Newton Fortuin's Open Salon Blog

Nazi America - The Rise of the Koch Brothers

Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:03:03 -0400

The Godless Atheist

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:03:50 -0400

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. — [Bertrand Russell]

As an agnostic I certainly don’t have a problem with anyone choosing to be an atheist. It however has been my experience that many of the atheists I interact with oftentimes tend to be more dogmatic and intolerant than religious conservatives. My casual observation suggests that they definitely are more so than the average religious person. And oftentimes it is not only the religious that has to bear the brunt of their ire, even agnostics are labeled as wimps for being too soft on “the enemy”, the religious that is, and often are referred to as fence sitters when it comes to the general issue of belief. The following utterance by political satirist Stephen Colbert conveying the general sentiment: Isn’t an agnostic just an atheist without balls?

I know I’m generalizing but that is my personal observation based on my own experience. But let me relate an incident that highlights the typical mentality. The resulting consternation upon which this example is based was triggered by the following innocent email.

Good morning everyone. It seems that Monwabisi’s condition has worsened and he is in hospital again. His girlfriend relayed that he is at the Vincent Pallotti Hospital in the Poplar ward. He is said to be extremely ill. Guys, please keep him in your prayers and thoughts.

As innocent as this email was, all hell broke loose after the sender apologized for sending it to the wrong mailing list. She meant to send it to her department only, but chose a group email that sent it to all the staff at the university. The apology followed five minutes later, but soon afterwards emails flooded my inbox requesting to be removed from the her list. It became so bad that the secretary of the chancellor had to ask the operations manager to train staff on the “Reply to Sender” function (which is the default function on the GroupWise mail-server) and they used the “Reply to All” (incidentally not the default option which had to be deliberately selected).

The result was that hundreds of were forwarded in this way. By the third day the emails were still streaming in, upon which someone responded with the following.

To ALL those who don’t want to be part of this mail:

This was a simple mail, requesting prayers for one of our sick colleagues. What is so difficult praying for someone, why does that bother you so much?

If you can’t pray for him, just delete the mails that come to your mailbox and stop filling other people’s mailbox by requesting to be taken out of the mailing list. Tomorrow may be your turn to need prayers. How will you all feel being in Monwabisi’s shoes? The Bible instructs us to pray for the sick and to LOVE our neighbors as ourselves.

So, where did Ashley go wrong by asking us to pray for one of us that are battling with ill health?

The more people that pray for him the better.

Yet, this did not end the chain mailing, bearing in mind that these mails were also being sent to Monwabisi mailbox as well. This is when I thought I’d have my say and changed the email header to “Is this an Institution of Higher Learning?” and responded to the previous email, even though the author clearly had strong religious sentiments.

I agree fully with your email, and I hope the other 2000 or so people who cluttered the email system by purposefully selecting the “Reply to all” (as they had to as I purposefully did in this case), actually got your message.

I thought this is a university of higher learning? And that there may be half a chance of finding civilized intelligent compassionate people working here. I know there are, but this clearly had been an exhibition to the contrary.

I will keep Monwabisi in my thoughts.

I then received a mail with the header: Thank you for rebuking us, we really deserve it. Also sent to all, but then the emails stopped with the exception of the following.

Sorry, you might but I don’t deserve any rebuke!

Let me explain why..... I never ‘replied to all’, neither did I ask to be removed from the list. I am sorry to hear of a sick colleague, even if I don’t personally know him. But actually it is not about that, it is about boundaries. It is very inappropriate to send out an email asking the entire staff of a University to pray for someone. This is not what work place emails are for. If that was the norm where would it end?

We all know people who are in need of support. Can you imagine if everyone suddenly implored us, via internal mail, to call on devine intervention on behalf of someone else? We’d be flooded by thousands of letters on a daily basis. Use the social networks to do that sort of thin. (By the way they are far more effective).

