Security Alert
A police officer wrote this! Please read coz may save your life!Sometimes the little things we do, can make the biggest difference! In daylight hours, refresh yourself of these things to do in an emergency situation...This is for you & for you to share with your wife,your children & everyone you know.It never hurts to be careful in this crazy world we live in.
1. Tip from Tae Kwon Do:The elbow is the strongest point on your body.If you are close enough to use it, do!
2. Learned this from a tourist guide.If a robber asks for your wallet or purse,DO NOT HAND IT TO HIM.Toss it away from you....Chances are that he is more interested in your wallet or purse than you & he will go for the wallet/purse.RUN LIKE MAD IN THE OTHER DIRECTION!
3. If you are ever thrown into the trunk of a car,kick out the back tail lights and stick your arm out the hole & start waving like crazy.The driver won't see you, but everybody else will.This has saved lives.
4. Women have a tendency to get into their carsafter shopping, eating, working, etc., & just sit (doing their cheque book, or making a list,etc.(DON'T DO THIS!)The predator may be watching you, & this is the perfect opportunity for him to get in on the passenger side, put a gun to your head,and tell you where to go.AS SOON AS YOU GET INTO YOUR CAR,LOCK THE DOORS AND LEAVE.... If someone is in the car with a gun to your headDO NOT DRIVE OFF,Repeat:DO NOT DRIVE OFF!Instead run the engine and speed into anything, wrecking the car.Your Air Bag will save you.If the person is in the back seat they will get the worst of it.As soon as the car crashes bail out and run.It is better than having your body found in a remote location.
5. A few notes about getting into your car in a parking lot or parking garage:A.) Be Aware: look around you, look into your car,at the passenger side floor, and in the back seatB.) If you are parked next to a big van,enter your car from the passenger door.Most serial killers attack their female victimsby pulling them into their vans while the women are attempting to get into their cars.C.) Look at the car parked on the driver's side of your vehicle,& on the passenger side.... if a male is sitting alone in the seat nearest your car, you may want to walk back into the mall, or work & get a guard/policeman to walk you back out.IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY.(And better paranoid than dead.)
6. ALWAYS take the elevator instead of the stairs.Stairwells are horrible places to be alone,& the perfect crime spot.This is especially true at NIGHT!
7. If the predator has a gun & you are not under his control,ALWAYS RUN!The predator will only hit you (a running target) 4 in 100 times, & even then, it most likely WILL NOT be a vital organ.RUN, preferably in a zig -zag pattern!
8.women are always trying to be sympathetic:STOP!!It may get you raped, or killed.Ted Bundy, the serial killer, was a good-looking,well educated man, who ALWAYS played on the sympathies of unsuspecting women.He walked with a cane, or a limp, & often asked 'for help' into his vehicle or with his vehicle,which is when he abducted his next victim.
9. Another Safety Point:Someone just told me that her friend heard a crying baby on her porch the night before last & she called the police because it was late & she thought it was weird... The police told her'Whatever you do, DO NOT open the door..'The lady then said that it sounded like the baby had crawled near a window & she was worried that it would crawl to the street & get run over.The policeman said, 'We already have a unit on the way, whatever you do, DO NOT open the door.'He told her that they think a serial killer has a baby's cry recorded & uses it to coax women out of their homes, thinking that someone dropped off a baby. He said they have not verified it,but have had several calls by women saying that they hear baby's cries outside their doors when they're home alone at night.
10. Water Scam!If you wake up in the middle of the night to hear all your taps outside running,or what you think is a burst pipe,DO NOT GO OUT TO INVESTIGATE! These people turn on all your outside taps full bore so that you will go out to investigate & then they attack.Stay alert, keep safe, and look out for your neighbours!
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Why the West wants the fall of Gaddafi.
Why the West wants the fall of Gaddafi? An analysis in defense of the Libyan.
Africans should think about the real reasons why western countries are waging war on Libya, writes Jean-Paul Pougala, in an analysis that traces the country’s role in shaping the African Union and the development of the continent.
It was Gaddafi’s Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.
It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.
An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.
China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.
AFRICAN MONETARY FUND, AFRICAN CENTRAL BANK, AFRICAN INVESTMENT BANK
The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.
The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.
It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around a 150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common – they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.
Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, ‘the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken’.
REGIONAL UNITY AS AN OBSTABLE TO THE CREATION OF A UNITED STATES OF AFRICA
To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries ,which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.
Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.
It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. That’s why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening.
GADDAFI, THE AFRICAN WHO CLEANSED THE CONTINENT FROM THE HUMILIATION OF APARTHEID
For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.
Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’
Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That’s why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela’s 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela’s enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?
ARE THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS?
And what if Gaddafi’s Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French president’s turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy.
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafi’s Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn’t exist. This isn’t a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous ‘Social Contract’ that ‘there never was a true democracy and there never will be.’
Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labelled a democracy and according to these Gaddafi’s Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy:
1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator.
The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and counter reactions of other members impacts on the group.
From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseau’s conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbours don’t even say hello to each other and therefore don’t know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage – ‘the vote’ – which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesn’t know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election.
2. Simplicity in customs and behavioural patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseau’s democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people.
3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseau’s criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world.
4. No luxuries: according to Rousseau there can’t be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, ‘Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.’
Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya.
The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a ‘dictatorship of the elite’. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc.
How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Peru’s constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that person’s family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the world’s best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP?
Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term ‘democracy’ – instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseau’s perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt.
It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: ‘Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium – translation – If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings.’ To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax.
WHAT LESSONS FOR AFRICA?
After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we don’t have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the ‘yes’ votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised ‘the protection of peoples’, which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa?
It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each.
It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote ‘Yes’ to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohl’s Germany.
A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method – all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful.
We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people.
Today’s events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Mao’s China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms – it refused to be a member if it didn’t have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didn’t say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for China’s dignity to be respected.
What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote d’Ivoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid.
When the African Union endorsed Ouattara’s victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasn’t won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans.
Africa’s strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable.
Jean-Paul Pougala is a Cameroonian writer. Translated from the French by Sputnik Kilambi.
Africans should think about the real reasons why western countries are waging war on Libya, writes Jean-Paul Pougala, in an analysis that traces the country’s role in shaping the African Union and the development of the continent.
It was Gaddafi’s Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.
It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.
An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.
China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.
AFRICAN MONETARY FUND, AFRICAN CENTRAL BANK, AFRICAN INVESTMENT BANK
The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.
The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.
It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around a 150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common – they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.
Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, ‘the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken’.
REGIONAL UNITY AS AN OBSTABLE TO THE CREATION OF A UNITED STATES OF AFRICA
To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries ,which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.
Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.
It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. That’s why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening.
GADDAFI, THE AFRICAN WHO CLEANSED THE CONTINENT FROM THE HUMILIATION OF APARTHEID
For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.
Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’
Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That’s why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela’s 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela’s enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?
ARE THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS?
And what if Gaddafi’s Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French president’s turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy.
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafi’s Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn’t exist. This isn’t a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous ‘Social Contract’ that ‘there never was a true democracy and there never will be.’
Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labelled a democracy and according to these Gaddafi’s Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy:
1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator.
The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and counter reactions of other members impacts on the group.
From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseau’s conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbours don’t even say hello to each other and therefore don’t know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage – ‘the vote’ – which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesn’t know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election.
2. Simplicity in customs and behavioural patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseau’s democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people.
3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseau’s criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world.
4. No luxuries: according to Rousseau there can’t be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, ‘Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.’
Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya.
The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a ‘dictatorship of the elite’. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc.
How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Peru’s constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that person’s family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the world’s best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP?
Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term ‘democracy’ – instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseau’s perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt.
It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: ‘Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium – translation – If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings.’ To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax.
WHAT LESSONS FOR AFRICA?
After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we don’t have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the ‘yes’ votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised ‘the protection of peoples’, which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa?
It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each.
It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote ‘Yes’ to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohl’s Germany.
A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method – all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful.
We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people.
Today’s events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Mao’s China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms – it refused to be a member if it didn’t have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didn’t say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for China’s dignity to be respected.
What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote d’Ivoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid.
When the African Union endorsed Ouattara’s victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasn’t won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans.
Africa’s strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable.
Jean-Paul Pougala is a Cameroonian writer. Translated from the French by Sputnik Kilambi.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
5 bad relationship habits to dump
So here it is. I looked around, found one of the best relationship counselors, and this is what he had to say about some of the habbits that you should avoud in your relationship.
You heard!
5 bad relationship habits.
