Hello Ladies and Gentlemen:
How is the going?
You might have noticed that I haven’t been on this blog for sometime. But am back! Well may be recession might have played a role! Just kidding am doing just fine :) to quote Suze Orman the Internationally Acclaimed Personal Finance Advisor.
Anyways I have to apologize in advance coz I know I will surely be in trouble on this post, I will get some phone calls asking me to explain why on earth I can decided to write on a topic that is purely technical than on a general life experience or episode that we can all exchange ideas and contribute to, and I totally get it. To be sincere I didn’t want to, but you know I love design and at the moment not doing much of it momentarily so it’s a natural inclination for me to read a little bit just to stay current with that stuff especially on Hydrology and Hydraulics (the two most misunderstood terms even by practitioners’ themselves, but that is a whole different story).
Anyways, here we go just read as an entertainment or some novel for fun! Am sure most of you will make sense out of it, after all its English, I didn’t write it in Swahili! Some of you are going what is that? It’s a Kenyan National Language, Just like English in US!
Shifts in focus from Peak Flows Based Hydrology (PFBH) to Volume-Based Hydrology (VBH).
To start, Andrew J. Reese a vice president with AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. quoted General George Patton famous statement “If everybody is thinking alike then somebody isn’t thinking” – you know the amazing thing that I like about this quote is that its plainly true that its counterintuitive if we all be thinking alike, this world will be boring, we will not have all the break-through that have led to industrialization age as well as advancement in technology that has immensely improved our human living conditions. Someone had to think “outside the box” to use this infamous cliché.
Anyways back to the PFBH vs. VBH. Just to give a preview of what shifts have been made in Urban Stormwater "Practitioning", Let see Sixty years ago, efficient drainage was the way to do things, using separate stormwater systems of pipes. Forty years ago, efficient drainage was causing flooding problems and switched to a detention design standard. Twenty years ago, detention ponds were failing for a number of reasons and switched to a more comprehensive master planning approach—that is, those who could afford all that modeling, understand its output, and had the wherewithal to actually construct regional systems for stormwater treatment to para phrase Mr. Reese. In the ensuing 20 years, there has been a rapid diversification of stormwater design from a simple consideration of flooding and conveyance to channel erosion, stormwater pollution, groundwater recharge, and natural approaches to stormwater design.
All these past approaches to urban stormwater hydrology focused on peak flow (and flooding) and, secondarily, on velocity. Basically Peak flow was and is still key until we shift gears, the ultimate stormwater controls structures’ sizing factor (for the most part). But as we start to focus on stormwater quality, there was a recognition that we were treating volumes of runoff because we were most often trying to reduce quantities or concentrations of (versus flow of) pollution. This often led to a sort of “Frankenstein-ian,” cobbled-together approach to stormwater design where a water-quality volume is treated, but the rest of the design was still all about peak flow.
The most recent on this subject in an attempt to shift to VBH rather than PFBH is the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (Section 438) deals with redevelopment or new development on federal facilities, stating they must seek to maintain predevelopment hydrology with respect to temperature, flow rate, volume, and flow duration. EPA’s CSO control policy “presumptive” approach has a volume-elimination option, which has led to, among other things, a green infrastructure emphasis. This for most stormwater practitioners is a green light towards VBH.
VBH has a comprehensive stormwater management approach that focus on 5 objectives.
1. Infiltrated Flows – the Initial rainfall depth to capture as initial abstraction or infiltrate into the ground (re-charge ground water). On the other hand though we have to be careful when doing this since the law of unintended consequences (Murphy’s first cousin) has it that all this infiltration in an urban area can be problematic in the future just be cautious!
2. Most Populated Flows – basically as the rainfall begins to intensify the flow begins to mobilize sediments and pollutants and it makes all sense if we have to achieve removal of high % pollution then we need to capture and treat this so called “first flush”.
3. Most Erosive Flows – basically this is about somewhere btwn ¾ to bank full as the rainfall intensifies. As its well know that sediment is transported when the shear force in flowing water exceeds the ability of the bank and bed materials to withstand the shear force. This shear stress moves sediments downstream, pulling on bed and banks; this is usually causes scouring effect to the river banks as well as beds.
4. Most destructive Flows. - Basically as the rainfall intensifies, the ability to infiltrate becomes problematic and overall volumes increases, the flows and velocity becomes violent and can be destructive. So here is where we start thinking to delay or manage excess volumes that may be over-capacity of our onsite detention / retention structures.
5. Biggest flows to consider – 100-yr storm for the most part is considered the biggest and here we tend to focus on safely passing the flow.
I hope I convinced you guys that VBH is more compressive that PFBH.