It is equally inappropriate to send out a manipulative and sickly rebuke reminding us of some biblical injunction or telling us we might be ill tomorrow! It’s preposterous! I’m not a child that I need to be chastised. “This was a simple mail, requesting prayers for one of our sick colleagues. What is so difficult praying for someone, why does that bother you people so much?” Do you get how patronizing that is?

On top of that, in the correspondence comes an innuendo that I am neither civilized intelligent or caring! What do you know of me or anyone else on this campus? What is it about people like yourselves that believe it is alright and fitting to adopt a high moral stance because people didn’t respond in a way you thought appropriate...

To which I responded.

Let me not draw this out into a lengthy debate, someone made a simple mistake by choosing the incorrect group address (and invaded your personal boundary), and apologized very shortly afterwards. But moreover, with a very simple request, and all hell broke loose. I would not have known you were supportive of that stance, but now I do. By the way, I’m agnostic, but I respect others efforts to elicit concern for those in need, and why not do it by mail. I receive hundreds of spam daily, so what if a legitimate call for concern for someone in need slips in once in a while. If it offends you so much, delete it, unless it gives you some perverse gratification to air your objection to the world…

While I cannot say for sure whether this person is an atheist as I had never met him, he does exhibit the typical cynical demeanor in his tone. As far as those who sent the emails, I cannot say either, but more than likely are must be both religious and non-religious individuals who participated. This however is more reflective of the mob mentality referred to in this work, for, once the first email was sent, it appears as if others also wanted to be part of that dissent, and thus to show all that they also had something to say, no matter how ridiculous. Indeed I would’ve called the section Narcissism in Action because of the total disregard for Monwabisi and his circumstance; that the responders were more concerned that their boundaries were invaded.

Either way, whether he was atheist or not, this certainly is reflective of the growing narcissistic, uncaring mentality of our time. And just to remind you, this incident did not happen in urban US, but had taken place in Cape Town, a city on the southernmost tip of Africa.

Extract from

Scourge: The Demise of Critical Thinking in the Age of “The Secret”

Connection Between Religiosity and Dementia

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:01:28 -0500

Recent studies are suggesting that a fundamentalist mindset may put individuals at greater risk of developing dementia in later life.

Note that within the context of the discussion religiosity has nothing to do with whether one believes in a god or not. Instead it is connected to the extent to which one advocates or strongly adheres to a particular devotional code. Thus the definition of fundamentalist includes rigid non-belief as well. To support this view consider the following extract from The Crowd: A Study of The Poplar Mind written in 1896 by Gustav le Bon.

A person is not religious solely when he worships a divinity, but when he puts all the resources of his mind, the complete submission of his will, and the whole-souled ardor of fanaticism at the service of a cause or an individual who becomes the goal and guide of his thoughts and actions…

It is thus a very useless commonplace to assert that a religion is necessary for the masses, because all political, divine, and social creeds only take root among them on the condition of always assuming the religious shape—a shape which obviates the danger of discussion. Were it possible to induce the masses to adopt atheism, this belief would exhibit all the intolerant ardor of a religious sentiment, and in its exterior forms would soon become a cult.

In my own daily interactions with those around me I casually observed that a number of strongly religious acquaintances appear to exhibit greater levels of mental degeneration than others who are not as overtly religious. On the other hand some dyed-in-the-wool atheists I have associated with are of the most grumpy cynical narrow-minded people I know (also refer to The Godless Atheist).

Juxtaposed to these seemingly opposing groups, however, I observed a 76 year old family member who has one of the most cogent social and mental dispositions of anyone I know. What I particularly noted about her is that she never spoke about religion or addressed any topic in religious terms. This notwithstanding that she had an apparent strong private religious faith which one could tell by her regular church attendance and activities within her greater religious community. She was also completely open to other religions and would not hesitate to attend a service in another religious denomination or faith if invited or had an opportunity to do so. This is as opposed to the extremely religious Christian grouping who, without fail, are condemning of other views, even other Christian denominations.

