THE HEADLESS CHICKEN THAT LIVED FOR TWO YEARS

This may sound weird, but it is actually true. And in case you are wondering (as I obviously did) why you haven't heard of this since, it is because it happened far before even when most of our parents were born.

“Mike” became “the Headless Chicken” on September 10th, 1945 after being decapitated by his owner, Lloyd Olsen from Fruita, Colorado, who wanted to cook him for dinner. Olsen chose from his yard, a five-and-a-half-month-old cockerel named “Mike”.
During Mike’s attempted decapitation, Lloyd hit all the wrong (or right) spots, leaving Mike headless but still alive. The axe missed the jugular vein, leaving one ear and most of the
brain stem intact. Despite Olsen’s failed attempt to behead Mike, Mike was still able to balance on a perch and walk clumsily; he even attempted to preen and crow, although he could do neither. When the bird did not die, Mr. Olsen, who was surprised, decided to continue to care permanently for Mike, feeding him a mixture of milk and water via an eyedropper; he was also fed small grains of corn.
When used to his new and unusual centre of mass, Mike could easily get himself to the highest perches without falling. His crowing, though, consisted of a gurgling sound made in his throat. Mike also spent his time attempting to preen and peck for food with his neck. Mike shook off the upsetting incident and shortly after, started pecking around and grooming his feathers as if nothing had happened. Well, he couldn’t really do all those things because without a head the bird couldn’t eat, drink or see but that didn’t stop him from trying! After feeding him grains and quenching his thirst, Olsen took Mike to the University of Utah where flabbergasted scientists took a close look at the death-defying chicken.
According to reports, a blood clot prevented Mike from bleeding to death after Olsen’s axe had missed the jugular. As if by miracle, Mike was still left with his left ear and most of his brain stem intact which was enough to keep this feathered critter healthy for the following two years of his life. Apparently chicken’s reflexes lie in their brain stem which explains why Mike still attempted to peck and even sing – gurgle rather, despite his handicap. Olsen swore to take care of him for the rest of his life, feeding him milk and water with syringes. Mike was doing so well, he even gained weight determining Lloyd to call him a “robust chicken – a fine specimen of a chicken except for not having a head.” Once his fame had been established, Mike began a career of touring sideshows in the company of such other creatures as a two-headed calf. He was also photographed for dozens of magazines and papers, featuring in Time and Life magazines. Mike was on display to the public for an admission cost of twenty five cents. At the height of his popularity, the chicken earned USD 4,500 per month ($48,000 in 2010 dollars) and was valued at $10,000.Olsen’s success resulted in a wave of copycat chicken beheading, but no other chicken lived for more than a day or two.
But alas like every abnormality of nature, nothing lasts forever.
In March 1947, at a motel in Phoenix on stopover while travelling back from tour, Mike started choking in the middle of the night. The Olsens had inadvertently left their feeding and cleaning syringes at the sideshow the day before, and so were unable to save Mike. Olsen claimed that he had sold the bird off, resulting in stories of Mike still touring the country as late as 1949. Other sources say that the chicken’s severed trachea could not take in enough air properly to be able to breathe; and therefore choked to death in the motel.

Culled from YNaija.com

THE GREATER GOOD OR THE LESSER EVIL

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it. In words a man may pretend to abjure their empire, but in reality he will remain subject to it all the while…”
This was the view proposed by English scholar Jeremy Bentham in his essay: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. The theory of utilitarianism has guided many parliaments for many decades. The proponents of the utilitarian school are of the view that the fundamental principle which should regulate legislative processes should be the preponderance of pleasure over pain. A legislative pronouncement should be constituted in such a manner as to ensure that the pleasure derivable from it prevails over and above any intended pain. In addition to this, the pleasure must be available to a larger number of citizens than the pain. Thus for any law to be considered, it must possess this two-fold quality: preponderance of pleasure over pain; and availability of this pleasure to a greater number of citizens.

This simple test proved to be consistent in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries due to the harmony between law and morals. Law was based though not wholly on morals, but substantially on it. The homogeneity of colonies operating under the utilitarian theory provided a suitable justification for the supposed subjectivity of morals. Legislative pronouncements were therefore based on the prevailing moral standards of the constituency in question.