So anyways, to rationalize it my point is that “If everybody is thinking alike then somebody isn’t thinking” ( to go back to General George Patton). I think it makes a big different if we be forward thinking that just getting stuck in one old idea be PFBH or some old and tired Health System, and that is why i kind like the "dialogue" about Health care reforms atleast someone has a different opinion, that good enough!. We should be always open to change not scared to death by change, otherwise if Sir. Issac Newton (1643)didn’t out curiosity asked himself the question that no one else before him asked himself then all modern Physics including the Law of Gravity, by the way which hydrology is based on will not have been discovered.
Its mind blowing to Imagine that sixteen hundred and fourty three (1643) years before Him No else ever asked themselves the very question that Sir. Issac Newton asked himself that led to his "discovery" of the Laws of motion and later be known as the Father of Physics. Isn't that Incrediable? Given that other before him had somewhat tried to (including the Astronomer Johannes Kepler who discovered Laws of Planery motion 1571-1630) but with still controversies till Sir. Newton put the controversies to rest.
Anyways it blows my mind how recent that was, compared to how old the existence of Mankind is since creation! that is some Incredible stuff to think about!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Bottom Billion
The Bottom Billion By Paul Collier, A Professor of Economics at Oxford University is a very elaborate piece of work that clearly nails down the issues that drags the economies of the developing world and in particular “the bottom million” economies. You may be wondering what the “bottom billion” is, it simply refers to countries whose their economies has stagnated for the last 40 years and they account of one-sixth of the world population. As you may be aware that our world has a population of 6 billion people.
If you care about poverty in the world this one is a must read book.
Professor Collier lays down the main hindrances to economic growth in the countries of the bottom billion as he refers to them as traps and I will list them here:
1. The Conflict Trap – he explains that all societies have conflict, but they can trap a country in poverty.
- I agree with Professor Collier that Civil war is costly and so is a coup d’état, very challenging to recover from especially if a country economy is stuck / stagnant with almost zero growth, The effects are amplified.
2. The Natural Resource Trap –According to the “bottom billion- the book” overtime countries with large resources discoveries can end up poorer, with the lost growth more than offsetting the one-off gain in income provided by the rents
- This trap was a new learning for me because I initially thought that the more natural resources a country is blessed with the better. Apparently it turns out that the rents from these resources will help but with no growth and no proper management it can turn to be what is referred in the book as “resource curse”. Because with resource rents democracy is undermined, no checks and balances and what you end up with in most scenarios is a dictatorship government.
3. Landlocked with Bad Neighbors – according to Jeff Sachs as reported in this book being landlocked clipped around half % point off the growth rate. The reason given is that landlocked countries are hostages to the neighbors.
4. Bad Governance – As we all know terrible governance can cripple an economy, any economy for that matter.
These traps can negatively impact any country in the world of its economic growth. However, as Paul Collier notes in the book its peculiar to the economies of the “bottom billion” because:
- 73 % of them ( the bottom billion) have been through civil war, 29 % are in countries dominated by the politics of natural resource revenues, 30 % are landlocked, resource –scarce and in a bad neighborhood.
In the Bottom Billion, Professor Collier has suggested some solutions that can help the economies of the bottom billion grow. I will list them here for you to think about it and comments are welcomed.
Here we go:
1. For the conflict trap some suggested ways are – assistance during post conflict and attempts to prevent conflicts from happening. Because the “crushing needs of the early post conflict period colliding with government incapacity” can trap a country into prolonged and even sometime repetitive conflicts which obviously will stagnate the economic growth.
2. For the Natural resource trap the key solution will be international laws and norms that will encourage checks and balances on excesses of governments. These norms will help empower reformists within these societies.
3. For the landlocked it appears like Aid is the key according to Professor Collier. It will make things much simpler if governance and policies in these countries are sufficiently decent.
4. FOR Bad governance –I totally agree with Professor Collier that reform has to come from within, and yes it takes courage.
Questions to think about – I invite all my friends and readers to come and reason with me on these. Here we go:
Q1. On the other side of the coin, the question I will ask is what role will the development agencies such as IMF, WORLD BANK et al play in helping the economies of the bottom billion?
Q2. How are their current policies helping/blocking economic growth in the developing world and especially the bottom billion?
Q3. Do IMF AND World Bank and any other organizations need to change their approach/policies in order to be development friendly to the hailing economies of the bottom billion? If yes how? And if no why?
Q4. How about the WTO (World trade organization) does it mean anything to the bottom billion; do they really get any deal?
Well your guess is as good as mine on the WTO it is all about negotiation power, which obviously disadvantages the bottom billion countries. My opinion on WTO in agreement with Prof. Collier is that trade policy need to change from extracting the best bargain to fostering development in the bottom billion.
