Re: Allow pregnant students write [sic] BECE

Read Comments Comments (30)

• Wofa Kwame 9 years ago

  Teacher bone!
  
  Kwame

  Teacher bone!
  
  Kwame

  reply
• KWAKU D 9 years ago

  Everyone, including grandmothers should take the BECE in order to further their education. EDUCATION is the key word. That is how we are going to move ahead. ALL women are a key part of this development effort. This is what ...
  read full comment

  Everyone, including grandmothers should take the BECE in order to further their education. EDUCATION is the key word. That is how we are going to move ahead. ALL women are a key part of this development effort. This is what the Education Ministry is trying to point out in their directive. This is very important, let us not play around with it. Even prisoners in jail should sit the BECE.
  
  Sexual practices as the writer describes of teachers etc need to be dealt with through education and enforcement of the law. Sex education to school children would help them to better understand their sexuality and their responsibilities. The GES should also establish structures to support students who are pressured by teachers and other more 'powerful' people in the society. Pregnancy should not be a time to penalise and terrorise our girls who would already be under immense stress. The whole country loses out in the end when even a single child is not encouraged to further their education.

  reply
• IDRIS PACAS 9 years ago

  Throughout the write-up, I didn't state that pregnant women should not be allowed to take BECE.
  
  Maybe, a second reading will help those confusing the two issues.
  
  Pregnant students have been writing BECE long ago, but th ...
  read full comment

  Throughout the write-up, I didn't state that pregnant women should not be allowed to take BECE.
  
  Maybe, a second reading will help those confusing the two issues.
  
  Pregnant students have been writing BECE long ago, but the directive coming from the MOE sought to suggest that teachers were preventing them from doing so. That's the 'why' of this article.
  
  I love everybody's comment.
  
  God bless us all.

  reply
• HAWA YAKUBU 9 years ago

  They should be allowed to write. Don't double kill them. Becoming mothers while in school will be a good learning process and a change of attitude towards life in general. Don't blame the victim.

  They should be allowed to write. Don't double kill them. Becoming mothers while in school will be a good learning process and a change of attitude towards life in general. Don't blame the victim.

  reply
• Kwabena 9 years ago

  The writer don't have to write a sequel to this piece because it is useless. Pregnancy is not a disease. Shame on the writer for such an ignorant and less researched article.

  The writer don't have to write a sequel to this piece because it is useless. Pregnancy is not a disease. Shame on the writer for such an ignorant and less researched article.

  reply
• IGEO 9 years ago

  The writer did not say that pregnant students should be banned from taking BECE.

  The writer did not say that pregnant students should be banned from taking BECE.

  reply
• francis kwarteng 9 years ago

  Dear Brother Idris,
  
  I always learn somethng new, provocative, educative, and thoughtful in your masterpices, your well-written essays.
  
  Could you pease send me your email, Brother Idris? Mine is franciskkwarteng@yahoo.c ...
  read full comment

  Dear Brother Idris,
  
  I always learn somethng new, provocative, educative, and thoughtful in your masterpices, your well-written essays.
  
  Could you pease send me your email, Brother Idris? Mine is franciskkwarteng@yahoo.com
  
  Thank you.

  reply
• KB 9 years ago

  Just look at his earlier articles and you'll find his email there...

  Just look at his earlier articles and you'll find his email there...

  reply
• francis kwarteng 9 years ago

  Dear KB,
  
  Thanks a lot.
  
  I did not look via through the entire wardrobe of his Ghanaweb articles. I did go through only a few.
  
  Fortunately I got it in his first Ghanaweb article. Your suggestion worked for me.
  
  Tha ...
  read full comment

  Dear KB,
  
  Thanks a lot.
  
  I did not look via through the entire wardrobe of his Ghanaweb articles. I did go through only a few.
  
  Fortunately I got it in his first Ghanaweb article. Your suggestion worked for me.
  
  Thanks, KB!

  reply
• Justin 9 years ago

  Which article of our constitution prohibits pre-marital sex? Please quote relevant sections!
  
  Which directive from the GES says schools must not be maternity homes?
  
