Opinions of Tuesday, 8 July 2008
Columnist: Tawiah, Francis
Unadulterated Altruism in Ghana
: It Died And Was Buried With ODKN
There is an incorrigible group of Ghanaians who are inexorably hell-bent in their agenda-driven efforts to destroy the name of Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. For nearly eight years, we have been slyly fed calculated and premeditated revisions of our historical empiricism of the Ghanaian experience. This revisionism, which has its roots dating back to the late 1940s, is accomplished with brazen and sometimes skillful but reckless abandon. Open libelous assaults on Nkrumah’s solid reputation have been delegated carefully to a few rogue academic surrogates who bombard us unnecessarily with empty scathing write-ups full of pitiable vitriol in an ever-failing effort to bend, twist, and reshape our historical perspective. These revisionist charlatans display a sad ineptitude and are driven by an unattainable broader goal; and dead Nkrumah seems to be the vehicle which, they hope, will get them to their ultimate destination. It also seems that, with all the loud barking by the self-appointed surrogates, many Ghanaians have been cowered into tacit acquiescence and have become supinely accepting of the reformations of their history by this government.
The lapdog surrogates are shamelessly bold and they pursue their stench-filled gutter warfare against Nkrumah as a badge of honor and it is not surprising that they have been at it since the current administration assumed power. From the more organized national flank are also the policies that have been imposed cunningly and deliberately by the current administration on the usually unsuspecting Ghanaian. The administration and its surrogates have taken advantage of every opportunity to transport dead Nkrumah from his mid-20th century era (from 1947 when he returned to the Gold Coast, to 1966 when his government was overthrown and was exiled till he later died) to the 21st century, injecting him into today’s political environment in order not only to flog him again and again but to use him to satisfy a deviant malignant yearning. They have no qualms about their heart-wrenching morbid roughing up of Nkrumah even after he has been dead for about four decades.
No previous administration, civilian or military, stooped to such a miserable nadir with a singular focus. Considering the thought that the constant negative resurrections of Nkrumah are fatigable but baffling as well, what then is it that motivates these rogue anti-Nkrumah Ghanaians who get their tacit blessings from the government? Who are the intended beneficiaries of the incessant posthumous shower of venom on Nkrumah? Why has this administration made it its visible and conscious policy to marginalize and whitewash Kwame Nkrumah’s historical stature and value to Ghana and Africa? What is really the driving force behind the many anti-Nkrumah literary exercises by once Nkrumah-educated academics and politicians who are obviously agents of this administration and this administration only? What does it serve these bile-filled antagonists who have chosen morbidly to take on Nkrumah now? Who are these people who seek the extra-annihilation of dead Nkrumah? And, why bedevil mercilessly this dead man with such grotesque, consuming, self-destructive and self-serving hate-filled exhumations and feud?
Tribal Hegemony?
You can please join me here and now to announce to the whole world that there is indeed a method to their madness and their resolute aberration. What they do is not just for entertainment or just for kicks, which is surely destined to end in futility. But from all indications, the assaults on Nkrumah in the last eight years have proven to be a well orchestrated premeditation meant to solidify what I believe to be a quest for tribal hegemony. It rightfully begs the concern: is there really a quest for hegemony and if so, why use Nkrumah for such a goal when the man is really, really dead? Please, sit back for a quiet moment and you can figure out why. One other disturbing driver is the tarrying unrequited vengeance, after Nkrumah died of natural causes instead of at the hands of his inveterate wayward enemies. The fact that they did not get the guy with all the bomb-throwing and the many failed assassination attempts left them with a lasting bitter aftertaste that cannot wash off easily with all the toothpaste and mouthwash in the world, nor with hundreds of thousands of times they swallow their unpalatable saliva.
The violent overthrow of his government, in itself, was inadequate and fell short of the desired goal because they failed to kill him with the coup. It left Nkrumah alive in a foreign land till he died on his own of illness. Inadequacy and stark emptiness from Nkrumah’s assassination failures still course through the veins of now living Ghanaians who will not let go and who claim provincial lineage to Nkrumah’s one-time enemies, and who are also the offspring of a well-known singular opposition group of his time. It is of no surprise, and I am not making this up, that the party now in power has claimed, on its own on many occasions, that it is the direct offshoot of the original opposition to Nkrumah. It has often reminded Ghanaians loudly its perception of Nkrumah and has often taken serious actions to try to change the perception of right-thinking Ghanaians, too. Was it also not President John Kufuor who said recently that, “there is too much history of sacrifice, perseverance, commitment, and toil WITHIN OUR TRADITION over the PAST FIVE DECADES for this government to forget”? Whoa, the President said that? Have you seriously pondered over what he was really talking about? Do you catch his drift? Was this one of those “after fifty years, our time has come” moments? How tribally exclusive can the President get? Now you can see how this fits straight into my argument of the drive for tribal hegemony.
