My Banner

Michael Jackson

2009-06-26T03:21:00.000-07:00

"If they say, 'why? why?', tell them that its human nature.

'Why? Why?' - Cos they do it that way.

I like living this way."

Those are some of the lyrics which echoed in my head when I heard that Michael Jackson, aged 50, passed away yesterday. I don't want to say much about his life because I don't believe in talking too much about the dead; because you start with the good about them, which leads to discussion about the bad about them, and before you know it you've said way more than is necessary or validated. And that may be human nature, so it may be excusable at times.

All I have to say is: To a man whose music I grew up listening to and was inspired by tracks such as Man in the Mirror, They Don't Really Care About Us, and Heal The World;

To a man whose music my folks thought it was ok to listen to because he wasn't ashamed to sing lovingly to a woman and not demean her in every other lyric;

To a man whose concert I enjoyed as a young girl (except when he performed Thriller, I was scarrrred!);

And to a man who time and time again I wished could get help for so many unseen and unknown issues in his life that manifested publicly -

I hope his soul finds peace.

Why Do We Keep Defending Ourselves?

2009-06-23T04:02:00.000-07:00

Race is something that no one can get away from. I mean seriously, you wake up in the morning and the colour of your skin is as it was yesterday, and as it will be tomorrow, and the day after that, and a few years from now and...

Lately though, I've grown tired of reading and hearing a lot of things to do with race and culture and ethnicity. I'll start with the obvious and then delve into other issues which I believe race should not even play as big a factor as they do in. Issues which need to be confronted head on and tackled asap because the longer we keep defending their existence on the basis of race, the longer these issues have a breeding ground to continue to flourish in.

After Ciara and Justin Timberlake did a raunchy video for Ciara's "Love, Sex, Magic" (which, by the way, I saw by chance and was horrified by!), the blogsphere seemed to go mad at the fact that a white man was allowed to check up on it the way that Timberlake did on Ciara. Ok, so I'm guessing that this issue dates back to colonialism and slavery where the white man had a bit of a fancy for black women but was not allowed to make it known because black women were seen as inferior. At this point I'd like to point out that the video and all other sub-topics are about everything except race; namely (in the lyrics of Ciara), love and sex - not so sure about magic! Constantly reading into issues and things based on race is starting to make me yawn. Yes, we are all human. Yes, we inhabit the same planet. And yes, ultimately some of us will choose to date outside our race. And just by the way, I think its hypocritical to go on about a white man licking his lips over a black woman in a music video, when we've allowed black men to do that in music videos for ages. Are we implying that black men are somehow allowed to go on the way they do because of their status and intelligence - or lack of? We need to stop defending the actions of those within a particular racial group for the sake of entertainment or anything else, while condemning another racial group for doing the same thing.

And then last night I was watching a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary titled, Rape in The City. Arguably, this documentary had more to do with gang culture and attitudes towards young girls / women, than race. It was sad to see how young men's attitudes towards women and relationships have developed and how gang culture has fuelled and added to that. As for young women's attitudes, I'm speechless because I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for them or to tell them to take better responsibility for themselves - which borders on blaming them for the ills committed against them. This got me thinking about gang culture in general and how the face of it tends to be black. I understand a lot of the causes of gang culture, but I think that we should stop using race and the marginalisation of certain races as an excuse. Not because this is going to make the issue go away, but because the opposite is achieved: in trying to use race related issues as one of the causes of gang culture, we are in fact in some ways defending gang culture and those of a particular race who get involved in it. I'm not trying to offer a solution which will stop this overnight; rather I'm pointing out that the more we call on race as a factor, the less that gets resolved, as even the perpetrators begin to believe that what they are doing cannot be stopped for as long as they are a certain race and therefore they experience certain things. So are you telling me that for as long as you live - which will be how long you are your race - you will not do right by yourself and leave what is wrong? In the words of Ghandi people, 'we must be the change we wish to see'.

And then there's the issue of Madonna adopting Mercy from Malawi. After the adoption went through successfully, my dad and I watched Sky News and heard one commentator saying how the adoption was only approved because Madonna had donated a lot of money to Malawi and was building a school there. If you read between the lines, he could have actually been saying that, 'once again, black African people have naively sold one of their own'. The news and the media took the latter and ran with it. The undertones of the whole story were demeaning to black people and African culture. And Malawians were so rightly offended that they decided to sue one of the tabloids for their part in the story. Its as if they were defending themselves for wanting one of their own to possibly have a better life.

If all this has been to heavy for you, I do apologise. But in my defence, I sincerely believe that we need to mature out of blaming the same racial and cultural factors for everything.

Am I Okay This Way (Part I)?: Being Single in the Noughties

2009-06-12T02:35:00.000-07:00

Growing up in the 90s, I thought it was ok to be single. To be perfectly honest, I thought that being single was as good a state as being in a relationship or being married. Every state of being when it came to one's relational side - whether they were spoken for or not - was fine, as long as they were happy.

But now I'm grown (actually grown/forever young lol!) and I've realised that a lot of people have a problem with being single. Now when I say a lot, I mean that I've measured this by people who I know who are not single, people's attitudes to being single and what people say about being single vs. what they actually do when they are single. The results? Singleness doesn't seem to be in fashion anymore. Hence my subtitle, "Being Single in the Noughties [2000AD]". Its not too scientific but its reliable, just take a look around you and ask the same questions of the people you know. And if you find any different, let me know chuck!

Maybe I should have guessed this earlier because our generation has so many tools on hand to help us get out of the state of being single. For instance, dating websites. When these first came out, people may have thought that they are only for those of the 'desperate and lonely' kind. But nowadays, it seems to be more socially acceptable for practically anyone to be affiliated with a dating website. In fact dating websites can now be sectioned and classified according to criteria like race and religion. Sites such as Match.com are just the tip of the iceberg.

Then there's the obvious way I should have guessed that being single is no longer trendy: music. A few years ago Natasha Bedingfield sang about the joys of being single and that it was a choice and not a case of being the last to be picked. And the tune was aptly named Single. And that may have made a lot of people feel good, but at the same time it had a lot of feminist and independent vibes about needing not needing a man for anything - and that admission is even worse than just keeping quiet and living single! Fast forward to a few months ago and Beyonce is telling us that someone needs to "Put a ring on it" in Single Ladies. Are you feeling the pressure yet?

Now, I don't rely on the web or the music charts to dictate to me where I should be relationally as a person. However such mediums do let us know what others are thinking or what they want us to be thinking and what they want us to do about it. And this begs the question, "Am I ok this way?" Am I ok being single in this day and age where its so simple and easy to be in a relationship? Am I ok with getting mixed messages from singers who tell me to go out there and find someone and be happy when I turn on one channel, when news of their divorce is breaking on the next channel? Am I ok being led by my flesh and not my heart and mind for fear of being alone?

Everyone wants to share their lives with someone; hopefully in longer rather than shorter terms too. But we need not conform to the patterns of this world, and instead renew our minds so that we can live out God's will for our lives (Romans 12:2).

Sleepwalking into Minefields

2009-06-09T02:28:00.000-07:00

The last few weeks have been very turbulent ones for British politics. Just when everyone was letting the fact that the economic recession won't go away overnight sink in, the expenses scandal shook us up again. It has been outrageous to find out that the very Ministers of Parliament (MPs) who have been assuring us that we can pick ourselves up and get out of debt, are the same ones who've been misusing our taxes by claiming unnecessary expenses.

As the scandal was rocking Westminster, heads were rolling as the Speaker of the Commons, Michael Martin, was forced to step down and other MPs were exposed for their part in the expenses row. But not even all the political scapegoating and media blaming solved anything. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet has been thinning and the opposition Conservative Party have been gathering fodder with which to attack the Labour Party. While watching the news one evening, I heard a member of the public say that they would not be voting in the European and local elections in protest at the expenses scandal and to show their anger at the handling of the whole situation.

WHAT?!

I was shocked! And as I continued to hear more members of the public say this, and read the same consensus in the newspapers, I asked again, "WHAT?!". Abstaining from voting in protest almost always has the opposite effect of showing one's anger at any political situation. Instead, it allows the political parties on the fringes and margins of society - which are there because they may have extreme, prejudiced and harmful views - to gain momentum and win favour and seats in parliament. Why? Because they are piggy-backing on the fear and hypertension partly worsened by the media.

There are various reasons for not voting: apathy: either due to the political circumstances or through their own choice; no/little means of voting: maybe because means of registering voters are ineffective or too narrow; or even that the civil rights of those entitled to vote are not being upheld. But withholding one's vote is like sleepwalking into a minefield - like subconsciously doing something which will later prove more dangerous and defeatist than waking up and doing something about what you have a problem with. And to prove my point, the British National Party (BNP) won two seats in the European elections early yesterday morning.

There are a lot of issues in our current affairs which need urgent attention such as the economy, accountability, Gordon Brown's leadership style, the unity of cabinet and the government, and whether or not the opposition can indeed offer a turn around, to name a few. But refusing to vote or voting in those who have been left on the margins of politics for a reason, is not the solution.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Who REALLY decides?

2009-06-02T04:35:00.000-07:00

Abortion.

There's not much that I want to say on the subject of abortion, but this week when I read about the US Doctor George Tiller being gunned down for being a late-pregnancy abortionist, the cold and disturbing matter was once again raised. I have personal views about it as well as faith-based views on it, but I don't want to discuss my own views in this post. Rather, I want to discuss the issues that I feel the two main sides of the subject - Pro-life and Pro-choice - have and the contradictions which I think follow.

Pro-Choice
This side of the argument, as I understand it, justifies a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before the foetus is legally recognised as a human being at twenty-two weeks. The main logic for this is that seeing that the woman is the carrier or incubator of the unborn child, she ultimately has sole power over what happens to it until it enters the world where external powers and pressures may decide otherwise. But carrying something, and in this case someone, does not necessarily mean that your decision is right - hence follows the main argument against pro-choice supporters. The only question I have is: what choice does the child have? Because if we take away the legal, moral and parental constraints, then really the child's best interests are the only ones which ultimately count. I'm not condemning anyone or trying to make pro-choice seem useless. I just believe that some people involved in the issue of pro-choice seem to forget that the child - 22 weeks or not- needs a voice.

Pro-Life
On the other hand, pro-life supporters seem to recognise that the foetus is a child right from the point of conception, and therefore should be treated and recognised as such. In other words, termination of a pregnancy is not an option. In my observation a lot of pro-life supporters are religious fundamentalists who argue that only God who gives and allows life may take it away. Whether or not one believes in God, the argument has a crucial point that life is sacred and that as human beings we should no be allowed to give and take it as we see fit. But when we couple this view with the fact that some pro-life supporters believe that it is ok to take the life of an abortionist such as George Tiller in order to prevent further abortions, the pro-life argument falls apart. Life is life- whether it belongs to a foetus or a doctor.

