Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Reckless People

Hired fired hired fired and hired and fired again
Arrested shackled paraded humiliated and jailed

They return consciously seeking more thrill of shame
Consumed by fear bearing gifts and praying for emperor

How vain is blind and detrimental loyalty to the soul
Conscience on vacation and decadence filling in


Reckless hopeless miserable they've been dragged by the tail
Bodies bruised battered and burning like a heatwave

Aching souls and bleeding conscience dot the landscape
Still they carry the burden under the heat and dust

The wheels keep spinning leaving the audience violently dizzy
Night becomes day man becomes God and wrong becomes right

Dreams become nightmares and burn like raging fire
Visions gloomy truth disappear and spirits melt away

Youths recruited and given bow and arrows as weapons
As child soldiers they run around shooting poems and essays

Self- swayed their egos swell and they spit rapid fire 
Misdirected shots keep hitting the wrong targets 

High on banti yomba and residing in cloud nine
A penitentiary enclosed by rings of smoke 

Lost in space they drift away in the absence of gravity
Bag full of devalued currency screaming aling domo aling nyeemi

Shrewd investment or a shockingly bad one?
Young and doing big things or digging big holes?

Thirsty but the wisdom well is dry to the bone
Who will rescue and rehabilitate the child soldiers and reckless people? 

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Gambian Turns 50

The idea of fighting for Independence, gaining it, and self-rule sounds pretty romantic, right? But as Gambia celebrates 50 years of Independence, I'm not looking at the "romantic" aspect, but the "reality" aspect instead. Where are we after 50 years? That is the question. 

Some argue that we should all be patriotic and celebrate Gambia for her beauty and culture in her 50th year of nationhood, and not ask questions or utter unfavorable comments. But is that what celebrating our Independence means? 

First, let’s look at what Independence means. Independence is a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over the territory. Second, what does it mean to be patriotic? Patriotism literally means to have love and devotion for country, which is subject to interpretation, depending on who you ask.

If by “country” you mean nature – rivers, rocks, beaches, majestic mountains, and the like, then that’s not patriotism for me. That belongs to nature and almost every country has a nice collection of rocks, rivers, beaches and mountains or hills. If that is what patriotism means, then Gambia have precious little we can claim and show massive love for, because I have seen prettier out there. And would anyone give up their life for a beach or river? Certainly not!

Patriotism is not a blind trust in anything our leaders tell us or do either, that would constitute a “mindless goose-stepping syndrome.” Waving or posting the flag can be a sign of patriotism, but that’s only outward, so let’s not cheapen the term by suggesting that it’s more than just an outward sigh. I have seen and heard Gambians express a feeling of something we superficially call “patriotism”, so the question then must be asked – what is this thing, anyway? Is it so cheap that and meaningless that a simple gesture of waving or posting a flag makes you patriotic?

In my little book, I subscribe to a patriotism deeply rooted in the reasons we sought Independence and the idea of good self-governance, not culture or scenery.  Self-governance must include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are unalienable rights endowed to man by God. The role of government is to protect the peace, our property, and preserve liberties, and doing so with the consent of the people. It’s the right of a free people to resist a government that has become abusive and destructive, as part of the laws of nature. To me, this plays a huge role in the meaning of patriotism. 

But my question still remains: Where are we after 50 years of Independence? With that, I now leave you with the National Anthem.

For The Gambia, our homeland
We strive and work and pray,
That all may live in unity,
Freedom and peace each day.

Let justice guide our actions
Towards the common good,
And join our diverse peoples
To prove man's brotherhood.

We pledge our firm allegiance,
Our promise we renew;
Keep us, great God of nations,
To The Gambia ever true.

Friday, February 13, 2015

What About Love

Do you remember that someone in your adolescent years who made your heart thump and hands sweat? Seeing them became terrifying and exhilarating. Would you see them at school? See them in the street? You hoped and prayed. But when your wishes were granted, and you got a glimpse of them, it satisfied nothing; it only inflamed you even more. You pump your fist and smile when you are alone, when you’ve achieved nothing but a mere glimpse. Every time you summon your courage or confidence to talk to them, neither will show. 