Academic Lapdogs
It is also comedic yet puzzling, the sudden strange epiphany, or the forehead-slapping serendipity, which has recently befallen some academics who have decided to switch their longstanding admiration and support for Nkrumah to the elevation and praise of Danquah and Busia and to, at the same time, debase and insult Nkrumah for a purpose sensible only to the perpetrators and their tribal cronies. Is this weird epiphany driven by tribal sentiments? It seems like that. It does not take much to figure out why these born-again Nkrumah-hating converts cannot allow him to remain honorably dead. Remember that this conversion began only when this administration assumed office and has steadily crescendoed to where it has become a prurient climaxing stimulation and pastime for a self-appointed deviant leader of the literary surrogates of the government.
The leader of the academic pack of toothless rottweilers and pit bulls is this ultra tribal narcissist-on-steroids in the person of a Ghanaian community college professor in the U.S. who has perfected his career and honed his expertise on condescension and degradation toward everybody else except people of the Ashanti or Twi origin. This man, in his own words, has been struck by this strange Danquah-Busia revelation after years of tacking on to the coattails of Nkrumah to get to where he is now. He gets his satiation from his passionate injection of Nkrumah (and often Rawlings) into his oft-composed commonplace flamboyant un-journalistic claptrap, and the common strain in all of his convoluted and spurious compositions is his desire and push for an everlasting political presence and dominance of his chosen group.
Allow me to point out here that there are many who have been brainwashed into silly attributions of super-intelligence to the higher educated Ghanaians, who in turn relish this encouragement and sycophancy with bloated self-importance by strutting and flaunting credentials like peacocks in heat. The very, very few admirers of our notorious professor are not only encouraged by tribe but are smitten by the sad African syndrome of, “Papa no, otse Brofo paa. Wonim a, okita college degree, o! Oye doctor, atse.” But do they ever stop and ask if he makes sense when writes or speaks. In other words, there are the Ghanaians who are easily affected by empty intellectual sounding rhetoric, full of complex phrases and blowhard vocabulary, and conclude without serious thought if what they hear or read is sensible and are any brainy sort of analyses. Many have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by this cyber-terrorist who tries too hard to cower all of us into submission with his sanctimonious indignations about Nkrumah, Rawlings, and everybody else who qualifies as a scapegoat for his and this administration’s agendas, plus all those who do not fit into his “special” tribal classification. Does one’s classroom work and accomplishments equate real intelligence?
And to hoist Danquah onto his well-known shaky pedestal, the leader of the pack loves to strip Nkrumah of any distinctions and honor and paint him with so much demeaning derogations that it makes you wonder what is really eating this guy. The man has gone from charging Nkrumah with incest and branding him Ghana’s Hitler down to the now very indiscreet insults like “the weird and godforsaken man-child.” Discreet? Well, the guy has never been modest, courteous, or contrite in any of his write-ups except to his ethnic group. It makes me want to say it again: there is a purpose to this craziness. If you don’t believe that they (his ethnic backers) gain anything from this guy’s abnormalities, think again.
Danquah-Busia Tradition
If you also consider the gratuitous alienation of other groups, especially ethnic, from the powerbase of the administration, it becomes abundantly clear how and why they claim so arrogantly to have morphed from the relic of the old parochialism (mate-me-ho) of over fifty years ago to the current adoption of the so-called “Danquah-Busia tradition,” whatever that “tradition” means.
Moreover, the hysterical, hackneyed, hyperbolic hullabaloo of the hopeless hype and self-promotion of the current administration and its dysfunctional, depressing, disgusting, disgraceful, revanchist repackaging of Joseph Danquah and Kofi Abrefa Busia using inappropriate and hollow titles such as the so-called “putative doyens” of the Gold Coast and “the architects of modern Ghana” render the pair so bare that their notorious legacies remind astute Ghanaians of their regressive and damaging roles during the intense periods of the independence struggles. Additionally, the post-independence war-like and impatient violent stance against Nkrumah and their attempts at the usurpation of political power, while maintaining utter disregard for the welfare and progress of Ghana and the safety of its citizens, makes many Ghanaians want to puke. Anyway, the word, doyen, in our local phonetics, sounds and smells a lot like turd.
