Saturday 29 March 2008

You Will Never Walk Alone




When you walk through a storm

Hold your chin up high

And don't be afraid of the dark.

At the end of a storm

Is a golden sky

And the sweet, silver song of a lark.

Walk on, through the wind,

Walk on, through the rain,

Though your dreams be tossed and blown.

Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart,

And you'll never walk alone,

You'll never walk alone.





The song is sung at football clubs around the world, where it is performed by a massed chorus of supporters on matchday; this tradition began at Liverpool FC in the early nineteen-sixties and later spread to several other clubs.

Tuesday 25 March 2008

A Cup of Coffee



I received this from article from a friend as a email, a quite interesting reading


A group of alumni, highly established in their careers, got together to visit their old university professor. Conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life.
Offering his guests coffee, the professor went to the kitchen and returned with a large pot of coffee and an assortment of cups - porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal, some plain looking, some expensive, some exquisite - telling them to help themselves to the hot coffee.
When all the students had a cup of coffee in hand, the professor said: "If you noticed, all the nice looking expensive cups were taken up, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is normal for each of you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress.
What all of you really wanted was coffee, not the cup. But you consciously went for the best cups and were eyeing each other's cups. Now if life is coffee, then the jobs, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain Life, but the quality of Life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it." So, don't let the cups drive you.. enjoy the coffee instead!

Saturday 22 March 2008

Robert Fisk: The only lesson we ever learn is that we never learn

President George Bush addresses US Army soldiers and their families at Fort Hood, Texas, 3 January 2003. Bush addressed the possiblity of military action against Iraq
Robert Fisk: The only lesson we ever learn is that we never learn