Most of us have been in love or known people that are in love. Love is all around us. Love has fascinated people throughout history with its joys and sorrows, and has inspired songs, films, novels, poems and academics whose passion is to study human interactions and relationships. We’ve all heard stories about love and how the individuals involved were affected, whether positively or negatively. 

There are stories about people in love eloping and some committing suicide because family or society said no to their love. Romantic love has traditionally been seen as dangerous in India, because it’s a threat to a well-crafted caste system in which marriages are arranged to preserve lineage and bloodlines. While “love marriages” appear to be on the rise in India now, it’s often against parents’ wishes.  People have always killed and will continue to kill in the name of love. Love makes you bold, makes you shine, makes you run real risk, which you sometimes survive, and sometimes you don’t.

Anyone will be hard pressed to precisely define love; instead, it is better to loosely describe it in its various forms. Love is a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes of interpersonal affection. This can include an emotion of strong attraction and personal attachment in a relationship.

Based on psychologist Robert Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, in the context of interpersonal relationships, “the three components of love are an intimate component, a passion component, and a decision/commitment component.” Intimacy – encompasses feelings of attachment, closeness, connectedness, and bonding. Passion – encompasses drives connected to both obsession and sexual attraction. Commitment – encompasses the decision to remain with another, whether short term or long term. Intimacy, passion and commitment are basically the pillars of love.

The dosage of love one experiences depends on the complete strength of these three components, and their strengths relative to each other. Different combinations of these three elements will determine the stages and type of love one experiences; for example, the weight of each component changes over time as a romantic relationship progresses. A relationship based on just one of the elements is less likely to succeed than one based on two or all three elements. Although Robert Sternberg’s theory includes seven different forms of love such as nonlove, friendship, infatuated love, empty love, passionate love, companionate love and Fatuous love, this piece will only focus on passionate love and companionate love.

Passionate love is also known as romantic love. Passionate love derives from a combination of the intimate and passionate components of love...romantic lovers are not only drawn physically to each other but are also bonded emotionally. A romantic relationship often starts out as infatuated love and quickly grows as intimacy develops.

Although love takes many forms, passionate love is generally present in the initial stages of every couple’s love life. It is the state of extreme captivation and the desire for each other. It is a stage of intense feelings of tenderness, elation, anxiety, sexual desire, and pleasing delight. Passionate love also causes physiological arousal, such as accelerated heartbeat, sweating, blushing, and butterflies, with a feeling of heightened excitement. These elements often dominate passionate love. New relationships are generally consumed by passionate love. 

New couples can never seem to have enough of each other. They avoid conflicts and ignore faults, all in the name of passion. Logic and reason always take the back seat when passion is in control.  Sweets and gifts power romantic passion. You will always hear “I will do anything for you,” “I will give you the world,” blah blah blah! But biochemists say this feverish stage of love usually burns out after a few years. Why? Don’t ask me, I’m not the expert here.  Perhaps the brain can’t maintain the intense neural activity of romance? Sounds reasonable to me! Without developing commitment, romantic love may quickly disappear into thin air.

Companionate love is a bit less emotionally intense than passionate love. It is defined by an intimate friendly affection and a strong attachment. It is founded on understanding, appreciation, thoughtfulness, and friendly affection. This type of love is observed in long-term relationships where passion is long gone, but where a deep affection and the element of long-term commitment remain. Gone is the “pitter patter” feeling in your heart when you see your partner! Companionate love entails the acceptance of your partner's shortcomings along with a genuine yearning to work through obstacles in a relationship. It takes commitment and nurturing to make such a relationship strong and gives it longevity.

When it comes to companionate love, because of the ease of communication in such a relationship, sex is said to be more familiar and secure with a deep knowledge and understanding of your partner, psychologically and physically. Lovers want stability and often desire and value friendship. Passion alone is not enough; being friends with your partner is critical in order for love to last. In a nutshell, companionate love can be interpreted as the affection two people feel for each other when their lives are genuinely intertwined.  With all the extra pounds and baggage time brings, a companionate relationship will still hold strong; even the arguments will have a feel of fuzziness to them, and a feeling of familiarity and comfort. 