Thanks folks your insights will be appreciated. This world of globalization is intriguing!
If you care about poverty in the world this one is a must read book.
Professor Collier lays down the main hindrances to economic growth in the countries of the bottom billion as he refers to them as traps and I will list them here:
1. The Conflict Trap – he explains that all societies have conflict, but they can trap a country in poverty.
- I agree with Professor Collier that Civil war is costly and so is a coup d’état, very challenging to recover from especially if a country economy is stuck / stagnant with almost zero growth, The effects are amplified.
2. The Natural Resource Trap –According to the “bottom billion- the book” overtime countries with large resources discoveries can end up poorer, with the lost growth more than offsetting the one-off gain in income provided by the rents
- This trap was a new learning for me because I initially thought that the more natural resources a country is blessed with the better. Apparently it turns out that the rents from these resources will help but with no growth and no proper management it can turn to be what is referred in the book as “resource curse”. Because with resource rents democracy is undermined, no checks and balances and what you end up with in most scenarios is a dictatorship government.
3. Landlocked with Bad Neighbors – according to Jeff Sachs as reported in this book being landlocked clipped around half % point off the growth rate. The reason given is that landlocked countries are hostages to the neighbors.
4. Bad Governance – As we all know terrible governance can cripple an economy, any economy for that matter.
These traps can negatively impact any country in the world of its economic growth. However, as Paul Collier notes in the book its peculiar to the economies of the “bottom billion” because:
- 73 % of them ( the bottom billion) have been through civil war, 29 % are in countries dominated by the politics of natural resource revenues, 30 % are landlocked, resource –scarce and in a bad neighborhood.
In the Bottom Billion, Professor Collier has suggested some solutions that can help the economies of the bottom billion grow. I will list them here for you to think about it and comments are welcomed.
Here we go:
1. For the conflict trap some suggested ways are – assistance during post conflict and attempts to prevent conflicts from happening. Because the “crushing needs of the early post conflict period colliding with government incapacity” can trap a country into prolonged and even sometime repetitive conflicts which obviously will stagnate the economic growth.
2. For the Natural resource trap the key solution will be international laws and norms that will encourage checks and balances on excesses of governments. These norms will help empower reformists within these societies.
3. For the landlocked it appears like Aid is the key according to Professor Collier. It will make things much simpler if governance and policies in these countries are sufficiently decent.
4. FOR Bad governance –I totally agree with Professor Collier that reform has to come from within, and yes it takes courage.
Questions to think about – I invite all my friends and readers to come and reason with me on these. Here we go:
Q1. On the other side of the coin, the question I will ask is what role will the development agencies such as IMF, WORLD BANK et al play in helping the economies of the bottom billion?
Q2. How are their current policies helping/blocking economic growth in the developing world and especially the bottom billion?
Q3. Do IMF AND World Bank and any other organizations need to change their approach/policies in order to be development friendly to the hailing economies of the bottom billion? If yes how? And if no why?
Q4. How about the WTO (World trade organization) does it mean anything to the bottom billion; do they really get any deal?
Well your guess is as good as mine on the WTO it is all about negotiation power, which obviously disadvantages the bottom billion countries. My opinion on WTO in agreement with Prof. Collier is that trade policy need to change from extracting the best bargain to fostering development in the bottom billion.
Thanks folks your insights will be appreciated. This world of globalization is intriguing!
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Alchemist - Amazing "To Realize One's Destiny is a Person's Only Obligation"
My good friend Ekeh popularly known as "THE CHAIRMAN" is a big fun of the Alchemist and he recommended this book for a read.
On September 21st 2008 on my way back from Minneapolis,at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, I happen to miss my flight which was departing at 4:45pm CST, even though i was in the airport 30 minutes before departure. I was definitely upset but since I was with Anjela and the great time we had together i tried to control myself and paid without question a fee that allows me to be put on standby list; usually uncharacteristic of me to just agree without speaking my mind. so I saw Anjela off her flight to MILWAUKEE and then i came back to wait for my standby flight 3 hrs later from my initial flight.
I Had just finished reading another book "How to win friends & Influence people" - actually this book had some influence on my way of reacting to the situation than i usually will i.e. not argue especially since i was trying to go through security i thought if i had engaged the agent at the counter it would have probably taken another time off the possibility of me catching my flight, never mind i didn't catch it anyways. This particular line specifically impacted me and i quote "Control your temper - remember, you can measure the size of a person by what makes him or her angry". since i consider myself strong and a leader I figure that probably i will let it pass.