I don't like sitting on the fence, especially when the paint on each side is still wet and yet to dry. It looks to me as though both sides of the "abortion:yes vs abortion:no" argument miss vital points about children, responsibility and life. Murder, however, does not solve any of the endless questions on the subject of abortion. But in the midst of all the choas which surrounds the debate, it looks as though those who take extreme and sometimes vicious actions are the ones who really decide where the debate stands. Those who vandalise abortion clinics and stalk the people coming in and out of them, or who take it further and kill the abortionists are deciding that rights and laws are not enough to determine the future of an unborn foetus. And those who continue to drive home the point that it is a woman's right to choose are deciding that by overlooking the rights of the foetus they are simplifying something far more complex.

And so my nit-picking of the two abortion arguments comes full circle without being able to fully reach a definite conclusion, as does the debate about abortion itself. What next?

Priorities and Options

2009-05-23T09:34:00.001-07:00

"Never make someone a priority when they only make you an option."

Wow, I remember the first time I read those words and thought, 'that's exactly what I need to hear after what I've been going through'. Those words are harsh but true, and the older and wiser I get, the more that I sometimes see them played out before my very eyes...

Priorities, as I relearned earlier this week, are the things which we choose to do or accomplish or hold in esteem above or put prior to anything else that we may have to do, accomplish etc. Its good to have priorities and to know and remind ourselves that certain things matter first and foremost, and that in fulfilling them most of the other things we are trying to achieve will fall into place or follow suit. However when you have a lot to prioritise and not many resources or much knowledge with which to accomplish what is necessary, you begin to work with a short fuse - everything becomes urgent and everything seems like it requires drastic measures all the time.

I used to work like that, and I used to thrive in such environments. The main reason for that is I'm a perfectionist at times; and if things do not turn out exactly as I envision them or want them to, then anything to make what I want possible seems a priority. But, again as I relearned this week, we need to be able to distinguish between what is important and what is urgent - and that will determine our effectiveness and our outcome; the rest is secondary and usually an option. I'm glad that now more than ever I'm really taking this on board and living life with the view that the things I value now and today and feel like I have to achieve so much, will not always be that way in the future. As I grow my priorities will change, evolve, some will continue and others will become futile. In other words, I've learned to let go when I have to.

Unfortunately with a change of priorities sometimes means that we have to change our scene and leave behind - or to the side, to the left or just right where they are so you don't get done for GBH*! - people who may not be helping us to achieve what is dear to us or part of our purpose in life. Again, harsh but true. I've been an option before for some people, I know it and I think that admitting it shows my strength and character rather than what I didn't have to be part of who they are. And no matter how hard that lesson was, it taught me to love and embrace always but to also keep a healthy balance of myself in that mix too; because if I can be myself and still be with certain people, then who I am is as much a priority to them as they are to me.

With this lesson in mind and more, I'm really excited about where I can go, be and love.

*GBH: Grievous Bodily Harm

Top Marks for Spencers!

2009-05-20T06:27:00.000-07:00

When I heard that Mark and Spencers (M&S) was having a one penny bazaar, I really didn't get it. I'll say that again for those of you, who like me, missed the part where M&S, one of the most classy high street stores decided to have a one penny bazaar: Marks and Spencers had a 1p giveaway. There, now I know that you've just relived the shock which I went through.

M&S turned 125years old today, and to mark such an achievement it decided to have a one penny bazaar where customer could purchase up to five of a few select items for one pence each. In fact, the items were free and each customer was asked to make a small donation to a charity instead. So what were M&S trying to do? Apart from retain the customers they do have and attract more customers by giving away a few quality items, not much else.

And I think it worked considering that its very rare that a good quality store decides to give away items to customers. It might not have worked for those who were expecting to get expensive items for just 1p - sorely disappointing. But overall, I'd give Marks and Spencers top marks for their genius, and loyalty to the same customers who have been loyal to them.

Communication

2009-05-14T06:45:00.001-07:00

I love my mobile phone! From the brand, to the model, to the floral cover, to the fact that it automatically changes the theme depending on what season it is, the fact that I didn't have to pay so much for it- just everything about my phone is wonderful to me! But for some reason, and despite all the wonderful things I love about my phone, I still can't seem to work out half the messages and telephone calls I get on it...

We live in a world where its so much easier to communicate due to the numerous modes of communication. And yet, we find that sometimes its difficult to communicate with one another. This could be down to a lot of things, including how we communicate with each other, and how we expect people to communicate with us. It may also be down to the fact that there are different ways of communicating depending on the message which we are trying to send out.

The latter seems to me to be the most frustrating thing about communication - that is, the fact that a message will not always be received by someone in the way which you would like it to. And instead of realising that sometimes we just need to sit down with someone and have a good old natter, we find more means of communication to hide behind. We txt to say so little when our hearts have so much to say; we go on social networking sites to declare and share so much of our lives, while the real parts of our lives go untouched; we Skype, but we'd really just love to be right next to the people we're talking to.

The one thing I've learned recently about communication is that leaving things unsaid for too long means that we lose the sentiment and the urgency behind what we should have said and when we should have said it. Whatever reasons and excuses we have, we can't take away the fact that time hasn't stopped and therefore our message becomes dry, dull, inappropriate, late, sad, boring, hypocritical, misunderstood. Sometimes, we say what we need to but without giving much thought to who we're saying it to. And trust me people, being raw is not cool.

I guess communication takes a lifetime to perfect. Not because it cannot be perfected; but because we as people change, move and grow. And with that, we have to learn new ways to communicate with the people in our lives depending on the ever-changing circumstances that we find ourselves in. If we refuse to do so then we shortchange ourselves out of what we could learn and be. If we cannot do so, then maybe whatever we're striving for is not meant to be.

As for my phone, I love it. I still do. But this week I learned to do more than love its features;, to properly understand what comes through it, and appropriate what leaves it.

"Catch It. Bin It. Kill It."

2009-05-11T07:23:00.000-07:00

Yes, its true. Swines can have flu, and the deadly virus can be passed from swines, to human beings, and possibly passed between human beings too. That's for those of you who need a bit of background on what I'm about to blog about.

The National Health Service (NHS) rarely seems to grab my attention when they advertise about their services relating to very specific illnesses, diseases, addictions, vaccinations etc. The last time they caught my attention is when I saw an advertisement for the cervical cancer jab which they're now administering to girls aged 12 and 13. Its a controversial topic, for another blog. The advertisement, however, got my attention because it made getting the jab seem like a natural part of everyday life. But for me, it wasn't believable.

Then last week, I saw a "Catch It. Kill It. Bin It" advertisement showing how easily the (swine) flu virus can be passed between individuals. And I have to say that there has never been a more catchy NHS ad! Its not actually about the ad and the characters in it, but the phrase is just way too cool. And it actually does make prevention of passing around the flu virus seem like an everyday thing. I mean, the amount of times that I've thought about "Catch It. Bin It. Kill It." in the past few weeks is record, considering that I don't watch much television and that I've only come across the ad a few times in public.

This is about more than just the swine flu epidemic. This is about the NHS being punctual and effective, taking national health advertising to a new level. To infinity and...

"Why, Mrs Obama, how lovely of you to drop by!"

2009-05-07T12:20:00.000-07:00

Wow! The First Lady of the United States, Mrs Michelle Obama, is just the perfect candidate for a photo op! Lately, some newspapers have been filled with anything and everything to do with the first lady, from what she wears; to her gardening; and now, her appearance on Sesame Street. I'm not usually one to be fascinated by first ladies, because although many have the combination of glamour and humility, not many (well the ones I've taken note of in my lifetime) have the triple K.O. of glamour, humility and service.

I, and a lot of people, first took note of Mrs Obama when she introduced her husband in a keynote speech at the 2008 Democratic Convention during the historic presidential campaign. I found Mrs Obama inspirational, because here was a woman who was openly showing that she supported and believed in what her husband was doing. Some women may have done that before too, but there was something special about Mrs Obama praised and took pride in the soon to be president - her husband. We live in a generation where as young women we are sometimes taught to be independent even when we are married, and to me, such a gesture by Mrs Obama declared that there is nothing wrong with supporting the success of your man. It doesn't have to always be about you, and your liberation as a woman and what your man should do to serve you.

The next time I took note of Mrs Obama is when she came under (fashion) fire for bearing arms in her White House portrait. OK? She is a woman with a lot of style, unique style in fact, which is simple and sophisticated. And I think it was clear from her previous outfits that he might go for something which shows off some of her best assets - her arms. All I have to say to all the fashionistas and tradition police who disliked her choice of outfit is that if you had arms that toned, maybe you would want to show them off too! She proved that her worth was not to be counted by what she chooses to wear, but by the substance she carries.

Lately, Mrs Obama's appearances on television shows, at public appearances and schools etc, prove to me that she is a woman of service. Being a lady, first or not, is about how your character is displayed. Do what you say and feel and what you're passionate about, don't just say it. This for me is something which is sometimes lacking in our independent woman generation: we just say what we want to do and accomplish, but we don't show too many characteristics which show what we are truly passionate about. Sometimes I feel that we have developed the ego of the hunter gatherer which some of our fellow men have; we are driven to provide for ourselves, not realising that sometimes serving leads to our provision. And this does not in any way make us weak vessels, but strong ones that are able to endure in service, and enjoy the fruits thereof without missing our purpose in life.

Proverbs 31:17 says that a woman of virtue (or 'A Wife of Noble Character' in the NLT), is "energetic and strong, a hard worker", a woman who assists her husband in providing for their household. A woman of service. A woman who do. And on that note, if Mrs Obama ever needs a place to rest her feet, I'd be glad to make her a cuppa for all that hard work!

Some Things

2009-05-06T15:21:00.000-07:00

In life we learn quickly what we fall for. Unfortunately, we don't learn as quickly what it is we actually need. Instead, we choose to go for what seems to be all we desire, and not what will help us handle and control our desires until we can have them. So some things just keep bringing us back down until we learn to sacrifice the temporal for the long term, and other things hurt us hard when we realise that they are not all we thought they would be.

Some things are worth far less than what we perceive them to be, and much less than some people would have us believe. This deception is painful and when the truth comes to light, its so easy to get caught up in shame, guilt, insecurity and blame. These things are ones which we wish we'd kept our guard up for, or that someone had cared to warn us about.

Some things do carry a warning sign and yet we think that somehow we are immune to the effects of actually doing them. And when we do, the addiction disguises the empty shell that has been polluted and not filled with lasting treasure. These things cause us to realise that we have to listen to the still small voice which guides us to better, next time.

Some things are not worth the fight that we put up for them. It is only after we see the more important battles that lie ahead, that we understand that our energy should be saved, incubated and used at the right moment. Not a moment sooner. And definitely not a moment after the battle could have been won. These things remind us to prioritise what is vital, and press towards that, and not what we would like to be vital.

Some things come up time and time again until we learn to deal with them. Other things come up to simply trip you up. Some things we know are unhealthy and the memory of the injury, then later the insult to injury, just stop us in our tracks. Some things are just what they are. And the more we see that this is in fact life, the more those things and temptations we teach ourselves to avoid. We step from the depth of some things, to the plateau of those things, where we stand above what could have dragged us down again.