By Bob Strauss
OK, so you used to be married, and now you're not. You may be out there happily dating, but are the habits from your wedded days dogging you? Consider the fact that when you’re married, you have the luxury of a long, indefinite “’til death do us part” future in which to settle into a comfortable routine or slowly work through issues with your spouse. On a date, though, everything happens in accelerated time, with equally accelerated consequences. An indelicate remark on your first rendezvous may forever put the kibosh on a second. In fact, there are five key behaviors left over from your married days that can wreak havoc on your current romantic forays. We asked Marty Friedman, author of Straight Talk for Men About Marriage, to discuss how to recognize — and get rid of — these bad habits so your love life can prosper.
Bad Habit #1: Never ending your arguments.
One of the dubious perks of being married, Friedman says, is being able to “stomp out of the room, cool yourself down, and bring up the issue again a few days or weeks later — or let it fester forever.” While having a knock-down, drag-out argument with someone you’ve just started dating isn’t exactly a good sign, you don’t want to fall into the trap of thinking, “If I ignore the problem, it’ll just go away.” That just won’t cut it when you’re dating.
Tactic to try: The challenge now, says Friedman, “is to hang in there and keep the lines of communication open.” You want to work through the issue, not allow it to linger.
Bad Habit #2: Letting yourself go.
When two people are married for a long time, they stop trying to impress each other — thus fueling the market for dumpy sweatshirts, socks with sandals, and New York Yankees baseball caps. This may be fine for a lazy evening at home, but it’s a sure-fire date repellent, according to Friedman. “It’s easy to say, ‘I just want someone who likes me for who I am,’ but truthfully, the way humans operate is to feel more comfortable with and attracted to someone who cares enough about appearance to look presentable.”
Tactic to try: Simply put, make an effort. There is such a thing as dressing up, and it’s worth trying when wooing someone.
Bad Habit #3: Under-communicating your needs.
Most married couples have the ability to read each other’s minds: to intuit, from an imperceptibly cocked eyebrow or a slightly fluttery tone of voice, that now may not be the best time to admit to spending junior’s college fund on a 72-inch plasma TV. Unless your date is a professional poker player, don’t expect her to interpret your tics and grimaces as a request for a nice glass of iced tea.
Tactic to try: “You need to state your needs and feelings out loud, in a responsible way,” Friedman says. “The good news is, by speaking up you can help shape how your new partner treats you.”
Bad Habit #4: Sniping instead of talking.
The only time you’re allowed to treat constant bickering as a form of affection is when you’re both at least 75 and celebrating your golden wedding anniversary.
Tactic to try: Instead of criticizing your new partner, Friedman says, you should make an effort to “request what you need in a specific, caring way. For example: instead of shouting ‘You’re always late for everything,’ you can say gently, ‘This Saturday night, it would really mean a lot to me if you showed up on time or even a few minutes early.’”
Bad Habit #5: Not saying “thank you.”
Common courtesy is one of the first casualties of an unsuccessful marriage — and even thriving couples can occasionally say things to each other that would make Emily Post blanch.
Tactic to try: “You should start your new relationship on a solid foundation of gratitude and appreciation, right from the beginning,” Friedman says. “Be thankful for the little things... even the fact that this person is spending the evening with you.” And while you’re at it, go ahead — say it out loud.
You heard!
5 bad relationship habits.
By Bob Strauss
OK, so you used to be married, and now you're not. You may be out there happily dating, but are the habits from your wedded days dogging you? Consider the fact that when you’re married, you have the luxury of a long, indefinite “’til death do us part” future in which to settle into a comfortable routine or slowly work through issues with your spouse. On a date, though, everything happens in accelerated time, with equally accelerated consequences. An indelicate remark on your first rendezvous may forever put the kibosh on a second. In fact, there are five key behaviors left over from your married days that can wreak havoc on your current romantic forays. We asked Marty Friedman, author of Straight Talk for Men About Marriage, to discuss how to recognize — and get rid of — these bad habits so your love life can prosper.
Bad Habit #1: Never ending your arguments.
One of the dubious perks of being married, Friedman says, is being able to “stomp out of the room, cool yourself down, and bring up the issue again a few days or weeks later — or let it fester forever.” While having a knock-down, drag-out argument with someone you’ve just started dating isn’t exactly a good sign, you don’t want to fall into the trap of thinking, “If I ignore the problem, it’ll just go away.” That just won’t cut it when you’re dating.
Tactic to try: The challenge now, says Friedman, “is to hang in there and keep the lines of communication open.” You want to work through the issue, not allow it to linger.