Back to my story, so missed my flight, saw Anjela off to MILWAUKEE. Then come back to gate 14 to wait for 3 hrs, yes 3hrs! on a waiting list, no even sure that i can get a seat. but there i was, so now i had to get started reading another book to pass time, "The Alchemist". Interesting thing about this book is that it is one of those books that when you start reading you don't wanna stop. so i got immersed in it before i realize the 3 hrs that looked like eternity passed like wind, yes like wind.
While I was reading the book there was a theme that was catchy and got my attention and apparently it related to my situation " the spirit of adventure"-not to worry when you find yourself in a certain situation, don't spend time being sorry to yourself, just enjoy the moment. it added to my personal instinct that worrying and feeling sorry about yourself isn't a solution instead worry about THE MOMENT - THE FUTURE, the past is THE PAST, cant add or subtract anything to or from it, just that plain & simple. I wish it was always that plain & simple i have to admit sometimes it gets the best of me but am learning to be in control.
Back to Alchemist - here is the story in Brief: very interesting!
Santiago, an Andulusian shepherd boy, has a dream about finding a treasure in the Pyramids of Egypt. A gypsy woman and an old man claiming to be a mysterious king advise him to pursue it. "TO REALIZE ONE'S DESTINY IS A PERSON'S ONLY OBLIGATION," the old man tells him. (NB: i truly believe in this) the old man continues "And, when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it" - (NB: I don't know about that - may be at some level once you pass the fear to fail stage of pursuing the dream, what do u guys think?)
THE story continues...
With the courage of an adventurer, Santiago sells his sheep and travels to Tangier in Africa. After a thief steals his money, Santiago takes a job with a crystal merchant who unwittingly teaches Santiago important lessons for his long journey ahead. After working at the crystal shop for a year, Santiago earns enough money to cover his losses and return home. On a desert caravan, Santiago meets an Intriguing Englishman. The Englishman's passion for knowledge and his relentless quest to uncover the secrets of Alchemy inspire Santiago to pursue his own dream of finding the treasure. As the Englishman searches for the two-hundred-year-0ld alchemist who resides in the desert oasis, Santiago falls in love with a young woman, Fatima. Exposed to the greatest and eternal alchemy of all-LOVE-Santiago thinks he has found the treasure. But the greatest test all is yet to come. With the help of the alchemist, Santiago completes the last leg of his journey-dangerous and infused with discoveries of the most profound kind-to find that the treasure he was looking for was waiting for him in the place where he least expected.
This story, timeless and entertaining, exotic yet simple, breaks down the journey we all take to find the most meaningful treasures in our lives into steps that are at once natural and magical. it is about FAITH, POWER, and COURAGE we all have with us to pursue the intricate path of a PERSONAL LEGEND, a path charted by the MYSTERIOUS MAGNET OF DESTINY BUT OBSCURED BY DISTRACTIONS. Santiago shows how long the way we learn to trust our hearts, read the seemingly inconspicuous signs, and understand that we look to fulfill a dream, it looks to find us just the same, if we let it.
This was refreshing and I thought probably it was okay to miss the flight for a chance to read this one of the most intriguing piece of work i have ever read. kind of gave me a good instinct of my personal dream, this so called "personal legend". I know and believe i have one.
On September 21st 2008 on my way back from Minneapolis,at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, I happen to miss my flight which was departing at 4:45pm CST, even though i was in the airport 30 minutes before departure. I was definitely upset but since I was with Anjela and the great time we had together i tried to control myself and paid without question a fee that allows me to be put on standby list; usually uncharacteristic of me to just agree without speaking my mind. so I saw Anjela off her flight to MILWAUKEE and then i came back to wait for my standby flight 3 hrs later from my initial flight.
I Had just finished reading another book "How to win friends & Influence people" - actually this book had some influence on my way of reacting to the situation than i usually will i.e. not argue especially since i was trying to go through security i thought if i had engaged the agent at the counter it would have probably taken another time off the possibility of me catching my flight, never mind i didn't catch it anyways. This particular line specifically impacted me and i quote "Control your temper - remember, you can measure the size of a person by what makes him or her angry". since i consider myself strong and a leader I figure that probably i will let it pass.
Back to my story, so missed my flight, saw Anjela off to MILWAUKEE. Then come back to gate 14 to wait for 3 hrs, yes 3hrs! on a waiting list, no even sure that i can get a seat. but there i was, so now i had to get started reading another book to pass time, "The Alchemist". Interesting thing about this book is that it is one of those books that when you start reading you don't wanna stop. so i got immersed in it before i realize the 3 hrs that looked like eternity passed like wind, yes like wind.