  Is the saying "silent means consent" or "silence"? Both ...
  read full comment

  Which article of our constitution prohibits pre-marital sex? Please quote relevant sections!
  
  Which directive from the GES says schools must not be maternity homes?
  
  Is the saying "silent means consent" or "silence"? Both are grammatically correct but what is really the "common" saying?
  
  Idris, you've been pointing out our common English usage mistakes. Why are you being so careless yourself?
  
  You are conflating two issues: pregnant girls taking BECE and the need to prevent teenage pregnancy. The first is limited to a certain category of girls taking BECE. The second involves ALL pre- and teenaged girls whether they are taking BECE or not. It is our duty to see to it that a 15 year old kayayo girl who has dropped out of school does not get pregnant. This has nothing to do with BECE. If that same girl reaches 19 and decides to go back to school and happens to get pregnant a few months before the BECE, why should she be prevented from taking the exams?
  
  You should have presented all your arguments at once. I hate articles in multiple parts. I want to see how you'll argue that preventing pregnant girls from taking BECE will help to reduce teenaged pregnancy!

  reply
• COOL 9 years ago

  Article Common Sense.

  Article Common Sense.

  reply
• IDRIS PACAS 9 years ago

  And I quote you 'Is the saying "silent means consent" or "silence"? Both are grammatically correct but what is really the "common" saying?'
  
  Please, read Murphy's law which proves that any writing aiming to criticize an ea ...
  read full comment

  And I quote you 'Is the saying "silent means consent" or "silence"? Both are grammatically correct but what is really the "common" saying?'
  
  Please, read Murphy's law which proves that any writing aiming to criticize an earlier one is often padded with errors.
  
  You agree that both 'silent means consent' and 'silence means consent' are grammatically correct. Your question should have been 'What is really the commoner or more common saying?'
  
  This reason is that you're comparing two sayings.Use comparative instead of the positive.
  
  Pointing out other person's mistakes in English does not make me immune to making some. Even Winston Churchill himself ever used 'it's' in place of 'its'. Anyway, thank you for being appreciate of my little contribution to educating our children.
  
  Reread my write-up. I never stated that pregnant women should not take BECE. I have sent pregnant student from my school to sit for BECE one or two times and no supervisor prevented them from doing the exams. I was therefore surprised at the directive which claim that some pregnant pupils were prevented from taking BECE.
  
  You must love reading articles in parts. I couldn't have presented a several-paged article that will intimidate and prevent readers from evening scrolling through it. Shorter articles are ethical to online writing.
  
  God bless us all.

  reply
• Justin 9 years ago

  Yes, I was comparing two things and should use the comparative. But note that the comparative will not convey my concerns here. Of the two statements, only one is used. The other is not used at all. I am not concerned with wh ...
  read full comment

  Yes, I was comparing two things and should use the comparative. But note that the comparative will not convey my concerns here. Of the two statements, only one is used. The other is not used at all. I am not concerned with which one is used more than the other and a comparative is not appropriate here. Note also that I placed "common" in citations which should've told you that I am not concerned with a mere comparative here.
  
  A point of interest. I live in a Western European country whose native language uses the superlative even for comparisons between two things. It was strange for me at first but after two decades here, it now sounds very natural to me...
  
  But you agree that our constitution doesn't prevent pre-marital sex...

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 9 years ago

  1. Which law states that basic education is for those who have not reached the age of consent?
  
  2. What compelling national interest is served by restricting the right of pregnant pupils to take the BECE?
  
  3. What commens ...
  read full comment

  1. Which law states that basic education is for those who have not reached the age of consent?
  
  2. What compelling national interest is served by restricting the right of pregnant pupils to take the BECE?
  
  3. What commensurate/proportionate sanction should be imposed on males that impregnated these girls? Should they also be banned from taking exams?
  
  4. If no rule makes the school a maternity home, does any rule bar it from becoming one?
  
  I know you to be rather petty, but your diminutive reasoning in this context is a new low. Be careful.

  reply
• Justin 9 years ago

  Is it not enoughy to critcize his argument? Do you also have to call his reasoning diminutive?