However, in the Nineteenth Century, man began to broaden his knowledge in obedience to divine injunction. Man’s knowledge of evil increased contemporaneously with his knowledge of good. Morals began to undergo a major revolution. The knowledge that a hitherto forbidden act could be so pleasurable to one led man to reposition his orientation towards law and morals. The knowledgeable man in a bid to ensure his freedom, felt that there had to be a dichotomy between law and morals. This led to a mass divorce of laws from morals. Man relied on the supposed subjectivity of morals as a justification for this dichotomy. The moral code in a province was bound to be different from that of another province under the same legal system. It would therefore had been tantamount to an ‘abuse of legislative processes’ to subject different colonies to a legal code based on divergent moral principles. To do otherwise would demean the supposed uniformity of laws.

Concepts such as liberalism, democracy, freedom, protection of minority rights, etc. sprung up in the Twentieth century, and pulled law further from morals. With man’s increased knowledge of both good and evil pleasures, he learnt how to choose between two necessities. The concept of placing precedence ‘over and above’ was developed. The utilitarian mode of legislation was modified. Legislators when faced with two conflicting choices no longer choose the alternative that would bring ‘the greatest happiness to the greatest number’, but rather opted for the ‘lesser of the two evils’.
Of course, it would not be far-fetched to imply an innate presence of evil in all legislative pronouncements. There is the presupposition of a corresponding evil in all knowledge of good, and man in a bid to understand the dynamics the universe cannot do without finding out both.

Hence, this developed theory of placing precedence on the ‘lesser evil’ is evident in sovereign parliaments today. In Nigeria for instance, child marriage is deemed a lesser evil over recognition of gay rights. In the twilight of the first republic, a united war-torn Nigeria was chosen as a lesser evil over secession. Shielding corrupt government officials is preferred as a lesser evil over exposing them to humiliating public scrutiny. The list of instances when the Nigerian government (both past and present) placed precedence on the ‘lesser evil’ goes on to include removal of subsidy on petroleum products.

Needless to say, the ‘lesser evil’ has often times come into conflict with the ‘greater good’. And the government takes great care to de-emphasize the importance of the ‘greater good’. In 1966, the prospect of secession by the hitherto Eastern Region seemed to preponderate more happiness than pain to a wider number of Nigerians than war. But the all-knowledgeable Gowon-led government felt that it would be safer to opt for the lesser evil, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of sacrosanct lives. In 2012, the Jonathan led administration after realising that sustaining subsidy on petroleum would preponderate more happiness than pain to a wider number of Nigerian citizens chose to opt for the lesser evil of using the subsidy funds for other projects. Inasmuch as exposing corrupt public officials to full public glare would serve a greater good, the helmsmen of government prefer to avoid the embarrassment and loss of confidence this would cost, and prefer the lesser evil of shielding them.

It would be safe to infer that the notion of passing laws which would preponderate the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people no longer holds sway. Especially in a country with a multitudinous population like Nigeria. What a Yoruba man may see as happiness may be viewed as pain by another ethnic group. Even the notion of preponderating the greatest happiness to the greatest number negates the principle of protection of minority rights. The minority which doesn’t benefit from the supposed happiness would definitely cry foul, hence the ‘lesser evil’ theory.

I am oluwanonso_esq on Twitter

Something Lovely

So I know Valentine's long gone, but still, I feel like passing on the love anyway. Enjoy the story......don't worry; it's not sappy. lol

   My love story is well, not your usual 'boy meets girl' type. Well it's not boy meets boy either but I guess you'll see. I'm Zainab and I'm 30 now. I met Frank about 12 years ago. He claims he knew the moment he saw me but I really don't believe that.

   It all started in my first year of college. My parents had managed to scrape money from all the ends of the earth (almost literally) to pay my tuition fees and they had finally succeeded and so I was in school. So you don't misunderstand, my parents weren't lazy or poor; I just figured it couldn't be easy to raise seven kids and still have money left for luxuries. I, on the other hand, wanted so many more things for myself than just the necessities so I tried my hand at anything that sounded like it could get me money; that translates to being a professional passer-by on all movie sets I could find.