The Hair Chronicles (Part 2): Quite Contrary

2009-04-30T08:38:00.000-07:00

My last post was considered a rant by some (thank you for reading it though), and a gem by others. I'll keep this one as sweet as I can but I'm sure as you know, that might not be so for every reader...

So its that time of the year again when I'm heading for the salon, after much home grooming and treatments and a few salon treatments here and there. I feel as though I'm having a makeover, because to be honest, that's what a new hairstyle can give you sometimes - a makeover. And as per the usual process involved with me picking a hairstyle, I looked at quite a few pictures and articles about hair. Somehow, during all my virtual flicking (my search was online, who needs paper? Save the environment - except where the Bible is concerned!), I came across a survey in which some men believe that women with anything but their real hair (i.e. hair extensions), are not being real about who they are.

I have to pause, because between the aviator shades, shiny cuff links, 'Rolex', overtly branded clothing and strong aftershave, I can't seem to work out the honest and real parts of some men either. Hmm, pot, kettle, both black. I think both sexes have mistaken looking good and the true personality of a person. Yes, appearance is an indicator of what people are about and what they seem to prioritise, but surely we would still judge people if they didn't pay as much attention to their appearance. So for us to complain either way is quite contrary. Where do we call a truce?

For me, hair and whichever way a woman chooses to wear it adds colour to life. She has chosen that colour, that extension, that weave, that cut or style for reasons which are unique to her. And the best way to figure out who she is, is maybe to ask her why that was her choice. Her answer may not be interesting, it may be practical or just plain simple. But her answer will most probably give you more insight into her than your prejudice about her. And the same goes for ladies - asking is better than judging.

I've decided to braid my hair and hopefully it'll be all I do to my hair for a while. For anyone who asks, I'll tell them why and hope that my answer serves as discovery and truth, rather than stereotyping and even less understanding than they deserve.

"Real" People

2009-04-21T05:28:00.001-07:00

The other night I was sat at home watching a popular TV programme on food, people and winning money for cooking food. I won't say what the programme was, as you may have guessed by now. And the topic about being real came up. As I understand, being real, or just being honest, tends to precede criticism and mouthing off without an understanding of who someone is, why they may be that way and therefore why they are acting as they are. Instead, it involves someone just saying what they think, feel or deem correct and giving the reason for their rant as being real or honest.

Firstly, you lie. There is nothing wrong with being honest, or being real - whichever you prefer, thats ok by me. However, if your intentions are good then they should be conveyed that way. It is not ok to give someone a verbal (and emotional) beating and expect them to take your message well and actually learn from it. I mean those who can will. Those who don't want to or don't understand will be left worse off by your honesty than if you'd just left them alone.

The Bible says to speak the truth in - wait for it - love. This establishes a hard but realistic motive for wanting to be honest and real. Why? Because if one is motivated by love, they want to convey such a tone and the message is well received, which creates a thriving environment for change. It doesn't have to be washy washy love, where Barry White has to be in the background before you sweetly sing to someone about how they stepped on your toes. Rather, it involves picking one's moment and choosing to understand them, as well as yourself.

Clearly, the programme about food, people and winning money for cooking food got me riled up about honesty executing tactics. But hey, I'm just being real.

Note to Self

2009-04-16T02:47:00.000-07:00

Reflecting used to be one of my most depressing past times. I felt that if I couldn't change anything that has already taken place, then why should I have to think back on it? But the good Lord corrects those He loves, and I learnt that I sometimes have to look back and learn, and move forward without heaviness or anxiety, regret or intimidation...

Upon reflection the other day, I decided to make a note to self and dedicate it to all the people who have affected me deeply recently. Here goes, and it affects you positively too:

Life will bring what it brings. And as we learn to mature, we learn how to better deal with whatever we don't like that seems to be thrown at us. It is at this point that we also realise how much strength we have. When we muster that strength, we gain freedom because the truth sets us free. And when we're free, we're happy. Not happy because things are always going the way we want and how we want, but because through it all, it makes more sense to have serenity and calm than to add to the chaos through our anger and confusion.

We also learn that we cannot change people, and that people very rarely manage to change us. It is our will to finally get up that changes things when we are ready, and not a second before. With this, we learn to love ourselves for who we are, and face ourselves with a willingness to love what's good about us, and do something about what is not with honesty. When we love ourselves, we naturally love others because we want the same freedom for them.

So this is a note to self: keep doing what you've learned because the lesson wasn't cheap. Now that you've learnt it, use the wisdom to progress, prosper, love and live.

PS: It's your life, the only one you'll have with exactly these moments in them - so how will you make every last one worth it?

The Powers that Be - G20

2009-04-09T11:55:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of the G20 Protests in London last week, it has emerged that and innocent bystander, Ian Tomlinson, died as a result of police brutality. In the lead up to the G20 Summit and the protests which were planned to coincide with the summit, there was worry and fear as to what the protesters were willing to do to get their point across. So what went horribly wrong in between?

Year after year the G20 protests around the world have come to represent several values which we hold dear to democracy and which we would like to be at the core of the discussions of the world's most powerful countries: freedom of speech, the right to assemble, redress of grievances, equality, the preservation of civil rights and liberties, the responsibility of safeguarding the lives of vulnerable groups and accountability of those countries involved to uphold and carry out all that they promise to achieve at any G20 summit. However, this year the G20 protests were way out of hand and I think that the protesters have a lot to answer for, including inciting hatred and aggressive behaviour.

The latter could possibly be due to the fact that the world is in the midst of an economic crisis, and therefore any opportunity to express one's anger at institutions deemed to be part of the problem or just to vent one's fear of the unknown, is taken up more than ever before and expressed through whatever means their human nature allows. This is wrong. There are things which no institution, no human mind, no policy and no twenty countries can even begin to fathom, and thus to fix anytime soon. It's sad that these same protesters who want to show that they know better, do not have the intellect to understand this point. And as a result, they may have just watered down the effectiveness of such protests. Why? I'll leave that to you to decide.

All this however, does not excuse the behaviour of the police who assaulted Ian Tomlinson and left him in a condition which led to his death. In other countries such behaviour by the police is described in two simple words which equal a cold and uncomfortable term: police brutality. It may not be as bad as during the Civil Rights Movement in the States, or the Apartheid regime in South Africa, or the current situation in Zimbabwe, simply because this police brutality was not caused by race or ethnicity. But it is just as bad because it came as a result of division - possibly class division - and also as a result of those in uniforms forgetting that momentary and fleeting anger or reflexes are not part of their job description.

So between the protesters and the police, the two groups both have something to answer for. And unfortunately, the powers that be - the G20 - have taken nothing positive away from this experience of protest. Apart from the fact that they are sometimes right about the masses and the small mob mentality which can sometimes boil into a large mistake and wrong way of thinking which leads to senseless actions.

My sympathy goes out to Iam Tomlinson and my condolences to his family.

Cheques and Balances

2009-04-01T01:51:00.001-07:00

"Err, Jacqui love, they might not be buying it."

Oh dear. Its only midweek, and already we've had one too many MPs exposed and embarrassed over declared expenses- namely, Jacqui Smith MP. For me, the worst part of the story which began unfolding on Sunday, was that she seemed unaware of what her husband was doing behind her back. Anyway, that's another blog for another day...

Jacqui Smith's case is the most scandalous because it contains a hint of sleaze which newspapers love to capitalise on. But in doing so, I think that they have somewhat diverted from the bigger issue at hand: the fact that some MPs (the ones who we've voted in and expect to save our money) are living extremely comfortable and fortunate lives (I dare not say luxurious - oops, there, I did), while the economy is not only in a recession, but where also one in three children continues to live in poverty. And as if that isn't enough, we're still criticising business and banking executives for the lavish bonuses they receive, while allowing government officials to continually claim expenses that might not be necessary.

Now before you shout me down, consider this: The bonuses received by executives are incentive induced and tend to be a result of the profits made by the companies and parties involved; whereas the expenses claimed by government officials are simply tax payers money. The two are very different in my view, which is why I was not too quick to criticise bonuses, but I'm very quick to frown upon expenses.

So what is the solution?

I'm not sure that there is one. For as long as executives believe that they are working hard for their money by producing results which they are asked to, I don't think they're going to back down on big bonuses and plush pensions - especially not when its been contractually agreed. And as for MPs, I have no idea whether all their expenses are of absolute necessity. What I do know, is that between an average of five days of working in Westminster, and travelling home to their constituencies at the weekend, they must rack up a lot of bills.

And as with a lot of things in life moderation and balance are key. For some, it's almost immoral to take home so much money as a bonus, and in the same breath, its reckless to claim so much money to live just because you can.

Meet the Neighbours

2009-03-24T05:03:00.000-07:00

Believe the hype people - it is now possible to view almost anywhere in the world, in real time, from anywhere that you can access your Internet. And its all thanks to Google Street View. At first I wasn't sure what to make of it, but after seeing news items about it, and wondering what exactly this means for me, I became slightly concerned.

My generation is one which is used to being watched. And I don't mean the 'God is watching you so be good' religion watching; I mean being watched on everything from CCTV cameras everywhere you go, to your e-mails being checked and your Internet provider coming down on you for downloading media online. We're so used to it that we encourage it through reality television, such as Big Brother and Wife Swap or anything which is not scripted and could involve your very own neighbours. And now we can meet our neighbours and watch our streets without ever having to leave the comfort of...anywhere really.

The first thing I asked when I heard of this is why? How could we all be so important to Google that it feels the need to spy on us? Maybe that's a bit harsh considering that Google Street View seems to be just a device which extends our maps and our world around us; thereby allowing a more thorough view of places we would like to experience without actually being there. Yeah, if you buy that then fine. The second thing I asked when I actually tried out Google Street View is how does this affect our civil liberties?

Civil Liberties are freedoms, rights and acts which we are entitled to as human beings; and also, which are meant to be both protected by the government as well as not to be encroached on by government. For instance, being entitled to public services regardless of ethnicity, gender, social class, education etc, is a civil liberty; and it is expected that government create, sustain and maintain this. If they encroach it by, say, limiting it for and to certain sections of society they are accountable and usually petitioned to reverse such unfairness.

Concerning Google Street View, I think that the civil liberty in question is privacy. Now the latter is debatable. I.e. what is privacy? where, when and how is it limited? does it include public domains and spaces? etc etc. But I think that the point still stands that one should be free to do simple things, such as walk around or have a coffee or meet up with friends, without being unknowingly watched and without their permission. Again, my first question arises here: why would Google, or anyone else feel it necessary to watch people getting on with their lives? It can turn into an act of criminalising and victimising people who are simply doing what they want to everyday.

If my point of view above about the ills of such a device are not clear or seem far fetched, consider this angle for a moment: What of those who use this device to harm others?

Power in Perspective: Astles and Amin

2009-03-22T11:34:00.000-07:00

African politics, its current affairs and the leadership styles found within it never cease to amaze me. And that's not necessarily because they're brilliant or admirable, but simply because they can be the exact opposite; which always causes me to ask what lesson can be derived from such leadership.