These apparent contrasting states of mental health motivated me to investigate a possible link between religiosity and dementia and found the following study. Titled Religious Education and Midlife Observance are associated with Dementia three decades later in Israeli Men, it was a joint collaboration between three esteemed institutions including the Department of Psychology at the Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. It observed 1,690 middle-aged and elderly patients. The sample was from 2,604 survivors of 10,059 participants in a Ischemic Heart Disease study, and it determined that 18.9% had developed dementia. Based on a religious self-definition and practice, the prevalence rates amongst those considered most religious were three times greater than the least religious group (9.7%, 17.7%, 14.1% and 28.8% from least to most religious).[1]

What the data suggests is that the least religious had a very low incidence while the most had a particularly high incidence. Compared to all the other categories it had roughly twice the incidence of their average. Thus based on this one study one can simplistically infer that one has a very high probability of becoming demented if one is also very religious. On the other hand, those who tend not to be religious have a significantly lower incidence. This low-religious group could include atheists, agnostics, as well as those with some or other concept of God but do not attend a worship group.

However an anomaly was evident when looking at the type of education the patients received: that is whether they received exclusively religious, mixed or secular education. The data here indicated that those who attended exclusively religious education were about 2.3 times more at risk than those who had a mixed education, while it was only 1.8 times greater for those who received a secular education. Interestingly, the secular group fared somewhat worse than the mixed group.

On further research I found another study at the Duke Medical Centre investigating brain differences based on faith funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Templeton Foundation. The study asked 268 people aged between 58 to 84 about their religious group, spiritual practices and life-changing religious experiences. Protestants who did not identify themselves as born-again were found to have less atrophy in the hippocampus region (the part of the brain involved in memory forming, organizing and storing) than did born-again Protestants, Catholics or those with no religious affiliation. Participants who said they had undergone a religious experience were also found to have more atrophy than those who did not. [2]

Again, there may be many reasons for the above results, but it is generally in line with the findings of the Israeli study, particularly with regards to the extremely religious. This is particular because mainline American Protestants are generally considered far more moderate than Catholics and born-again groups. The born-again groups being associated with the so-called Bible Belt and socially conservative Evangelical Protestantism.

However what must be considered when looking at the Israeli context are that those considered low in the religiosity rank would likely be secular Jews (also referred to as Jewish Atheists). Unlike atheist in Western Europe and the United States, Jewish atheist still consider themselves Jewish and therefore observe many of the religious traditions, though not to the extent the more orthodox Jews do. Thus, unlike their western counterparts, there most likely would be some religious aspect, but notably, without the associated dogma.

The anomaly between the Israeli and American results, therefore, may well be as a consequence of the type of atheism practiced in the respective communities. Thus the level of fundamentalism or rigidity of observance of a particular view is the likely determining factor for the degree of mental degeneration found. One can therefore reasonably assume that the non-believers in the United States had similar results to more rigid religious groups primarily because non-belief is more fundamentalist or intolerant there than that observed in Israel. Another inference one can make is that non-belief per se is not responsible for mental degradation, but rather the specific attitude towards belief which may be the causal factor.

What is particularly interesting about the American study is that it is widely assumed that the non-religious—and atheists in particular—are generally more intelligent than those who may be religious. At least this is the assumption of many non-believers. Part of the argument for this is that this is evident in them having made the decision to be non-religious to begin with. This is because the perception is that non-believers are generally more intellectual, and that they become non-believers for intellectual reasons. It is also argued that intelligent people tend to do the associated discourse towards atheism primarily because they are cognitively more capable to do so—i.e. in questioning long-standing beliefs and assumptions. [3],[4]

However, the greater atrophy observed in this supposedly more “intellectually competent” group than moderate Protestants may potentially be because mainstream Protestants could well be more open to conflicting or psychologically paradoxical perspectives, particularly the paradoxes around our creation. For this reason they may not overtly engage conditional thinking—in other words, having hardwired patterns of thinking—as fundamentalists (that is both religious and scientific fundamentalists), tend to do. The problem with many such “intelligent” individuals, are that they often are so intelligent that they are able to devise arguments that convinces themselves of their rightness. Then there is the more murky issue of intelligence versus wisdom where ones level of wisdom would not necessarily be reflected on one’s IQ score.