   It was during this job scouting process I came across the infomercial inviting people to get checked in order to see if one of their kidneys could be donated. Now, it wasn't the good Samaritan act that caught my attention but the $2000 compensation to be paid by the desperate family. It took me all of 5 minutes to convince myself that I wasn't feeding off someone else's despair. I actually prayed that my kidney would be a match for the boy who needed it before going to bed that night. Desperate much?

    I finally found the time and the courage to go to the hospital without telling my parents. On getting there, I informed the nurse of my intention and a couple of tests were run on me. Blood drawn and the entire nine yards. An hour later, the doctor came up to me beaming like a Bright tuesday morning. My kidney was the perfect match! I literally saw dollar signs floating around the room at that moment. The doctor then led me to meet the boy and his family. There he was, Frank, lying with a big smile on his face. He was ever so chatty, it was hard to tell he was the one who desperately needed a kidney transplant. I remember how friendly his family was, his mum even teased me about my short nails; it felt good to feel appreciated, so good I forgot about the compensation for a second.

    A week later, the operation was ready to be carried out. My parents were still oblivious, I didn't want anyone to talk me out of my brilliant plan. Frank came up to me in his wheelchair while the doctors were preparing for the surgery. He was as calm and happy as ever. I, on the other hand was sweating in places I didn't even know existed! I remember how he made me laugh by imitating how my parents would react if they found out I donated my kidney without telling them anything about it. He made me laugh so hard; I totally forgot how nervous I had been. I didn't know at that point that he'd make me laugh that way forever.

   We went through almost eight hours of surgery and I had a recovery time of one week; his was a bit longer but I had never been as relieved as I was when I heard the doctor say the surgery was successful.

   Frank lived in Texas and I was all the way in Florida so after the surgery and the compensation was paid, I didn't expect to ever see him again. But the next semester, there he was in my arts class. He had transferred to my college; of all the ones in the United States, he came to mine.

    We became really good friends eventually; he would always have an opinion and somehow that intrigued me. It was during of one those days that he suddenly stopped talking and looked me straight in the eye and said ' All my life, no one has ever made me look forward to tomorrow as much as you have or appreciate today as much and you may never understand how, Zay, but I promise to show you one day how you've changed my life just by being in it' and he asked me to be his girlfriend; in the sweetest way possible, with a flower he'd picked from a rose bush. It wasn't perfect but I wouldn't have had it any other way.

   With Frank, it was always fun. Always ' Zay; let's climb that mountain or Zay, let's lie in the middle of the road'. He made sure to enjoy every second he had, and he made sure to do it with me. I loved him for that. My parents were crazy about him. My mum personally couldn't get over the fact that he could cook, she would always say in her Nigerian accent ' Frank, please take this girl and knock some culinary skills into her brains'.

  He graduated college before me and when I finally did, it felt like the world was ours; he took a job at a classy firm in Dallas and I opened my little art studio. It was one day out of the perfection that was our lives that he proposed. I was at his apartment and he insisted we watch a particular movie, it was a bit odd since he usually let me pick the movies but I didn't pay any attention. We had been together for about four years then. Halfway through the movie, he got up, he'd been a little jitsy through it but I didn't want to pause the movie to ask if he was ok (selfish? maybe a little). Suddenly, the screen went totally blank and lights in the room went off. A second later, the lights came back on but the tv wasn't playing the movie anymore, it was a recording of Frank's voice. I was somewhere in between scared and confused and I started to listen to the playback, at the same time he appeared looking oh so dapper in his suit (yes, in the house lol). It was then I realised what was happening ; I must have shut out the playback from the TV or maybe he paused it but the only thing I could see, hear, feel, sense, imagine was Frank kneeling in front of me. Then he said and I'll never forget ' If I have to lose function in both kidneys and lay in a bed for a month and pay  and five hundred dollars and have needles pushed through every inch of me to find the love I've found in you; I'll do it a million times over just so I laugh at your bad cooking and watch you smile. Zainab Mallory Malik, I love and will always love you. Will you marry me?' I must have said yes ten times in two seconds. It was everything I had ever dreamed of and then some. My mum screamed louder than I did when she heard; it was her nature so that wasn't surprising. His family thought it was a long time coming, to them I had been his wife from the start. I'd never been more in love.

   Two weeks to our wedding, we were driving and laughing in the snow and I was making a video for instagram with the ipad while Frank drove. Suddenly; this trailer swerved off its lane and into ours, everything went blank.