Bad Habit #2: Letting yourself go.
When two people are married for a long time, they stop trying to impress each other — thus fueling the market for dumpy sweatshirts, socks with sandals, and New York Yankees baseball caps. This may be fine for a lazy evening at home, but it’s a sure-fire date repellent, according to Friedman. “It’s easy to say, ‘I just want someone who likes me for who I am,’ but truthfully, the way humans operate is to feel more comfortable with and attracted to someone who cares enough about appearance to look presentable.”
Tactic to try: Simply put, make an effort. There is such a thing as dressing up, and it’s worth trying when wooing someone.
Bad Habit #3: Under-communicating your needs.
Most married couples have the ability to read each other’s minds: to intuit, from an imperceptibly cocked eyebrow or a slightly fluttery tone of voice, that now may not be the best time to admit to spending junior’s college fund on a 72-inch plasma TV. Unless your date is a professional poker player, don’t expect her to interpret your tics and grimaces as a request for a nice glass of iced tea.
Tactic to try: “You need to state your needs and feelings out loud, in a responsible way,” Friedman says. “The good news is, by speaking up you can help shape how your new partner treats you.”
Bad Habit #4: Sniping instead of talking.
The only time you’re allowed to treat constant bickering as a form of affection is when you’re both at least 75 and celebrating your golden wedding anniversary.
Tactic to try: Instead of criticizing your new partner, Friedman says, you should make an effort to “request what you need in a specific, caring way. For example: instead of shouting ‘You’re always late for everything,’ you can say gently, ‘This Saturday night, it would really mean a lot to me if you showed up on time or even a few minutes early.’”
Bad Habit #5: Not saying “thank you.”
Common courtesy is one of the first casualties of an unsuccessful marriage — and even thriving couples can occasionally say things to each other that would make Emily Post blanch.
Tactic to try: “You should start your new relationship on a solid foundation of gratitude and appreciation, right from the beginning,” Friedman says. “Be thankful for the little things... even the fact that this person is spending the evening with you.” And while you’re at it, go ahead — say it out loud.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The proposal
Hey lovely people! This year seems like a set-aside-kind of an year for most of us. I am rallying in the front line counting my blessings and thanking God for every one of them.
Just a week ago I proposed the the love of my life. The girl I love to bits. The one girl I would still choose in a thousand lifetimes! And the best part is that she said yes. Without missing her words, without a stutter, without blinking! So folks, guess what, am gonna get married to my best friend, my confidant. She inspires me, fires me up and arouses the best in me. Not that you care about this stuff, but it is important to me. And this is my Blog anyway! So deal with it.
Oh, may be after my excitement cools down, may be, just maybe, I will come back to me and give you what I do best. For now, the best you can do is wish us the best, pray for us and celebrate with us!
Just a week ago I proposed the the love of my life. The girl I love to bits. The one girl I would still choose in a thousand lifetimes! And the best part is that she said yes. Without missing her words, without a stutter, without blinking! So folks, guess what, am gonna get married to my best friend, my confidant. She inspires me, fires me up and arouses the best in me. Not that you care about this stuff, but it is important to me. And this is my Blog anyway! So deal with it.
Oh, may be after my excitement cools down, may be, just maybe, I will come back to me and give you what I do best. For now, the best you can do is wish us the best, pray for us and celebrate with us!
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Why Sex is good for you.
Paulo Coelho’s book titled “Eleven Minutes” suggests that the “act of coming together” just takes about 2-3 minutes, while the remaining 9 minutes are no more than an attempt to reach the “crescendo” when a hormonal discharge provides ecstasy like none other!
Scientists have often debated that sex is extremely beneficial for our health, but the lack of sex in good measures can have negative effects. On the other hand, too much sex can also be harmful; if you indulge in sex for more than 3 times a week, you are exposing yourself to the risk of a weaker immune system as well as vulnerability to infections…
1. The balance of your mental and emotional health is definitely influenced by sex. While abstinence often leads to anxiety or paranoia and even depression…having sex can cure cases of light depressions. After having exercised sex, the brain releases endorphins that decrease stress and induce a wonderful state of euphoria.
2. For all you women, having regular sex means freedom from expensive salon treatments. An excellent beauty treatment, having sex actually doubles the level of estrogen in women and makes their hair shine with brilliance while making their skin supple and softer.