I've been reading about Bob Astles who was allegedly one of Idi Amin's closest advisors, during his eight year tyrannic rule of Uganda. What struck me about Astles, is that he managed to remain 'close' to Idi Amin despite their turbulent and temperamental relationship - Amin did try to kill Astles four times. What I found even more striking is that Astles denies that he had much to do with the authoritarian's oppressive ways. But no matter how much he says or doesn't say, or deny, he did stand by while a lot of the terrors going on under Amin's reign were taking place.

I'm not sure what the textbook noun for the type of leadership style is, but I am sure that it must be one of the worst types around. The first reason being that those close to a leader are the ones who share that leaders power, simply because they advise a leader and are able to influence their decisions. This means that even though a leader makes the final decisions on what goes ahead, the process involved in coming to that decision means that those involved in the process ultimately share responsibility of what goes ahead.

Secondly, politics is sometimes about how power is exerted, and not always about who has power. This means that an advisor can exert power even from behind the one who holds an official title and is window-dressed for display. Hence anyone who is close to a leader is susceptible to all the charges and accusations, as well as partaker of any victories, of their leader. In the case of Astles and Amin, Astles was branded all sorts of things and imprisoned once Amin's rule was over, because Amin's guilt was partly his on account of their relationship.

Finally, and this is purely opinion, I think that for one to stand by and watch the horrors and mistakes which one is making, without attempting to get out of the situation if it is so bad, shows an inhumane side of themselves, never mind of the one they follow. Such an outcome from a close relationship with a dictator or cruel person is eerie in the sense that the one party clearly shows their cruelty. Another silently and passively lets it be. Which is worse?

The Motivation To Serve

2009-03-20T05:11:00.000-07:00

The Apprentice is back. And with it come all of us who enjoy Sir Alan Sugar telling people that they mucked up an assignment, that they have problems following their leaders, that they're mouthy, and that they simply aren't good enough for the job which he has lined up as a prize.

And considering how much Sir Alan Sugar has achieved, it seems that his opinion is as valid as they come for someone in his position. He doesn't just tell people why they're not good enough, as some bosses do. He asks them to identify their weaknesses and see for themselves where they've gone wrong. The other thing which is admirable about his manner (before he boots someone) is that he makes decisions with conviction. Any good leader has to be able to make decisions in a similar way, no matter how unpopular those decisions might be.

But looking at all the candidates who apply for the Apprentice, and the ones who then become contestants, I wonder one thing: What motivates them to go on a show and be told they're not good enough? And somehow, I don't think that the prize is enough. If someone is really as good as they say they are, maybe that confidence would be better placed in starting up something of their own. This isn't me putting on rose-tinted specs and thinking that anything you start up will automatically succeed. Neither am I being critical of Sir Alan being generous enough to give people opportunities which he worked so hard to create.

The point is that a lot of the contestants have boldness and courage to set themselves up for something which ultimately might not even work in their favour. Boldness and courage is all you may have, but if its what motivates you to serve someone who won't always be nice, and use that as a means to an end, then so be it. Don't all go apply for The Apprentice now on account of my advice! Just be bold and courageous about what you would like to achieve and possess.

Proverbs 22:29 - Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will serve kings. He won't serve obscure men.

Baby Borrowing

2009-03-16T08:19:00.000-07:00

In secondary school we read the book "Flour Babies" by Anne Fine. I can't recall what the book was about, but I do remember the exercise / experiment which we had to complete whilst reading the book. The latter involved filling a sandwich bag with baking flour, drawing a cute face onto it, and taking care of it for two weeks (at most, if it "survived" that long). And what was the point of that exercise? That once babies come, they're here to stay, they don't always look cute, and you can;t just get rid of them as you wish.

I've always carried that lesson with me wherever I've gone. Not necessarily because of my own personal views on teenage pregnancy, but because it taught me about being responsible for 'someone' else, never mind yourself. And I think that its a lesson which needs to be taught more often in our generation. Again, not because of anyone in particular's personal views on the subject, but because we may have forgotten that we have a responsibility towards what we procreate.

I'm saying this off the back of a show called Baby Borrowers, where five American teen couples borrow children of different age groups from willing and participating parents. The show aims to teach young teenage couples that babies, toddlers, pre-teens, teens and the elderly are more responsibility than fun; and that such responsibility is best taken on when the adults involved are in stable relationships, earning money and mentally prepared, amongst other things. I'd score the show 4 out of 5, because it has all the drama you would expect from such a programme. But what would we rate it if it were an actual experiment or course that we had to participate in as part of school curriculum?

It might actually work because a lot of teens, as in the show Baby Borrowers, may be wanting to start families because it completes them in some way. I think that's almost natural, but without the means necessary to keep a family together, once the natural part is fulfilled, the rest might suffer. Also, I think that it test the strength of the relationships that a lot of young teens are in. Again, in Baby Borrowers, some of the teen couples realised that their partners may not be the ideal person to go through such an experience with in real life. Enough said.

Finally, such a experiment would only be worth undertaking if certain real life variables were not as lenient as they are. Namely, any social security of benefits system. This is not the cause of teenage pregnancies, I don't think. But it does further aggravate the situation. Other real life variables would include the state of families in society and in general, aspirations of young people and sex education in schools.

Baby borrowing wouldn't be the or the only way to reduce teenage pregnancies. It would only constitute a small part in trying to resolve why young people feel they can take on so much so young.

Sugar and Spice, But Not Always Nice

2009-03-14T06:05:00.000-07:00

I read a blog about women in the blogsphere, and how males seem to dominate the world wide web of blogging, just like they seem to dominate the natural world we live in ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/10/women-blogging). Although the article was more about political blogs, I think that the general notion that men can say what they like on blogs and get away with it, counts for most blogs, no matter where on the world wide web they are.

But I don't think that the problem is as easily solved as the article above suggests. I.e. by creating a new culture of blogging where women are not insulted so much, and given rude nicknames; and where women have the right to be taken more seriously. And why don't I think that this could be the case? Because the www is just an extension of the natural world we live in, and any cultures which we have in the natural, we tend to transfer onto the www.

You may not believe me, but I think I have a few examples that illustrate my point. First, I read a blog the other day on a hip hop magazine site, by a male who thinks that women are obviously at his beck and call for anything and everything. It was explicit and deragotory - and there for everyone to see, even if you weren't looking for it. Forgetting for a moment what hip hop culture is all about, this male blogger is simply expressing what he already lives out. Second, blogs with subjects that have a wide male following in the natural world, tend to have the same attitudes expressed online, as in the natural. I don't think that we should expect any different just because we're online. We are the same people online, maybe we've just found a way to hide who we are in the natural.

So to think that somehow the blogsphere should be some equal and egalitarian space is naive. It won't happen overnight, and it certainly won't happen in reverse. I think we need to start by transferring the female attitudes and expressions we have against such male dominance onto the web, just as we've done in the natural. We can be the sugar and spice that we want to be as females, but we don't have to be nice about things we don't like online.

Pop! Went the King

2009-03-12T08:09:00.000-07:00

"That's right, not even I can wear my crown!"

Coldplay's "Viva la Vida" is a ballad for anyone who loves themselves and the power which they have or have lost. From the first line "I used to rule the world, seas would rise when I gave the word." to the last strum of the chorus, the poets and philosophers among us can tell that this song explains a lot about someone who has done anything they have to to get to where they are, and gets there just to find that there's not much left because they've lost it all in the process.

That's what I found myself thinking when I heard Michael Jackson announce in London last week that he will be doing his final ever music tour. And I wondered what will become of him when the curtain finally does its last call. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Michael Jackson's music. He is the undisputed King of Pop and I doubt anyone will be able to inherit that title from him - a title which was invented by his music and charisma in the first place.

But something, somewhere, along the way must have popped or snapped. And sometimes you reach a point in your life where things, not just around you but mentally too, snap. I'm no psychologist, but if the snapping goes unchecked, and the mind is left to wander, then I think that just allows problems to spiral out of control.

In the meantime, I'm off to practise my karaoke versions of Billie Jean, Human Nature, and Butterflies by Michael Jackson...only in the shower of course!

-Photograph: Shaan Kokin/Julien's Auctions; www.guardian.co.uk

Starbucks or Your Place?

2009-03-09T14:01:00.000-07:00

I know what you may be thinking, but that's ok.

I was talking to someone the other day and they mentioned how people in relationships sometimes value intimacy over commitment, instead of valuing commitment over intimacy. Hmm, I'm not sure how that sounds, but the connotations definitely depend on what images spring to your mind when you hear that. For me, intimacy means knowing more than a person's appearance and the 'here and now 'of who they are. That doesn't include baggage, but it does include finding out (finding not being too operative a word) their social, personal, family make-up, and anything else that they hold dear to them. Intimacy in general tends to be associated with physical intimacy only, and although that can be a part, it can't be everything.

I take commitment to mean just showing someone that you are open to them, available to them, respectful and honourable of each other's time / space, etc. It doesn't mean that you have to promise to marry them as soon as you start dating them. It does mean that even if you have the latter in mind, you approach things concerning that person in a truthful and realistic way, being mindful of their and your boundaries.

And this is where I find myself asking 'Starbucks or Your Place?'. Going out for coffee with friends is a favourite past time of mine. It's not about the coffee, its about meeting up with someone and just being free about who you are. That speaks volumes, because it shows commitment, friendship, flexibility, and anything which you might qualify as being an important in a relationship. As for Your Place, this suggests intimacy - as maybe all the smoke and fireworks that evaporate with it after a while - and it may be all someone is looking for. But you cannot wake up and expect to reap commitment when all you've sown is intimacy. Sowing in itself requires commitment.

I'm not saying that coffee tells you everything you need to know about someone. Never. But it does tell you a lot, about who you're with, as well as yourself... I hope Starbucks doesn't chuck me out, I've been too committed to their lattes!

And Thus Ends Another Week...

2009-03-06T03:00:00.000-08:00

Thank God it's Friday, and I don't mean that lightly or in vain. There are times when you feel like you've been burning that candlestick at both ends, and when you finally meet yourself in the middle, you realise that there's only so much you can achieve before having to recharge again. In light of the latter, I'll be hibernating this weekend...

Its been a busy week in the world as we know it. So I thought I'd just round up a few headlines for you which I picked up in between waking and sleeping at odd hours:

*These headlines and synopses are my own, based on actual news stories run this week.

Brown, at least he's liked more elsewhere: Prime Minister Gordon Brown apparently managed to wow the American Congree with his speech on how we need to move forward in the recession. I'm surprised that he is liked more abroad than here in the UK, but as they say, familiarity breeds contempt. Let's try to get over it though and see what his leadership can bring about in these times. The good thing about his presence in the US, is that it seems to have revived US and British relations, I dare say even strengthened them. Then again, in light of George Bush and Tony Blair's legacies, anyone new can do no wrong in some critics' eyes.

Chris Brown's defence better be as good as his vocals: Actually, he has no defence or excuse for his alleged assault on Rihanna. In fact, this is quite serious now because this crooning birdy could be looking at jail time. All I can say to that is - keep your hands to yourself, both guys and girls!