Another reason that more moderately religious may experience less brain degeneration is that there may be some psychological comfort in having the view to begin with. This comfort derived from the notion of faith has the effect of lowering levels of stress and other associated conditions. This is contrasted with fundamentalists of all ilk who are more inclined to higher levels of obsession and/or delusion.

A study at the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Desarrollo into medical literature between 1990 and 2010 does indicate a general link between religion/spirituality and mental health. The study found that close to 75% of the studies reviewed indicate that those who have some or other religious faith exhibited improved mental health. Specifically they indicated definite improvements in levels of suicide, depression and substance abuse. And in line with the previous studies, some evidence in a lower incidence of dementia. [5]

Note though, if the previous findings were true—i.e. that strongly religious individuals were more prone to mental degeneration—then the strongly religious sample would somewhat neutralize the overall results or there may be contradicting results depending on which community was studied making any definitive conclusion impossible. For instance in the North-Western United States there may be a lower incidence amongst believers than in the Bible Belt region making the results based on pure religiosity inconclusive.

Again, there is yet to be more studies that need to be done for the respective findings to be deemed conclusive, though a pathological trend appears to be evident. It being that higher levels of fundamentalism (or dogmatism) may have some impact on increased mental degeneration in later life.

The irony with a superficial look at the Duke Medical Centre Study is that I too would fall under the non-religious grouping and would therefore have a greater risk of developing diminished brain capacity. It however is my hope that, because I don’t discount the possibility of a “Creator”, and that I think I’m open minded to most perspectives, and do not outrightly condemn them as hocus pocus since I always attempt to keep an open mind, that I may offset my predisposition to have my mental faculties greatly diminished in old age. This is as the Israeli study potentially shows: that the general demeanor of Secular Jews towards religion (specifically Judaism) may in fact be cognitively beneficial.

Perhaps the cure, then, is simply how we orientate ourselves psychologically to the greater mystery of life, and in so doing, to be reasonably assured that one will live a long and mentally healthy life.[6]

[1] Religious Education and Midlife Observance are associated with Dementia three decades later in Israeli Men, Pubmed, 2008.

[2] Study finds brain differences based on faith, USAToday, 2011.

[3] Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, The Free Thinker, 2008.

[4] Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Science Daily, 2010.

[5] Religion and/or Spirituality, University of Desarrollo, 2010.

[6] There are many factors that should be considered which could affect any definitive conclusions. For instance in the Israeli study it may well be that the particular orthodox community may have a greater genetic propensity for dementia considering that Orthodox Jews are a very closed grouping. Other considerations are that the exclusively religious grouping therefore would be a highly homogeneous group that more than likely would remain orthodox in later years.

On the other hand many who attend a moderately religious school may also come from a secular home, though this statistic probably would skew towards the moderately religious. Similarly secular schools would perhaps have a significant number of moderately religious individuals. Furthermore it is probable that a shift in religious attitude in later years is also far more likely in both these groups.

For this reason the sample along the moderately religious and secular groupings may in fact be more diverse if there indeed is a definite link between moderate religiosity and lower levels of dementia as the statistic based on the type of schooling received suggests.

Did Brandon Bays have Cancer?

Fri, 4 Nov 2011 05:11:54 -0400

AND HOW MAY THIS BE LINKED TO STEVE JOBS DEATH?

