” The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and gave very different accounts of whether racial minorities continue to face discrimination in voting. President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling. “Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent,” he said. The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Changes in voting procedures that had required advance federal approval, including voter identification laws and restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation. “With today’s decision,” said Greg Abbott, Texas’ attorney general, “the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.” Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data. When the law was last renewed, in 2006, Congress relied on data from decades before to decide which states and localities were covered. The chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small, most analysts say. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determines which states must receive preclearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they make minor changes to voting procedures, like relocating a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts. The current coverage scheme, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no relationship to the present day.” “Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.” The decision did not strike down Section 5, which sets out the preclearance requirement. But without Section 4, which determines which states are covered, Section 5 is without significance — unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered. It was hardly clear, in any event, that the court’s conservative majority would uphold Section 5 if the question returned to the court in the unlikely event that Congress enacted a new coverage formula. In a concurrence, Justice Thomas called for striking down Section 5 immediately, saying the majority opinion had provided the reasons and merely left “the inevitable conclusion unstated.” The Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the law in earlier decisions, saying that the preclearance requirement was an effective tool to combat the legacy of lawless conduct by Southern officials bent on denying voting rights to blacks. Critics of Section 5 say it is a unique federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the towering legislative achievements of the civil rights movement, and Chief Justice Roberts said its "strong medicine" was the right response to "entrenched racial discrimination." At the time it was first enacted, he said, black voter turnout in the South stood at 6.4 percent in Mississippi. In the most recent election, by contrast, “African-American voter turnout has come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.” The chief justice recalled the Freedom Summer of 1964, when the civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered near Philadelphia, Miss., while working to register black voters. He mentioned Bloody Sunday in 1965, when police officers beat marchers seeking the right to vote in Selma, Ala. “Today,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “both of those towns are governed by African-American mayors. Problems remain in these states and others, but there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our nation has made great strides.” In summarizing her dissent from the bench, an unusual move and a sign of deep disagreement, Justice Ginsburg called on the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to make a different point. “The great man who led the march from Selma to Montgomery and there called for the passage of the Voting Rights Act foresaw progress, even in Alabama,” she said. “'The arc of the moral universe is long,’ he said, but ‘it bends toward justice,’ if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion.” “That commitment,” she said, “has been disserved by today’s decision.” She said the focus of the Voting Rights Act had properly changed from “first-generation barriers to ballot access” to “second-generation barriers” like racial gerrymandering and laws requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority. She said Section 5 had been effective in thwarting such efforts. In any event, she said, Congress, which reauthorized the law by a large majority in the House and unanimously in the Senate, was the right body to decide whether the law was needed and where. The Supreme Court had once before considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it avoided answering the central question, and it seemed to give Congress an opportunity to make adjustments. Congress, Chief Justice Roberts noted on Tuesday, did not respond. Justice Ginsburg suggested in her dissent that an era had drawn to a close with the court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act, or V.R.A., in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96. “Beyond question, the V.R.A. is no ordinary legislation,” she wrote. “It is extraordinary because Congress embarked on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the purpose and promise of the Fifteenth Amendment,” the Reconstruction Era amendment that barred racial discrimination in voting and authorized Congress to enforce it. “The court errs egregiously,” she concluded, “by overriding Congress’s decision.” This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: June 25, 2013 An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a civil rights worker murdered in 1964. He was Michael Schwerner, not Schwermer. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?hp

Aces of Spades, Awoowe your analogy does not stand. Somalia is not a company and your tribe has no special status that’s markedly different from other stakeholders and citizens of the state. Britain not Italy colonized and subjugated my people and on that basis I have to be treated differently or else I will spare no effort in dismembering this poor African state is not a compelling argument either!! So easy with corporate-partnership analogy you are peddling here. It does not connect! It is true the genuine Somaliweyn proponents are rare breed and getting less and less in numbers. Pragmatists in them urged them to change their outlook and put a check on their expectations. Today the task is to sell a new product and package it in different grab. One has to study and understand one’s constituents. It is obvious the civil war has left deep and permanent scars in Somalis. Somaliweyn or Somalinimo does not sell. Period. Whereas clan X , Y or fiefdom land are a hit and trending. This is where we are and what we are left to work with. To reconstitute the state, build government institutions and restore trust in government one has to consider every option available that has a chance to work. To adopt this new situation Somaliweyn has to support the federal arrangement. This is not something we would like to push or advocate but we see no other way to reconstitute the state. If you have ideas we are all ears! For the first phase, clans who share geographical area should consider joining hands and form a federal member state. Parliament and executive branch should give regions leeway to experiment this model and only help when its help is needed. This model is something Somalis can digest at this juncture and has a chance to work. Next phase – when government becomes strong and institutions of the state get teeth and have capacity to govern then and only then should any corrective action should be taken through a referendum. The fella by the name of Samatar has no interest in facing the music and joining hands with other interested groups in finding ways and means to navigate through these troubled waters. He has jumped ship and reasons he has given so far does not compute – at least to me!