  Is it not enoughy to critcize his argument? Do you also have to call his reasoning diminutive?

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 9 years ago

  Calling his reasoning diminutive is part and parcel of criticizing his argument.

  Calling his reasoning diminutive is part and parcel of criticizing his argument.

  reply
• Justin 9 years ago

  You just cannot bring yourself to accept the fact that it was needless for you to call his reasoning diminutive when you've made such a good criticism of his substantive argument.

  You just cannot bring yourself to accept the fact that it was needless for you to call his reasoning diminutive when you've made such a good criticism of his substantive argument.

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 9 years ago

  I retract "diminutive" in exchange for your unalloyed support of the substantive criticism, my good brother.

  I retract "diminutive" in exchange for your unalloyed support of the substantive criticism, my good brother.

  reply
• Justin 9 years ago

  Some small things can mean a lot. This makes me regard you with more respect than before...
  
  And I mean it!
  
  Case closed.

  Some small things can mean a lot. This makes me regard you with more respect than before...
  
  And I mean it!
  
  Case closed.

  reply
• francis kwarteng 9 years ago

  Dear Dr. SAS,
  
  I am happy to find you here.
  
  Let me take this opportunity to clarify an idea I did not make sententially complete in reference to "Dr. Kofi Dompere On Nkrumah's Scientific Thinking (4)." It has to do with ...
  read full comment

  Dear Dr. SAS,
  
  I am happy to find you here.
  
  Let me take this opportunity to clarify an idea I did not make sententially complete in reference to "Dr. Kofi Dompere On Nkrumah's Scientific Thinking (4)." It has to do with the following statement:
  
  "Personally I have not delved into these apocryphal claims because of their lack of substance."
  
  What I wanted to say simply was that, such bogus claims as Nkrumah not writing his own books did not merit my intellectual expenditure and analytic time, or those of any serious scholar for that matter, on Ghanaweb or in any of my essays, specifically, because they lacked incontrovertible certifiability.
  
  Seriously I do not waste time on frivolities, to put it another way, if not mildly. Besides, I used up all the slots I had, ten in all, to exhaustively respond to your other remarks.
  
  For instance, I had expected you to directly respond to my statements on William Faulkner's and Harriet S. Stowe's ungrammatical writings in your general assessment of Amos Tuluola's "The Palm Wine Drinkard."
  
  Instead you chose to selectively deal with the latter, particularly Amos Tutuola's, to the neglect of the rest. There were other writers beside Faulkner and Stowe whose writings I had wanted you to comprehensively address but which you selectively glossed over as well. I put them together with Amos Tutuola's writings for a good reason.
  
  Then again, you selectively ignored my mentioning Vladimir Lenin, another "dictator," and why he, Vladimir Lenin, that is, wrote extensively as a leader of Russia after the October 1917 Revolution. Let me recall the snippet I gave you in that regard about Lenin:
  
  "His 'Collected Works' comprise 54 volumes, each of about 650 pages, translated into Englsih in 45 volumes..."
  
  How did he achieve so much authorially given that he died at 53 or 54? Let me add for emphasis that Lenin, like all leaders in the 20 century and the 21st century, had speech writers!
  
  Further, the empire Lenin ruled over was a million times geopolitically larger than Nkrumah's tiny Ghana and that its challenges and problems a billions times "bigger" than Kwame Nkrumah's tiny Ghana. The question is, how could Lenin have written prolifically as a leader of such a big empire?
  
  You have said "dictators" do not have creative ideas, but how come Lenin implemented a philosohy, a concept only theoretically developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, recalling that he practically actualized socialism as a state policy, which become the bases of democratic socialism in Europe and now of South/Latin America?
  
  How can Lenin's ("dictator") and later his ideological descendants' push of socialism/communism across the world influence democratic leaders, such as Franklin R. Roosevelt, to make socialist ideas part of his New Deal, etc, in order to suppress socialist/communist tendencies in America? How can a "dictator" influence the world?
  
  Please you need to go back in time, probably 7000 years of human history, and read intensely about historical figures. You can try Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, China, Babylon, pre-Columbia America, Greco-Roman Empires, Ancient Isreal (Babylonian/Jerusalem Talmud, Torah, etc), Ghana/Songhai, Mali Empires, etc.
  