 

 I got out with a few cuts, Zay had a collision with the ipad she was holding and the windscreen as well; her body was halfway in the car and halfway out. We were both taken to the hospital. When I came to, no one wanted to tell me how Zay was doing or if she made it at all. I had never been so scared in my life. I cried for the first time since I could remember.

  Days later, I was finally allowed to see her; she was in a coma and wasn't responding to the drugs she was taking. I remember how she just lay there and all I could do was pray and hope and beg with my heart that she would come back to me.

   Days turned to weeks and weeks to months. Money was accumulating on the life support machine. Everyone was gradually losing hope that she would ever wake up. My head told me to pull away to realise that it was hopeless but my heart held on for dear life. How could the person that had given me life and sustained it be taken away from me and I could do absolutely nothing about it? How could God have loved me enough to send her to save me but not use me to save her? How could I live and move knowing that I would never see that smile again? I had been telling my mum to only postpone the wedding and not call it off for months and she must have been getting tired of answering people's questions when they asked about a specific date. I had come to sit by Zay everyday since the accident hoping that somehow our love would be strong enough to bring her back.

    Finally; the doctors came, after about 5 months of life support with the form for me to sign so they could take her off the machine. My hand shook at the very sight of the pen; I couldn't even bring myself to hold it. The doctors decided to let me say my goodbyes. I couldn't think of what to say to the person I'd thought I would sit in rocking chairs with in old age and take long walks with just for the sake of them. I couldn't say goodbye to Zay. Then I remembered the promise I made to her the day I asked her to be my girlfriend; years back in college and how she smiled that perfect smile and with tears I said ' All my life, no one has ever made me look forward to tomorrow as much as you have or appreciate today as much and you may never understand how, Zay, but I promise to show you one day how you've changed my life just by being in it. Zay, please, allow me to keep my promise to you, wake up so I can love you and protect you like you deserve'. I was crying like crazy so I decided it was over. I kissed her cold, dark lips for the last time and made towards the door.

  Then I heard it; I heard a cough, I thought I might have been imagining something so I took a step back and she coughed again! I gave Usain Bolt a run for his money when I flew down the halls to announce to the doctors that Zay coughed. They taught I was only saying it to make sure the machine was left on longer but indeed, after almost 6 months, she had awoken from the coma. My eyes filled with tears. She heard me and came back to me.

  After she woke up from the coma; she recovered quickly and perfectly and in a week she was itching to go home. She was finally discharged and I carried her all the way to the car. 

    Every now and again, I look at her and thank God that he let me save her just as she saved me. He led me to my perfect half. Zay and I have a son now, we are expecting another baby in July. Zay says it’s a girl; she doesn't know I could make a last minute change to that too *wink*

RE: MAN ARRESTED FOR HAVING SEX WITH A GOAT

“I asked the goat for permission”   and the goat replied, “You Mayyyyyy”

A 20 year old man in Jigawa State was arrested on the allegations having sexual intercourse with a goat in the Baranda Forest environs of the Dutse Local Government of the State.  According to the accused, Mallam Kamisu Baranda, the goat was his, and he asked its permission before performing the act. (Hian!!! And the goat replied, “You MAYYYYYY!!”). The bleating of a goat is somewhat similar to the English verb "MAY". Thus, for the guy mind, the goat bleated his acceptance and consent.

According to the Daily Times, the accused confessed that this was not the first time he had sex with animals inside the bush. He had done it over ten times but was never arrested. He regretted that if he knew he would be arrested, he would not had tried it because it was the reason why he would not make love to women in the area. He said animals satisfied his demands, that is why he is not after women the state just to avoid embarrassment but still he found himself ambushed by people in the area.

Ours is a country with a diversity of strange peculiarities. Our multitudinous population gives us the benefit of having a healthy number of people with all sort of unhealthy appetites. Of course, Section 42(2) of our hallowed 1999 Constitution provides that "No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth." Thus our Senators are being prosecuted on blog pages for passing a bill that discriminates against homosexuals in this country. According to pro-gay activists, homosexuals can’t help the way they are! (a la Ngozi Adichie Chimamanda).