Omar al-Bashir?: I'm not even going to pretend that I knew the name of Sudan's President, Omar al-Bashir, even though I knew that Sudan has been riddled with civil war and genocide for a long time. What struck me about this news headline is that Omar al-Bashir has described his arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a ploy by the imperial and colonial forces to bring him down. Now, where have I heard that -*cough Mugabe* - before? I think it's time that African leaders face up to the gravity of what they do instead of blaming colonialism and the West when they're called to be accountable and responsible for their actions.

And thus ends another week, with all the hindsight, insight, knowledge and news behind us. Use it. leave it, mull over it. Just have a good weekend no matter how you decide to take it.

A Curious Case of Amnesia

2009-02-26T01:27:00.000-08:00

Life?

Around this time last week, bear with me as I try to recollect when, I went to the cinema for a friend's birthday to watch The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. From the outset, I thought that this film would have my tongue wagging about how brilliant it was, and how I may have underestimated Brad Pitt as an actor in the past. But lo and behold, that was not to be.

I spent a lot of the film multi-tasking between thinking how much longer the film was going to be and actually watching this bizarre and imaginative plot unfold. The idea of someone being born old, and living their infant years through the strains of elderly illnesses was sad, but thankfully not real. And then watching that individual grow young and die as a new born baby was also sad, simply because that is not how life is meant to be - which is why we are hurt when someone young dies, as we know that they had more to live out and live for.

Everything about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was juxtaposed in such a way that if your imagination allowed, it made sense backwards... Except the part where Benjamin Button and his love interest Daisy decide to make their love work when their lives both meet in the middle. This is where my amnesia kicked in, because at this point of the film I forgot that Daisy will die old and Benjamin will die young. It was sweet but sickening. I say that because even when Benjamin is becoming a teenager, the attraction between him and Daisy still seems too strong for the social boundaries which we have in place. Hey, I'm just saying.

The most enjoyable part for me was the old man recalling the seven times that he had been struck by lightening. I mean, to live through that seven times, you have got to have a curious case on your hands, or just divine favour!

I guess the one thing I got out of the film, after taking a week to remember all I'd watched in those 2hours 47mins, was that there are things that outlast time, namely love; and the different ways in which we love and experience love, for friends, acquantances who don't stay around for long but teach us so much in the time they're with us, love for those we're attarcted to etc. I'm not sure why I had to watch a film to remind me of that but when I remember I'll let you know.

The Hair Chronicles (Part 1): I Bought it So it's Mine

2009-02-24T10:08:00.000-08:00

It's unbe-weavable what a new hairstyle can do for you. It could be the making or the faking of you, and if it's the faking, you may not realise it until you've looked in the mirror...

For those of you who may not have caught onto what I'm talking about, I'm talking about weaves. I decided to get one done this past weekend because I need to grow my hair for a while - pay attention, this lesson won't take long - and my hair tends to grow better and faster when it's not exposed to the elements too much.

I've been against weaves for a long time, simply because of all the jokes that people make about them; because of how difficult it can be to maintain them; and, because there's always been a love-hate relationship in the black hair community about how our hair should represent what we have naturally and not the Western ideal of what a woman's hair should look like. i.e. long and straight.

On the latter issue, there's the argument that as black women we have been 'brainwashed' into conforming to certain standards of what our hair should be like. That's fair enough if you always want to revert to slavery and self-hate and how it has affected us as a race. However, I think that maybe things have reached a point where it's about choice. And things have been that way ever since G.A. Morgan invented hair relaxer in 1909. So for me this issue is not about what we should do, because then we are conforming to something else, except that it is the thing which is more preferred.

I'm not trying to dumb down or minimise the perspective that other cultures and ideals of beauty have had disproportionate and negative effects on black beauty, and what fashions and influences come out of it as a result. In fact, I do believe that some of what we consider beautiful as black people is as a consequence of how we have been portrayed unattractive in the past. i.e. hair, skin tone, facial features etc. What I am trying to say is that now that we have the choice to choose how we want to look, we shouldn't go backwards by criticising the choice that those among us make.

Conforming is not fulfilling, whether its to something that you want to conform to or not. My answer to all of this? If I bought it, it's mine - that includes my weave. Because my purchase shows my choice, and my choice proves that ultimately the power rests with me. And surely that's what we've fought for all along?

The Reckless Irony of Facebook!

2009-02-18T01:32:00.000-08:00

Last night I watched an item on CNN about how Facebook has somehow decided it has the rights to use its memeber's information for 'public performances'. In short, as a Facebook member and user, your information and pictures could be used anywhere in the public domain by Facebook. This is atrocious!

I am a Facebook user myself, and as far as I'm concerned, I never agreed to this when I signed up to the Terms of Use. Furthermore, a few months ago when Facebook decided to change how its user information is shared on the internet, I believe I ticked that I do NOT agree to my information, including my pictures, wall posts, Facebook username, and the like, being shared in the public domain let alone with some other users within the site itself.

Facebook has become part of the very CCTV-generation which we try to escape from, except that it was not upfront about its intentions. And therefore it has taken away its user's rights to acquiesce or resist its services.

My suggestion? Imagine if a whole network boycotted Facebook. Now imagine if a whole country boycotted Facebook. And then think of the impact of all of Facebook's 175 million users leaving the social networking site in protest. Where would Facebook be then?

Facebook is being reckless. The irony is that we signed up to it; and now, we're not sure what exactly our rights are.

The Revolution Better Be Televised

2009-02-16T06:59:00.000-08:00

The (hi-)story of Venezuela and specifically Hugo Chavez fascinates me beyond any political history I've learnt so far. After watching "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" (Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Briain, 2003) I began to wonder whether what we learn in the West is always the true side of a matter. And yet even after having to write an essay on the validity of the film, and researching it, both sides of this matter seem like heavy brain washing!

To be honest, I admired aspects of Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution; namely the fact that he has provided free healthcare and assisted poor Venezuelans in learning what their constitution means. Surely this will leave people better off in the long run, because if people can learn what their constitution provides for them, then two things are almost certain: 1. they will make their political decisions knowing what the outcome will be, and fight anything that goes against their expected outcome; 2. they might realise that what they have actually learnt, is how to recognise what is in their best interests, and look for that, as opposed to being spoon fed whatever they've assumed to be correct.

Yesterday, a new twist to the history of Venezuela took place: Hugo Chavez won a referendum which now allows him to be re-elected indefinitely (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/16/hugo-chavez-indefinite-rule). And on this note, we have all the democracy violin players cued and ready to string a melody about how they believe this to be wrong - by Western standards at least. And rightly so, because democracy is about equality and meritocracy and choice. It is not about someone using the system to benefit themselves and prolong their office and tenure. However, on the other hand, would anyone be willing to accept that maybe what has happened in Venezuela for Venezuelans who agree with this referendum, is democracy?

They have, after all, willingly voted on a referendum, and won by 54%, that elected officials may be re-elected indefinitely. If the key words high-lighted do not spell anything for you, try this one: majority. Time and again in my studies and observation of politics and democracy, I have found this to be one of the greatest setbacks, as well as strengths of the ideal. The majority speaks volumes, whether for good or for bad. From the French Revolution to the American Presidency.

Yet another paradox for Latin America, yet another blow for Western democracy. This revolution better be televised, lest anyone say that they didn't see what might happen coming.

I Always Judge a Book by it's Cover!

2009-02-12T05:40:00.000-08:00

I was in a book store yesterday for the first time in a long time. And I realised that I always, and I mean always, judge books by their covers.

I know that there's the hard and fast rule which says, never judge a book by its cover, but I've been staging a silent protest of my own against that for as long as I can remember. Because in my mind, how can you tell whether you'll like what is in a book if you don't judge for yourself whether you like the cover, and therefore whether you would like the contents of the book?

Silly, I know. But my highly 'scientific' experiment proves that thus far I have thoroughly enjoyed reading every book which I've judged by its cover in the last 4 years. I won't mention the title of the one out of many books which I've read in that time, simply because someone reading this might know it and have liked it...

I think that judging things by their appearance is natural, simply because our eyes are what lead us and guide us. The danger here is, obviously, relying too much on what you see and taking that to be the truth and the whole truth. When we choose to rely on our other senses, our faith, our inclinations of scepticism or optimism and whatever else we use to judge what's around us, our lives take on a different dimension.

Of course I couldn't tune my psychic powers to choose a book when I was browsing the book store, but that's about the only time that I rely on my eyes to lead me to what I like!

Stop Falling Down the Stairs

2009-02-10T10:43:00.000-08:00

It's usually thought that women are the main victims of domestic violence. This is for many reasons, including the fact that domestic violence against men is under-reported, especially when men don't realise that what they are going through is domestic violence. It's also widely believed that because women are weaker than men physically, and more emotionally inclined than men too, that they are more susceptible to domestic violence.

I think that such myths only feed the violent habits of those who practice them, and I was glad to see that domestic violence against men as a topic is beginning to level with the topic of violence against women.

There's not much that can be said about such a topic, except that it is wrong. No one, male or female, should be the target of someone's inability to control their emotions or walk away from a tense situation. And yet sometimes we take the issue so lightly, like it's something which should be expected. For instance, I've been asked several times whether I would leave a husband who hits me, and when I say yes (not that I will marry someone like that), the shock in the room is so tangible that I could put it in a bag and watch it float!

My point is that we shouldn't expect domestic violence. We can't live in a utopia, but if we stand for nothing then we fall for anything, so maybe we need to change our thinking. Another point is that we shouldn't stigmatise people who are victims of domestic violence, male or female; because as mentioned before, this prevents victims from recognising the situation that they're in.

And lastly, stop falling down the stairs. By that I mean, stop making excuses for someone else's, or even your own, behaviour.

____________________________________________________________________
Domestic violence helplines
Freephone 24 Hour National Domestic Violence Helpline(Run in partnership between Women's Aid & Refuge)Phone: 0808 2000 247Email: helpline@womensaid.org.uk
Wales Domestic Abuse Helpline: 0808 80 10 800
Scotland Domestic Abuse Helpline: 0800 027 1234
Northern Ireland 24-hour Domestic Violence Helpline: 0800 917 1414
Republic of Ireland Domestic Abuse Helpline: 1800 341 900
Rights of Women Sexual violence legal advice phone: 020 7251 8887

Musical Elitism

2009-02-09T12:34:00.000-08:00

Some of the best songs, are the ones which are shared via different interpretations of them. Why? Because music is something which everyone enjoys, but not something which everyone can understand unless they receive it in a certain way. Just look at the different types of genres of music there are, but with the same recurrent themes of love, fun, dancing etc.

And yet every once in a while, people have to make a raucous about how one person's cover version of a song shouldn't have been done in the first place. I call this musical elitism because by protesting about the cover of a song, sometimes people tend to display a type of snobbery about the music they like, and a great distaste for the music or vocals of the different genre which a cover version takes. For example, if someone disliked a rock ballad covered by an R&B singer using a blues beat, because the singer's voice didn't appeal to them, I would call that musical elitism.