While I was reading the book there was a theme that was catchy and got my attention and apparently it related to my situation " the spirit of adventure"-not to worry when you find yourself in a certain situation, don't spend time being sorry to yourself, just enjoy the moment. it added to my personal instinct that worrying and feeling sorry about yourself isn't a solution instead worry about THE MOMENT - THE FUTURE, the past is THE PAST, cant add or subtract anything to or from it, just that plain & simple. I wish it was always that plain & simple i have to admit sometimes it gets the best of me but am learning to be in control.
Back to Alchemist - here is the story in Brief: very interesting!
Santiago, an Andulusian shepherd boy, has a dream about finding a treasure in the Pyramids of Egypt. A gypsy woman and an old man claiming to be a mysterious king advise him to pursue it. "TO REALIZE ONE'S DESTINY IS A PERSON'S ONLY OBLIGATION," the old man tells him. (NB: i truly believe in this) the old man continues "And, when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it" - (NB: I don't know about that - may be at some level once you pass the fear to fail stage of pursuing the dream, what do u guys think?)
THE story continues...
With the courage of an adventurer, Santiago sells his sheep and travels to Tangier in Africa. After a thief steals his money, Santiago takes a job with a crystal merchant who unwittingly teaches Santiago important lessons for his long journey ahead. After working at the crystal shop for a year, Santiago earns enough money to cover his losses and return home. On a desert caravan, Santiago meets an Intriguing Englishman. The Englishman's passion for knowledge and his relentless quest to uncover the secrets of Alchemy inspire Santiago to pursue his own dream of finding the treasure. As the Englishman searches for the two-hundred-year-0ld alchemist who resides in the desert oasis, Santiago falls in love with a young woman, Fatima. Exposed to the greatest and eternal alchemy of all-LOVE-Santiago thinks he has found the treasure. But the greatest test all is yet to come. With the help of the alchemist, Santiago completes the last leg of his journey-dangerous and infused with discoveries of the most profound kind-to find that the treasure he was looking for was waiting for him in the place where he least expected.
This story, timeless and entertaining, exotic yet simple, breaks down the journey we all take to find the most meaningful treasures in our lives into steps that are at once natural and magical. it is about FAITH, POWER, and COURAGE we all have with us to pursue the intricate path of a PERSONAL LEGEND, a path charted by the MYSTERIOUS MAGNET OF DESTINY BUT OBSCURED BY DISTRACTIONS. Santiago shows how long the way we learn to trust our hearts, read the seemingly inconspicuous signs, and understand that we look to fulfill a dream, it looks to find us just the same, if we let it.
This was refreshing and I thought probably it was okay to miss the flight for a chance to read this one of the most intriguing piece of work i have ever read. kind of gave me a good instinct of my personal dream, this so called "personal legend". I know and believe i have one.
2008 Update WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD
Ladies & Gentlemen here we go again, the new 2008 update for why the chicken cross the road, very funny enjoy.
A 2008 update -Why did the chicken cross the road?
BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!
JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the r oad.
HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?
COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of t he screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Did he cross it with a hare? Did he cross it with a bear? Did he check if the road was hot? I kinda doubt it, I think not! Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed, I've not been told. Just one more thing I have to say, it's been bugging me to this very day. If the Chicken is a she, why do we keep saying HE?
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.
JERRY FALWELL: Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plain truth? That's why they call it the other side. Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay, too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like the other side. That chicken should not be crossing the road. It's as plain and as simple as that.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2008, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2008. This new platform is much more stable and will never cras#@&&%%……reboot.< BR>
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?
A 2008 update -Why did the chicken cross the road?
BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!
JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the r oad.
HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?
COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of t he screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Did he cross it with a hare? Did he cross it with a bear? Did he check if the road was hot? I kinda doubt it, I think not! Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed, I've not been told. Just one more thing I have to say, it's been bugging me to this very day. If the Chicken is a she, why do we keep saying HE?
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.
JERRY FALWELL: Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plain truth? That's why they call it the other side. Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay, too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like the other side. That chicken should not be crossing the road. It's as plain and as simple as that.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2008, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2008. This new platform is much more stable and will never cras#@&&%%……reboot.< BR>
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road
This funny!
enjoy and like my friends says "this is purely humor, if it offends you....man see Dr. Phill coz Oprah wouldnt even be able to help you"
Subject: QUESTION: WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
QUESTION: WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
* KINDERGARTEN TEACHER: To get to the other side.
* PLATO: For the greater good.
* ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross roads.
* KARL MARX: It was a historical inevitability.
* RONALD REAGAN: I forget.
* CAPTAIN JAMES T. KIRK: To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.
* MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR: ... I envision a world where all chickens will be
free to cross roads without having their motives being called into question.
* MACHIAVELLI: The point is that the chicken crossed the road. Who cares
why? The end of crossing the road justifies whatever motive there was.
