Hi Mr. Jallow!
  Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my post. You wrote:

"Let me state for a start that I found most of your questions regressive and
quite nuanced.  "

Could you please enlighten me as to why you found my questions regressive?
Nuanced they might be. Regressive? I don't think so. You see, you responded
to a post I sent asking Halifa to choose what to respond to and to utilise
his time on more important issues than non-issues. You stated that you did
not question Halifa's character. You had however sent posts just a few days
and over a week before questioning Halifa's character. My questions did not
come out of the blue. They are based on statements you made on this list
which contradict your assertion that you are not questioning Halifa's
character and integrity. If you state in one post that you believe Halifa to
have good character and in others that he is not a sociologist but is
pretending to be one, that he lectures political maturity yet acts
inconsistently, that he dishonestly gives the impression that he is a
sociologist, there arises the question of whether you are consistent in your
assertions or not. What do you believe? Does Halifa have good character or
not? Is he a dishonest, inconsistent pretender sociologist or does he have
good character? You see, the two positions are mutually exclusive. Halifa
cannot have good character yet be an inconsistent, dishonest pretender. That
is why I asked you to make yourself clear. You see, when one makes
contradictory statements under different headings, one does not have the
liberty of choosing for others the points or questions to raise regarding
the various issues raised in the posts.

You also wrote:

"They only succeed in multiplying the objects of discussion and the dialogue
itself infinitely. "

I disagree with you. The nature of your pronouncements regarding Halifa and
PDOIS are so authoritatively stated and are in fact so damaging to the
character of Halifa and PDOIS that I don't think you should try to brush
them off so easily. You made some strong statements that you attributed to
Halifa and PDOIS and I asked you to prove that they were in fact stated by
Halifa and PDOIS. The question is: Can you prove that Halifa and PDOIS made
such statements? Can you prove that the positions you attributed to Halifa
and PDOIS are in fact theirs? If you cannot prove such, the question that
arises is whether you were assuming that Halifa and PDOIS would act as you
described. So I ask you: were you assuming that Halifa and PDOIS would act
as you stated or do you have proof regarding your assertions? If you were
making assumptions, you should have made that clear by saying that you
assumed that they would behave in such and such a way. You however made
determined statements that gave the impression that you were privy to
statements and policy documents. Which is it? In this light, I still ask you
to be kind enough to answer the questions I asked you in my previous post. I
did not think that fear of the prolongation of the discussion and dialogue
was an issue with you based on what you wrote to Halifa. You wrote: "No
insults but strictly rational and mature debates..bring it on Halifa". I
therefore assumed that you would not mind rational and mature debates and
that fear of a prolongation of the debate was a non-issue. You seemed to be
telling Halifa that you are ready for debates by asking him to bring it on.


You also wrote:

"The question whether Halifa Sallah is a sociologist or not is preposterous.
Nobody can best answer that question but Halifa himself.. "

Are you saying that only Halifa can answer the question of whether he is a
sociologist or not? Are you Halifa? If you are not, how come you answered
the question for him earlier? Do you remember when you wrote: "Halifa is NOT
a professional sociologist, and he is yet to honestly
acknowledge this in public ."

You wrote:

" However, there is a tacit omission in his revelations to the media.
Whether this was a calculated evasion on his side or poor journalism is now
any one's guess.  Therefore I cannot judge Halifa's character from this
without error. "

You are now saying that you cannot judge Halifa's character without error
because you cannot determine whether his failure to reveal to the media
what, as  far as you are concerned makes one a sociologist, was a calculated
evasion or poor journalism. Are you saying here that your earlier verdicts
on Halifa's character were made in error? Were you mistaken when you made
the assertions that Halifa is an inconsistent, dishonest pretender?

You wrote:

"As far as I am concerned, a sociologist is by all means a career academic
doing research and publishing his findings in reputable scholarly
journals. "

Should the definition of what it means to be a sociologist be redefined to
suit what you deem it to be? Does Halifa or anyone else know what it means
to be a sociologist according to Ebou Jallow? Maybe if Halifa knew your
definition of what it means to be a sociologist, he would have been " a
career academic doing research and publishing his findings in reputable
scholarly journals" in order to be a sociologist according to your
defintion. Halifa, please take heed. The definitions relating to Sociology
according to the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Online are:

"sociology noun [U]
the study of the relationships between people living in groups, especially
in industrial societies:
She has a degree in sociology and politics.
He specializes in the sociology of education/law/the family.

sociological adjective
related to or involving sociology:
sociological theory/research

sociologically adverb

sociologist noun [C]
someone who studies or is an expert in sociology

According to this definition from this world renowned and respected
dictionary, a sociologist is "someone who studies or is an expert in
sociology". Halifa according to your own admission studied Sociology at
undergraduate level. He studied the subject. According to Cambridge's
definition, he is a sociologist. Frankly speaking, I'd rather accept
Cambridge's definition. Wouldn't you?

You wrote:

"The subsequent claims you deduce from this "sociologist" question about
Halifa is therefore a false dichotomy about my understanding of his
character.  It is not an either this or that situation.  There are options
and I will choose to defer judgment on Halifa's character until he himself
answers the question. "

My deduction from your statement regarding Halifa's character and the "
sociologist" issue is not contradictory or mutually exclusive. They are in
fact mutually inclusive. You see, what you basically said was that Halifa
was an inconsistent, dishonest pretender. If he is as you said, then he has
bad character. A person who is inconsistent, dishonest and a pretender would
not fit the definition of a good character by any definition. When you made
your assertions about Halifa and the "sociologist" issue, you were attacking
his character and saying that he has bad character. With regard to deferring
judgment on Halifa's character, you cannot defer what you have already done.
You have already passed judgment on Halifa with regard to the "sociologist"
issue.