What is this “Danquah-Busia tradition,” anyway? There is nothing to it. There is no substance there. There is no definable emulative tradition and respect that can be attributed to those two Ghanaians. Not an iota of the current administration’s excesses or overflowing inundation of an imaginary speculative “tradition” that is forcibly poured onto Ghanaians will ever reformulate the well-grounded historical knowledge and perceptions of the entire population, except the few who want to cling to and make-believe there exists this farce called, Danquah-Busia tradition. No amount of effusive praises, no large swaths of the paintbrush will do much to modify the perceptions Ghanaians have of Danquah and Busia. When it comes to burnishing a tarnished image, when it comes to dusting off and polishing a permanently stained relic, any dysfunctional wordsmith can slap some English words and praises together to try to resurrect any indefensible nonentities, like Danquah and Busia, by excessively over-amplifying with high sounding empty rhetoric.
A worm that is perennially stuck in muddy soil, its whole world will always remain mud, dirt, and filth. Nkrumah haters are unable to extricate themselves from the rut which they created and in which they have been stuck for nearly sixty years. The victim mentality of Nkrumah mud hurlers has lasted for far too long and should end. For selfish reasons and small-mindedness, they refuse to accept the advent and supremacy of Nkrumah as the trailblazer without whom we might have wallowed in the mire and stench of colonialism for many more years beyond 1957. When Nkrumah appeared on the political scene in the Gold Coast, he readily dismissed passé ideas of tribal superiority and exclusiveness; he debunked tribal elitism, he rejected the pomposity of the few educated elites (the arrogance and haughtiness are still evident in the “stranded” leader of the toothless canines and his ilk), and he encouraged grassroots inclusiveness and involvement of ordinary Ghanaians in the decision-making processes that affected them. He truly uplifted the Ghanaian spirit.
There is also the tired invitation argument often used by Nkrumah’s recent critics that he was a political neophyte stranded in the United Kingdom, who was “rescued” by the “experienced,” “all-knowing,” “doyen” Danquah and the United Gold Coast Convention to come home to assist with the independence efforts. There is also the lame argument that the senior members of UGCC had everything down pat before the “interloper” Nkrumah showed up and slyly wrestled the struggle away from the presumed leaders of that organization. Yea, right! The weakness in that argument is so blindingly glaring. If all the senior members of the UGCC knew what to do, why invite a younger man, like Nkrumah, fresh out of college, to assume the ultimate leadership of the UGCC? This also engenders the plausible conclusion that, despite their “experience” and education, the UGCC leadership, prior to Nkrumah’s arrival, was made up of weaklings who lacked leadership skills, confidence, and a clear sense of direction. If they had confidence in themselves that they could obtain freedom for their countrymen as promptly as Nkrumah did, they would never have invited Nkrumah and placed him in a leadership role.
Furthermore, what these critics are implying, when they repeatedly jam their feet in their mouths, is that their dead heroes were wimps and inept and Nkrumah was the one who was to come along and endow them with glory. What the UGCC elders did not anticipate was the capacity of their own intolerance, especially Danquah’s, and what was to be their emotional reactions to the boldness, forthrightness, and the driving force Nkrumah brought to the pursuit of colonial freedom. They immediately vowed they were not going to play second fiddle to Nkrumah. Filled with anger, hate, and jealousy, they instead pulled away from him and made him a pariah. Yes, a pariah he was to especially Danquah, whose leadership dreams had been snatched away by this returnee “upstart” who did not even hold a doctorate degree like he, Danquah, did. [If I can find the time, I will like to write one of these days about these Ghanaian (Dis)honorables, Professors, PhD holders, Prophets, etc., who have their noses so high up the stratosphere they won’t allow us to even take a peaceful nap] True to the typical African mentality, who the hell did Nkrumah believe he was? But to the struggling masses who earnestly yearned for immediate freedom from British domination, Nkrumah dismissed those arrogant shiftless “elites” and proudly joined the “commoners” as one of the “Verandah Boys” and was totally one with them.
