Mr. Eastman, stick with what you know (whatever that may be), but comparing Ms Johnson-Sirleaf to one of the greatest statesman the world has ever known is just ridiculous. It goes to show that you don't know enough about either of them. What has Sirleaf ever sacrificed besides the lives and well-being of her own country men and women to foster her own political career? It is sad to see that the TRC has been relegated to a platform by washed-up politicians seeking employment to kiss this lady's behind. It's just a shame.

What have the previous governments done to bring Liberians together? Liberia, a nation just slightly larger than the size of the American state of Tennessee, doesn’t have roads to link its 15 counties. Liberians are not together; that point is truth. We need to bring our people together, not just in thoughts but physically, too. Just words will not do it; we need action, which had been elusive from the very creation of the state of Liberia. People in government should serve; put the people first!

It is going to take more than just the President to bring than together, and the people of Liberia have pivotal roles to play, too. The best way to promote national cohesion is by increasing the interaction of its people. The roads are deplorable. It takes three, four or sometimes five days for average people traveling from Monrovia to Harper to get to their destination, and this is just a little over 300 miles.

Why is it that people keep comparing the Sirleaf's government to previous ones? What past administration do you guys have in mind when you make statements like this? Is it Taylor's, Bryant's, Doe's, Tolbert's or Tubman's? Wasn't the war a violent referendum that previous administrations have failed? The Johnson-Sirleaf's Administration wasn't suppose to be like no other in our nation's history, that is the point. Should we applaud the Sirleaf's Administration because it's not practicing ethnic cleansing or we should be happy because it does not have a secret police unit terrorizing its citizens? Comparing the Sirleaf's Administration to previous ones is like saying, "Taylor killed my ma and pa but Sirleaf is only killing my children, so it's okay." Why should we accept anything less than a government by, for and of the people? I don't care if Doe tried to kill a whole tribe and Sirleaf only killed one person or Taylor looted a billion dollars and Sirleaf only stole 1 cent, it's wrong to kill and steal and the Liberian people deserve better. We shouldn't be comparing which administration is or was the worst, we should be debating the contrary. This is not a race to the bottom, it's a race to the top.

Slam dunk, dude: ALL SOUPISTS ARE THE SAME IN A PERCUSSIVE STREAM OF INSUBSTANTIAL, EPHEMERAL AND MENDACIOUS 'DIFFERENCES.'

Kindest Felicitations.

Effacing the substantive issue of Sirleaf's efforts at 'nation' building, may I suggest that in polite, bourgeois circles one does not refer to a symbol of authority's "behind." And "kissing it" is obviously way off the top, rocking in land looneydom or plain old ill breeding.

One has to be sensitive with critiquing female public figures, and I am not here being paternalistic: I am sure the Lady can defend herself, in THE PROPER CONTEXT, WITH VERBA PROFANE. The point, rather, is that one does not refer to a woman's derrier as an intentional object of "kissing." That antonomical object has a more potent function, which even dogs perform unintentionally and without effort. Moreover, a African woman's derrier is valued by most African men as the most amorous aspect of the constitution of womanhood; unlike a well-known obsession with a woman's "boob" and "hour glass figure" in the 'West.'

Webster is full of more urbane ways of expressing the intending symbolic or conceptual thought; yea, even Webster.

Look him up, next time.

Cheers.

Mr. Komoh Winn, let me apologize first for using your comments to lash out on all the comparisons of the Johnson-Sirleaf's Administration to previous ones. I must also say that my comments were not necesarily directed towards you specifically but to all those previous authors making those comparisons. What I get from those comparisons is that somehow we all should be happy because the Ellen's Administration is not as abusive as the others that have come before it. As far as your statement about how previous administrations had not done enough to bring our people together by not building roads, let me say that their failure was not due to lack of funds. It was a conscious and deliberate decision by previous administrations( especially the TWP) to marginalized, disenfranchised and subjugate their fellow country men and women while at the same time forcing them to pay taxes. This is why I strongly disagree with the TRC planners assertion that our conflict started in 1979. Once again, I'm sorry.

Mr. Jallohlaw, your communication through Allafrica.com is what I refer to as impossibl or what a school colleague of mind use to refer to as student companion type-presenting large proportion of words without clarity. Generally, the essence of communication is making the speaker's audiance to understand what is being said. For you Mr. Jallohlaw, your presenting is vail, with words, that the average reader on the net do not understand what you say. Please, Mr. Jallohlaw, come down to the level of us all so we will flow with you. Leave your university philosophy courses behind and speak to the reading public.

on making sense: Thank you for the advice. I am using my Webster's Dictionary, just to understand his point.

On bringing the Liberian people together: The point I made, which was tossed out of context, is very important and warrant re-stating. Taking care of the people in action, not just by words, has been the way previous governments largely conducted business. Action has been elusive. Just tossing words around will not bring people together in the true sense of the word, unless I am the only Liberian who believe that physically linking rural and urban Liberia is a vital way to bring people together.

And why is it often an outrage (for some in this discussion) to compare this government to previous ones? If we do not point out the wrongs of yesterday, how can we make them right now?

Same affect here, dude: I find your communication darker than the proverbial "dark continent." As I have stated many a time, and re-iter-ate NUNC---I AIN'T HERE TO DEBATE FORMALISMS. MA

SORRY, there was a technical glitch: to continue:

Do you not understand that even your definition of 'communication' is soaked in theory: where is your empirical evidence for your definition? Furthermore, I don't give a rat's tail about your opinion about my modus of expression. And, this will be my last word on this matter.

I am quite satisfied with the form and content of my written VERBA.

OMINOUSLY, may I remind you that this tired syndrome on African fora on communication is encoded in the archives of THIS site. I suggest you pay a visit thereat. It wasn't pretty, dude, and I don't think you want to step into that swamp. Lonta.

Finally, if you find my writings, "unclear," , bla, bla, you are not obliged to read them; just roll on to writing that is not above your head.

Finally, where is your evidence that I ever took 'philosophy' courses at any university or college?

My friend, back off: been there, done that. Check out the archives, to reiterate.

Kindest Felicitations.

PS: ditto: for your amen echoe or shadow below this posting.

I'll say again: if you can't comprehend my prose, keep on trucking dudes garmack and winn. I am not writing for any "average" reader, or in lexicon de jour among the Yanks, "the average Joe." En passant, who is an "average" reader?

Second, I am here to debate controverted, reasonably undecidable issues, not linguistic formalisms and other forms of academic mumbo jumbo, your reference to 'philosophy' inclusive: go to the universe Ivy for that crap.

Third, whoever told you that the "essence" of communication is bla, bla, bla? I suppose some obscure university philosophy professor. Then, go tell him or her to take a hike: essences are hard to capture, dude: ask transcendental constitutive phenomenologists in the tradition of Edmund Husserl. I suppose, you'll have to look that one up too.

Anyway, I hope that you fail to comprehend a word of this thread: move on to the average writer, 'cuz I ain't no average writer.

And, if you got a problem with that, it is your problem, not mine.

Highest Considerations and Regards.