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