Just saying...

It's said that when a flower doesn't bloom, you fix the environment in which it grows, not necessarily the flower.

Similarly, a political system is impacted by the people and attitudes around it. Let's not forget that.

So, even if you've a Robin Hood at the helm of your ship, and storm's coming, with a bunch of Shylocks and Judases as crew, he cannot save the day.

Traffic today....

I've seen some really sound and fair-minded traffic officers ayard, and I respect them; they characterise hope. But... sometimes, when you meet the very unreasonable ones, you lose all grounds of hope - the ones who act as if overseeing traffic means waiting to be offended, and like every perceived offence is an affront to their pride.

Earlier today, around Jimpex, allowing a friend to alight, given the terrible elevation of the eroded roadway, and the ride's ground clearance, I had two options: to slant on a fairly even slope by the junction and give way to the coming traffic, or advance and force the ride into the shoulder drop-off, risking scrape, or even breaking my bottom plate, and I wasn't gonna do that.

From about fifty metres away, I could hear this traffic officer coming and storming like he just spotted the nation's most wanted fugitive or something: "HEY, DRIVER, HEY! STOP... BELAHI WOLAHI TA'LAAHI, TODAY YOU'RE GOING TO COURT." What for? I asked. "For obstruction," he said.

Well, given the rass-claat condition of every blood-claat road ayard and the traffic at the time, I did what I thought was practical, but the man insisted on the allegation that I violated section something of some ordinance I can't remember. He called the section: "Particulars of Offence." Perhaps because I didn't give him the impression of being educated like I usually don't, he asked if I knew what the word "particular" implies... I was like, wow! Now potopoto is on the point of catching fire.

But because I was getting tired of the blathering, and his lack of respect for those who were trying to talk him out of whatever he thought he had against me, I thought massaging his ego may help: "Sir, on a scout honour, I'm sorry!"

"Now we are talking. That's what you should've done from the start... apologise!" He said and then went on: "you're Touray from where...? Are you down now (whatever that means)?" while stretching out his hand to my chest as if checking my pulse for trepidation, and that got me mad. But my disapprobation triggered another offence: "talking back to a police officer." He took out his phone and said he was recording everything I was saying... that, now, my going to court is not about my "conduct" but my "action" - perhaps he meant the other way round... looking forward to it.

What SSHFC needs...

'Waxtaan' is a Wolof word meaning conversation, genuine dialogue, exchange, discussion, and so forth. 'Werranteh' is also Wolof, but meaning to argue, to have a spat, rhetorical bomb-throwing, to fall out, etc. I believe the origin of the latter is a portmanteau of 'wehrr' as in to expose and 'anteh' meaning each other... excuse my Wolof spellings.

I have heard some Wolof speakers say it is 'wediwanteh,' but I guess it’s all the same thing, just that this one will mean to go against, to contradict, or to oppose each other.

So, relatively, 'waxtaan' is what SSHFC needs, and that's what the parties are not doing. It's a more tactful approach to solving problems, or talking sense into others, especially when they’re doing something that you don't believe is right, and particularly when therein are those who have chapters in their book they'd rather not read out loud.

Change... ?

By the conduct of the average Gambian change-seeker, change appears to be misunderstood to mean unearthing malicious stuff to shame the past, perhaps to compensate for one’s own eventual lag. Just like the typical mechanic whose job, in time, gets as good as the job of the ex-mechanic he claimed could have done better.

It’s like you taking your stalling vehicle to the mechanic for fixing. He opens the hood, disregards the solution just to play the blame game on the earlier mechanic, (yowe denga am sance. Kee tuti mu yaaha sa motor bi) only to eventually replace your carburetor air cleaner with an empty poti tamateh (a tomato tin can). SMDH!

The Bias in What We Think Is the Truth

The reason why today's views are highly subjective is because the only thing that most people see is what they're already looking for and prepared to accept.

For this reason, when shit happens, the ones who are not a part of us or ours tend to be held in the wrong until proven above suspicion, which is as difficult as impossible because we hardly seek evidence to reason us out of that presumption of guilt.

Today, as if mere manmade constructs, virtue can become a vice or the other way round, as and when we find it convenient. What is true is usually what we want to accept as true. For instance: I read something on the internet and it supports my prejudice, ‘it’s definitely true.’ But when it doesn’t, ‘man, not everything you read online is true.’

This is why most of us find comfort among those who agree with us, like Samuel L. Jackson was to Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained. You call them friends - I call them shadows, because they duck when you bow, nod as you nod, echo what you say, hate the people you don’t like, and like the ones you love regardless. The backside is, when all your light sources go dim, shadows like that disappear.

About the SSHFC Staff Protest

I’m not one to get involved in workplace politics or some other people's wahala but, I wouldn’t diss the staff of Social Security just because I was made to believe that the extent of public interest reasons tending against their protest should prevail over every claim or displeasure they hold.