  That should expose you to which leader(s) and what kind of leader(s) produced which ideas that are part of our contemporary existence.
  
  If you have not done this already, you should start with Niccoli Machiaveli's "The Prince," that is, if you have not read it already. We can then discuss Machiavelli's life and the book in detail.
  
  Anyway, University of Pensylvannia (an Ivy League institution) has archived some of Nkrumah's writings while he studied there. A simple google search of the university's website will take you directly to these essays. You can use these authorial samples as benchmarks to assess Nkrumah's writing skills.
  
  And do find time to read the references I have given so far because I believe they will open your eyes to a lot of things, particularly regarding the history of ideas (history of philosophy, history of science, history of knowledge, etc). We can begin here.
  
  Thanks.

  reply
• francis kwarteng 9 years ago

  Dear Dr. SAS,
  
  I am happy to find you here again.
  
  Let me take this opportunity to clarify an idea I did not make sententially complete in reference to "Dr. Kofi Dompere On Nkrumah's Scientific Thinking (4)." It has to d ...
  read full comment

  Dear Dr. SAS,
  
  I am happy to find you here again.
  
  Let me take this opportunity to clarify an idea I did not make sententially complete in reference to "Dr. Kofi Dompere On Nkrumah's Scientific Thinking (4)." It has to do with the following statement:
  
  "Personally I have not delved into these apocryphal claims because of their lack of substance."
  
  What I wanted to say simply was that, such bogus claims as Nkrumah not writing his own books did not merit my intellectual expenditure and analytic time, or those of any serious scholar for that matter, on Ghanaweb or in any of my essays, specifically, because they lacked incontrovertible certifiability.
  
  Seriously I do not waste time on frivolities, to put it another way, if not mildly. Besides, I used up all the slots I had, ten in all, to exhaustively respond to your other remarks.
  
  For instance, I had expected you to directly respond to my statements on William Faulkner's and Harriet S. Stowe's ungrammatical writings in your general assessment of Amos Tuluola's "The Palm Wine Drinkard."
  
  Instead you chose to selectively deal with the latter, particularly Amos Tutuola's, to the neglect of the rest. There were other writers beside Faulkner and Stowe whose writings I had wanted you to comprehensively address but which you selectively glossed over as well. I put them together with Amos Tutuola's writings for a good reason.
  
  Then again, you selectively ignored my mentioning Vladimir Lenin, another "dictator," and why he, Vladimir Lenin, that is, wrote extensively as a leader of Russia after the October 1917 Revolution. Let me recall the snippet I gave you in that regard about Lenin:
  
  "His 'Collected Works' comprise 54 volumes, each of about 650 pages, translated into Englsih in 45 volumes..."
  
  How did he achieve so much authorially given that he died at 53 or 54? Let me add for emphasis that Lenin, like all leaders in the 20 century and the 21st century, had speech writers!
  
  Further, the empire Lenin ruled over was a million times geopolitically larger than Nkrumah's tiny Ghana and that its challenges and problems a billions times "bigger" than Kwame Nkrumah's tiny Ghana. The question is, how could Lenin have written prolifically as a leader of such a big empire?
  
  You have said "dictators" do not have creative ideas, but how come Lenin implemented a philosohy, a concept only theoretically developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, recalling that he practically actualized socialism as a state policy, which become the bases of democratic socialism in Europe and now of South/Latin America?
  
  How can Lenin's ("dictator") and later his ideological descendants' push of socialism/communism across the world influence democratic leaders, such as Franklin R. Roosevelt, to make socialist ideas part of his New Deal, etc, in order to suppress socialist/communist tendencies in America? How can a "dictator" influence the world?
  
  Please you need to go back in time, probably 7000 years of human history, and read intensely about historical figures. You can try Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, China, Babylon, pre-Columbia America, Greco-Roman Empires, Ancient Isreal (Babylonian/Jerusalem Talmud, Torah, etc), Ghana/Songhai, Mali Empires, etc.
  
