

Hivi mwenzangu unapoiangalia CCM kwa mtazamo wa kawaida tu (yaani usiohisha uchambuzi wa kitaaluma) unaielezeaje?Pengine huafikiani na mtizamo wangu wa “kawaida” na kitaaluma kwamba pamoja na hadi lukuki za kuwakomboa Watanzania kutoka kwenye lindi la umasikini,chama hicho hakijaonyesha dhamira ya dhati kutimiza ahadi hizo.
Tukiendeleza mazowea tutazidi kuumia.Kuna wanaodhani kwamba Tanzania haiwezi kuwa kisiwa cha amani pasipo utawala wa CCM.Wanachosahau kuwa hata hao CCM ni Watanzania wenzetu japo wanawathamini zaidi wageni (wawekezaji) kuliko sie wenye nchi.Wanasahau pia kuwa wingi wa wabunge wa CCM unakwaza jitihada wa wapambanaji kama akina Dokta Slaa kuwakalia kooni wababaishaji waliojazana chini ya utawala wa CCM.
Kusanya hasira zako lakini usipigane bali pugie kura ya kujiletea maisha yako bora wewe mwenyewe kwa kuwaondoa wanaokwaza uwezekano huo.Ifike wakati tusema tumechoshwa na ahadi na maneno matamu (na mengine si matamu bali ya dharau kama hayo ya kudai wameweka historia ya kupambana na rushwa wakati wanajua waziwazi kuwa wamekuza rushwa kupindukia).
It can be done if you play your part.
Inawezekana ukiamua kutimiza wajibu wako.
Urais si Kikwete binafsi, ni mfumo wa kitaasisi. Ni wazi kuwa Rais amesema yeye ndiye hakuzingatia ushauri wa wataalamu wake kutokana na kuwaondolea lawama. Ameamua kuwalinda kwa kubeba lawama, lakini ukitazama jambo hili kwa upana wake wasaidizi wake walipaswa kutambua tangu awali kuwa urais ni system nzima Ikulu hata mlinzi wa getini. Kwa hiyo, wasaidizi ndiyo wenye kuamua na si kila kitu kifanywe na Rais kama ambavyo wanasema sasa watajaribu kumpunguzia ratiba,” ALISEMA DR SEMBOJA NA KUSISITIZA KWAMBA“Sidhani kama ni sahihi kukubali kuwa Rais ndiye alikataa ushauri, kwa taratibu za kimfumo Rais anapangiwa kila kitu ni kama anaamriwa hivi. Kwa tukio hili ameamua tu kuwa na nidhamu ya kuwalinda wasaidizi wake, namwombea afya njema lakini ni muhimu tuzingatie kuwa wengi walioamua kufanya kila kitu wenyewe walipata matatizo, Ikulu sasa ifanye kazi kama Ikulu.”
BINAFSI NAAMINI TATIZO NI LA KIMFUMO ZAIDI.KUNA TAASISI ZENYE MAMLAKA NA WAJIBU WA KUPANGA RATIBA ZA RAIS SAMBAMBA KWA KUZINGATIA UHALISIA,USALAMA NA MAMBO MENGINE KAMA HAYO.KWA WENZETU WANAOZINGATIA KANUNI NA TARATIBU ZA KITAASISI,SI RAHISI KWA RAIS KUJIAMULIA MAMBO YAKE MWENYEWE PASIPO KUZINGATIA USHAURI WA KITAALAM.SI RAHISI,KWA MFANO,BARACK OBAMA KUJIAMULIA KWENDA MAHALA FLANI KINYUME NA USHAURI WA U.S. SECRET SERVICE.UBISHI WA RAIS KAMA BINADAMU HAUNA NAFASI KATIKA UFANISI WA TAASISI INAYOZINGATIA TAALUMA NA MAADILI.IKUMBUKWE KWAMBA LAITI RAIS AKING'ANG'ANIA KUFANYA ZIARA MAHALA FLANI KINYUME NA USHAURI WA WASAIDIZI WAKE KISHA AKAPATWA NA JANGA,WATAKAOBEBA LAWAMA NI WASAIDIZI HAO NA SI RAIS.LAKINI PIA KUNA SUALA LA FEDHA ZA WALIPA KODI ZINAZOTUMIWA NA TAASISI HUSIKA KUILINDA ASASI YA URAIS NA BINADAMU ALIYEKABIDHIWA DHAMANA YA URAIS.NI DHAHIRI KWAMBA RAIS AKIPUUZA USHAURI WA WA TAASISI HUSIKA INAMAANISHA PIA UPOTEVU WA FEDHA ZA WALIPA KODI.