For the sake of logical argument, let us assume that homosexuality is not a crime. It is merely an act of two consenting adults partaking in the pleasures of each other’s bodies (as God has commanded?) Unlike paedophilia where a sexual pervert takes advantage of a minor (without the consent of the minor’s guardian?). This was the argument put forth by @gidigenius (www.lasgidikid.blogspot.com) a very distinguished blogger friend of mine. According to him, mutual consent between the two homosexual adults negates the presupposition of criminal tendency. Thus applying this principle to the story on ground, the accused, Mallam Kamisu Baranda explicitly stated in his statement of defence that he asked for the goat’s consent before embarking on his sodomic exercise. Therefore, it can be said that the accused, 20, being a legal non-minor, having validly sought and gotten approval from the goat, (also a legal non-minor); being a person whose sexual orientation has already been dictated to by virtue of the circumstances of his birth, and thus precluded against discrimination on the authority of Section 42(2) CFRN 1999 was within his rights to have had (lawful) carnal knowledge the goat.
Thus, as the pro-Gay activists are crying foul against the new Anti-Gay Bill, I also cry foul against the provisions of Section 214 of the Criminal Code Act which prohibits against unnatural offences: Any person who—
(1) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; or(2) has carnal knowledge of an animal.
What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Thus, if gays are advocating for equality, then those with a natural sexual affection for animals also have a prerogative at stake!

Even the mere thought of sleeping with an animal is revulsive to some gays. That is why the Criminal Code aptly tagged it an offence against morality. Thus, so also is homosexuality.

Many a times, we have to forgo a legal right to achieve societal balance. Morality has to be preserved for the sake of posterity. Didn’t somebody once preach that we should be moral for the sake of duty? And don’t we owe a duty of care to the unborn generation? We owe them an unspoken duty to ensure that they grow up in a family made up of father, mother and children, not father, father, and foster siblings. The very fact that our parents did not resort to artificial insemination or whatever to conceive us should bind us to ensure likewise to our children. It is the belief of this writer that discrimination for the greater good of morality should be mildly permitted. After all, every general rule has an exception.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. That is what equality is all about.

I am oluwanonso_Esq on Twitter.
Oya shoot me.

DISCLAIMER: This write-up has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the writer, and is not intended to be used as a medium for the prosecution of any civil rights movement relating to sodomy or otherwise.

My two kobo on the Anti- gay law.

            Hellur! Hellur! Yes, yes, we missed you too. We apologize for the long and unexplained break. Now that we are back, it’s time to talk about something serious. I know this is getting cliché now with all the reactions to the recently passed anti-gay laws, but then you know we have to weigh in. hehe. I’m writing this as a reaction to our earlier post on this issue.

          There are many phenomenons in life that we don’t understand like why people are poor when money is just paper (at least I think it is) and why the bible says that if a woman is raped, she should marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28) and when we don’t understand things, we make the choices as to whether or not we should apply them in our daily lives. The issue of homosexuality is quite a novel one in our society, it has existed in the shadows for a long time but it is only until recently that it was brought to the forefront. Let me start by saying that I am not an advocate for gay rights but I also cannot stand for the persecution of people who have committed no crime.

          The most common argument I have heard against this issue is that of religion. I am a Christian, I may not be the best of them but I do know that it is said that God loved the world, there is no proviso saying but apart from homosexuals. Whenever there’s an argument about homosexuals, the first thing we run to is the bible, but have we really ever sat back to look through what the bible says? Most verses that condemn homosexuality also condemn adultery, rape, lying, theft, extortion, sodomy etc (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Why haven’t laws been made to punish liars and sodomites and adulterers. The failure of a legal system begins where it starts to mix up morality with law. If we are convinced that the bible is against homosexuality, shouldn’t we leave it to God to punish for the things upon which he has made laws.

           If our legal system wants to decide that they are elected by God and therefore should make punishments for immorality; I think they should begin with strengthening the punishments for rapists and setting up measures to prevent it after which they should move on to adultery and then jail all the divorcees in Nigeria as the bible also frowns upon that. All those screaming that homosexuality is a sin should sit back and recall that they are sinners as well and God is the only Judge.

             Don’t we always talk about the fundamentality of our human rights, and doesn’t Section 42(2) of the CFRN 1999 explicitly state that “No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth”. Spending fourteen years behind bars sounds very much like deprivation to me or are we going to argue that homosexuality isn’t a circumstance of birth, because I’m sure no one will under normal circumstances subject themselves to the amount of unwarranted hate and discrimination that gay people receive.