For my part, admissibility of their claims, or the uprightness, prudence, or austerity that management is trying to show signs of can only be determined by objective assessment, which objectivity we are nearly losing by the preconceived notion that what management did was required in the interest of the public, particularly “poor pensioners.”

I’m neither a legal person nor pretending to be one, and the staff, in lieu of putting up with the changing environment, can kick rocks if what they have is no smoking gun, but... even I know that no matter how badly we think disregarding the staff is needed in the public interest, we cannot disregard what they may have against management just like that.

In fact, I ask: what reasons do we have to doubt the credibility of the staffers' line of protest other than what we were fed, which the members of staff are refuting as just a smokescreen - y'know, the: “Eh, n’ko! These people are just disgruntled because we had to keep a tight rein on their Ososu...?” Again... like I said, not my wahala!

Is it right thing for YOU? Do it!

Do what you think is the right thing for YOU, especially living in this nyankarr part of the world that’s infested with people who, rather than being inspired by another person’s good fortune, they envy it.

I mean people who pick holes in nearly every rass claat thing they want but don’t have, just to make sure nobody else has a good time with it.

You know, the type that will pour scorn on your adidas as showy (not because it really is), just to feel good about his own ‘Abibas’ (you know, those hilariously ingenious fake Adidas products).

Democracy and meritocracy don't always run in tandem...

I know... a democracy and meritocracy running in tandem is the wish, but it's not necessarily so. A democratic nation doesn't always mean a nation ruled by talent, pragmatists, or people of superior intellectual status. Consider yourself lucky if you have one, but taking your democracy for a silver bullet is in my view a misunderstanding of the principles of democracy.

For what it's worth, I want these things just like we all do, but even I know that our political model is such that it'd be difficult if not impossible to limit access to power to people of marked intellectual ability, because ours is based more on popular election... it's the majority that decides.

That's why where due processes of election are followed and a knave gets elected president, you cannot say it's undemocratic, because the person represents the will of, even if you think is the foolish majority, and therefore becomes the most powerful man in the country. Resistance to or disregard for that political authority is itself a violation of the dictates of democracy.

While it's perfectly understandable to get incredibly irked by what politicians do, and whilst it's our right to disagree, being disagreeable at it can cause us to go entirely out of line, like I think it's out of line to declare with so much assurance that the President and his are not our leaders but Public Servants and Chief Servant respectively; even implying that they shouldn't just be imbued with good shock absorbers for criticism, but also be punching bags for every Jack and Shinaynay... I think that's a very condescending downplay of the presidency.

I'm of the belief that anyone who happens to be in a position of leadership that affects your life is your leader; even I never vibed with our high school prefects but I recognised their leadership, not to mention someone who presides over a national cabinet and commands the armed forces.

That's why when we express a disagreement with a president in person, even though respect is earned, protocol and basic discipline demand that we start with the word “respectfully,” and use "Your Excellency" or "Mr. President" in lieu of holder's name, because it's the office (of the president) that demands that respect, even if we cannot vibe with the incumbent.

Again, for what it's worth, I respect those who have the courage to sincerely speak truth to power, especially when speaking truth to power is neither popular nor easy. They must be heard and respected. If the powers that be are not ready to hear such feedback, then they’re not ready for growth.

However, today, whether all who speaks such truth is motivated by deep belief is what I doubt. Been here, seen a lot of trash and bravado, I can tell that some go bonkers just for the heck of it, and perhaps disinclination to give credit where credit is due, which diminishes the credibility of the critic, therefore, hard to take seriously. I hope the things we say and do out of love for country will not cause us to lose our way.

I'm for authenticity over originality...

Omar Touray: lazy writers plagiarise; great writers pick brains for ideas. They're just good at hiding their source.

Pablo Picasso: Good artists copy; great artists steal.

Abraham Lincoln: books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new after all.

Marie Antoinette: there is nothing new except what has been forgotten.

Stephen fry: an original idea. That can't be too hard. The library must be full of them.

Ralph Waldo Emerson: all my best thoughts were stolen by the ancients.

Coco Chanel: Only those with no memory insist on their originality.

See how all these great artists are telling you that it's not unusual for people to think or express the same thing at different times and in diverse places.

Can't you see AUTHENTICITY is what's of the essence... would you rather listen to some knowledge-impeding yet-to-evolve or amnesiac of a lecturer who tells you to avoid the miracle of Google and be ORIGINAL?

Do me a favour, ask him or her to tell you what he or she's ever said or done that's never been said or done by someone somewhere and I'll tell you his or her source... please.

We all want the best for The Gambia; that's the claim.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion; that’s my opinion on opinions. Unfortunately, in The Gambia, particularly on here, some of us want to share opinions that are neither based on genuine information nor real life experiences, yet get all upset and defensive when others express their opinion about their opinions.