Five years on, and still we have not learnt. With each anniversary, the steps crumble beneath our feet, the stones ever more cracked, the sand ever finer. Five years of catastrophe in Iraq and I think of Churchill, who in the end called Palestine a "hell-disaster".
But we have used these parallels before and they have drifted away in the Tigris breeze. Iraq is swamped in blood. Yet what is the state of our remorse? Why, we will have a public inquiry – but not yet! If only inadequacy was our only sin.
Today, we are engaged in a fruitless debate. What went wrong? How did the people – the senatus populusque Romanus of our modern world – not rise up in rebellion when told the lies about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam's links with Osama bin Laden and 11 September? How did we let it happen? And how come we didn't plan for the aftermath of war?
Oh, the British tried to get the Americans to listen, Downing Street now tells us. We really, honestly did try, before we absolutely and completely knew it was right to embark on this illegal war. There is now a vast literature on the Iraq debacle and there are precedents for post-war planning – of which more later – but this is not the point. Our predicament in Iraq is on an infinitely more terrible scale.
As the Americans came storming up Iraq in 2003, their cruise missiles hissing through the sandstorm towards a hundred Iraqi towns and cities, I would sit in my filthy room in the Baghdad Palestine Hotel, unable to sleep for the thunder of explosions, and root through the books I'd brought to fill the dark, dangerous hours. Tolstoy's War and Peace reminded me how conflict can be described with sensitivity and grace and horror – I recommend the Battle of Borodino – along with a file of newspaper clippings. In this little folder, there was a long rant by Pat Buchanan, written five months earlier; and still, today I feel its power and its prescience and its absolute historical honesty: "With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavour at which Islamic people excel is expelling imperial powers by terror or guerrilla war.
"They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon. We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."
How easily the little men took us into the inferno, with no knowledge or, at least, interest in history. None of them read of the 1920 Iraqi insurgency against British occupation, nor of Churchill's brusque and brutal settlement of Iraq the following year.
On our historical radars, not even Crassus appeared, the wealthiest Roman general of all, who demanded an emperorship after conquering Macedonia – "Mission Accomplished" – and vengefully set forth to destroy Mesopotamia. At a spot in the desert near the Euphrates river, the Parthians – ancestors of present day Iraqi insurgents – annihilated the legions, chopped off Crassus's head and sent it back to Rome filled with gold. Today, they would have videotaped his beheading.
To their monumental hubris, these little men who took us to war five years ago now prove that they have learnt nothing. Anthony Blair – as we should always have called this small town lawyer – should be facing trial for his mendacity. Instead, he now presumes to bring peace to an Arab-Israeli conflict which he has done so much to exacerbate. And now we have the man who changed his mind on the legality of war – and did so on a single sheet of A4 paper – daring to suggest that we should test immigrants for British citizenship. Question 1, I contend, should be: Which blood-soaked British attorney general helped to send 176 British soldiers to their deaths for a lie? Question 2: How did he get away with it?
But in a sense, the facile, dumbo nature of Lord Goldsmith's proposal is a clue to the whole transitory, cardboard structure of our decision-making. The great issues that face us – be they Iraq or Afghanistan, the US economy or global warming, planned invasions or "terrorism" – are discussed not according to serious political timetables but around television schedules and press conferences.
Will the first air raids on Iraq hit prime-time television in the States? Mercifully, yes. Will the first US troops in Baghdad appear on the breakfast shows? Of course. Will Saddam's capture be announced by Bush and Blair simultaneously?.
But this is all part of the problem. True, Churchill and Roosevelt argued about the timing of the announcement that war in Europe had ended. And it was the Russians who pipped them to the post. But we told the truth. When the British were retreating to Dunkirk, Churchill announced that the Germans had "penetrated deeply and spread alarm and confusion in their tracks".
Why didn't Bush or Blair tell us this when the Iraqi insurgents began to assault the Western occupation forces? Well, they were too busy telling us that things were getting better, that the rebels were mere "dead-enders".
On 17 June 1940, Churchill told the people of Britain: "The news from France is very bad and I grieve for the gallant French people who have fallen into this terrible misfortune." Why didn't Blair or Bush tell us that the news from Iraq was very bad and that they grieved – even just a few tears for a minute or so – for the Iraqis?
For these were the men who had the temerity, the sheer, unadulterated gall, to dress themselves up as Churchill, heroes who would stage a rerun of the Second World War, the BBC dutifully calling the invaders "the Allies" – they did, by the way – and painting Saddam's regime as the Third Reich.
Of course, when I was at school, our leaders – Attlee, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, or Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy in the United States – had real experience of real war. Not a single Western leader today has any first-hand experience of conflict. When the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq began, the most prominent European opponent of the war was Jacques Chirac, who fought in the Algerian conflict. But he has now gone. So has Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran but himself duped by Rumsfeld and the CIA.
Yet one of the terrible ironies of our times is that the most bloodthirsty of American statesmen – Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz – have either never heard a shot fired in anger or have ensured they did not have to fight for their country when they had the chance to do so. No wonder Hollywood titles like "Shock and Awe" appeal to the White House. Movies are their only experience of human conflict; the same goes for Blair and Brown.
Churchill had to account for the loss of Singapore before a packed House. Brown won't even account for Iraq until the war is over.
It is a grotesque truism that today – after all the posturing of our political midgets five years ago – we might at last be permitted a valid seance with the ghosts of the Second World War. Statistics are the medium, and the room would have to be dark. But it is a fact that the total of US dead in Iraq (3,978) is well over the number of American casualties suffered in the initial D-Day landings at Normandy (3,384 killed and missing) on 6 June, 1944, or more than three times the total British casualties at Arnhem the same year (1,200).
They count for just over a third of the total fatalities (11,014) of the entire British Expeditionary Force from the German invasion of Belgium to the final evacuation at Dunkirk in June 1940. The number of British dead in Iraq – 176 – is almost equal to the total of UK forces lost at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944-45 (just over 200). The number of US wounded in Iraq – 29,395 – is more than nine times the number of Americans injured on 6 June (3,184) and more than a quarter of the tally for US wounded in the entire 1950-53 Korean war (103,284).
Iraqi casualties allow an even closer comparison to the Second World War. Even if we accept the lowest of fatality statistics for civilian dead – they range from 350,000 up to a million – these long ago dwarfed the number of British civilian dead in the flying-bomb blitz on London in 1944-45 (6,000) and now far outnumber the total figure for civilians killed in bombing raids across the United Kingdom – 60,595 dead, 86,182 seriously wounded – from 1940 to 1945.
Indeed, the Iraqi civilian death toll since our invasion is now greater than the total number of British military fatalities in the Second World War, which came to an astounding 265,000 dead (some histories give this figure as 300,000) and 277,000 wounded. Minimum estimates for Iraqi dead mean that the civilians of Mesopotamia have suffered six or seven Dresdens or – more terrible still – two Hiroshimas.
Yet in a sense, all this is a distraction from the awful truth in Buchanan's warning. We have dispatched our armies into the land of Islam. We have done so with the sole encouragement of Israel, whose own false intelligence over Iraq has been discreetly forgotten by our masters, while weeping crocodile tears for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died.
America's massive military prestige has been irreparably diminished. And if there are, as I now calculate, 22 times as many Western troops in the Muslim world as there were at the time of the 11th and 12th century Crusades, we must ask what we are doing. Are we there for oil? For democracy? For Israel? For fear of weapons of mass destruction? Or for fear of Islam?
We blithely connect Afghanistan to Iraq. If only Washington had not become distracted by Iraq, so the narrative now goes, the Taliban could not have re-established themselves. But al-Qa'ida and the nebulous Osama bin Laden were not distracted. Which is why they expanded their operations into Iraq and then used this experience to assault the West in Afghanistan with the hitherto – in Afghanistan – unheard of suicide bomber.
And I will hazard a terrible guess: that we have lost Afghanistan as surely as we have lost Iraq and as surely as we are going to "lose" Pakistan. It is our presence, our power, our arrogance, our refusal to learn from history and our terror – yes, our terror – of Islam that is leading us into the abyss. And until we learn to leave these Muslim peoples alone, our catastrophe in the Middle East will only become graver. There is no connection between Islam and "terror". But there is a connection between our occupation of Muslim lands and "terror". It's not too complicated an equation. And we don't need a public inquiry to get it right