* JERRY SEINFELD: Why does anyone cross a road? I mean, why doesn't anyone ever think to ask, What the heck was this chicken doing walking around all over the place, anyway?"
* FREUD: The fact that you are at all concerned that the chicken crossed the
road reveals your underlying sexual insecurity.
* SADDAM HUSSEIN: This was an unprovoked act of rebellion and we were
justified in dropping 50 tons of nerve gas on it.
* GEORGE W. BUSH (2): We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or it is against us. There is no middle ground here.
* MOHAMMED ALDOURI: (Iraqi Ambassador): The chicken did not cross the road. This is a complete fabrication. We don't even have a chicken.
* OLIVER STONE: The question is not, "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
Rather, it is, "Who was crossing the road at the same time, whom we
overlooked in our haste to observe the chicken crossing?"
* DARWIN: Chickens, over great periods of time, have been naturally selected in such a way that they are now genetically disposed to cross roads.
* EINSTEIN: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.
* BUDDHA: Asking this question denies your own chicken nature.
* ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die on the rain.
* ISAAC NEWTON: Any chicken in the universe shall always cross a road
perpendicularly to the side of the road, and in an infinitely long straight
line at uniform speed, unless the chicken stops due to an unbalanced
reactive force in the opposite direction of the chicken's motion
* NELSON MANDELA: Never again, will the chicken be questioned for crossing
the road. This is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
* THABO MBEKI: We need to establish if really there is a connection between
the chicken and the road.
* ROBERT MUGABE: For all of these years the road has been owned by the white farmers, the poor underprivileged chicken has waited too long for that road to be given to him and now he is crossing it in force with his fellow war
veteran chickens. We intend taking over this road and giving it to the roadless chickens so that they can cross it without fear of retribution from
Britain who promised money to institute road reform. We will not stop until
all roadless chickens have roads to cross and the freedom to cross them.
And the for Kenyans in the house and my buddies who can understand the language.....................
RAILA ODINGA: Had the chicken signed an MOU not to cross the road?
Crossing the road is a two horse affair. Anything else is a donkey!!!
Besides no one can stop the river Nile....... But if we cross the road like i've done seven times so far, then we can invite the chicken to come back to the original side of the road....
KALONZO MUSYOKA: It is another miracle in my march to State House. I am telling you my brothers and sisters the chicken wave is unstoppable...........
PASTOR PIUS MUIRU: Na kuku itaendelea..................
STANLEY N MATIBA: Let the other chicken decide.....
*EMILIO MWAI KIBAKI: Kuku ilivuka pale pale, ikienda huko huko........na
hilo ndilo jambo la muhimu.......hakuna mambo ingine,......... na hatuwezi
kataa, tutakataa namna gani ? Hakunaaa !!! Na hao wanaendelea kuongea mambo ya kuku..................ni wapumbavu.................mavi ya kuku!!!
enjoy and like my friends says "this is purely humor, if it offends you....man see Dr. Phill coz Oprah wouldnt even be able to help you"
Subject: QUESTION: WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
QUESTION: WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
* KINDERGARTEN TEACHER: To get to the other side.
* PLATO: For the greater good.
* ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross roads.
* KARL MARX: It was a historical inevitability.
* RONALD REAGAN: I forget.
* CAPTAIN JAMES T. KIRK: To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.
* MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR: ... I envision a world where all chickens will be
free to cross roads without having their motives being called into question.
* MACHIAVELLI: The point is that the chicken crossed the road. Who cares
why? The end of crossing the road justifies whatever motive there was.
* JERRY SEINFELD: Why does anyone cross a road? I mean, why doesn't anyone ever think to ask, What the heck was this chicken doing walking around all over the place, anyway?"
* FREUD: The fact that you are at all concerned that the chicken crossed the
road reveals your underlying sexual insecurity.
* SADDAM HUSSEIN: This was an unprovoked act of rebellion and we were
justified in dropping 50 tons of nerve gas on it.
* GEORGE W. BUSH (2): We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or it is against us. There is no middle ground here.
* MOHAMMED ALDOURI: (Iraqi Ambassador): The chicken did not cross the road. This is a complete fabrication. We don't even have a chicken.
* OLIVER STONE: The question is not, "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
Rather, it is, "Who was crossing the road at the same time, whom we
overlooked in our haste to observe the chicken crossing?"
* DARWIN: Chickens, over great periods of time, have been naturally selected in such a way that they are now genetically disposed to cross roads.
* EINSTEIN: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.
* BUDDHA: Asking this question denies your own chicken nature.
* ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die on the rain.