Birds of the same feathers flock together or opposites attract? It is hard to answer the age old question as to why and who people fall in love with, but there are a few floating ideas out there that are very much valid. Proximity, similarity, chemistry, reciprocity, and physical attraction are known to play key roles in why and whom we fall in love with. Proximity brings people together by default. Being in the same geographical area brings people together and we often develop relationships with people whom we see regularly in the places we frequent. Having similar interests, values, beliefs and attitudes are other magnets that bring people closer together and can lead to a romantic relationship. 

With the brain being the main sex organ, chemistry is another agent. A rise in chemicals such as norepinephrine, dopamine and phenethylamine can create excitement and a sense of euphoria and draw people together. When people are shown a sign of interest, they tend to reciprocate, and thereby setting the wheels in motion for more interactions, which may in turn lead to a relationship. And physical attraction is generally where it all starts. You see, you like, and you approach. Though love may be universal, its cultural manifestation is not. For the Fulbe tribe in northern Cameroon, composure matters more than passion. Romance is frowned upon and men who spend too much time with their wives are taunted, and those who are weak-kneed are thought to be under a daring spell. So don’t expect to run into them at a flower shop, See's Candy store, or Victoria Secret. 

I bet we can all agree that falling in love is euphoric, fun, intriguing, and exciting, but it is not always all it's made up to be. The reasons people fall in love aren't always healthy or good for them, and sometimes falling for the wrong person can leave you emotionally and psychologically stranded. But at the end of the day, passion, which can usually be found in the earlier stages of a relationship, can diminish, but with commitment, it can turn into a healthy companionate love. In the end, this evolution that occurs in a relationship is a good thing and can be seen as a sign of a mature relationship. Personally, I believe it is ideal to have both passionate and companionate love in a relationship, given that both partners have the ability and the capacity. In addition, a strong balance between the two different types of love is something that every couple should strive to attain and preserve. Good luck!

Monday, December 29, 2014

The United States’ Footprints in Latin America – A Trail of Horror

The Western Hemisphere School for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) formerly known as the US Army School of the Americas (SOA) is a United States Department of Defense School located at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, that provides military training to Latin American countries. The length of the United States global arm is not a secret, whether economically or militarily.


After World War II, there was a heightened military and economic tension mainly between the United States and Soviet Union. World War II left the Soviet Union and the United States as the two major super powers, but they had fundamentally different economic and political interests: Soviet Union being a single party – communist state and the United States a democratic capitalist state. The power struggles between the two super powers for world dominance never actually lead to direct wars between the two, instead, is was fought through various proxy wars in Korea, Afghanistan and Vietnam, which they both supported.

In their efforts to gain the upper hand and stop communism from spreading in Latin America during the cold war, the United States initially established the School of the Americas in Panama in 1946 to train Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics, and the use of torture. It was originally named the Army Caribbean School and renamed The School of Americas in1963. But the school was expelled from Panama in 1984 under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. Panama’s former President, Jorge Illueca described the School of the Americas as the “biggest base for destabilization in Latin America.”

In 2000, in an attempt to improve its image, its name was changed to the Western Hemisphere School for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC).  Since its inception, more than 64,000 Latin American soldiers have been trained at the School of the Americas – among them, some of the regions’ most brutal human rights violators, such as Roberto D’Abuisson, the Salvadoran death-squad leader. A total of 11 Latin American dictators have attended courses at the School of the Americas; men such as Argentine junta leader, Leopoldo Galtieri and Guatemala’s Efraín Ríos Montt, campaign against indigenous villages were classified as “genocide” by a UN-sponsored commission.

The School of the Americas had a bad reputation through the years up until the end of the Cold War. In 1996, the school’s training manuals were declassified. According to a Pentagon memorandum, they promoted the use of intimidation, bounties to kill enemies, torture, false imprisonment, executions and the use of truth serum. Interrogation techniques and the term “neutralization”, which the department of defense admits is a euphemism for illegal execution, were also included in the manuals. The numbers of stories about graduates from the school of the Americas heading repressive regimes or actively committing human rights violations in Latin America are too abundant for it to be a coincidence. The atrocities linked to past graduates of SOA are too horrific and disturbing by any standards.

According to Dennis Dunleavy, on the morning of November 16, 1989, a company of elite Salvadoran soldiers entered the grounds of the University of Central America in San Salvador, El Salvador and dragged six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter from their beds. Once taken outside the priests were then summarily executed. He further explained that 19 of the 26 soldiers implicated in the murders were graduates of the US Army’s School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. That’s an astounding 73 percent!