In order to confirm the surrogates’ affliction of the “foot-in-the-mouth” disease, this contrarious professor stranded in the U.S. says that Nkrumah “actually succeeded in collecting the totality of wisdom among his followers and absconded with it upon his death.” (Read his feature article of June 21, 2008). True to our anticipation of his usually convoluted writing struggles to force-fit very separate facts with disjointed analogies (like the moronic village Ananse mythologies), the professor only succeeded this time in making Nkrumah smell like a thousand roses. Need I say more?
[A Little Digression: And now he comes back and slams both feet deep down his throat by slyly calling Rawlings “illegitimate” while exposing to the whole world his own illegitimate daughter as “purely an accident of destiny” (His article on June 28, 2008). Personally as a father of four, I will never ever cheapen and insult any of my children by exposing them the way this professor has just done with his oldest child. And he is till making babies at his age. Though I personally do not have a child out of wedlock, all children are precious and should not be labeled as “accidents of destiny.” Here again, trying so hard to group disjointed analogies in order to support his lame “Made in China” “dollar store” cheap outputs (Rawlings and Nkrumah hating articles) from his seedy back yard opinionated writing factory, he has only succeeded by permanently planting both feet in his mouth this time. When a guy like this has so much to educate us on sometimes more than once every week, it comes as not surprise that he no longer has much of substance to say and will make such stupid blunders. Our professor is always over-anxious to have the first and last word on every issue about Ghana, and in so doing exposes his inability to think seriously. He probably has not heard the facetiously true adage that if someone wants your opinion, they would rather give it to you. This rabid mad dog is stuck in an angry attack mode twenty-four seven and it may not be doing him any good. A jerk will always be a jerk, with Ph.D. or not.]
To Danquah and his supporters, especially the super grouchy Danquah protagonist in the U.S., all that needs to be said now is: “This is what elitism will do to you.” The chickens (Nkrumah and his Convention People’s Party) had come home to roost not soon enough. And after all these years, God help these waggish Ghanaians who cannot help themselves but repackage their sacrosanct Danquah as modern Ghana’s “architect” simply because he was one of their tribe. What did he really do?
Now, About the Current Administration
It is important now to discuss Nkrumah’s accomplishments, an honorable antithesis to the empty praises heaped on this government by its sycophants despite its non-performance in many areas of governance. It is not difficult to identify and enumerate the many examples of this administration’s failures but this is not the time and place for that discussion. Rather, let’s discuss other broader issues.
The narrower and selfish interests of the current administration, so much everywhere you cannot miss them, are evident in the doling out of benefits and appointments only to the preferred citizens. Those few extra-tribal, window-dressing, and token appointments cannot and will not disguise the conspicuous disregard for the need for an all-embracing diverse inclusiveness. Considering Africa’s weak intra-state tribal inter-relationships, an all-encompassing ethnic inclusiveness should have been this administration’s dominant and urgent policy implementation from the start. Yet, there is not an iota of evidence that they even tried because the planned tribal slant began to take shape in the first few months of this administration.
So, to stay with this unfortunate policy of narrow ethnic interests and favored tribal appointments to critical positions and shameless reckless attributions is to court a repetition of the bloody conflicts which recently engulfed many of our neighbors (and I never wish such catastrophe on my fellow Ghanaians). In this sense, it must be allowed that this administration has failed Ghanaians, in general, and has, maybe inadvertently, sown the lasting seeds of ethnic discord and an overhanging omen of national disaster. Look around you everywhere and you cannot help but conclude that almost all ambassadorial, diplomatic, local ministerial, and many strategic governmental positions have been doled out to achieve and secure a tribal dominance.
If we sit back and do not repudiate this slow yet calculated build-up and the trickling concentration of unchecked power bases, or what virtually resembles hegemony, it means we are helplessly prepared to accept the looming dominance as intractable and uncorrectable but also revel in the philosophic expectation of the best when we are certainly unprepared for the worst to come. When ethnic and cultural interests are divorced from their subjection to politics or from the helm of decision-making in a tribally heterogeneous state like Ghana, the consequences are only positive for the growth and advancement of the entire nation. The balanced inclusion of all diverse groups in the determination of the wellbeing and future of the citizens (in this case, equitable multi-tribal empowerment) strengthens allegiance to the total makeup of the nation.