  That should expose you to which leader(s) and what kind of leader(s) produced which ideas that are part of our contemporary existence.
  
  If you have not done this already, you should start with Niccoli Machiaveli's "The Prince," that is, if you have not read it already. We can then discuss Machiavelli's life and the book in detail.
  
  Anyway, University of Pensylvannia (an Ivy League institution) has archived some of Nkrumah's writings while he studied there. A simple google search of the university's website will take you directly to these essays. You can use these authorial samples as benchmarks to assess Nkrumah's writing skills.
  
  And do find time to read the references I have given so far because I believe they will open your eyes to a lot of things, partcularly regarding the history of ideas (history of philosophy, history of science, history of knowledge, etc). We can begin here.
  
  Thanks.

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 9 years ago

  1. I have read all the authors you cited. I do not find their works to be ungrammatical. You should reconsider your understanding of "ungrammatical" because it appears to be overbroad to include the creative/unique use of lan ...
  read full comment

  1. I have read all the authors you cited. I do not find their works to be ungrammatical. You should reconsider your understanding of "ungrammatical" because it appears to be overbroad to include the creative/unique use of language which adds to its growth and versatility.
  Besides, I found the focus on grammar to be collateral to the core argument in play. I stated that Nkrumah's use of English was near pidgin....and I was basically referring to his spoken English, as opposed to his written works. I meant that given his ugly accent and lack of proficiency in his spoken English, he could not have been good enough to write the books he was alleged to have written.
  
  2. Lenin was not a dictator; Stalin, Idi Amin, Bokasa, Yaya Jammin, Ghaddafi etc were/are.
  
  3. Machiaveli was not a dictator or ruler himself. He formulated the notorious philosophy of tyranny which the likes of Nkrumah judiciously applied.
  
  4. All those you cite to support your assumption that dictators are smart were never dictators in the real sense of the word, or to the level of Nkrumah; and if they were, they never wrote any philosophy.
  
  5. Wisdom/philosophy abhors dictatorship, and so one has to be mentally crippled to be a dictator in the first place. It is stupidity and mental retardation that make one decide to be a dictator. A wise ruler runs away from tyranny because its end is pretty ugly. The kind of tyrannical things Nkrumah did were so repugnant that it will take an arrant moron to come close! I have said before that one is not wise by night and stupid by day...

  reply
• Mark (UK) 9 years ago

  Dear SAS,
  Before any comments, I need to add the 'caveat' that I have not read the whole rejoinder you allude to here and some parts produced below. The little you produce is to say the least scndalous. You state that:
  'Nk ...
  read full comment

  Dear SAS,
  Before any comments, I need to add the 'caveat' that I have not read the whole rejoinder you allude to here and some parts produced below. The little you produce is to say the least scndalous. You state that:
  'Nkrumah's use of English was near pidgin....and I was basically referring to his spoken English, as opposed to his written works. I meant that given his ugly accent and lack of proficiency in his spoken English, he could not have been good enough to write the books he was alleged to have written'.
  Do you have facts to prove that his English was near pidgin. I have listened to a lot of Nkrumah's statements and have not found them to be near pidgin.
  I need to add that as a nation, we do not write enough. Only a few Ghanaians write books at all. No wonder you think Nkrumah is incapable of writing the books attributed to him.
  I hope yours is not a case of Nkrumah-bashing as is common in this forum.

  reply
• francis kwarteng 9 years ago

  Dear Dr. SAS,
  
  There you go.
  
  If Vladimir Lenin is not a "dictator," then Nkrumah is not. We all know Nkrumah was never a "dictator" in any sense of the word. You have not addressed why Lenin's "dictatororial" tendencies ...
  read full comment

  Dear Dr. SAS,
  
  There you go.
  
  If Vladimir Lenin is not a "dictator," then Nkrumah is not. We all know Nkrumah was never a "dictator" in any sense of the word. You have not addressed why Lenin's "dictatororial" tendencies led to maor assassination attempts on hiis life. We shall come back to Vladimir Lenin soon.
  
  You have again proved to me that you have not vigorously studied William Faulkner's or Harriet Beecher Stowe's works. For instance, you have not adressed William Faulkner's heavy use of ungrammatical Southern "vernacular" or "slang" in some of his major writings.
  