* ISAAC NEWTON: Any chicken in the universe shall always cross a road
perpendicularly to the side of the road, and in an infinitely long straight
line at uniform speed, unless the chicken stops due to an unbalanced
reactive force in the opposite direction of the chicken's motion
* NELSON MANDELA: Never again, will the chicken be questioned for crossing
the road. This is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
* THABO MBEKI: We need to establish if really there is a connection between
the chicken and the road.
* ROBERT MUGABE: For all of these years the road has been owned by the white farmers, the poor underprivileged chicken has waited too long for that road to be given to him and now he is crossing it in force with his fellow war
veteran chickens. We intend taking over this road and giving it to the roadless chickens so that they can cross it without fear of retribution from
Britain who promised money to institute road reform. We will not stop until
all roadless chickens have roads to cross and the freedom to cross them.
And the for Kenyans in the house and my buddies who can understand the language.....................
RAILA ODINGA: Had the chicken signed an MOU not to cross the road?
Crossing the road is a two horse affair. Anything else is a donkey!!!
Besides no one can stop the river Nile....... But if we cross the road like i've done seven times so far, then we can invite the chicken to come back to the original side of the road....
KALONZO MUSYOKA: It is another miracle in my march to State House. I am telling you my brothers and sisters the chicken wave is unstoppable...........
PASTOR PIUS MUIRU: Na kuku itaendelea..................
STANLEY N MATIBA: Let the other chicken decide.....
*EMILIO MWAI KIBAKI: Kuku ilivuka pale pale, ikienda huko huko........na
hilo ndilo jambo la muhimu.......hakuna mambo ingine,......... na hatuwezi
kataa, tutakataa namna gani ? Hakunaaa !!! Na hao wanaendelea kuongea mambo ya kuku..................ni wapumbavu.................mavi ya kuku!!!
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Is the fall out of the elections a result of ethnic issues as reported by the international media? Find it out here put in a Kenyan Perspective.
The post election violence in Kenya has been labeled particularly by the international media as Ethnic instigated. This is absolutely wrong! From a Kenyan perspective and as a Kenyan I disagree with this hell bent notion. Ethnicity is not the primary causation of the recent post lection violence.
However, the reality is that Ethnicity is an issue only because our politics have been since independence organized regionally just like most of the rest of the world where you find that certain regions traditionally vote for or belong to a certain politically party. Unfortunately, though our regions happen to be predominantly occupied by a certain tribes. For instance, Nyanza province is predominantly occupied By Luo and Kisii tribes; Central province by Kikuyu tribe, Rift valley is home to Kalenjins, Turkanas, and Masai etc. Because of this organization which dates back to pre-colonial era (Divide and Rule by the colonial governments), ethnicity becomes an issue in cases where a dispute like the 2007 elections happens.
So to just say that the post election in Kenya is an ethnic product is inaccurate if not a malicious act by international media. The pre-conceived notion that Africans like to kill each other is baseless and an act of irresponsible journalism.
To put this in perspective, the post election violence was as a result of politics gone bad. People at each different regions felt shortchanged by the defective structures and as a result of irresponsible electoral officials (incompetence and abuse of office) people protested and took to streets.
Unfortunately God forbids, the political divisions turned their anger to each other, and as a result because the regions are historically organized ethnically, ethnicity partly played a role. The root cause was poor leadership and defective and weak systems. However, the reaction by Kenyans was not the right way to react and I hope people have learnt some lessons from that.
I have always maintained that any system that is vulnerable to manipulation, it doesn’t matter where it is in the world it will always be abused by the incumbent. Why? Coz human beings have a problem with power, as the good Lord Acton puts it “"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
So ethnicity is not an African problem or Kenyan problem. In this particular case, the international media reported irresponsibly its like saying that one morning a Luo woke up and decided to kill a kikuyu, or a Kalenjin woke up and decide to kill a Kisii or other 43 tribes in Kenya. No that is just not true!
It was like I said earlier a result of bad politics. This is not to ignore the suffering that occurred because of WRONG WAY OF REACTION by Kenyans themselves. But to plainly say that it ethnic motivated is hill informed.
The post election violence in Kenya has been labeled particularly by the international media as Ethnic instigated. This is absolutely wrong! From a Kenyan perspective and as a Kenyan I disagree with this hell bent notion. Ethnicity is not the primary causation of the recent post lection violence.
However, the reality is that Ethnicity is an issue only because our politics have been since independence organized regionally just like most of the rest of the world where you find that certain regions traditionally vote for or belong to a certain politically party. Unfortunately, though our regions happen to be predominantly occupied by a certain tribes. For instance, Nyanza province is predominantly occupied By Luo and Kisii tribes; Central province by Kikuyu tribe, Rift valley is home to Kalenjins, Turkanas, and Masai etc. Because of this organization which dates back to pre-colonial era (Divide and Rule by the colonial governments), ethnicity becomes an issue in cases where a dispute like the 2007 elections happens.