I had no intention of researching Brandon Bays on what on initial deliberation did seem dramatically spurious claims—that she cured terminal cancer by positive thinking and a vegan diet. That is until I noticed that the search words “Brandon Bays Satanist” had been used to access my manuscript – Scourge: The Demise of Critical Thinking in the age of “The Secret” – that only had a very fleeting reference to her. My initial thought was that someone had a serious religious gripe against this woman. However at more or less the same time my wife Fiona had been diagnosed with colon cancer (a familial disease in her case), and had to have an emergency colostomy (the complete removal of the colon).

On this news a family member started spewing (at least that is how it felt) how Brandon Bays miraculously cured her cancer through positive thought and that Fiona can do the same. I found this highly offensive as I was certain, given the prognosis, that nothing else but aggressive medical action was going to save Fiona’s life, albeit that a positive attitude would surely help the process. I then decided to do more research on Bays. And based on which I decided either one of the following three scenarios could be the reality regarding her assertions.

Firstly, that Bays did cure herself of cancer as she claims. However it is apparent that no medical doctor or medical institution had indicated that she indeed had cancer of any type although she did refer to this in her book. For verification of such an audacious claim and the medical implications it could have it would be reasonable to expect Bays to indeed provide such definitive evidence. Though, since medical records are private, it cannot be proved to the contrary by an outside investigator either. On the other hand the very absence of such clear and easily obtainable proof which would readily put aside very serious question marks about the claim, in itself should cast significant doubt on the truthfulness of her claims. The evidence provided suggest that a naturopath of some sort was the supposed medical person who made the diagnosis. No offense to naturopaths intended as I think they can be of great benefit in preventative health in particular and as a complimentary regimen in recover, but that the qualified person to make such a definitive assertion should be a relevant medical specialist. That is someone who is a trained pathologist who actually examines the affected tissues, not someone who merely looks into one’s eyes or makes some or other superficial diagnosis. Notwithstanding the veracity of the claim, assuming that she had a miraculous recovery, this should not mean that hers now become an accepted protocol for curing all disease. Thus that all disease somehow is a consequence of embedded “cellular memories” which now has to be remedied by some or other “spiritual correction”—in Bays case, the process of Journeying.

The second is that Bays had some other condition which was misdiagnosed by the alternative therapists she had sought. In that case the tumour in all likelihood would have been imminently curable. The following response on a Skeptical Community blog discussing this matter is useful to consider in this regard.

“I imagine you'd have a problem investigating this case, given that private medical records are involved. Access to such records might be extremely difficult if not impossible.

We do know that women can be susceptible to a transfer of genetic material, which can enter certain cells in a woman's body, causing abdominal swelling, development of a rather large sac of fluid, plus growth of the genetically combined tissue within that sac. We do know that good nutrition is routinely recommended by doctors who deal with such cases. We also know that the typical duration of these conditions is approximately nine months. The course of the condition is so typical that predictions can be made to the day of its normal termination. However, surgery is often required to relieve the condition and to remove the growth as well as the accumulated fluid.”

In addition, many of these cases terminate spontaneously prior to the usual normal nine-month termination point, for a variety of factors. It is possible that in the Brandon Bays case, poor nutrition and overdoses of minerals caused a weakened condition that led to early termination, although if the "tumor" was indeed "basketball sized", that termination would have been quite dramatic. Some herbal remedies are contraindicated for women in the condition described earlier; if the woman's diet has been explained in detail, maybe one or more of such herbs was included in her diet.

If the description of symptoms of the tumor match those of the condition described here, it could cast suspicion on the diagnosis of "tumor", which is not sufficiently descriptive to identify precisely what was growing in the woman's body.

The third is that Bays is an outright fraud, and thus that she had maliciously set out to fabricate medical claims for financial gain. If indeed so the problem is that it is as clear a medical fraud as Bays did not fabricate her credentials claiming that she was a medical doctor or some or other medical expert. She also had not provided a physical substance which could be examined that she claimed as being the potential cure. In her case it merely is the claim that she had cured cancer by her own means. Importantly, suggesting that any doubt or thoughts that diverted the full belief in the process would negate its efficacy. On all accounts a very difficult prospect to prosecute in the conventional way, and it certainly appears that legislation as it currently stands is ill-prepared to do so unless there is a direct death as was the case with James Arthur Ray.