3. And if you want to live longer, then look no further than your own bedroom. According to a research carried out at Queens University in Belfast, Ireland, having regular sex increases the lifespan in humans. It was found that out of the people of the same age and health, those who had more frequent orgasms faced 50% less death rate than who people who didn’t have frequent orgasms.
4. Sex is an excellent deep-cleansing treatment as well. Since sex is a strenuous but enjoyable exercise, when you have sex the pores of your skin are cleansed leaving a brighter and glowing skin as well as decreasing the risk of developing dermatitis.
5. An inexpensive and pleasurable exercise, sex can make you lose weight. When you have sex after a candlelight romantic dinner, not only do you burn all the fat and carbohydrates you consumed, but you also stay healthy at no extra cost! Consider this: A single session of passionate, mind-blowing sex (even regular sex) can burn about 200 calories. This is equivalent to running for 15 minutes on a treadmill!
6. Ladies, if you like you man to have bulging biceps then have sex more often. Sex is a great way to strengthen muscles. Imagine the effort made by your man through those difficult pushes and flexions! Of course, it all depends on the stunts in your bed…but it’s definitely better than running for miles on miles.
7. The more active your sex life, the more attractive and irresistible you become for the opposite sex. Really! An active sex life means that your body gets into the habit of releasing more pheromones, chemicals that attract all those gorgeous, luscious women! No wonder Casanova was so popular!
8. Sex can sharpen your senses; especially enhance your sense of smell. After sex, prolactin is released that activates the stem cells in the brain to form new neurons in the olfactory bulb. This helps to improve your sense of smell.
9. A pain reliever, sex is TEN times more effective than painkillers such as Valium. Just before orgasm, the hormone oxytocin’s level rises almost 5 times, leading to release of large amount of endorphins. Endorphins are natural painkillers and relieve you of pain, minor headaches, and migraines without any after effects. Next time your lady has a headache, treat her with a vigorous session of lovemaking rather than a Valium.
10. The act of Kissing stimulates salivation, which helps clean food particles stuck between the teeth and lowers the acidity level in your mouth. This is the primary cause of tooth decay. So kiss all you want, after all it’s a great excuse!
So my dear friends, sex is not just good for the mind, the body, but the wallet as well!
Scientists have often debated that sex is extremely beneficial for our health, but the lack of sex in good measures can have negative effects. On the other hand, too much sex can also be harmful; if you indulge in sex for more than 3 times a week, you are exposing yourself to the risk of a weaker immune system as well as vulnerability to infections…
1. The balance of your mental and emotional health is definitely influenced by sex. While abstinence often leads to anxiety or paranoia and even depression…having sex can cure cases of light depressions. After having exercised sex, the brain releases endorphins that decrease stress and induce a wonderful state of euphoria.
2. For all you women, having regular sex means freedom from expensive salon treatments. An excellent beauty treatment, having sex actually doubles the level of estrogen in women and makes their hair shine with brilliance while making their skin supple and softer.
3. And if you want to live longer, then look no further than your own bedroom. According to a research carried out at Queens University in Belfast, Ireland, having regular sex increases the lifespan in humans. It was found that out of the people of the same age and health, those who had more frequent orgasms faced 50% less death rate than who people who didn’t have frequent orgasms.
4. Sex is an excellent deep-cleansing treatment as well. Since sex is a strenuous but enjoyable exercise, when you have sex the pores of your skin are cleansed leaving a brighter and glowing skin as well as decreasing the risk of developing dermatitis.
5. An inexpensive and pleasurable exercise, sex can make you lose weight. When you have sex after a candlelight romantic dinner, not only do you burn all the fat and carbohydrates you consumed, but you also stay healthy at no extra cost! Consider this: A single session of passionate, mind-blowing sex (even regular sex) can burn about 200 calories. This is equivalent to running for 15 minutes on a treadmill!
6. Ladies, if you like you man to have bulging biceps then have sex more often. Sex is a great way to strengthen muscles. Imagine the effort made by your man through those difficult pushes and flexions! Of course, it all depends on the stunts in your bed…but it’s definitely better than running for miles on miles.
7. The more active your sex life, the more attractive and irresistible you become for the opposite sex. Really! An active sex life means that your body gets into the habit of releasing more pheromones, chemicals that attract all those gorgeous, luscious women! No wonder Casanova was so popular!
8. Sex can sharpen your senses; especially enhance your sense of smell. After sex, prolactin is released that activates the stem cells in the brain to form new neurons in the olfactory bulb. This helps to improve your sense of smell.