The execution of the Jesuit priests is just a tip of the iceberg. The long list of atrocities perpetrated by
graduates since the inception is jaw dropping. In Colombia, 120 out of 245 military officers connected with the worse human rights abuses were SOA graduates according to a 1992 investigation by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. That’s 49.98 percent! In 1981, in El Salvador the Salvadoran army in the small remote village of El Mozote murdered more than 1,000 farmers. 10 of the 12 officers connected to the murders were graduates from SOA. That’s 83.3 percent! Graduates from the SOA have consistently used their skills to wage war against their own people. They targeted educators, union organizers, religious workers, student leaders, and others who work for the rights of the poor. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, “disappeared,” massacred, and forced into refugee by those trained at the SOA (aka School of Assassins).

In my interview with Jose Angel Ramirez (not his real name), a 57 year-old Colombian veterinarian, former student union member, and a member of the Patriotic Union Party, revealed to me his experience and shared some of his intimate knowledge. According to Jose, the US backed Columbia military created paramilitary groups who did most of their dirty work for them. He claimed that they assassinated his party’s presidential candidate who was on the verge of winning the presidential elections, and killed a lot of very active members too. They killed around 3000 people and he was one of their targets as well, but he fled to the United States. Prior to escaping to the United States, he was taken from a library by men who he believed to be CIA agents, who wanted to pay him $1000 a month to become an informant for them against his own people.

As a child, Jose learned about how North America took Panama form Colombia and how 3000 workers for the United Fruit Company (a US company) were killed when they tried to organize. So he grew up with the feeling that the US was their enemy because they had their hand all over Latin America, and they trained soldiers at the School of the Americas who came back and committed human rights abuses on their people. When I asked him why he thought the Unites States got involved in Latin America, he replied, “for security and economic interest; their Security interest in terms of the Cold War, terrorism, and the war on drugs, and economic interest in terms of resources and military technology and arms sale”. But he believes United States gained neither, instead, they lost respect and left a trail of blood and horror. And now that most of the Latin America countries have distanced themselves from the United States, they (US) have shifted their interest to the Middle East in the name of security and economic interest. The United States is now partnering with Middle Eastern countries to train their soldiers in counterterrorism techniques.

There is ample evidence of the US training Latin American soldiers at the School of the Americas and their link to Human rights abuses there. There are numerous articles published on the School of the Americas Watch website as recent as June 2014 that makes the link. For the most part, the United States had full knowledge of the abuses and still supported them. Interviewed by reporter John Dinges for his book published in 2004, The Condor Years, Congressman Edward Koch (later mayor of New York City) said that George H. W. Bush, then CIA director, informed him in October 1976 that “his sponsorship of legislation to cut off U.S. military assistance to Uruguay on “human rights” grounds had provoked secret police officials to ‘put a contract out for you’. In mid-October 1976, Koch wrote to the Justice department asking for FBI protection, but none was provided. This lax attitude by the United States in turn created a form of structural political violence and generated a climate of impunity.

General Pinochet of Chile and his armed forces were aided and abetted by the United States in spite of their use of terror both at home and abroad. Virtually all the Chilean military officers who overthrew Allande had trained in a US military school before the coup; and most of those studied at the School of the Americas. Some of the most infamous acts of international terrorism committed by the Pinochet regime included the 1974 car bomb assassination of General Carlos Pratts and his wife in Buenos Aires; the 1974 attempted murder of Bernardo Leighton of the Chilean Christian Democratic Party in Rome; and the car bomb execution of Olando Letelier, former ambassador to the United States for Allende, and his aid in Washington DC. Orchestrated by the Chilean secret police and connected to Operation Condor, a network of South American intelligence agencies collaborated in hunting down and assassinated political dissidents who opposed dictatorships in their native countries. The fact that Pinochet’s secret police comfortably operated in the United States is a clear indication that CIA and FBI were most likely aware of its activities. A key case highlighting U.S. involvement in Operation Condor was that of Chilean Jorge Isaac Fuentes, who was captured by Paraguayan police in 1971 and was last seen savagely tortured. According to Patrice McSherry, in his article Operation Condor: Deciphering the U.S. Role, declassified U.S. documents include a letter from the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires (written by FBI officer Robert Scherrer) informing the Chilean military that Fuentes had been captured.