You further wrote:

"The next issue you raised is critical of my caricature of Halifa's
Jackson-Five hairdo which I strongly believe to be another straw man error.
I was trying to make a point about PDOIS "brand" of socialism.  "

What does PDOIS brand of socialism have to do with a Jackson Five hairdo?
Are you trying to say that it is old fashioned? Did you know that the afro
hairdo is making its way back to fashion? Do you watch music videos? What do
you know about PDOIS brand of socialism? From what you have written so far
on the topic, not much can be gleaned. Apart from conjecture, not much has
come forth. You have made very heavy assumptions that you have attributed to
PDOIS but they are basically that, assumptions. You have however stated them
with so much force that they seem to be statements and policy positions
directly from PDOIS whilst this is not the case. If I am wrong, please
answer the questions in my previous post pertaining to where you heard or
read the statements you attributed to Halifa and PDOIS.

You also wrote:

"even the communist dictatorships in North Korea and Cuba call themselves
democratic and independent, what resonates with clarity in Halifa's group is
an ORGANISATION FOR SOCIALISM.  PDOIS is an organization that champions a
socialist agenda. "

Do you know that many European democracies are governed by social democratic
parties. Sweden is a classic example. Just because North Korea and Cuba call
themselves democratic and independent, happen to call themselves socialist
but are in fact dictatorships does not mean that PDOIS is going to be the
same. Do you know how many countries call themselves capitalist and
democratic yet are dictatorships like Cuba and North Korea? Have you been to
Africa lately? The unfair representation of PDOIS based on other parties and
countries that have failed in terms of democracy and economics is rather
unfortunate. PDOIS' work, words and actions in Gambia with regard to
democracy is a glaring example in Africa and tops most so called
democracies.

Are you sure about the following?

"So what is socialism?  Socialism values a collectivist system of political
economy over free enterprise which values individual responsibility. In
essence socialism values
government control over individual liberty.  The point I was illustrating is
the grotesque reality that the PDOIS leadership are closet dictators engaged
in making us believe that their collectivist
dogma as demonstrated with their own altruism of everyday life is of
superior reality and morality. "

I'll give you a chance to reread your above statement and determine whether
it is conjecture or fact before replying.

You also wrote:

"Asked what brand of socialism if not "economic
adventurism"...Halifa says - "Essentially, we are talking about co-
operative governance. In essence we see governance throughout the world
heading towards this process....We have to get people to take ownership
of their countries through institutionalisation of the process..."
Hhile maintaining that his "sort of socialism is not suited for the
Gambia" he is simultaneously advocating for the dictatorship of
the "people".  Finally, Halifa concluded his statements with my
favorite quotation, the mother of all incoherence: "In that sense,
there are no quick fix solutions.  Privatisation is not the answer. We
need a realistic appraisal of our economy in particular and the global
economy in general and to start implementing economic regeneration
programmes."-THERE ARE NO QUICK FIX SOLUTIONS!...Does this ring a bell
to a socialist....?  Of course- Utopian Socialism.  The word "utopia"
is Greek for "no place".  The connection of Halifa's "No quick fix
solutions" and "no place" is very interesting indeed and it does echo
the classical socialist utopianism of Saint-Simon and Fourier :
" Our fathers have not seen it,... our children will arrive there one
day, and it is for us to clear the way for them"

Tell me Mr. Gassama, does this not sound like a dream?"

Do you understand what Halifa was talking about? Where did he maintain that
his "sort of socialism is not suited for the Gambia"? It is not part of what
you have forwarded here. Maybe you can forward it later. Where did he
advocate "the dictatorship of the "people""? I cannot see it from what you
have forwarded. This is why I asked you if you understood what Halifa was
talking about. Do you? On the issue of incoherence and no quick fix
solutions, are you sure you understood what Halifa said? What is incoherent
in saying that there are no quick fix solutions? Are there any? Do you have
any? Do you know anyone who has quick fix solutions to the problems facing
our country? What I see is not incoherence but rather a cautious answer
deeply rooted in the scientific approach to problem-solving. There are
symptoms of a problem regarding the Gambian economy. What would you do? Just
rush in to solve the problem without first identifying and studying the
problem in order to ascertain that what you perceive to be the problem is
indeed the problem? A headache might in itself be an ailment but it might
also be an indication of a myriad of other ailments that might even be
life-threatening. A doctor might do a disservice to a patient if the patient
complains of a consistent headache and he prescribes a pain killer without
first trying to identify the root causes. You see, the patient might be
suffering from a brain tumour. If the Gambian economy is failing, is the
random disposing of of parastatals the solution?Halifa says that we need to
make a realistic appraisal of the Gambian economy in order to realistically
solve the problems facing us. How can you find that utopian? Should we be
running around like headless chickens trying every kind of gimmick? I am
sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Jallow but this does not sound like a dream to
me. Even if it were to sound like one, I'd remind you that there are dreams
and there are visions. The quote you forwarded that reads: "Our fathers have
not seen it,... our children will arrive there one day, and it is for us to
clear the way for them" is not an indication of a futile dream by the
authors even though I am not familiar with them and their work. It might be
the projection of visionaries. Remember Martin Luther King's dream? In it,
among other things, King says his eyes have seen the Promised Land where
blacks and whites will have access to the same facilites, liberties etc.
King says that he might not get there with them but he was sure that black
people will get there. This has chilling similarities with the words of
the "dreamers" you forwarded. When King was uttering those words, they were
not merely a dream but rather a vision. So you see Mr. Jallow. There are
dreams that idle minds have and there are dreams that visionaries have.

I thank you very much for taking the time to read through my post. I await
your reply. Have a good evening.
           Buharry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~