The reasons which some people ascribe to this musical elitism, they say, tend to to be: the cover version doesn't sound as good as the original, usually for technical reasons; the artist covering the original does not have a voice which suits the song; the original is simply being ruined. The reasons which people subscribe to musical elitism, I believe, is because they haven't opened their minds to how music can be interpreted; they don't understand that music goes beyond a tune or beat or the singer, and into the passion behind the notes; and they simply can't bring themselves to say that they just don't believe that their precious song can actually be covered better than the original!

Admit it, you've been a musical elitist at some point, haven't you? I think we all have. It's not so much the music itself that's precious, but the memories, the artist and the sentiment we get when we hear our song. And those can't be covered, not even in the finest tune or the one voice we love to hear.

Here are some covers which I think it doesn't matter who covers them, because they're way bigger than musical elitism - they're art...

Hallelujah: Jeff Buckley then Alexander Burke

At Last: Etta James then Beyonce

Run: Snow Patrol then Leona Lewis

Die Without You: PM Dawn then Brandy and Ray J

True: Spandau Ballet...then anyone and everyone!
Every song on Mark Ronson's album Versions

When Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word

2009-02-05T05:43:00.000-08:00

Doh! Looks serious this time.

The media seems to looking for people who will take responsibility for their actions, and be accountable for every word and action that they speak and commit. These are harsh times folks. Or are they simply a code of morality which we expect public figures to uphold, the way we should too?

Earlier this week Tom Daschle, President Barack Obama's nominee for health secretary, resigned from the nomination due to a personal tax scandal. I'm not going to jump on Daschle and point the moral barrel his way shouting 'You should have known better', for two reasons:

1. People in the US are always having tax issues, just look at Wesley Snipesfor a recent example; does their tax system need a review?

2. Some people don't always know how to handle their money or get into money problems that are beyond them, we shouldn't be quick to apportion blame.

Back to my topic, President Obama didn't say sorry for the 'misguided' decision he made. I believe his words were "I screwed up". This made me wonder whether slang is more acceptable when saying sorry, than the actual word 'sorry'. It wasn't something which he needed to cry and atone for, these things do happen. Nevertheless just think how many times someone has said something like 'my bad' instead of just sorry.

It could have happened to anyone, and its not as major as Prime Minister Gordon Brown's statement "British jobs for British people" this week, and his refusal to apologise for it. I think that as a leader, in difficult times it's best not to say what is really on your mind in public. Gordon Brown seems to genuinely feel that his statement was justified, especially in the current economic climate. But as David Cameron stressed, such a statement shows a lack of good judgement- maybe even a lack of strength, because in the midst of a crisis you shouldn't waste time blaming others. PM Brown still hasn't apologised, and we shouldn't wait for an apology. Because even though he may have said it in a moment of weakness and doubt, he may find that his position is weakened further by the connotations that would accompany his apology.

And then we have the knockout apology situation involving Carol Thatcher and her comments in a BBC green room about a tennis player looking like a golliwog. Deep. I wonder whether the BBC is just having a hard time lately, after Moyles, Brand and Ross; or if Carol Thatcher actually expects us to believe that it was a joke which should not have been leaked. The latter is even worse than her not apologising, because she's making her private views seem valid. I hope some of us have the good sense to see that whether or not it was leaked (code for: 'who the frazzle snitched on me?!), it was wrong.

Apology forthcoming? Answer obvious.

Is Exclusivity Overrated?

2009-02-03T01:33:00.000-08:00

I learned about 'gmail', or 'googlemail' as its now called, a while ago, when someone told me that you couldn't just sign up to it, you had to be invited to join up. Ok, it's just e-mail right? Wrong, it's exclusive e-mail. It's googlemail, and only those fortunate enough to receive an invite to it are cool, cos they know what's up when it comes to e-mail...

So when someone invited me to join googlemail, after a bit of coaxing on my part, I was ecstatic! I'd now joined the club of hip googlemail users, oh yeah, I needed shades just to shield the radiance shinning from my new googlemail account. But the excitement didn't last, because firstly, when I told my dad about it, he was like "So? Everyone has googlemail." To which I asked, "Ok dad, do you have googlemail?" No, point proven. But he was right, exclusivity is not really exclusive all the time. It's simply a gimmick or advertising tool used to hype up a product. And a lot of the times it works, because even when the product is just the same as any other with just slight tweeks here and there to make it exclusive, people still want it.

The second reason why the novelty of my googlemail account wore off is because, quite frankly, I still can't figure out how to export all my contacts from my other e-mail accounts to my googlemail one. Anyone know how? I'd appreciate the help.

Exclusivity is great for branding and marketing, but I think that in time we might find that its overrated. Not because what we're getting is not a good product or a good deal, or because we prefer the common area to the VIP room, but because we'll never be truly satisfied if we keep chasing after things which ultimately will not last. We tend to be so impatient and hungry for things that we know deep down will not quench our desire to find something that will actually stick around.

Sometimes we want exclusivity to fill voids of insecurity or lack or loneliness in our lives. What we need to realise is that nothing except working on knowing who you are and what you're about can curb those feelings. Only then can we enjoy exclusivity, and anything else really, because when it fades and the lights go down, we're still secure on a more sure foundation.

I still love my googlemail account, and you should love whatever is in your life that gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, or makes you smile. But also know that when it's gone, you don't need to fall into identity crisis mode.

"Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things."

-Colossians 3:1-2

Thoko-J. has changed her relationship status from single to not interested playa.

2009-01-29T01:45:00.000-08:00

Anyone who uses Facebook knows that any change you make, from putting pictures up, to writing on someone's wall are updated for everyone to see; and nowadays, people can comment on it too. This includes your relationship status, where you can choose 'single', 'in a relationship', 'married', 'it's complicated' and 'engaged'.

Now this is all good and well if you use Facebook to show people who you can't be geographically close to, what is going on in your personal life. But as I had to learn one time, it's also bad if some people on your friends list are nosey parkers who only talk to you when they want something new to gossip about...

What about when you don't actually want people to know your relationship status, or don't want them to chat you up because they can see from your relationship status that you're single? You could remove the relationship status item altogether, but that too has its own complications. I've seen some people taking the moral low-ground and actually saying that they're 'engaged' on their relationship status, to avoid anyone asking them out or asking them questions about their relationship status that they may not want to answer.

It's hilarious and it's genius! I mean, the amount of comments people get about how on earth they managed to get engaged is too funny, it should win an Oscar! But why do we find it so difficult to believe that some people actually do have it in them to be in a stable relationship, or even engaged? Or are we laughing because we know it's not true? Sometimes we laugh because of the effort that goes into updating our relationship status; and the response which we get from it.

So I've come up with a new relationship status option, to ward off any unwanted attention in the relationship department: 'Not Interested Playa' followed by the options:
1. Because I'm With Someone But Its None Of Your Business.
2. Because I Cannot Be Bothered With The Relationship Status Option.
3. Because It Doesn't Really Matter.
4. Etc.

I'll start, see the response I get, and let you know if it's worth it. *Happy Days*

PS: To all of you in relationships, I hope you're going strong, whether or not you choose to advertise it on Facebook...the world needs a whole lot of love, and if you've found it with someone, you're blessed-I admire you xxx

Seedtime and Harvest

2009-01-28T04:29:00.000-08:00

I've often heard it said that when you see a successful person, you need to realise that so much went into what has brought them to the fore front of where they are now. To be honest, I never thought that was accurate, because I grew up in the MTV-"Reality"-'the truth is only what you see'- generation, where we were spoon fed a whole lot of notions about things happening suddenly and now. Rubbish.

And I think in a lot of ways, this is why we struggle so much emotionally when we don't see things happening in the here and now, when we only really planted something a few moments ago. I'm not talking about paying for your take-away and getting it six months later, or ordering something online and getting it in fourteen days when it should've only taken five days (hmm, couriers, that's another blog!). I'm talking about the things of substance, which funnily enough tend not to be seen for a while, that will count when we finally look back and see what we've accomplished for ourselves...

Remember the science lessons we had in school about planting seeds in polystyrene cups and waiting months for them to grow? We knew that they were in there, it was just a case of when they'd come up. In the mean time, they were taking root, being anchored, being fed and growing until we could see them bud. That type of patience was a life lesson, although we may not have realised it at the time.

My harvest time has come: I can see it in the way things are changing around me and the way I've been equipped to handle almost anything now. But when I was in the midst of all the things I was facing, I couldn't see that the hope I had was actually a seed, and it was taking root, and now the bud is showing, and a harvest is here. Oh yes, there was weedkiller along the way, there was acid rain, and loads of litter (stop dropping people, the council now charges £50 if you get caught!). But I've persevered and now I can see that nothing I hope or prayed for was in vain. And the more I see, the more I plant what produced a harvest for me the first time round. If I planted and it failed, I don't sweat it, just move on.

So sometimes we need to wait out the seedtime, it'll hurt, it'll take time, you might make mistakes along the way, you might lose patience. In the midst of it all though, something is taking root. Question is, what?

Ooops! He Did It Again

2009-01-27T02:01:00.000-08:00

The Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, tends to make headlines for passing chauvinist or sexist remarks about women. He really caught my attention when his wife, Veronica Lario, forced him to apologise to her publicly, by writing him a strong letter expressing her pain and anger at his flirting openly with other women. And sister had class when she did so, because the letter was written in a centre-left newspaper which had previously criticised Mr Berlusconi - and who said politics was boring!

I sometimes laugh at what Mr Berlusconi has to say, because photos of him in the media often show him with a sheepish grin. Couple that with the silly comments he makes, like about US President Barack Obama having a "tan", and you'd think you're tuned into comedy central whenever you see him on TV.

Mr Berlusconi's latest remarks, were about women, rape and law enforcement agencies. Without me quoting exactly what he said, I'm sure you can guess from those key words that what he said was bound to stir things up, just because of the sensitivity of the topic and occurence of rape. But because I'm not that biased, although it is my blog, I'll quote him, so that you can make up your own mind, before reading what's on mine:

"Such things [rape] can always happen even in the most militarised, police state."

"We could not field a big enough force to avoid this risk."

"We'd have to have as many soldiers as there are pretty girls. I don't think we would manage," .

Hmm, do I laugh or take a feminist stance? Neither.

Berlusconi is proposing to mobilise 30 000 soldiers in order to reduce crime. It sounds drastic, but reports suggest that Rome has experienced a wave of violent crime lately. However, as tends to be the mistake of some public policy, such a response is reactive as opposed to preventative. Berlusconi's suggestion is looking at dealing with a result of a cause, rather than dealing with the cause to eradicate what could be the result (it sounds Blairite, I know).

Now, forgetting the public policy part of his comments, because that's up to the electorate and parliament of Italy to decide, Berlsconi's comment made me wonder whether he truly appreciates that rape is not something dependent on beauty. In fact, to bring such factors into investigating the crime of rape, I think, is to lessen the effect of other factors, such as control and dominance over a victim, which are more crucial to understanding rape. Also, rape is not something experienced by women alone...

But I don't think that that makes Mr Berlusconi a bad man. He was simply driving home the point that rape is something that goes beyond how you arm your state, and how that could also back fire on you. I hope that deep down, he also realises there is, in fact, more to preventing rape and protecting victims than just mobilising troops to stamp it out.