9. A pain reliever, sex is TEN times more effective than painkillers such as Valium. Just before orgasm, the hormone oxytocin’s level rises almost 5 times, leading to release of large amount of endorphins. Endorphins are natural painkillers and relieve you of pain, minor headaches, and migraines without any after effects. Next time your lady has a headache, treat her with a vigorous session of lovemaking rather than a Valium.
10. The act of Kissing stimulates salivation, which helps clean food particles stuck between the teeth and lowers the acidity level in your mouth. This is the primary cause of tooth decay. So kiss all you want, after all it’s a great excuse!
So my dear friends, sex is not just good for the mind, the body, but the wallet as well!
Friday, January 14, 2011
Commitment: What you will have to give up.
Commitment, I am informed, is the mark of the mature, stable man. Sure, we may be allowed to throw one or two sidelong glances at its more absurd excesses (and here am thinking of mandatory pillow shopping), but any wholesale aversion to the idea is generally seen as oafish and juvenile.
Like any major choice, however, the decision to commit yourself to an exclusive relationship contains some very real trade-offs.
No.10 Your female friends.
One of my male friends recently got into a verbal tussle with his girlfriend over how often he texts his female friends. There’s no doubt that changes and issues do occur in your friendships when you get a girlfriend -- especially female friendships. You won’t be able to spend as much time with or text the girls like you used to, because those friendships tend to get nudged down a few rungs of the ladder. Why? Your girlfriend is in the No. 1 spot now. Any other women have to understand that she gets most of you, and they have to be satisfied with scraps.
No.9 Your weekends
Free time you’d notch up and enjoy with a beer used to be completely yours, but now that you’re in a serious relationship, it’s highly likely that quality time with your broad will be squeezing into the time you get to your disposal. After all, with both of you working during the week, there’s not much chance to spend time together. That’s why the prestigious weekend is often filled with relationship quality time.
No.8 Your casual fun
Flirting is the first thing to die when it comes to casual fun and relationships. In fact, those two concepts often get along as badly as Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield in a boxing ring. When you’re in a serious relationship, there are boundaries for interaction with other women. Flirting has to be contained, otherwise it could explode into something inappropriate. As for casual fun with your partner, a full-fledged, committed relationship calls to mind things like responsibilities, obligations and routine. It’s very easy to lose the fun in the process.
No.7 Your self-indulgences
You used to be able to do whatever you pleased. If that included excessive smoking, drinking and staying out till dawn, there was nobody you had to answer to. But now when you stumble back home after a raucous night with the boys, you’re likely to find your girlfriend standing at the door with “Where the hell were you?” kinds of questions. If you’re committed to your girlfriend, you have to realize that you can’t be partying excessively the way you would as a single. It might sound hectic, but being in a serious setup means you have to account for your actions. So if you want wild time with the boys, you’ll probably have to run it past her and schedule it in.
No.6 Your exit
When things were less serious with your woman, it was much easier to find the exits than it is now. If things went pear-shaped fast, you could evacuate the building without much fuss because you weren’t too tied to each other yet. But now with all the emotional bindings, it makes clean breakups a bit more difficult.
No.5 Your financial independence
Often relationships don’t end only with emotional ties; they can also incorporate financial ones. It’s common to lapse into a “What’s mine is yours, what’s yours is mine” line of thinking when you’re in a serious affair. Basically, if you’re committed, then you share each other’s financial situations. A good portion of your hard-earned cash is likely to head in your girlfriend’s direction. This is especially the case if she’s a gold digger, which means less of your money goes to your own interests.
No.4 Your options
They say a man is as faithful as his options. It’s not necessarily true that you’ll stay loyal to your girlfriend only until you meet someone better, but let’s be honest: It’s a boost to the ego to know that you still have pulling power, even if you don’t intend to use it. But with an exclusive relationship, you’re much more limited to this one relationship. Even window-shopping can prove boring. What’s the point of looking when you know it can’t go anywhere?
No.3 Your own plans
It’s not selfish to want to safeguard your future plans and have your own dreams. In fact, it’s necessary to have those, even when you’re in a relationship. But once things become more serious with your girl, there is no room for secret gambits; you’ll have to include her in all your ideas for the future.