After the end of the Cold War, the United States’ focus shifted to the War on Drugs and they continued their training of soldiers from Latin America. Although the number of soldiers from Latin America coming to the US to train has declined in recent years, Columbia and Mexico still remain the top two countries the US is spending money on to train their soldiers to help fight the war on drugs. Colombia happens to be a huge producer of drugs and Mexico happens to be a big distributor of drugs into the United States because of its proximity. In 2013 Fiscal Year, the Department of Defense spent the most money on training soldiers from Columbia and Mexico, $26,226,017 and $11, 774, 423 respectively. For the United States in general and those at WHINSEC in particular, it is imperative for them to partner with nations in the Western Hemisphere to eliminate the drug problem in their own countries before it spreads into the United States. For them, WHINSEC and the training they provide in counter-drug operations and narco-terrorism is a critical tool. WHINSEC believes that the training it provides coupled with working together with Latin American nations will help make the US streets safer and have a positive impact on crime rates within participating nations. They have also vehemently denied that their teachings were ever directly linked to anyone committing a crime or a violation. According to retired US Army Colonel Gilberto R. Perez in his interview with Ledger Enquirer, WHINSEC is now continuously engaging with the public, with protesters, with the media, with NGOs related to human rights, and anyone who is interested in visiting the school. He further states that WHINSEC is open to visitors every working day and invites people to sit in class, talk with students and faculty, and review instructional material.

Despite WHISEC’s denial that their trainings were linked to any human rights violation, there is ample evidence showing otherwise. The United States involvement in Latin America has always been, and remains to be security and economics, but that approach has contradicted the very principles of freedom and democracy they promote. Many human rights violations have been committed directly or indirectly, in their pursuit of their economic and security interest.  Human rights groups and social movements are increasingly united in decrying the use of army troops and militarized police in repressing popular movements and defending corporations in their efforts to wrest resource-rich lands from communities. What the priority should be instead, is building strong, transparent judicial institutions to address human rights crimes and ensure accountability. To eradicate the evil of violent crime, investment is needed, not in military equipment or police and military training. The focus should be assisting in providing unbiased and sustainable economic development that addresses the basic needs of the poor. This, I believe, will result to a better security and economic gain for the United States.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Doctor WHO?

The Dr. Zakir Naik train is still not at its final destination so let’s keep riding.:-). There are some who believe that Dr. Zakir Naik should not be challenged because he’s an Islamic scholar and full of wisdom. Maybe it will be helpful to remind them than he is also a human being and vulnerable to all the temptations that we all struggle with daily. Anyone who attempts to spread something we believe not to be true should be challenged, Muslim or not, doctor or nurse.

Dr. Zakir said he never heard of Gambia prior to his invitation, but he was quick to declare Jammeh a good president and a good Muslim. How?  Based on what? Is he in the business of judging who is a good Muslim and who is not? You mean to tell me that this “fine Islamic scholar” didn't take the time to google Gambia? Not buying it! If Dr. Zakir can have an opinion about Jammeh to declare him a good president and a good Muslim without prior knowledge of him, then it’s totally fair for others to have an opinion about Dr. Zakir too, for making statements as a “scholar” without doing his homework.

Dr. Nakir Naik branded himself an Islamic scholar and a warehouse of religious knowledge and wisdom, and he sells himself as such. The promotional videos on his website are a testament to that. To me, a scholar of such caliber should be able compose himself/herself when faced with a simple challenge regarding what he preaches,  and be able to intelligently and confidently answer any questions or defend challenges pertaining to statements he made?

Well, not Dr. Zakir Naik! When he was challenged by a young Christian lady in the Gambia regarding a statement he made about Christianity, you could vividly notice that he was agitated and uncomfortable. To avoid having the conversation, he told the young lady that he does not debate women, accused her of having a sickness and needs to be cured, and that she does not understand English. In short, he ridiculed her to avoid having the conversation, and in the process, may have contributed in inciting the crowd to get hostile against the young lady. Then at the end, the young lady’s mic was cut off. I thought “scholars” were open minded? I am so proud of Christina Jatta!  In addition, the fact that he (Dr. Nakir) never at any point in his lectures in The Gambia addressed the issue of tyranny exposes him even further.  As a scholar, he should have known the waters he was swimming in.