Friday 21 March 2008

Don't send a 6 year old girl to her death - stop the deportation of Maria!

Maria Amen (God keep her smiling )


This is will hopefully stop the prevention of a deportation of a Palestinian child to her death.



Please join on facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6052314364





Maria Amen was wounded in 2006, when an Israeli missile struck her uncle's car, killing four members of her family, including her mother, grandparents and uncle. Maria herself, who was five at the time, had been left paralyzed up to her neck, and will never be able to breath without medical assistance. Maria is hospitalized in a Jerusalem rehabilitation hospice, the only one in Israel or Palestine capable of keeping her alive. Her permit to stay there expired, and the Ministry of Interior wants to deport her to the West Bank. THIS IS EFFECTIVELY A DEATH SENTENCE, as no other hospital has the medical equipment to help her breathe. At the moment Maria's case is before the High Court of Israel. This group is an online petition and a focal point for all those who think that this is a monstrous travesty which shouldn't be allowed to happen. Since not one government could care less about petition, we urge any and all members of the group to take action: if you are a journalist, write about Maria for your paper. If you are an activist, make your organization get involved. If you are member of a religious community, get any religious authority you can reach to issue a statement of concern - be it a mosque, a temple, a church or a synagogue. The pressure already raised by the family had the Ministry of Interior suddenly ask to postpone the hearing in the High Court . With more pressure - letters, statements, articles, phone calls - we can get them to give it up for good.



( By Dimi Reider, God bless her )



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/peace-studies-children-of-israel-394977.html

Please spread the word! Maria dear do not worry I support you, and pray for you.

Wednesday 19 March 2008

Face To Face By Hamza Yusuf


Shyakh Hamza Yusuf Hanson Of Zaytunta Institute,USA (God bless him)



Hunger can bring out the worst in us. In a wonderful scene in Shakespeare's As You Like It, a desperate and hungry Orlando comes upon Duke Senior and his exiled court in the forest, who are about to start dinner. Assuming the law of the jungle presides in Arden, Orlando brandishes his sword and demands food upon pain of death. Duke Senior rebukes him for his lack of civility, and wisely adds: "Your gentleness shall force, more than your force move us to gentleness." Orlando responds: "I almost die for food, and let me have it." Unfazed, the duke says: "Sit down and feed, and welcome to our table." Orlando is shamed by the duke's gallantry and explains that hunger had bred violence in him. Almost four centuries later another bard, Bob Marley, melodically reminded us: "Them belly full, but we hungry / A hungry mob is an angry mob." We all know the primal nature of hunger; we have experienced the irritability that comes from missing breakfast or skipping our cup of morning coffee or tea. We hyperbolically talk of "starving" when a mealtime draws near. Our food trysts are now frequent every day in what sociologists refer to as "repeated food contacts" and farmers simply call grazing. At the drop of a hat, we indulge in lattes and biscotti. Many people no longer eat three "square" meals but rather graze all day, with Starbucks troughs sprouting up everywhere to ensure none suffer the pangs of hunger or the pain of caffeine withdrawal. In the lands of plenty in the west, we tend to forget that the abundance and easy accessibility of food was not always so and is not as widespread even now. Few of us who have the luxury of reading the daily paper over a cup of coffee and a piece of toast slathered with rich butter and marmalade have ever gone hungry intentionally, unless we succumbed to some ridiculous crash diet. But there was a time in the west when Lent, which commemorates Christ's 40-day fast in the desert, meant fasting all day and eating one meal at night. As time passed that tradition devolved into a semi-fast and now means merely giving up something one really likes, such as chocolate. Even our portions of food and drink are much greater than what our grandparents had. In the midst of this cornucopia of consumption, millions of Muslims voluntarily abstain from food, drink and sex during daylight hours in the month of Ramadan. They watch their co-workers eat and drink throughout the day, and occasionally have to apologise for not joining in due to their religious observance. Fasting for a month makes them aware of hunger as a palpable physical sensation, not a remote occurrence they read about in the newspaper. When the UN tells us that almost a billion people suffer from hunger and malnutrition and 25,000 people a day die from hunger, a faster appreciates these statistics in ways that remain distant to others. But fasting is not just about giving up food and drink. It's about tending to "the better angels of our nature". The prophet Muhammad said, "If one is not willing to give up bad behaviour during his fast, God has no need for him to give up his food and drink." Muslims are encouraged during this time to be better people, to treat others with more deference. If enticed to argue, the faster is advised to respond: "I am fasting." There are many ways to be hungry. One can hunger for love, or fame or social justice, but hunger for food seems to curb all other cravings. In being aware of others' hunger, we contribute to a more empathic world. Perhaps, if, like Duke Senior, we responded to the cries of the myriad desperate Orlandos foraging in the forests of famine out there with hospitality and help, they might be coaxed into civility themselves. Certainly, hunger can bring out the worst in us. But it can also bring out the best. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007