No.2 Your space
Every king needs a castle, but if you bring a queen into the situation, then things can become complicated. Often commitment is closely linked to cohabitation, which can drastically reduce your privacy. Soon you’ll find feminine products in the bathroom cabinets, the arrival of kitchen utensils that you can’t even name and her votes counting more in castle decisions. Yep, it might feel like she’s making a play for your throne.
No.1 Your identity
When you first got together, you and your partner shared interests, values and some hobbies. The similarities thankfully ended there. But now it seems you’re merging identities. Though it can be a good feeling to be in sync with your partner on various levels (but stick to your own closets unless you want to become Brangelina), it can also mean losing your individualism. Say no to the relationship clones.
Like any major choice, however, the decision to commit yourself to an exclusive relationship contains some very real trade-offs.
No.10 Your female friends.
One of my male friends recently got into a verbal tussle with his girlfriend over how often he texts his female friends. There’s no doubt that changes and issues do occur in your friendships when you get a girlfriend -- especially female friendships. You won’t be able to spend as much time with or text the girls like you used to, because those friendships tend to get nudged down a few rungs of the ladder. Why? Your girlfriend is in the No. 1 spot now. Any other women have to understand that she gets most of you, and they have to be satisfied with scraps.
No.9 Your weekends
Free time you’d notch up and enjoy with a beer used to be completely yours, but now that you’re in a serious relationship, it’s highly likely that quality time with your broad will be squeezing into the time you get to your disposal. After all, with both of you working during the week, there’s not much chance to spend time together. That’s why the prestigious weekend is often filled with relationship quality time.
No.8 Your casual fun
Flirting is the first thing to die when it comes to casual fun and relationships. In fact, those two concepts often get along as badly as Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield in a boxing ring. When you’re in a serious relationship, there are boundaries for interaction with other women. Flirting has to be contained, otherwise it could explode into something inappropriate. As for casual fun with your partner, a full-fledged, committed relationship calls to mind things like responsibilities, obligations and routine. It’s very easy to lose the fun in the process.
No.7 Your self-indulgences
You used to be able to do whatever you pleased. If that included excessive smoking, drinking and staying out till dawn, there was nobody you had to answer to. But now when you stumble back home after a raucous night with the boys, you’re likely to find your girlfriend standing at the door with “Where the hell were you?” kinds of questions. If you’re committed to your girlfriend, you have to realize that you can’t be partying excessively the way you would as a single. It might sound hectic, but being in a serious setup means you have to account for your actions. So if you want wild time with the boys, you’ll probably have to run it past her and schedule it in.
No.6 Your exit
When things were less serious with your woman, it was much easier to find the exits than it is now. If things went pear-shaped fast, you could evacuate the building without much fuss because you weren’t too tied to each other yet. But now with all the emotional bindings, it makes clean breakups a bit more difficult.
No.5 Your financial independence
Often relationships don’t end only with emotional ties; they can also incorporate financial ones. It’s common to lapse into a “What’s mine is yours, what’s yours is mine” line of thinking when you’re in a serious affair. Basically, if you’re committed, then you share each other’s financial situations. A good portion of your hard-earned cash is likely to head in your girlfriend’s direction. This is especially the case if she’s a gold digger, which means less of your money goes to your own interests.
No.4 Your options
They say a man is as faithful as his options. It’s not necessarily true that you’ll stay loyal to your girlfriend only until you meet someone better, but let’s be honest: It’s a boost to the ego to know that you still have pulling power, even if you don’t intend to use it. But with an exclusive relationship, you’re much more limited to this one relationship. Even window-shopping can prove boring. What’s the point of looking when you know it can’t go anywhere?
No.3 Your own plans
It’s not selfish to want to safeguard your future plans and have your own dreams. In fact, it’s necessary to have those, even when you’re in a relationship. But once things become more serious with your girl, there is no room for secret gambits; you’ll have to include her in all your ideas for the future.
No.2 Your space
Every king needs a castle, but if you bring a queen into the situation, then things can become complicated. Often commitment is closely linked to cohabitation, which can drastically reduce your privacy. Soon you’ll find feminine products in the bathroom cabinets, the arrival of kitchen utensils that you can’t even name and her votes counting more in castle decisions. Yep, it might feel like she’s making a play for your throne.
No.1 Your identity
When you first got together, you and your partner shared interests, values and some hobbies. The similarities thankfully ended there. But now it seems you’re merging identities. Though it can be a good feeling to be in sync with your partner on various levels (but stick to your own closets unless you want to become Brangelina), it can also mean losing your individualism. Say no to the relationship clones.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