You might not understand the weight of the constitution but it is the fundamental principles according to which the country is governed. This prima donna stood for election and lost. Ace and you could argue about the fact that he didn't have a chance in winning the top seat till cows come home but you can't tell me he didn't have the right to make a run for it. It's politics awoowe. It's politics of identity and clans form the base. If you have the base and other clan alliances and money you could win fair and square.

Ace of Spadez;964109 wrote: Baashi, I'm surprised at you. The man ran a campaign thinking there was a level playing field. He was told you are not a contender because your people are from a different country. You can get the scraps but you cannot be President, or Prime Minister, or even Speaker of Parliament. So what was he to do? He has to go where his talents will be made use of. The fact that someone like Ahmed Ismail Samatar can change course at this juncture in the history of Somalia & Somaliland speaks volumes about the trajectory we are on. Don't hate the man because he has seen how futile the Somali Weyn song is, how shallow, how devoid of anything holy. Really? I don't remember anyone telling him that? Where does it say he or someone of his background cannot be a president? In the constitution?

Vsabba;963817 wrote: Who ever pays the bills runs the house. If Somalis want to see a solution in Somalia, dig in your own pockets and pay your bills indiscriminately to your government. Then and only then could there be a lasting peace in Somalia. Lets stop whingeing about others and their interests in Somalia, lets face it we need to make a choice here - can we run our home or will they do it for us? Bingo! Put up or shut up is the word! Get your ducks in a row or else!

Any inside updates? Is there a timetable as to when the conference will be convened in Mogadishu? We need the feeds folks

Government is quite correct to highlight the unifying themes we all respect and share such as the independence day. Criticizing the government in promoting the independence day is unwarranted methinks.

Nonsense! What a sore loser! Sida gaari raadkii, ninyahow gees walbaba u jeeda Labada ginni aan is galin, ninyahow jeeb isgu geeyey, Ninyahow galabta ila joogey oo misana Godey ka sheekeeyey, Wallee laba garaadloow annigu kaama guro sheeko! This prima donna has not only discarded the very party he himself co-founded with other prominent Somalis but he also flip-floped on a number of issues no principled person would not or could not discarded for political expediency. When asked why this sudden change of heart please listen to his responses carefully for they are quite revealing -- very telling and speak volumes of what character he is!!! I hope the reporter will ask him more pointed question next time around -- what he makes off the appointment of foreign minister and the director of central bank -- who both hail from that neck of the wood! He cofounded nationalist party on unity platform, preached chapter and verse to make the case for unitary state knowing fully well the clannish game played by his kind and clan formula on which power-sharing scheme are based upon. With that knowledge he run for presidency and badly lost the contest. He lobbied for cabinet position, a membership for the commission tasked for Somalia-Somaliland dialogue. When he couldn't secure a foothold in the new admin in Mogadishu, he did what shrewd politicians (the kind that has no principles) always do and that is he changed colors. He is now positioning as a bona fide member of secessionist crowd. Walle laba garaadloow kaama guro sheeko.

I watched the first episode. The families featured in the episode I've seen are true Somali to the core. They have pride in their nationality and are comfortable in their own skin. The documentary touches on the far reaching side effect of the Somali civil war. It's disheartening to see Somalis interned in a camp for 10 years. I hope folks back home see this documentary.

Wow! Legendary Somali Ali Mire Cawaale in his own words. The lyrics of this song is deep, touching, timeless and priceless. Bartamaha has hit a jackpot in securing this interview. This is a historic interview. Sharcigaa isku kiin toloyoo, Luqadaa mid waaxi ahoo, Arligiina taako ahoo, Kuma kala tageysaan. Enough said awoowe.

Warka nuxurkiis na siiya. Maxaa is beddelay?

Well done. Allah knows order is needed in that neck of the wood. Go get it boys.

Allah yarhama. I like his jacbur pretty much. Dhabayaco laad ku dhacay ooy ku yara liicday Hee -- that was a nice and legendary dig against **ees and their never-ending tookh. The one he composed for Inna Siyad Barre will also go down in Somali Maano history. Geedkii uu fuulaba, ninkaan badhi taaraayey, Anna [something] ila gooyey baan gacalkay moodaayey!