Tuesday 18 March 2008

Face To Face By Hamza Yusuf

Hunger can bring out the worst in us. In a wonderful scene in Shakespeare's As You Like It, a desperate and hungry Orlando comes upon Duke Senior and his exiled court in the forest, who are about to start dinner. Assuming the law of the jungle presides in Arden, Orlando brandishes his sword and demands food upon pain of death. Duke Senior rebukes him for his lack of civility, and wisely adds: "Your gentleness shall force, more than your force move us to gentleness." Orlando responds: "I almost die for food, and let me have it." Unfazed, the duke says: "Sit down and feed, and welcome to our table." Orlando is shamed by the duke's gallantry and explains that hunger had bred violence in him. Almost four centuries later another bard, Bob Marley, melodically reminded us: "Them belly full, but we hungry / A hungry mob is an angry mob." We all know the primal nature of hunger; we have experienced the irritability that comes from missing breakfast or skipping our cup of morning coffee or tea. We hyperbolically talk of "starving" when a mealtime draws near. Our food trysts are now frequent every day in what sociologists refer to as "repeated food contacts" and farmers simply call grazing. At the drop of a hat, we indulge in lattes and biscotti. Many people no longer eat three "square" meals but rather graze all day, with Starbucks troughs sprouting up everywhere to ensure none suffer the pangs of hunger or the pain of caffeine withdrawal. In the lands of plenty in the west, we tend to forget that the abundance and easy accessibility of food was not always so and is not as widespread even now. Few of us who have the luxury of reading the daily paper over a cup of coffee and a piece of toast slathered with rich butter and marmalade have ever gone hungry intentionally, unless we succumbed to some ridiculous crash diet. But there was a time in the west when Lent, which commemorates Christ's 40-day fast in the desert, meant fasting all day and eating one meal at night. As time passed that tradition devolved into a semi-fast and now means merely giving up something one really likes, such as chocolate. Even our portions of food and drink are much greater than what our grandparents had. In the midst of this cornucopia of consumption, millions of Muslims voluntarily abstain from food, drink and sex during daylight hours in the month of Ramadan. They watch their co-workers eat and drink throughout the day, and occasionally have to apologise for not joining in due to their religious observance. Fasting for a month makes them aware of hunger as a palpable physical sensation, not a remote occurrence they read about in the newspaper. When the UN tells us that almost a billion people suffer from hunger and malnutrition and 25,000 people a day die from hunger, a faster appreciates these statistics in ways that remain distant to others. But fasting is not just about giving up food and drink. It's about tending to "the better angels of our nature". The prophet Muhammad said, "If one is not willing to give up bad behaviour during his fast, God has no need for him to give up his food and drink." Muslims are encouraged during this time to be better people, to treat others with more deference. If enticed to argue, the faster is advised to respond: "I am fasting." There are many ways to be hungry. One can hunger for love, or fame or social justice, but hunger for food seems to curb all other cravings. In being aware of others' hunger, we contribute to a more empathic world. Perhaps, if, like Duke Senior, we responded to the cries of the myriad desperate Orlandos foraging in the forests of famine out there with hospitality and help, they might be coaxed into civility themselves. Certainly, hunger can bring out the worst in us. But it can also bring out the best.





Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

Tuesday 11 March 2008

Wisdom of the day




The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:


"A good friend and a bad friend are like a perfume-seller and a blacksmith: The perfume-seller might give you some perfume as a gift, or you might buy some from him, or at least you might smell its fragrance. As for the blacksmith, he might singe your clothes, and at the very least you will breathe in the fumes of the furnace."


(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Hadith 314)

Monday 10 March 2008

Arsenal Pups Grow Up


Alexander Hleb embraces Cesc Fabregas after his virtuoso display in Milan. Both are pivotal midfielders in what is clearly more of a team and less 10 players supporting Thierry Henry

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/the-nick-townsend-column-football-from-the-gods-and-heaven-help-us-when-arsenal-pups-grow-up-793405.html





By Nick Towmsend (From The Independant)


There have been times when Cesc Fabregas's pre-eminence has been tainted with childlike impetuosity and petulance; at others, the Spaniard has displayed enlightenment way beyond his 20 years. It was the latter case when the midfielder reminded us, andhis team-mates: "We havedone nothing... we want to be there at the end," as he distilled Tuesday night's achievement into hard reality.
It appeared a mite incongruous, considering that a few minutes earlier he had raced across the San Siro pitch, almost delirious in his delight, into the arms of his manager, having broken the deadlock and Milan's already fragile spirit. Yet he is right to be circumspect. Arsenal will require further kit-bag loads of Tuesday's character and sense of mutual trust, allied to their marvellously diverse talents, if they are to survive the ardours of this particular expedition.
For all the plaudits bestowed on the Gunners, it is pertinent to ask: was this humbling of the Champions' League champions and seven-times winners a statement of intent on the march to Moscow? Or, to borrow that cliché beloved of plucky lower-League FA Cup contestants, will this ultimately prove to have been Arsenal's final?
This was, indeed, football to make us swoon, with Arsenal having an imperiousness about them which will not have gone unnoticed elsewhere in Europe, nor among their potential opponents in England. Yet one should be wary of too many superlatives. Milan's league form is desperate – they are 18 points adrift of the leaders, Internazionale, and have won only four Serie A home games from 13 – and there was an increasing fatigue about some of their component parts which always threatened to seize up underthe bonnet as Arsenal pressed fiercely on the accelerator pedal.
To secure that elusive prize in Moscow, Arsène Wenger's men need to be blessed by the draw and may have to forfeit their season's other major ambition, the Premier League title. Yet, despite those caveats, there is cause for optimism.
Contrast Wenger's current team with that which contested the final in Paris in 2006, when they were defeated 2-1 by Barcelona after playing with 10 men for almost 70 minutes, and you would be persuaded that this vintage is superior. To remind ourselves, that 2006 team consisted of Lehmann (dismissed after 18 minutes and replaced by Almunia); Eboué, Cole, Gilberto, Touré, Campbell, Hleb, Fabregas (replaced by Flamini, 74), Henry, Ljungberg and Pires (sacrificed after Lehmann's red).
The interesting element is not those missing but those who remain. It is a pointer to Wenger's evolutionary process that six players who took some part that night remain at the club, and they significantly include a trio – Fabregas, Alexander Hleb and Mathieu Flamini – who have emerged all the more potent as pivotal midfield figures inwhat is conspicuously more of a team and less 10 supporting roles in attendance of the scene-stealing if supremely blessed Thierry Henry.
Some contend that Tuesday's side still lack experience at this most pressured level. In that case, heaven help their opponents when they grow up. But in reality they have learnt swiftly,if at times painfully. All that has recently occurred – the 5-1 Carling Cup semi-final exit atthe hands of Tottenham;Emmanuel Adebayor's spat with Nicklas Bendtner; that 4-0 FA Cup humiliation at Manchester United; events at St Andrew's, when Arsenal lost a player with a badly broken leg; and seemingly a captain with a peculiar sense of priorities – has aged this cask and brought it maturity. Though conventional wisdom is that adversity tends to damage a side's fortitude, great sides ultimately prosper from it.
It was a curious spectacle; that of Fabregas running to Wenger after his 30-yarder found the net like a tracer bullet, like a son seeking his father's approval. It says everything about Wenger's standing among his players, although the manager is wary to compare the Spaniard's progress to that of Steven Gerrard and Cristiano Ronaldo. "He's still young," Wenger said. "You want him to develop as a player. The rest will follow. I saw Gerrard at 20 and now there's a lot more to come from him. We want [Fabregas] to continue to develop as a complete midfielder. What you saw on Tuesday was that he can defend and attack. That was most pleasing."
He agreed that Fabregas and Flamini are one of the strongest midfield pairings he has had. "They are technically good and mobile going forward. Before we had players with more impact. They are less physically strong in the challenge than Vieira and Petit, but they have more mobility, have a good understanding and cover each other very well."
As always, there will be those casting covetous eyes over the likes of Fabregas and Adebayor, but Wenger's genius lies not only in nurturing young talent but also in retaining it.
He prefers to deploy his best team for all but domestic cup competitions, and rarely encounters squabbles over rotation. Rarely do you hear a complaint (oh, all right then, apart fromLehmann). If Fabregas, Hleb and Flamini were irrepressible, despite the presence of Gennaro Gattuso, Andrea Pirlo and Co, Tuesday was also a night for the captain, William Gallas, to exude his authority, and even for a splendid exhibition from the oft-ridiculed Philippe Senderos, as that pair, and the excellent Bacary Sagna and Gaël Clichy, restricted Kaka and Pato tofew opportunities.
Now there will be much talk of the Double. It is an unlikely outcome for any of the English clubs still in contention for domestic and European honours. Wenger will be acutely aware of what perils potentially await when teams attack on two fronts.
There is, however, every chance of an all-English Champions' League final. Perverse, isn't it, at a time when England cannot muster a Euro 2008 challenge. Until you reflect upon the dearth of Englishmen onthe collective teamsheets. That debate is for another day.
This is a week to laud Arsenal and their powers of recovery after a wretched fortnight. Although it is perhaps wise to hesitate before fully endorsing their Champions' League claims and remind ourselves that we have seen Wenger's men thrusting a devilish concoction, leading to self-destruction, down their own throats before...