From my limited investigation I cannot definitively conclude any of the three, but that either two or three is the likely answer—that is given the absence of Bays medical records. And even if she indeed had cancer, it is not helpful — and it is indeed very dangerous — to infer that all cancers can now be cured this supposed full-proof protocol. The problem here is directly linked to that discussed in The Pathology of Hope, and that such fabrications and equivocation of facts do well up a sense of hopefulness that the any disease can be cured. Moreover, without the negative side-effects of what an actual cure may acquire—and as in Fiona’s case, the rather unpleasant prospect of having to live without a very important organ. The reality is that it indeed is depressing. As iterated many times in the book, being depressed when confronted by a bleak or undesirable future reality is not being negative. In fact it is the very opposite as the one’s depression signals a willingness to accept the negative prospect and thus to make the required adjustment. Notwithstanding this, not letting the depressing reality get the better of one and therefore to drown in depression is the far greater challenge, and indeed, the true challenge which will increase one’s odds of survival.

It is important to understand that it is not ignorant or unintelligent individuals who fall for this type of contrived suggestion. For instance Apple Founder and late CEO Steve Jobs delayed his cancer treatment for nine months to seek alternative therapies, including spiritual therapy. Alarmingly what is evident from media articles is that his rare imminently pancreatic cancer had been detected at a very curable stage, but in his delay to undergo aggressive treatment had progressed to a form which significantly minimized his odds for survival. John Travolta’s son Jett too may well have died as a consequence of his belief in Scientology, and that he therefore did not explore the full range of medical help which may have been at his disposal. A colleague in my faculty – an eminent professor – had made a similar decision and also subsequently succumbed to cancer because of it.

Why Jobs circumstances is critical to consider in the context of this book is that he more than the vast majority were best equipped to take advantage of such “cures”. That is particularly as far as financial means is concerned, but moreover, that he is a particularly positive “can do” individual. But instead his hesitation to deal directly with the reality of his disease, had allowed it to progress from imminently curable to terminal in that nine month period. By this I do not want to be critical of Jobs and his decision, one that his biographer indicated he came to regret, but that I merely am doing it to put forward the lesson. It is that even he – one of the most rational inspirational minds in the world – may have become vulnerable to the likes of Bays “spiritual” innuendo.

I am also not disputing that “miracle remission” of disease does from time-to-time occur. The reality, however, is that they are exceedingly rare, and that the few are normally quickly and dramatically brought to our collective attention. Furthermore, at least when one considers the religious definition of miracles – the receiving God’s grace – that to wait in expectation of a miracle more than likely is the surest way not to have it occur. What however is apparent is that most miracles come about in very ordinary ways, such as detecting the disease early, or finding a particularly good medical doctor who is very versed with the associated pathology.

What seems to be common with these “ordinary miracles” is that they appear to be serendipitous. Serendipity being defined as “the gift of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for”. “Things not sought for” appearing to be at the heart of the definition. Though, because they were not sought for to begin with, these extraordinary “coincidences” more-often-than-not are not noticed.

This serendipity conundrum, then, is the real dilemma that those enamored by likes of Byrne and Bays ultimately are faced with. And its eventual conclusion may very well be deadly.

Obama - The Real Message is : No You Can't

Sat, 25 Jun 2011 05:06:13 -0400

High fashion and cosmetics can't hide the hypocracy of the adviceMrs Obama had for us, writes Fazila Farouk

When I first heard that America's first lady, Michelle Obama was coming to South Africa, I thought to myself, "There goes the news - column inches upon column inches are going to be wasted on the color of her lipstick." The fact that she's America's "fashion ambassador" already made the news in the run up to her visit.