It is equally important not to forget that groups, tribes, and even nations have always had long historical memories, and that is why we will never ever forget Nkrumah’s defensible achievements, especially his balanced and comprehensive tribal empowerment, which overwhelmingly overshadow, or even erase all of his shortcomings, despite how much “you people” insist on harping on the negative. Our long memories have equally not allowed us to forget the insidiousness of the tribally separatist promotions of Danquah and Busia and the failings of almost all of the regimes that came after Nkrumah. Your disturbing nightmarish memories will not also allow many of you to forgive the excesses and mistakes of the reign of Jerry Rawlings, the longest regime in Ghana. You cannot bring yourselves to even acknowledge his achievements. Despite his strong-arm reign, which definitely scarred many Ghanaians and left some with bitter memories, J.J. Rawlings continues to enjoy an extremely diverse and popular, sometimes fanatic, adoration across Ghana. This then begs the question: What will be the legacy of the current administration? How are we going to remember you?
At this point, nearly eight years in office, the notoriety of this government is already established. For example, in order to trivialize and insult Nkrumah, the current government, immediately upon arrival, elevated Danquah to an undeserving prominence and subtly belittled the achievements of Nkrumah by placing him together with others on the cedi banknotes. Your message was loud and clear. The chance for years of deep-seated pent-up payback had finally arrived. And then there was the 50th independence anniversary celebration. They could not bring themselves to even mention his name. They squandered so much money, yet to be totally accounted for, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Ghana; the enormity of the amount spent was enough for a developing country like Ghana to build a few schools or a hospital or two; but they were so tongue-tied about him that it took foreign visitors to acknowledge and hail Nkrumah as the greatest champion of Africa’s freedom. Should we then empathize with you just a little because Nkrumah achieved but your tribal ancestor did not? I am so ready to disappoint you now because the answer is, NO!
It is understandable but unfathomable that however weak their positions and arguments always are, it is often politically convenient for many Ghanaians, instead of facing the issue at hand, to pick and choose their battles in order to defend the indefensible. This attitude also helps to explain why this administration and its selected and self-appointed surrogates respond to criticisms, with the skill of deflection, by often insulting or by always referencing the failings of past administrations, especially Nkrumah’s. If a child is scolded for breaking expensive china and his reply is, “But Kojo broke equally or more expensive china last week,” it goes to show you that this child accepts no culpability for his own actions. The people in power have become cunningly adept at this art of “escapology.” The carelessness with which they explain away their premeditated life-and-death transgressions, many of which border on criminal, is leading this country down a slippery-slope path of destruction.
The Cold War Era
Anyway you turn it, the impetuousness and the high-minded spinelessness of the current administration’s demagogues, with their egregious untenable incessant red-baiting of dead Nkrumah, is almost macabre. With clear purpose in mind, they are suddenly afflicted with historical amnesia. These close-minded, amnesic, comatose, blind children of the “independence-dodging” Nkrumah haters enjoy red-baiting the heavens out of Nkrumah, while hiding behind the falsehood that this administration brought us “democracy” and Nkrumah was a “communist.” Well, e-x-c-u-u-u-s-e me! P—lease, it was your ultra-nemesis, J.J. Rawlings, who made it possible for you to be where you are today.
Being no admirer of communism, neither in my youth nor my adulthood, I can live the rest of my life and comfortably accept that Nkrumah’s adoption of socialism was the result of combined badgering assaults from the West and the grenade and bomb-throwing attacks by your direct forebears. If you did not live in the Cold-War era which began soon after the Second World War which placed choking political and economic strangleholds on all newly freed developing countries and all those still fighting at that time to be free; if you did not experience the independence struggles across Africa and the post-independence periods of Nkrumah all the way through Afrifa-Kotoka, Acheampong, to the very eventful tremulous appearance of Rawlings on the political scene; or if you did but opt to be dismissive of the truth about Nkrumah, then be assured that we know you all too well. If you critics can identify any truly non-aligned enduring democratic country with election-backed political turnovers on the African continent during the Cold War era in order to debunk Nkrumah’s choices at that time, then you have earned a place for a sensible debate with me. If not, as I have already stated, we know who you are when you spew the thick repulsive convoluted claptrap full of absurdities and hollow hype for us to read about phantom mythical traditions while at the same time using Nkrumah as the panacea for your ills and insecurities. Some of us are old enough to remember the actual effects and consequences of colonialism, and what happened during the European colonial control and the Western and Eastern Cold War ideological influences and devastations.