  Moreover, some of the works of Maya Angelou, Amiri Baraka, and Toni Morrison (a Nobel Laureate), to name but three, are imbued with such ungrammatical elements as well. Particularly, you should find and read Amiri Baraka's controversial poem on September 11, for instance, and may of his other poems and non-poetic writings. Get copies of Amiri Baraka's collected works and read them.
  
  More Importantly, Harvard University's critical theorist and literary critic Henry Louis Gates, Jr., has also dealt with some of these major topics in his National Book Award book "The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African-American Literary Criticism" and its prequel "Figures in Black: Words, Signs, and the "Racial Self" Self.
  
  Then listen to Toni Morrison's interviews about the stylistic trajectory of her literary works on YouTube. There are so many of them on the internet. You should also read Prof. Nellie Yvonne McKay's major work on Toni Morrisson (Book: "Critical Essays on Toni Morrison"), a critical work that brought Morrison's work to the attention of the Pulitzer and Nobel Committees.
  
  I also mentioned Claude McKay, a major Jaimaican-American poet, who employed patois, genereally deemed ungrammatical when seen particularly from the angle of the standard rules of English, for which he earned international accolades. He has whole patois-written poems in his corpus of literary works.
  
  There is even a large corpus of ungrammatical written works (English) that I cannot begin to touch upon here, which, interestingly, has won the critical admiration and respect of literary scholars around the world.
  
  And finally, back to Vladimir Lenin, you have not adequately addressed why Vladimir Lenin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, to name but three, used Machiavelli's "The Prince" in underwrite their political ascendency, as well as to advance their political careers, to sustain their hold on political power, among others. For instance, Mussonili for one did his doctoral dissertation on "The Prince."
  
  Again, I cited "The Prince" to see how far you have gone in your readings and how these three men, Hitler, Mussolini, and Lenin (though I did not exlicitly mention Hitler and Mussolini in my origical comments to you), again, to name but three, generally considered "brutal dictators," leaders who used the dictaorial prescriptions of "The Prince" to annihilate their enemies, perceived and real, in order to implement their ideas as well as to hold unto power.
  
  Let us not forget that Machiavelli at a point in time managed the Florentine militia and even engaged in a purported subversive takeover of the Medicis, for which he was briefly imprisoned and tortured.
  
  What is more, the Florentine militia under his watch did horrible things to their "enemies." And both of his major works "The Prince" and "Discourss on Livy" did contribute overwhelimgly to dictatarship around the world. Why? Because his political role in Florentine affairs was not too far from the "dictaorial" theories he esposued in both works! Therefore, do not make him a saint!
  
  Regarding Vladimir Lenin, however, it just so happpened that Lenin's rule was shortlived as a result of his debilitating stroke. Usually scholars consider the length of time a leader rules his people as part of the general sociological definition of "dictatorship."
  
  Yet again, your response regarding the politics of Vladimir Lenin clearly informs my view, though I may be wrong in my implicit conclusions, that you have not thoroughly acquainted yourself with Lenin and his politics, the coup/revolution that brought him to power, and the summary executions that made his passage to the Russian presidency and purchase on political power possible. Nkrumah did not execute his opponents/enemies as Lenin did, nor did he imprison people on a massive scale and arbitrarily as Lenin did.
  
  And you have not said anything about the political and ideological continuity between Lenin and Leon Trotsky and Josef Stalin, to name but two. Stalin merely refined aspects of Vladimir Lenin's ideologies while he still stuck with the core tenets of Lenin's political philosphy, to which the political theory of "The Prince" is central.
  
  Furthermore, Aleksandre Solzhelnitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" and Hitler's "Mein Kampf," to name but two books, undeniably have the political imprint of "The Prince" all over them. I have studied both works thoroughly, Hitler's and Solzhelnisyn's, to come to this conclusion. Scholars of 20th-Centuy political history (Europe and Euro-Asia) have come to similar conclusions.
  