Obama's transformation from understated and perfectly well groomed woman to glorified clotheshorse has been disappointing to observe. Nobody begrudges her the opportunity she's been given to transform her appearance, but in all fairness, she did take to the glamour rather more enthusiastically than one expected - openly relishing it and making fashion the hallmark of her role as America's first lady. One expected a little more substance from a woman of her standing.

The official reason given for Obama's visit to South Africa is that she's in the country to talk to our youth about leadership and that she's particularly interested in young women. This, I have gathered from media reports as well as questions that I personally had to field in a telephonic interview with a reporter from the Washington Post.

Well, that's the official reason for Obama's visit, but I'd hazard a guess that the unofficial reason may have more to do with America's domestic politics than it has to do with the country's international relations.

It is well known that 2012 is a presidential election year in America when Barack Obama will be running for re-election. The dynamic duo, Mr. and Mrs. Obama appear to have divvied up the globe in pursuit of the ethnic American vote.

Some weeks back, President Obama was in Ireland re-connecting with the Irish heritage on his late mother's side of the family so he could build support for the Irish-American vote back home. Just last week he was in Puerto Rico courting the Latino vote. His wife's visit to South Africa (and Botswana) seems a natural next step in their international campaign to bolster domestic support for his re-election next year, in this case, targeting the African-American vote.

The Obama's are very good at marketing themselves. President Obama's 2008 election campaign has even won a prestigious international advertising award for "best marketing campaign in history." When it comes down to the brass tacks of his re-election, the Obama's know what it will take to keep him in office.

This time the Obama's need to rally the support of the international community, as they've made such a mess of things back home. The so-called grassroots constituency that brought Obama to power is likely to stay away in droves next year, as the bold "change you can believe in" Barack Obama turned his back on them from his first day in office as America's president.

It all started with him appointing Wall Street insiders to his team. Then he went a step further by making good on Bush era prescriptions to bail out the banks that caused the 2008 financial crisis in the first place. His grassroots constituency was left out to dry.

While the Obama's moved into the most sought after address on the planet - the White House - thousands of African-Americans lost their homes as a result of the sub-prime mortgage crisis caused by the banks that President Obama has been so cautious not to confront. His electoral support base, of course, thanked him for his lack of gratitude by staying away in droves from America's 2010 midterm elections, which resulted in the Democrats losing the US Congress to the Republicans.

If Obama's grassroots constituency does vote for him again, "Brand Obama" won't be duping them so easily the second time round. This time they'll be voting for the lesser of two evils in the Democratic Party's battle against Republican rule. They're well aware of this fact too.

In September last year during a televised public meeting, Velma Hart, an African-American mother representing the bedrock of his middle class support base, openly challenged President Obama to his face. She said, "Quite frankly I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now." His mealy mouthed response is not worth elaborating on, suffice to say that it was hopelessly inadequate.

So what message is Michelle Obama going to share with ordinary, middle class and poor South Africans after her husband's administration so clearly let down people of a similar class in America?

What exactly is her message to the youth of South Africa going to be? "Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps?" As someone who epitomizes the story of success built on sheer determination and hard work, it's clear she that she would be partial to individual Endeavour.

But the America that she grew up in is not the America of today. Nor does either America come close to the fledgling democracy that is South Africa today.

Any young working class woman in Soweto comes up against a wall of challenges that Obama in her entire early life would never have encountered.

So how then does a young person contribute to our society when the conditions are far from what can be described as 'enabling', not only because of the shortcomings of the South African government, but quite significantly, also due to the foreign policy decisions of the Obama administration?

What has Obama got to say to the HIV positive youth in the ghettos of South Africa whose lives and future livelihood depend on our country being able to make access to anti-retro viral drugs universally available?