UTENDAJI WA AINA YA ZIMAMOTO,AU VIBAYA ZAIDI,KULENGA SHABAHA BAADA YA RISASI KUFYATUKA,UTATUGHARIMU HUKO MBELENI.LEO HII TUSINGEHITAJI DAKTARI WA RAIA KUWEKA HADHARANI TAARIFA NYETI ZA AFYA YA JK LAITI TAASISI HUSIKA ZINGEMLAZIMISHA JK KUFUATA USHAURI WA KITAALAMU KUHUSIANA NA RATIBA AU ZIARA ZAKE.TUSISUBIRI JAMBO LITOKEE NDIPO TUANZE KUTOA MAELEZO YA KITAALAMU. BY THE WAY,TAARIFA HIYO YA DAKTARI WA RAIS INAWEZA KUZUA MJADALA USIO NA TIJA KUHUSU MANTIKI YAKE.JAPO NI VEMA KUTOA UFAFANUZI KATIKA MASUALA YANAYOZUA UTATA (I WISH NA KWELI ISHU YA KAGODA INGEKUWA HIVYO) LAKINI KUNA UWEZEKANO WA "WABISHI" KUHOJI KAMA DAKTARI WA RAIS WA AFRIKA ANAWEZA KUTOA TAARIFA "MBAYA" DHIDI YA BOSI WAKE!
KWA SASA,MAMLAKA HUSIKA ZINAWEZA KUFARIJIKA BAADA YA KUPATA UTETEZI KUTOKA KWA JK.LAKINI NI VEMA ZIKATAMBUA KUWA JUKUMU LAO SI KUMWOGOPA MHESHIMIWA BALI KUFANYA KAZI ZAO KWA KUZINGATIA MAADILI NA TAALUMA.JK KAMA MTU ANAWEZA KUTOZINGATIA USHAURI WA MAMLAKA HIZO,LAKINI JK KAMA RAIS HARUHUSIWI KUJIAMULIA MAMBO YANAYOWEZA KUATHIRI ASASI YA URAIS.UOGA NA KUJIKOMBA NI MAMBO YASIYO NA NAFASI KATIKA PROFESSIONALISM.
Mambo mengine huku Ughaibuni ni vituko vitupu.Kuna watu wanafuga majoka makubwa na kuyalea kama watoto wao,kuna wanaofuga panya mithili ya paka,na wengine wamegeuza tumbili kuwa watoto wa kambo.Na matunzo wanayopewa mbwa na paka hayatofautiani sana na anasa wanazofaidi watoto wa wabaka-uchumi wetu (mafisadi).
Sasa imeibuka fasheni mpya ya “kitimoto pimbi”,yaani nguruwe wadogo kupindukia.
The media as the source of information has the power influence public opinion. But before getting into how it might, it is important to know what my understanding of public opinion. I would define public opinion as the opinion shared by the majority of the public. Majority because it is almost impossible to find an absolutely agreed opinion among people with different social and economic background, racial differences, age, gender, etc. Gauging public opinion is normally done by using opinion polls, which as we all know, are merely representative of opinions shared by different groups in a given society, or in research terms, population.
A biased media could in short or long run effectively influences public opinion because it communicates what “A” thinks in Derbyshire and “B” thinks in Lanarkshire. Or in an international perspective, what Maggie thinks in Glasgow and Evarist thinks in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. It is even more effective in shaping public opinion in the less educated or less informed section of society that normally takes what is said by the media for granted.
The Sun. Not the celestial near the earth, round which the earth and other planets revolve. I am talking about the UK’s bestselling newspaper. Its popularity is partly due to its normally informal journalistic style, with its “news in brief” on page 3 depicting semi-nude models being one of its main distinguishing features. It is also known for its strong nationalistic views, anti-European Union and anti-immigration stances. The Sun could as well be described as a right-leaning paper together with The Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail.
But is The Sun really a paper that makes election winners? Some observers doubts that popular claim, especially in this age when the internet has emerged as the most powerful in almost every sphere of our lives. Remember how Obama won the last US Elections?
Some analysts argue that in its decision to switch sides The Sun has just followed what many of the recent polls indicate about the coming British elections that the Conservatives would defeat Labour. They also claim that the newspaper is just representing opinions of most of its readers who seem to be disgruntled by the Labour Party.
However, The Sun might get it wrong this time because despite Labour’s poor performance, the Conservatives have so far not actually proved how they would be a better alternative to Labour. I first came to the UK in 2002 when Labour was already in power, so I wouldn’t pretend to know how good or bad the Conservatives were. However, their CV doesn’t look impressive from what I have heard. It is even bad news to non-Whites as the Tory still looks a Whites party despite its recent efforts to become all-inclusive. Of course, it is not as evil as the racist British National Party but there is still a sense of uncertainty among such groups as the ethnic minorities.
I still think Labour deserves another term. British voters should be sympathetic to Gordon Brown & Co in the way they have handled the credit crunch, particularly by looking beyond the UK’s borders. They should also not forget what The Tories did to this country prior to Labour getting into power.
As for The Sun’s decision to back potential election winners...well,if its US “sisters”- Fox News and The Ney York Post-couldn’t make John McCain win or Barack Obama lose the election, then even The Sun could have got it wrong come the next British elections. And didn’t the same newspaper campaign against Alec Salmond and his Scottish National Party in the previous elections, and he still managed to win?
After all, it is the British voters, not The Sun, who would be the real winners or losers regardless of the paper’s position.