  Again, you will have to acquaint yourslelf with the political writngs of Leon Trotsky, a confidant of Vladimir Lenin and strategic/tactIcal military genius, works such as "History of the Russian Revolusion," "My Life: An Attempt at An Autobiography," "The War Correpondence of Leon Trotsky: The Balkans Wars 1912-13," "The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects," etc.
  
  These major works make Nkrumah an angel and a saint! Trotsky was the strategic/tactical brain behind the revolusions that brought Vladimir Lenin to power. Lenin heavily used him for his political ends. Vladimir Lenin's and Leon Trotsky's endorsement of summary executions is well documented and well known.
  
  Thus, your claim that Lenin was not a "dictator" comes as a major shock to me. In fact you are probably one of the first persons I have come across who holds this opinion. Many Russians destroyed some of Vladiir Lenin's works as well as some of his statues when the USSR finally broke up.
  
  There is also the general misconception that only politicians can be "dictators." Abstract concepts like "company," "institution," "multinational," "venture capitalism," "organized crime," etc., can all be "dictators" as well. There is the other dangerous misconeption that non-Western societies and their leaders can never be "dictaors." The history of the Catholic Church and the papacy is a typical example.
  
  For instance, Dr. Frederick J. Baumgartner's scholary work "France in the Sixteen Century" deals with the historical question of the French Revolution (as well as the brutal dictartoship of the papacy--see also David Kertzer's book "The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe) and its impact on modern political instruments and institutions. Generally, the French Revolution produced the Firing Squad, which became a fixture of 20th-century dictatorships around the world (still used today in the 21st Century). Some American lawyers are even advocating the institutional implementation of the Firing Squad in place of lethal injections and the lectric chair!
  
  Pointedly, the abuses of the French Revolution were even more than we could associate with Ghana's Preventive Detention Act (PDA). On the other hand, the National Liberation Council's Protective Custody Decree (PCD) may come close to the French Revolution it its arbitrary execution and the sheer numberical preponderance of innocent Ghanaians who suffered under it, a situation Busia himself criticized.
  
  In fact that same inglorious and infamous French Revolution would reinforce the political grounding of the so-called "Age of Enlightenment." And you know what is interesting though? Some of those Enlitghtenment thinkers whose ideas are part of modernity, then and now, collaborated with European monarchcal despots to suppress dissent, to make their monarchcal rule dictatorial.
  
  Machaivelli's political life represents that prime example of moral contradiction. Progressives and democrats can be "dictators" as well. JB Danquah, Felix Houghouet-Boigny, and KA Busia are good examples. Nkrumah was just as progressive and democratic. Period!
  
  That was why I hinted to you that the world was/is not as simple as you think. This is also why I asked you to go back in time and study human history (political figures, specifically), because doing so shatters your theories. Yet, the other important question to ask is, How can an Enlightenment thinker who intellectually professes democracy, rule of law, humanism, and equality be at the same time part of dictatorship? How can French society, supposedly an enlightened one at that, publicly profess "Liberte, egalite, fraternite" while she still enslaved Africans and Native Americans?
  
  Let's get back to the West. The extensive works of American scholars like Dr. Naom Chomsky and Dr. Peter Kuznick (for instance, Kuznick's book "The Untold History of the United States"), both of whose scholarly works heavily rely on Western declassified documents, especially America's, debunk the misconception that Western leaders or societies cannot be "dictators."
  
  Their heavily declassified-driven scholarly works tell you how Western governemts went/go about making dictators around the non-Western world, men thet know will categorically represent Western interests. Question: Are you not a dictator if you make or colaborate with one?
  
  That having being said, both scholars have also shown that periodic examples from the long history of Western democracy share may features with dictartorihips around the world. Western involvment in slavery, colonialism, imperialism, neocolonialism, etc., is no different from what the sociaists/commmunists did.
  
  For instance, Gore Vidal, the late American writer, did say American never practiced or believed in democracy. And America's multiparty (political duopoly/bivarchy) is a relatively new concept. American democracy is simply reduced to franchise! Only a minority of powerful interest groups made up of white males rule this country. The rest, mostly poor, are under the whimsical dictatorship of the numerical minory, white males/corporations.
  