What is her response to the fact that the PEPFAR fund, a multi million-dollar AIDS fund initiated by George W. Bush, had its funding reduced for the first time in its seven year history under the Obama administration last year? The consequences of this decision are so dire for combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic in South Africa that the Treatment Action Campaign went as far as writing a letter to President Obama condemning it.

The saga continues today still. Just last week at the opening of the 18th International Aids Conference in Vienna, which drew participants from around the world, high-level aids activists were reportedly "raging at the Obama administration, while pining for the Bush administration."

President Bush was a much better friend to the HIV infected youth of South Africa than the Obama's can ever claim to be.

And what about the masses of unemployed youth in South Africa? The most crippling crisis facing the youth of South Africa today is the challenge of unemployment. What exactly is the Obama administration doing to ensure their access to productive, secure and decent work?

Well, in this regard, the Obama administration has once again failed the youth of South Africa (and the rest of developing world too).

The Obama administration can take credit for taking "the development" out of the "development round" of trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO), commonly referred to as the Doha round of talks.

America, in particular, has been singled out for making unreasonable demands on emerging economies, which includes South Africa, to open up their markets to US products. To simplify a somewhat complex set of negotiations where the US is demanding tariff reductions from the developing world, which would allow American goods to flood these countries' markets -- what this boils down to in the end, is that job creating sectors in South Africa are under threat from cheap and not infrequently subsidized American goods.

Of concern is the hypocrisy of the image presented by the first lady of America.

While Michelle Obama has busied herself establishing an organic vegetable patch in the gardens of the White House, promoting home-based food production, the food crisis has ravaged many developing countries that have lost their ability to grow their own food, as imports have flooded in under current international trade rules. Subsidized American agribusiness with a propensity for flogging genetically modified products onto unsuspecting developing nations is one of the main culprits distorting agricultural trade between first and third world countries.

One of the defining features of our interconnected global economy is that decisions taken in New York and London reach deep into the lives, dreams and aspirations of ordinary folk in townships like Soweto. What's new since the financial crisis of 2008 is that young people in the developing world who have always been exploited and abused by the overlords of the global economy are now being joined by an army of youth in Europe from countries such as Greece and Spain where unemployment has crept up to unprecedented levels, resulting in street protests and riots - not unlike our very own service delivery protests.

However, unlike South Africa, the youth of Spain and Greece come from middle class families. They're educated and have skills, but are unable to find jobs - and the reason they can't find jobs is through no fault of their own. The problem is the growing financialization of the global economy that has undermined investments in job-creating sectors.

Together with his benefactors, President Obama, whose campaign was generously funded by Wall Street's Goldman Sachs, has played an important role strengthening the financialization of the global economy. Thus, what is sometimes referred to as "Casino Capitalism" has become the basis of the global economy.

This is what led to the financial crisis, the subsequent economic meltdown and a global decrease in jobs. Some 30 million jobs have been lost worldwide since the 2008 crisis (according to a co-authored International Labor Organization report released in the latter half of 2010).

The jobs will continue to bleed until we address the fundamental issues that drive this unjust situation. The youth of the world, including our own in South Africa, will continue to face an uncertain future until the world is put on a different trajectory that respects the right of every human being to a decent life that offers a secure and decent livelihood. The struggle for employment does not have to result in a scramble for dirty, dangerous and demeaning work - the three D's commonly associated with the work poor people are most easily able to secure, and which is largely the outcome of liberalization policies promoted by the Obama administration.

In light of the above, it does seem somewhat fraudulent for America's first lady to be prancing around the world telling young people to get involved in actively contributing to their societies. What pearls of wisdom is she carrying around in her purse to share with the downtrodden youth of South Africa and the world, while the policies of her husband's administration ensure that these young people remain trapped in a life of destitution and servitude?

From

What Pearls of Wisdom Does Michelle Obama Have to Share With Youth?

Fazila Farouk

Executive director of the South African Civil Society Information Service.