Wednesday 5 March 2008

Learning To Lie


Kids lie early, often, and for all sorts of reasons—to avoid punishment, to bond with friends, to gain a sense of control. But now there’s a singular theory for one way this habit develops: They are just copying their parents.



Tuesday 4 March 2008

Friendship




We will not break this friendship



I may break my strength, but I will not leave your side




My victory is your victory, your loss is my loss




Listen,oh my friend your pain is my pain, my life is your life




That is how our love is, I will even risk my life for you




And for you I will risk my life, become enemies with everyone




We will not break this friendship, I may break my strength




But I will not leave your side,people see two of us, but Look, we are not two




Oh, that we be separated or angry, oh God I pray That this may not happen




We will eat and drink together ,we will die and live together




For our entire lives,we will not break this friendship




I may break my strength, but I will not leave your side




(My translation just for you My Friend...I'm sorry it took me a while but I put this on here as well as paper to show the world what you mean to me as a friend)May our friendship last forever and let nothing get in the way Knowing you has been a great adventure, and I'm sure many memories are still yet to come...Being separated by distance doesn't mean we forget each other, it means that our love grows, ready to be expressed when we meet again...This isn't my lousy way of saying goodbye, its just a mere reminder of how much you mean to me...You have done so much for me, more than you'll ever realise, how can I ever thank you oh, how can I ever repay you My Friend...How can I ever Thank you enough???




...................... Arifa Patel

Sunday 2 March 2008

How The Rich Just Get Richer


The United Kingdom has more rich people then ever before, and this trend is growing at a fast pace.With a global economy more people can now command a global pay packet from any profession. Yet, we are still living in a polarized society where the gap between the rich and poor is increasing.Although different states in the world adopt a welfare system, we still have something like 10% of people controlling 80% of the world wealth. In the US 1% of the population controls 40% of the country's wealth (Open University Research). In contrast, to the UK where 1% of the population controls 25% of the country's wealth.The funny thing is with so much money, you would think that people would not know what to do with it, and start give to charitable causes. Most of the rich it should be noted do give money to charity. However, they really should be giving vast amounts more.Instead, of giving wealth they seem to be creating more wealth for themselves. The saying goes that if the children of Adam (pbuh) were given one mountain of gold, they would want a second. If they were given a second they would want a third.We are all greedy, have you ever wanted something just for the sake of having it, but you really did not need it.You know what I am on about. Being greedy it part of parcel of being humans, but I just cannot understand the super rich who just crave for more wealth when they have vast amounts already.Being rich is not about how much wealth you have, but how content you are. Money is like manure: it is not worth having unless you can spread it around encouraging things to grow.