Fine… if you want to use the opinion card to justify ignorance, or as your immunity to being told how prejudiced you sound, suit yourself. I sure don't care if we have a clusterfuck of 'uh-pinions'. Just make sure you don’t interfere with what I also think about what you think, because you’d be violating a right I accept for you.

That said, we all want the best for The Gambia; that's the general claim. None of us want to see the system slacking off; I suppose so. We all know “we have a long way to go;” evidently. But with what speed do we get there with the means available; that’s where our arguments diverge.

Some want to get there so fast so soon; we think they’re inconsiderate. Others who are criticised for being satisfied with mediocrity believe that no matter how fast we want to get there, we can only go as fast as the speed permissible by our reality, and I’m of the opinion that, that’s always the right speed.

You don't, because you're in a hurry, want to drive 220 kilometres per hour on a road as bad as the Kuntaur to Barajally road. Your wheel bearing will go bad, and because you cannot replace it unless the time legislated for replacement is due, your tyres will also go bad, or worst case, the wheel can fall off entirely, which resultant costs will include retardation, replacement and an avoidable thorn in your repose.

"Where were you?" - Barrow

I see nothing wrong with the President asking: "Where were you?" It's just a rhetorical question. But if it matters to you that much or you probably don't want to eat the corn, just say ah ya yuh deh! You needn't provide any alibi for it. 

The question shouldn't be tabooed or rendered obsolete just because we don't like it, especially when what makes it relevant is becoming the newest cool: folks turning selective amnesiacs, marked by unthinking recklessness and disdain.

Now about the academic supremacy that he touched on and the sake of clarity... for my part that is, intellectualism and elitism are different. The elitist is an intellectual snob, one who acts as if he and his should hold a monopoly on whatever oxygen there is in the world of governance.

In my opinion, part of being a genuine intellectual is overstanding the fact that there are as many ways to information and knowledge as there are people, and that the knowledge I derive from a different source or from practice and pure reason is as good as your book knowledge.

That said… me? I'd rather our presidential candidate be a citizen, have reasonable period of residency and years of age, but most of all be moneyed. Politics is NOT cheap; that's a universal phenomenon. If you don't have the dough to run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

The idea that we must raise the academic requirement for presidency is specious, however good it may sound. It's more than probably intending to limit contest to those who think they represent the choicest of what this nation has to offer, and that those who don't have academic titles by their names are all downright morons... that feeling of superiority is not just an illusion, it's BS.

Bureaucratic red tape… mtcheew!

Whilst learned-Gambia takes complicated work for a standard by which bigmanism is measured, the rest of intelligent civilisation is getting rid of excessive regulations and cutting bureaucratic red tape, because all it does is create more corrupt hands for the cookie jar, makes irrelevant jobs essential, increases the cost of doing business, and slows the efforts of those with ideas (entrepreneurs and innovators) and genuinely want to do more than mere talk.

I’m not blaming anyone. It’s a systemic predicament, and it looks like it’s here to stay, because the people we trust to effect change are relying on the same dysfunctional system. You know what they say: 'standard procedures create standard people' who can only do the things they’re told to do.

This is why when you go ah Portland, make some dough, come back ayard to invest, you go to a typical office and say you need approval to start something, you’re caused to undergo a twenty-ten-hour grease-every-palm-you-meet office-to-office trek, before you can finally see the APSDADRA (Acting Principal Senior Deputy Assistant Director Responsible for Approvals - that’s how pompous the nomenclatures are), and a signature as ugly as a right-handed person’s left-handed drawing.

GM - About our First Lady's transformation...

I’m sure she didn't come this far to only come this far, because even Michelle Obama had some wardrobe changes. Now the question is: would you, for your part, come as far as she came just to remain the same?

That’s some thought for some of us who seem to be in awe, but sarcastically, about our First Lady’s apparent transformation, as if we have no idea about life's challenges.

Granted, her latest photos no longer look like the ones we saw in December, 2016, but we needn’t be told to know that the family was under a surge of anxiety at the time, and naturally, a feeling of worry and pressure like that, especially about the uncertain outcome of an election that sort, can make anyone look older.

I say she wasn’t “hungry.” It was political stress that took a toll on her appearance. Anxiety ages the genes - go and ask your favourite doctor. In fact, according to me, if after all these years, you cannot see any significant change in your own appearance, comportment, and worldviews, my friend be sad, because you’re not growing.

Or maybe we should end the amnesia by doing a little challenge on here - share our pictures from back in the day, when the struggle was real. It'd be fun to see some of us in our dehydrated ‘Jakaa’ fabrics, raggedy-ass hairstyles and shoes, you know, probably looking like 60 year olds at 20something.

OASN: I don’t like people who scoff at people just to feel good about themselves – especially at women. But the strange and unfortunate truth of the matter is that a lot of us don't get inspired by growth. Instead, we envy it. It’s like we are happy when we are all at the same miserable level, gossiping and throwing pity-parties endlessly.