And for a president of a nation to invite Dr. Nakir with all the expenses involved, just to ask questions like “should a Muslim man marry a woman who is not a virgin?” is just out of this world. President Jammeh could not have found out for himself or ask any of the Imams in The Gambia?  What is he walking around with a Quran for then? I though he mastered the Quran enough to used it in his curing sessions?  Not sure if this was the ultimate disrespect to all the Imams in The Gambia because Jammeh may have more in store for them, but it sure is up there.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Pan-Africa for WHO? African Leaders, A No Show on Ebola

Pan-Africans say “Africa for Africans” and “we can take care of our own”. I have not seen the AU (African Union) in the vanguard of this Ebola fight anywhere neither have I seen any African leader taking the lead or attempting to lead the fight.

The UN General Assembly held a session in New York a couple of weeks ago, and the African leaders missed the opportunity to lay out their ‘Ebola plan of action’ there, when the whole world was listening. Was there a plan of action in the first place? I heard a lot of ranting about other issues there though.

Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has been in the news lately bragging about being feared by the West, and talking about how other African leader are cowards and afraid to stand up to the West, but nothing about Ebola. I believe Ebola is a more pressing issue. Has Mugabe sent any doctors or nurses to help fight Ebola in Liberia or Sierra Leone? Instead, he’s contemplating recalling his soldiers that are part of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Liberia.

Paul Bayi of Cameroon and Yaya Jammeh of Gambia are subscribers to Pan-Africanism too, but have they sent any doctors or nurses to the Ebola affected areas to assist? Where is the sense of urgency for Los Pan-Africanos?  How come they are not using the media to talk about Ebola and their plans to contain or eradicate it?

I have seen others scrambling to send personnel and equipment to the affected areas, but nothing in the form of personnel and equipment from the Pan-Africans. Is Pan-Africanism just talk and no action? Africa for Africans and we can take care of our own?

With the help of the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation, Malaria still kills over 500,000 a year in Africa. I recently read an article listing the 10 richest African leaders and the billions and millions they have accumulated. How much have they contributed towards malaria research? Ebola is collapsing the fragile health systems that exist in the affect countries, and the Pan-Africans are nowhere to be found.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Are you what you post? That is the question!

Unfortunately, I grew up not knowing either of my grandfathers, they were both gone prior to my birth. I've seen a couple of pictures and heard bits and pieces of stories here and there, but I wish I was able to know more about them. Still, I savor the bits and pieces of stories, even though they are not enough.

It was the opposite with my grandmothers. Although they are both gone now too, I was blessed with their presence, charm and wisdom. They took me places, told me stories, and fed me well. And, they gave me money too. After repeatedly telling me they didn't have any,  all of a sudden, money would magically appear, thanks to my perfect puppy face. You gotta know how to work a grandma!:-)

Fast forward 75-100 years. With our social-media footprints, our grandchildren will have no
problems finding out about us, if at all they are unfortunate enough not to know us in person. All they have to do is get into the Facebook archives, and look at the BIG picture we painted for them as a gift.

If Grandma/Grandpa was a pothead, they will see all the marijuana related postings and article shares there. If Grandma/Grandpa was a wannabe super model, they will see all the pose-up photos there. If Grandma/Grandpa was a show off, they will see all the narcissistic/arrogant posts there. If Grandma/Grandpa was a ranter or drama queen/king, they will see all the drama and necessary/unnecessary ranting sessions there. If Grandma/Grandpa had a generous and kind spirit, they will see all the caring posts there. If Grandma/Grandpa was a big flirt, they will see all the kisses and the winks there. (Btw, they should not break into the "inbox" deh, an avalanche of flirty messages will bury them). If Grandma/Grandpa was into gossip, they will see all the the gossipy posts there. And if Grandma/Grandpa was a mix bag of nuts, then they will have to figure things out and try to establish a pattern. So, paint your BIG picture and don't be shy. Am sure your grandchildren will still be proud of you, regardless.