  I wish I had more time and space to go deeper than I have done here. You and I shall surelly take up this issue again!
  
  Thank you!

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 9 years ago

  I think you are all over the place......
  
  1.I am not going to debate whether or not Lenin was a dictator. You made a value judgment that he is. I say that he is not.
  
  2. I am not going to debate the grammaticality of the ...
  read full comment

  I think you are all over the place......
  
  1.I am not going to debate whether or not Lenin was a dictator. You made a value judgment that he is. I say that he is not.
  
  2. I am not going to debate the grammaticality of the writers you mention. I am an English major, and I say that their works are grammatical. Remember that grammar connotes the rule of a language, whether slang or even pidgin. I said Nkrumah spoke near- pidgin, not that he was ungrammatical, and I explained this point in my previous post. Your focus on grammar is therefore moot. If you impliedly agree that Nkrumah spoke near pidgin, this should suffice.
  
  3. I will not debate whether Machiavelli was a dictator. That question is also moot; the man is known for his theory of tyrannical leadership, not for his regime of dictatorship....
  
  4. If after abolishing due process and imprisoning his political foes, declaring himself life president, abolishing multi-party democracy and substituting himself as the final arbiter within the judiciary, Nkrumah was not a dictator, then I question your understanding of the word itself. Therefore our debate should begin from the basics: what is the meaning of "dictator"?
  
  5. I see that you have tried to insinuate that you are well read, and that I am not. You can continue to tickle yourself. If you who studied science found time to read extensively, perhaps you will give the same credit to an American trained lawyer.

  reply
• SORROPO 9 years ago

  GOOD WRITE-UP.KEEP IT UP PACAS,

  GOOD WRITE-UP.KEEP IT UP PACAS,

  reply
• Maame 9 years ago

  Idris Pascas, this is the most stupid and unintelligible article I have ever read. Many of your points don't make sense, but I will mention a few: first they are pregnant girls not women, second, if the girls should not be al ...
  read full comment

  Idris Pascas, this is the most stupid and unintelligible article I have ever read. Many of your points don't make sense, but I will mention a few: first they are pregnant girls not women, second, if the girls should not be allowed in school, then those they got pregnant with should not be allowed in school, and finally for this comment, a maternity home is not a school either. Each has its own function. If a pregnant girl needs a maternity home because she is pregnant it does not mean she doesn't need an education as well. Same way if someone gets malaria and goes into hospital, it doesn't mean that they must be expelled from school. If you are a teacher, then Ghana still has a long way to go.

  reply
• JOHN 9 years ago

  Your failure to look at his name properly prevented you from reading his article properly.

  Your failure to look at his name properly prevented you from reading his article properly.

  reply
• Mark (UK) 9 years ago

  One needs to add that one does not need a maternity home when one is pregnant. One needs such home when about to give birth. Again pregnancy is no disease.

  One needs to add that one does not need a maternity home when one is pregnant. One needs such home when about to give birth. Again pregnancy is no disease.

  reply
• princewilly@ymail.com 9 years ago

  A woman takes her 16-year-old daughter to the doctor. The doctor says: "Okay, Mrs. Jones, what's the problem?" The mother says: "It's my daughter, Darla. She keeps getting these cravings, she's putting on weight and she’s s ...
  read full comment

  A woman takes her 16-year-old daughter to the doctor. The doctor says: "Okay, Mrs. Jones, what's the problem?" The mother says: "It's my daughter, Darla. She keeps getting these cravings, she's putting on weight and she’s sick most mornings." The doctor gives Darla a good examination then turns to the mother and says: "Well, I don't know how to tell you this, but Darla is pregnant -- about four months would be my guess." The mother says: "Pregnant? She can't be. She has never ever been left alone with a man! Have you Darla?" Darla says: "No, Mother. I've never even kissed a man!" The doctor walked over to the window and just stares out it. About five minutes pass and finally the mother says: "Is there something wrong out there doctor?" The doctor replies: "No, not really. It's just that the last time anything like this happened, a star appeared in the east and three wise men came over the hill. I'll be darned if I'm going to miss it this time!"

  reply