Failing all the above, Mr Berlusconi could get someone to coach him on what not to say and when, just a suggestion.

Slumdog Film Policy--Barking Mad!

2009-01-26T05:03:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I woke up with a sore throat, and I was slightly peeved, cos I love singing in the church choir. But its easier to sing when you have a fully functioning throat! This morning, I woke up with a heavy feeling between my throat and my chest, and I knew it was a cough just waiting to unleash itself :(
So I've spent a good part of my weekend defending my healing. And all because Cineworld (I won't say where) wouldn't let me in to see Slumdog Millionaire...

To cut a long story short, I was late for a viewing of Slumdog Millionaire, by about 45minutes-which isn't the point, I hope. And I ploitely asked the lady selling tickets to let me into the viewing I was late for because, 1. My friends were in that viewing and were expecting me; 2. I didn't want to be waiting in the foyer of the cinema randomly for over an hour. "Ok," she agreed, "Let me just verify that with my manager". 'How nice of her', I thought as I took out my money.

NO! "Its 45 minutes into the film and we can't let you in. No." Eeh, since when. My brother tried to turn the situation around, like the legend that he is, but even his urban youth-ness didn't phase them one bit. 'Hmm, that's barking mad' I thought, because if I've missed half the film then surely the cinema is making a profit off me, cos I'll only see half the film??

Clearly, even in economic times like this, some people just aren't looking to make money for nothing.

PS: About the sore throat and cough, I waited in Pizza Hut instead, which was so cold that I was surprised that I was sitting in a restaurant. Thankfully, my weekend got better. *Fun Times*

Kaka's Religion

2009-01-22T03:36:00.000-08:00

Ok, I've really had to do a bit of research on this particular topic. For all you football lovers and pundits, let me know how you rate it!

Over the past fortnight or so, the football world has been buzzing about AC Milan's Kaka (born Ricardo Izecson dos Santos Leite), and his potential move to Manchester City for a reported £108million http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchester_city/s/1091212_milan_in_kaka_move_hint%20-%2039k , which comes to about £207, 692.30 per week. Thats twice as much as he's getting from AC Milan a week (£100 000). That type of money is no laughing matter, especially during times like these...

And yet Kaka said from the beginning and during negotiations, that he was not going to move from AC Milan. And because he said he'd "prayed" about it and that he felt that Milan was where he should stay, the media ran with that and never looked back, suggesting that his Christian faith affected his decision. How? Because the Bible says that money is the root of all evil; therefore moving teams for such a sum, might not be right.

Hmm, ok, he takes his faith seriously. Just by reading about Kaka in general and how he came to the decision to take his faith seriously, the fact that he tithes, the significance of his celebration move after scoring a goal, his t-shirt under his team shirt which reads "I belong to Jesus" and his miraculous recovery from a life changing injury at 18, one clearly gets the impression that this is someone who is devoted to God.

Now, not all sources have reported a direct link between Kaka's decision to stay at AC Milan and his Christian faith http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jan/19/kaka-berlusconi-milan. But I do think that there is a link between Kaka's beliefs and his decision not to move to Manchester city, least of all because I'm an Arsenal fan...

To me, Kaka knows that what he has and what he is getting is enough. I don't mean enough in the sense that there's a limit to what people should want or achieve, otherwise the Bill Gates's of this world wouldn't be where they are, nor would they be the philanthropists that they are. I mean enough in the sense that one does not equate success and personal satisfaction with money. All too often in the football world, the amount of money involved in the transfer of a footballer from one team to another, is meant to be an indicator of the footballer's worth and subsequently, their success. This is among other things of course, like the other team's buying power and negotiating skills, as well as whether the team being bought from can afford not to follow through with the transfer deal.

Kaka is confident about where he is, and I think this stems from his faith; knowing that it took much more than money to get him to where he is, and it will take even more than just money to make him move from a place he feels at his best and plays at his best too. Such surety couldn't even be bought using King Solomon's mines - and we all know he was bathing in wealth!

A Late Film Review : The Dark Knight

2009-01-21T03:54:00.000-08:00

I love Batman. Ever since I was young, I found something so fascinating about a super hero who has owl-like nocturnal tendencies, and therefore only fights crime at night. I wondered how he could see through a dark mask, in the dark, and still get the job done! I was even more fascinated by Jim Carey as The Joker; I mean, the guy was so thrilled about being evil it was hilarious! But I think that had more to do with Jim Carey as an actor, than The Joker as a role...

And Heath Ledger just put a whole new spin on the role of The Joker in one of the biggest films of 2008, and probably the best ever Batman film - The Dark Knight. Ledger played his role so convincingly that I wondered how he stepped out of that character when he wasn't acting. He was sarcastic and violent in such a calm way, and yet his very presence signalled a brooding evil that was just waiting to come out.

The Dark Knight was even darker than the 90s series of Batman films, both in terms of the lighting (I think that counts as production? Forgive me, I'm not a professional film critic); and the actual plot. Gotham City has reached its heights of corruption, and the big dogs of crime have formed a conglomerate to protect their interests as...criminals. They are more intelligent, more equipped and even more smartly dressed than ever before. They're untouchable. Until The Joker comes along and upsets their plans. He is a terroriser of the terrorists in the film, and he often gets what he wants by infiltrating the most intricate crime syndicates, and blowing them to shreds from within.

So you can imagine that Batman, the crime fighter who uses streetlights as his torch, has a lot on his hands. And this is a metaphor for the world we live in today, where corruption and greed are not about how much money you can get, but how much power you can exert trying to. It's a twisted way of being and living, both in the film and in our world. And from this point begins an excellently crafted plot about who the winners are and why.

Batman, or the Dark Knight, becomes the villain. Not because he is, but because he is not wanted and people feel they don't need him to fight their battles. He is the villain by choice and not by default. Even the police chief who is meant to be protecting Gotham City and working with Batman turns on the hero, and seeks his own ends. In the end, Batman is hounded out of town, with the last words:

"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not the hero. He's a silent guardian, watchful protector. The Dark Knight."

How true of a lot of people, heroes and heroines who we choose to blame. They are chased because deep down everyone knows that they can handle it, and that they'll come out stronger. And they'll be there when we finally decide that they're needed, and not a moment before.

Oscar? Definitely. Plot? Superb. Sequel? I sure hope so!

Glimpses : A Tribute to President Barack Obama

2009-01-19T03:23:00.000-08:00

Stranger: "Where are you from?"

T-J.: "Leeds."

Stranger: "Originally, where are you from"?

T-J.: "Leeds."

Stranger: "Ok, where are your parents from?"

T-J.: "Err, why?". At which point I walk away and hope that I wasn't rude, I just don't want to be quizzed about who I am and where I come from. And why should I be?

For those of you who don't know, I'm South African born, to Malawian parents. And I now live in Leeds in Britain. I often come across people who struggle to place me in a prescribed box of identity far more than I do. And I don't think that will ever be easy for either them or me to do so if we continue to cling to how we perceive people should be born and raised in a specific geographic location and to a certain race of parents! What?!

In my family, we have Malawians, where our roots are because that's where we can trace our grandparents to. Some of us, however, are Zimbabwean, some South African, some half Scottish, some Nigerian, some Pakistani, some British. And that's just those of us who we know and can name.

Having read "Dreams from My Father" by President Barack Obama, it doesn't take long for a lot of people, including myself, to identify a part of themselves in Obama and the struggle he had trying to create, discard and understand his mixed heritage and his colourful upbringing. It's the portrait of a lot of people, not only of mixed parentage; but of anyone who does not have solely one race in their DNA, or one culture in their upbringing or one of anything to do with their social make-up.

And as Barack Obama has clearly shown, sometimes such fluid identity can be the strength and the catalyst that makes you the great person you are. Not because you don't know where you belong; but because wherever you go, you see glimpses of yourself in the people of that place. You are an every sort of man or woman, to every sort of person...

With what Obama has achieved for himself as the new president of the United States; for his family, his country, black people, and the world as a whole, we seem to be stepping into a new era. One where religion, education, wealth and other things that define us apart from our races and culture, will be what determines our progress more than anything else and more than ever before. And that's why I'm such a supporter of President Obama - because he relied on his intellect and understanding of people, more than where he could or couldn't trace his heritage back to. As interesting as his background is, he knew that it would take more than the colour of his skin to get as far as he has and to do as much as he would like to.

I hope we can all see glimpses of ourselves in other people and focus on how alike we are and the common things we are trying to achieve, as opposed to always picking at the scab of difference and hatred.

-Recommended Read: "Dreams from My Father", by Barack Obama

What weren't you thinking??

2009-01-17T14:30:00.000-08:00

Lol, sometimes it takes a good person, a good friend, and just an honest individual to let you know that next time you could do better. I don't mean someone telling you off or kicking you when you're down, as a way of letting you know what the 'truth' is (how can you see out of a black eye anyway?) . I mean someone who can look at the something you've been through and laugh it off with you. That's a blessing.

Looking back on some decisions we make, we ask ourselves, 'What was I thinking?'. And the answer tends to be that we weren't actually thinking about our actions. Impulse, and drive, temptation and other things feelings lead us to act abnormally to what we would. The Bible says in Proverbs 4:7 that wisdom is the principal thing, and that in all our getting, we should get understanding. Hence when we view things with hindsight and with the knowledge we have in our later have, we understand why things turned out the way they did.

We won't always get things right, or see things coming. But we can think more clearly, more deeply, and sometimes more openly to get more or better out of something. And for what is not meant to be, we'll be able to let go of them earlier and easier.

A (Language) Lesson with G.W. Bush

2009-01-15T10:46:00.000-08:00

As G.W.Bush prepares to leave the White House, I wonder what we could learn from him. He was truly one of a kind when it came to the US Presidency and despite his shortcomings and decisions which made him unpopular, I think we can learn a thing or two from him as a leader.

"They misunderestimate me" Nov. 2000

He'd hardly stepped into the White House as president, and already his language was a sign of things to come- Bush-isms! Those unforgettable and whacky phrases which only he could come up with. And boy, did he come up with a lot. But apart from that, I think Bush was expressing something which all leaders feel at some point in their walks and their lives in general, that they're being underestimated. When so much opposition is against you, it's easy to feel that there's a 'they' and they don't see what you're made of. A lot of the times that's true, but as long as you continue nurturing what you believe to be inside you, the results will surely show. So nevemind people who misunderestimate you!

"I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here" -Aug. 2002

I'm not sure whether that means that he was dreaming, or that he wasn't there in bodily form? The point is that we could all do with listening sometimes. It's not easy to listen when you have something to say, or when you feel that what's being said is untrue or fitting. But it puts things into better perspective when you do. Listening also displays other virtues which are irreplaceable in someone: patience and understanding. I'm not sure how much listening Mr Bush did, but it must have been a lot for a man in his position. That doesn't mean to say though, that his response was always the right one...