            I was watching a compilation of the best X factor auditions the other day and there was this one about a boy whose parents kicked him out of the house on his 18^th birthday for being gay; his voice was OUTSTANDING! There are millions of people looking for healthy children after decades of marriage; I doubt they would be rejecting kids just because the boy turns out to be effeminate. I also heard something recently that made me reconsider my anti-gay stance; because we don’t understand how homosexuals live, we exaggerate it and make it seem like everything they do is gay, that they eat gay food and drink gay water and breathe gay air, most of the people we hate on are probably as confused about their feelings as we are about it and they don’t need our hate and discrimination.

         Now, I’m not saying I totally understand homosexuality or how people of the same sex could be affectionate towards each other, what I do know is this: not all gay people are evil, in fact I think most of the evil ones were destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah. Secondly, I’m sure people would ask me ‘ what would  you do if you had a gay child’, let me answer that right now, I don’t expect that to be an easy situation especially considering the society which we live in but I will love that child because he/she would be the one God created for me and I know God doesn’t make mistakes. Thirdly, I know that this law would only cause more havoc and make more hypocrites out of us.

        Finally, a few days ago I was on the fence on this issue but after reading Chimamanda's article and thinking long and hard I now know that I wouldn’t make anyone uncomfortable merely because he’s effeminate or because she doesn’t like boys. I’m going to love my neighbor, whether gay or straight, because I realize that life is tough enough on its own without us making it harder for people by judging them on things we don’t understand. I leave the final ruling on who is right or wrong to God to tell us on that day but until then, this law is Unconstitutional and downright unfair.



For a dissenting argument on this issue, go here

           

THE ADICHIE ANGLE

         Issues and controversies have continued to trail the recently-passed Anti-gay Law. Words have ceaselessly flowed and will, nonetheless, linger on until, as usual a new controversy takes the spotlight.

                   The very novelty of the gay issue in our jurisprudence seems an indictment of every point of view taken for or against the Anti-gay Law. A new(or rather, supporting angle) was recently added to the tragicomic controversy. And this angle, we shall, permittedly label, 'The Adichie Angle'. Also, it is this angle which we find fault with.

            Adichie had sensibly concluded in her recent write- up on the Anti-gay Law, that the anti-gay law was unconstitutional and Unafrican. Her well-bred courtesy for the gays had come especially at a time when her pen flew with inspiration. Her well-researched and obviously, well-written criticism of the bill was mystifying and it seeks to solve the intriguing puzzle going on. But, not improbably, with all due respect gay lifestyle had been declared contrary to the natural order of things by The Almighty. Divine law had made it a sin and it rightfully remains as such.

                No amount of veneration can change the fact that homosexuality is a sin; neither can any quantity or quality of logic nor reasoning lower it from the pedestal of sin it hangs.

                     The theme of perversity had been ascribed homosexual acts and it had certainly fallen upon appreciative ears in our society. Hence, one cannot help but question the wisdom of further involvement in controversy regarding the issue.   If anything, the hasty nature with which the bill was passed should have laid all controversies to rest. Had this not been the case, tomorrow, Rapists and Murderers will wake-up and start seeking legitimacy, too, for they also belong to the minority and they perceive their lifestyle not to constitute a crime!

      Indeed, The mark of a true democracy is not in the rule of its majority but in the protection of its minority, but that also is on the irreconcilable fact that the minority act reasonably. Dark wishes can never find any support because they are unable to bring about a connection.

   To all the Sochimas' of Nigeria, it is extremely possible for You to be like others. It takes will power. If your originator,could by her sheer determination become a well-received and acclaimed writer, then, there is no reason why You shouldn't be able to become just like others. It only requires will power. Self-control is beneficial-patiently replacing wrong thoughts with right ones; changing reprehensible actions to helpful ones.

       We just hope that our National Assembly, and leaders in general take-up the aggresiveness with which they passed the Anti-gay Law to fight other ills in the society, even the very one that touches them: Corruption!
   For a dissenting argument on this issue, go here



                                                                            Written by Igbinedion Oghosa and Arikor Collins.