TED Community » saah tamba

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Sociological well being of Africans and our part in the world.

An idea worth spreading

Education is the key to success in Africa, not religion, not politics, but the educating of our people. Education will allow us to be independent and less deceptive to exploitation.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Can we rebuild our communities?

  Oct 24 2012: I actually like this a lot. My simple answer is yes we can rebuild our communities. We have the resources, the infrastructure and the efforts to do so...the only problem is maintenance. How can we keep these communities from falling apart again? How often do you clean your room to see it messy at the end of the week? How often are roads resurfaced to break apart again? Very often. It's not whether we can rebuild or not, because we can, it's more so how can we maintain what we rebuild?
  We also have to look back at the locations we want to rebuild. Where are rebuilding and is the community able to utilize the projects? The more we rebuild the higher the cost the community becomes and that will raise taxes...is that community able to afford the luxury of a new infrastructure?
  I really like your question and i do believe we are able to rebuild, but how willing is that community to reach out, get help, and keep the order?

• A reply on Conversation: Should Americans eliminate the Electoral College and elect their presidents through simple majority vote?

  Oct 24 2012: I was sitting in class when i wrote my last bout...came back to strike a point or rather just defend myself. Then i realized that everyone keeps getting a little off topic with their comments and/or keeps insulting each other in a way that does not represent the TED community.
  
  1.Tyranny of the majority from what i understand is just absolute rule of the minority group, in ancient Greece minorities were the poor, not minorities how we see it today being classified by ethnicity or what have you. Tyrants have absolute rule over everyone else, meaning those are the minorities, i haven't read anywhere where its used in a civil rights manner, but i could be mistaken.
  
  2. The lack of educated people on the topic of politics, which i referred to earlier, was vaguely put. We have a lot of people who do not know the government and/or governmental issues, outside of what's effecting their lives. Yes you can argue and say everything is effecting them, but what i mean is the average person does not take in consideration on how policies effect minorities in Chicago, or the middle class in North Carolina. It's all circumstantial, call me selfish but the average person does not consider people out side of their immediate group. I do believe that we need a better system where we can be represented not by how populated our states are, but then draw up a plan....don't sit their and argue about petty terms and opinions.
  
  3. Civil rights. We all have rights as citizens and we do abuse them at times...but granted we are deprive of certain rights(choices), such as gay rights and legalization of marijuana rights...but those do not always need to be shoved into debates. Let the people, that meaning US, fight for what we believe should be rights. Women's, minority rights, integration...those are things that people felt the need to bring attention and fight for...you want gay rights...fight for it. No one is stopping you.
  
  4. It is time for a change, but where is the effort to change it?

• A comment on Conversation: Debate: Is corruption a moral or a legal issue?

  Oct 23 2012: Morality deals with rights and wrongs of mankind. Legal matters deal with rights and wrongs of a society. Could you live in a world where everybody was allowed to corrupt? Would you feel safe? I think the short answer to your debate is that corruption, because it harms and deprives people of rational choice, is both morally and legally wrong.

• A reply on Conversation: Should Americans eliminate the Electoral College and elect their presidents through simple majority vote?

  Oct 23 2012: I think what Pat is getting at is that the "people" do not have the best interest for each other. We really can't help each other while keeping our own interests at hand. We're talking about electoral college and voting rights for people, yet some guy decides to step in and talk about civil rights? Look, what the government does reflects the feelings of the majority, sounds blunt but it hold some validity. The difference between the civil rights of the past and of today is that many more people cared and did something to end the discrimination. If one method doesn't work, then try something else. People are giving up before the fight starts...matter of fact, could someone point to where the fight is at? If enough people cared today and went about it radically then their would be more rights for gays.
  Personally i don't think civil issues need to be addressed first hand here seeing that there are a lot bigger problems in our government right now, such as a failing economy, military, lack of jobs, etc. People have more rights in this country than a lot of countries and the resources to make a lot of themselves, but too often it becomes easier to complain and blame before actually attempting to move forward. Woman's rights and minority rights impacted the whole country, gay rights impacts a certain small percentage of this country. So can we drop that for argument sake?
  We can argue rights in a different conversation, but for now the question is whether we should eliminate the electoral college or not and I'd have to say we should not. There just aren't enough educated people, about politics, to trust that they would make the right decision and for the best interest for all. The majority would probably lean more democratic, which isn't an awful thing, but these people might be hurting themselves more than they realize.
  
  Could we just structure this debate a little better?

• A comment on Conversation: does a big country develope faster or a small one .why .

  Oct 10 2012: Well for one every country develops in some shape or form. It has more to do about their population size and less to do about the size of the nation. Also development does not necessarily ensure safety or quality of living. I think your question is a bit vague, but i think the gist of your argument pertains the relativity of economic growth and population size.
  
  If you reworded your question I'd inquire that a heavily populated nation would develop slower, not in all circumstances, than a country that is heavily populated because it's much easier to govern a smaller nation. Unfortunately some of these smaller nations are governed by tyrants or just lack adequate membership in parliament. Yet im not sure I'm answering your question.
  
  Another factor that might contribute to your "development' question is defining what you mean by development. There are technological advances, economic growth, social integration, health security...etc. There are a plethora of things that contribute to a Nations development. Just narrow down to what you're looking for and you might get a more precise answer.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: What is the key to smarter decisions?

  Oct 4 2012: For one, i believe that a conscious mind is able to make good decisions just through simple thoughtful applications such as; Thinking of others, making sure our actions don't negatively affect others; Thinking long term, will the decision bring regret later?; and the benefits and costs of your decisions.
  
  Selfless thinking is what separates a humanitarian from utilitarian. Your duty as a human is to survive, and in doing so you must help others if you expect to be helped. Therefore, all decisions should be made in recognition of others around you. You never know who's watching, but when you stop look around and pay attention.
  
  Good decision making is based on logic, but you can't assume logic without actually knowing right from wrong. Indeed its a bit subjective, but for the most part we know our rights from our wrongs. We do have moral guidelines to follow, and if you don't then that may be a problem for another topic. Your instincts should always be paid attention to, but never the base of your decisions. Go over your current problem solving techniques and figure whether they're consistent in helping you achieve where you need to get to.
  
  Cost benefit analysis. If the decision is not costing or benefiting anyone, reevaluate it because every decision will affect you or someone else one way or another. Is it too expensive, what are your alternatives? The best thing to do is to weigh your options. What you decide on now may be a sacrifice, but view other options that are less sacrificial.
  
  We have to lead by example. Practice what you preach. Inform others of how you make decisions, assuming your decisions are accurate and positive. Give others an insight of how you would go about an issue, but also look for a method outside of your grounds. We can't solve others problems, often times because we have our own, but we can help others not overlook important pieces of data.
  
  Take your time with your decisions and don't wait for the last moment. Time is clarity.