We know what happened under colonial control, even if you young ones can only read about the period. We also know of the advent of Nkrumah. Some of us were lucky enough at that time to have experienced Nkrumah. We also remember the independence struggles and the real leaders and principals who made it happen. I mean the Real Big Six that brought the famous chuckle to our famous professor. Anyway, whenever the professor is “beside himself with uncontrollable laughter,” we all have to stop, pay attention, and read about it all over the world in his usual “nauseous fanaticism of many a fire-and-brimstone” write-ups.
The Real Altruist
Now, should we also repackage Nkrumah just as they have done with Danquah and Busia? Hell, NO! Nkrumah does not need it. There is no need to re-present Nkrumah to Ghanaians and the world. The man carries a solid legacy and there is no need to embellish further a personality whose glow blinds across continents. He is still the undisputed preeminent luminary and a visionary whose reputation precedes him and is always unaffected by the persistent harassment and the ever-unfulfilling efforts to debase him.
For all we know about the man, the only additional accolade attributable to ODKN is that of the MOST OUTSTANDING AFRICAN ALTRUIST, bar none. As expected of all African leaders and politicians when out of office, he was accused not only of being dictatorial but also of being many things he turned out not to be, such as being personally corrupt, thieving, tribalist, and countless indefensible charges, charges that this administration is so guilty of. When all accusations failed, his haters have resorted to crass infantilism, like the writings of the aforementioned surrogates and their transport of Nkrumah to the 21st century in the desperate try to explain away the excesses and foibles of the current government and its “group’s” past usurpations and the current tribal discrimination.
The regular bombardments of deleterious bastardized rhetorical exercises of the surrogates have been described elsewhere as “redundant punditry,” especially the ones that are often placed on this website by that flip-flopper of a professor who knows so much that all of us have to be educated by only him. Together with him and his sanctimonious attitude, the moral turpitude of many of you, especially the politicians, who are imbued with the skill for fictive promises, sick addictions, sprees of duplicity, obfuscations, and disgusting and disquieting opulence, represents the combination of a character model not to acquire or emulate. Yet the warped nature of the easily corruptible Ghanaian mind makes it extremely difficult to place a check on their corrupt ways.
Where then has the proven Nkrumah altruism gone? Where has selfless service to one’s country gone? I dare you, the reader, to search high and low in Ghana today for a trace of a completely unadulterated altruism in any public servant; I mean, true selflessness in the political, military, law enforcement, judicial, the civil service, and even in family interrelationships. If you can at least find it in any Ghanaian of stature today, let me know and I, in turn, have a free prime real estate in a snake, crocodile, and mosquito infested swampland somewhere in Ghana just for you. Nkrumah had it but sadly took it with him. The one-person altruism in Ghana died when Nkrumah died. Those bold enough to claim selfless service to their country today forget conveniently they are selfless only to themselves and their immediate families, and the hell with everyone else. These days, tribal exclusivity and elitism is back in style with an indescribable formidability and bellicosity. As long as they are consistent in throwing a few crumbs and bones the way of what they perceive as “fringe” tribal groups (go back and read some of the professor’s past writings), they can safely keep for their families and tribe the rich slabs of Ghana’s scant resources.
Self-interest, without a scintilla of concern for the victimized or the downtrodden, is the order of the day. Nowadays, top-down grab and run rules the day; or, rather, top-down grab and stay, in order to grab some more, has become the norm, and that is why it is going to be extremely impossible or even improbable to get rid of the current ruling party. Their time has come, they say. I am very afraid that they do not plan on vacating the seat of power quietly. Mark my words that if they have no choice but to go, they intend to go kicking and screaming and throwing disturbing tantrums. They will stir up a dusty tornadic storm the extent of which the country has never experienced. They claim that it took fifty years to get to where they are now, so what makes you think they will up and let go quietly? In other words, brace yourselves. Buckle your belts a little tighter. Grab a sturdy cord and tie it well around your waste to hold up your kente toga. We are in for a bumpy ride between now and January 2009. With the discovery of commercial-grade offshore oil (money swine) and the election season now here, hold on really, really tight, because the punditry and the hopeless hype has only just begun. If that notorious loudest-screaming pundit in the U.S. offers you his slanted political propaganda once every week, get ready for more intense disgruntled partisan crap from him.
Have a pleasant day.
Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.