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings find dream." - Oct. 2000

I think he meant, 'where dreams find wings'! Families are important, and we need them to help society function better and at its best. I've learnt how important family is to me, and I wouldn't trade that lesson for anything, not even all the cheesecake the world could offer. It's a precious thing, families, and I don't know what policies Mr Bush used to improve them; nevertheless, this Bushism showed that he knew some of the most important things to human life.

-Source: http://uk.msn.com on 16th February 2009; and of course, G.W. Bush!

No, I am not motivated at 6am!

2009-01-14T05:05:00.000-08:00

And this is coming from your local early bird. I love being awake early to see in the day; sort myself out; read while lying in bed for hours before anyone at home gets up and starts enforcing their daily itinerary on me (guess who?); txt someone to let them know they matter to me; watch a bit of T4; and generally just gather my thoughts and enjoy the fact that it's another day to live my life and make things better or right.

But the other morning when I woke up to find Mr Motivator on TV telling me I need to get in shape, I thought "Nah, I must still be dreaming". By the way, I am in shape, and that's not the point of this article...

It got me wondering how on earth people like him have the constant energy and smile to get the rest of us up and going, and doing that one thing that we've always wanted to do. I mean, if you've seen Mr Motivator, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The guy has endless streams of words and moves every single morning, and we're only half way through January!

I'm not sure what anyone else's key to motivation is, but mine is passion. Some things just stir something up in me, to the point where I can't sit still or keep my mouth shut about them. Those are the types of things that I never fail to do, no matter how tired, restless, or out of my comfort zone I am. And I think that having passion is a gift, one that can be multiplied into a talent and more talents, and discoveries. I guess that's what keeps Mr Motivator sooo motivated, his passion for exercise and fitness; even after all these years in that fruit-pattern jumpsuit!

Some people are motivated by their past, their present circumstances, their obligations and the like. But I wonder whether, if we stripped our motivation of things that need doing for the forseeable future, we could all accomplish more than we anticipate in a shorter space of time. I'll hold that thought for a while and get back to you.

Whatever motivates you, I hope it keeps motivating you, and shaping you and growing you. All in the right way of course! When it doesn't though, take some time to see what there is to be learned, take heart, and move on.

Behaving Like Royalty

2009-01-12T06:43:00.000-08:00

Tut tut tut, seems like Prince Harry has gotten himself into a spot of bother again. Oh dear, what are we to do with the royals?

Well, I think that last question has been answered several times from a theoretical point of view. And from a practical point of view, the royal family are not going anywhere. But how exactly should we respond to how they behave, both in and out of uniform, both on and off duty and really, in general?

It's not good, and at times shocking, to hear that Prince Harry made the remarks that he did about his fellow cadets. Firstly, because he's a prince and he's royal, and they should know better. This is an assumption which many people make, because we have esteemed the royal family for what and who they are, and we don't like them to behave any less than what we (all) expect from them. They not only represent what has been in this nation, but what the nation currently is and stands for. Sorry, what the nation should be and what it should stand for...

The second reason why I think Prince Harry's remarks were offensive is because its not what I expect from anyone else around me, nevermind royalty. "What world do you live in?!" I hear you ask and shout. A very optimistic one. I'm aware of history such as colonialism, racism, black on black crime and anything else that negatively overshadows anything that people try to build and make for themselves. But as an optimist at heart, I don't believe we should expect the standard which has been set by the forefathers and generations before us. To do that, would be to imply that those who didn't accept such a standard and fought against it for us, did so in vain. It would also mean that those of us who have the opportunities to create change don't relise the power we have.

So for me, Prince Harry's remarks were offensive on a more profound level than his royal status - the most basic level at which he is, a person just like the rest of us. And maybe that's why this investigation into his conduct has come to light; because anyones else, royal or not, might face the same scrutiny if found to have offended others.

"Your attitude can pay you back"!

2009-01-10T11:26:00.000-08:00

Yup!, that's a quote; but don't go saying it too much, its not that genius.

But it is true. I don't believe that it was true for me and the context in which it was said to me. But I think that it underpinned a lot of what I've learned about relationships. Oh, the drama; half of us should be on the West End by now with all the roles and scenes we've lived through in relationships...

And yet some of us never learn; or rather, we refuse to. We remain stuck in our ways and therefore, stuck in relationships that are no good for us. Sometimes, that's because we see a part of ourselves in someone we're with, and we don't want to break away from it because that would be like admitting that something in ourselves needs to change.

Sometimes, we choose to do what we've always done, hoping that the other person will finally realise how much we give and that we deserve a lot better from them in return. Well, all I've got to say to that is, "to the left"! And sometimes, the ways we're stuck in are the only ways that get us what we want - or so we think.

Basically, we go into relationships with the wrong attitude, which determines what we get out of them. Most people are in relationships so that they can receive something, be it material, physical, emotional or otherwise. Isn't it better to go into a relationship for what you can give? Because when we try to determine what we could give in a relationship, we have to question what our motives and substance are really made of.

So where does that leave us? With an understanding of who we are, and what we're about. Compatibility is no easy thing, and it's not to be based on things that will probably fade (or wrinkle) with time.

I'll check my attitude next time, I don't want to be paid back what I didn't even bargain for!

Atheist Bus Campaign??

2009-01-10T11:07:00.000-08:00

I'm sure many of us have heard of the recent bus campaign by Atheists, which carries the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Err, ok?

The first time I read of the atheist bus campaign (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), I wasn't at all perturbed. I saw it as yet another attempt by atheists to tell the world what they do, or rather don't, believe. Fair enough - free country, freedom of speech and all that. Except when it offends other people. And this is where I have always argued about the fine line between freedom of speech and censorship. In this instance, should the atheist bus campaign have been censored, because it is offensive towards those who do believe in God? It's a complex and dynamic topic, but for now, I'm just going to argue about the slogan itself and it's assumptions and connotations...

"There's probably no God." - That's the first part of the atheist bus campaign assumption. Now, I do believe God exists, and if I'm trying to convince someone of it, I would be a bit more assertive than a mere "probably". Probably denotes something within reason, as well as something which can be thought to be fact, but not necessarily true (yes, there is a difference between truth and fact), as its conclusion depends on certain factors which are still being waited on. Now the very fact that probably depends on something within reason means that even if there is proof outside of reason, say a miracle, then an atheist would find it hard to accept. The best thing to do if you're not too sure, is maybe not to act like you are? Just a suggestion.

So an atheist approaching me with probably, or a bus driving past me with such an assumption (and if it's my bus, you know I'll be complaining to the bus company about it!), just lets me know that atheists aren't sure of what they believe, or don't believe. And you needed a bus campaign just to spread your uncertainty around? And by the way, some scientists admit that there must be a God for all that is around us to have taken shape (see ' "Probably" probably wrong' by Andrew Brown at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/jan/08/religion-atheism-longley-advertising ).

"Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". - That's the latter part of the atheist bus campaing slogan; and it wrongly assumes that someone who believes in God worries and doesn't enjoy life. Hmm, but whether or not you believe in God, you are still prone to worry. Controlling your mind and your emotions dictate how you handle worry. So are atheists trying to imply that those who believe in God worry whereas atheists don't? Where is the measure for that? And do those who believe in God somehow not enjoy their lives either? Again, I would like a measure for that. But how would an atheist measure such things, because the very basis of their non-religious stance is non-belief. So whatever we present to them as belief and therefore a resulting situation of lack of worry and enjoyment of life, would not be evidence of anything to them. To which I ask: Was the atheist bus campaign, or even just the slogan alone, thought through? Nnnn...ok, I'll save my bias from answering that.

And at this point, I begin to prove atheists wrong, by laughing at why they thought of this and whether they actually properly thought through what they were trying to get across and achieve. My answer: Probably, most certainly, NOT.

My Little Black Dress

2009-01-09T01:55:00.000-08:00

Most females have heard of the LBD- the little black dress, one of the most important outfits to have in your wardrobe. It's the emergency dress you pull out when you realise that your lilac coloured number went out with the last wedding you wore it to; when everyone has seen you in that red item; or when someone invites you somewhere special when all the shops are closed and you can't go out and get a quick and cheap item. Ahh, the little black dress.

Now, let's not get too technical here. A little black dress doesn't necessarily have to be little, in terms of the size, length or shape. It is essentially, just that black dress that will match with anything and can be worn more than once if accessorised differently each time. It doesn't have to be expensive either.

I didn't have a little black dress until recently, and I was starting to panic because the festive season was fast approaching, and I was going to two Christmas balls. Neither of which would allow any of my previous dresses. And the more I though about an LBD, the more I saw it being talked about in magazines, I saw it in adverts and in some high street stores. One of those LBDs had to be mine...

But then someone asked me why women like to shop a lot, especially when half the stuff they buy they don't need or use for a while. And it got me thinking about my LBD - why did I buy it? It wasn't the price, it wasn't the need for one, and it didn't have to be black. Why?

I think the LBD, explains a lot about consumerism and women: Women love things (clothes, shoes, bags, food, accessories, chocolate, anything!), and consumerism loves money. So between a woman's love for anything and consumerism's love for money, some bright spark has found a way to convince women that we need things, even the ones that we don't really need (like my LBD).

What's even more perplexing is that when we buy things we don't need, it's not really because we might need it later on - although we give that excuse. I think it's mainly because of the feeling we get from having something that will one day, at that moment, when that person calls, make us look and feel fabulous. The feeling part being more important than the looking part...

Well, I've got my LBD, so you could say I've been duped! Don't get me wrong, I like my LBD. But next time, I'll think twice about whether I need anything like it.

2009: The Year to Shine

2009-01-08T12:28:00.000-08:00

2008 was a good year. Maybe for some, it wasn't. For those who fall into the last category, you're reading this - so you're still alive which counts for something!

2008 is a year that I'll remember as one of change and realignment, especially in the world as we previously knew it. Our economic boom slightly bust and some banks realised that they should have kept our money under their mattresses...but on the other hand, Lewis Hamilton proved that age aint nothing but a number when it comes to success, and Barrack Obama gave us hope and made us realise that, yes, we actually can.

Despite all this, I really do believe that 2009 will be an even better year. We may have to rediscover what 'layering' means because of the -11*C weather, and we may have to fake optimism every time we turn on the news, hoping that something good will be happening. And what is good about all this? The fact that light can only be seen in darkness...

So whatever situation you find yourself in and whatever may be going on around you that's reshaping and shaking your environment, remember that that's one step closer to hope, revelation and happiness.

Great things have never been achieved without opposition; marathons are never run without obstacles; and you will always triumph through adversity.

Welcome

2009-01-08T07:13:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Nissi!

I don't want to give an overexcited or cheesy welcome, but this being my first ever way to express my opinions - unadultered, uncensored, undiluted, and unmarked by teachers and lecturers! So, I have just two words:

WOO HOO!

Nissi is obviously a blog, well done to me for guessing that lol...A blog about my passions and interests, what I feel about them, and how fluid they can be at times. Most of the blogs will be about current affairs and networking, and occasionally other features (watch this space!). I hope you enjoy it as much as I will ;)

Feel free to comment...or not?? And although not everything on here will be deep, I hope there'll be something for everyone.

Thanks again for stopping by xxx