So to just say that the post election in Kenya is an ethnic product is inaccurate if not a malicious act by international media. The pre-conceived notion that Africans like to kill each other is baseless and an act of irresponsible journalism.
To put this in perspective, the post election violence was as a result of politics gone bad. People at each different regions felt shortchanged by the defective structures and as a result of irresponsible electoral officials (incompetence and abuse of office) people protested and took to streets.
Unfortunately God forbids, the political divisions turned their anger to each other, and as a result because the regions are historically organized ethnically, ethnicity partly played a role. The root cause was poor leadership and defective and weak systems. However, the reaction by Kenyans was not the right way to react and I hope people have learnt some lessons from that.
I have always maintained that any system that is vulnerable to manipulation, it doesn’t matter where it is in the world it will always be abused by the incumbent. Why? Coz human beings have a problem with power, as the good Lord Acton puts it “"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
So ethnicity is not an African problem or Kenyan problem. In this particular case, the international media reported irresponsibly its like saying that one morning a Luo woke up and decided to kill a kikuyu, or a Kalenjin woke up and decide to kill a Kisii or other 43 tribes in Kenya. No that is just not true!
It was like I said earlier a result of bad politics. This is not to ignore the suffering that occurred because of WRONG WAY OF REACTION by Kenyans themselves. But to plainly say that it ethnic motivated is hill informed.
Friday, January 18, 2008
ASESSION WITH A FRIEND ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (AA).
AN ONLINE CHAT A SESSION WITH MY FRIEND JACK BACK AT CORNELL ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (AA).
I think it is always a good idea to have discussion and engage each other on the “hot” issues in our societies today. In doing so I think we can learn from each other and positively influence each other.
I just decide to post this archive from one of the discussions that I have heard with friends especially in College concerning controversial issues in our societies today. Jack and I are great friend and we agree in almost many things.
Here is our conversation on Affirmative action (AA)
Notice that Jack seeked my opinion on AA, which he had with another friend. That is why am quoting some of the thinks he said or the other friend said in their conversation and I was stating my position on the same. Some of the quoted stuff may not be all Jack’s, could be other friend who said it. Anyways here we go:
Hey Jack, My comments are in blue, I picked some of the points that I thought I had a different perspective from yours.
You said, “Letting in people who won't do as well brings down the mean, which makes it easier for me to get an A in my classes. I'm for it!”
This is really interesting from your point of view and I think you are making an assumption that the highest percentage of those who score relatively low are from the “minority groups”. Absolutely I disagree with you, coz no statistics show your claim is truth so I think to begin with; you are headed in the wrong direction! If that is your reason for supporting AA, then it is misplaced.
You said “Judging people on anything but previous performance and experience is racism”
Absolutely I agree with U on this
You said “It makes sense that if I preform better than those applying at the same time with me then I would have a better chance to get in, right?”
No argument about it that is how it is supposed to be
You said “Affirmative action allows for less qualified persons to have equal or better chances of getting accepted than myself because of their race or financial background, in short that's 'inverse racism.' (bear with me) I know (because in the last six months I've applied to over 40 places) that on many job applications employers have added a comment under the "ethnicity" question that says "this information is not used for job placement." I've also noted that the information is not required at all, that an applicant can be judged only by their record and not their race or financial background. This should be a model for college admissions offices, accepting people only on their performance and experience NOT on their ethnicity for that IS racism.
Affirmative action is not justice but a roadblock for those in our country who work hard.”
I agree that people should be accepted based on their performance and experience, but your idea that AA allows less qualified persons to have equal or better chances I don’t agree. How I think of AA is that it tries to give equal opportunities to pple from diverse backgrounds, it is not about accepting less qualified pple and barring those who are qualified. It is giving equal opportunities to all who are qualified, but taking into consideration diversiveness in order to create a well balanced community in terms of ethnic groups, assuming that there are more qualified persons than the openings available. Coz you don’t expecting somebody a low scorer in high school to be accepted to Cornell or any other good schools just because of their race or background. It is about equal opportunities to those qualified but from diverse backgrounds. Imagine a situation where you have 3 pple both qualified and there only 2 openings. Two of them come from the same ethnicity and one from a different ethnicity, what will you do as an employer? For me I will pick one from each ethnicity and reject taking both from same ethnicity. I think that is what AA is about. So in this scenario do you think AA is injustice?
You said,”I propose a system that looks more into class than race...”
I actually see the point you are making here which I really think it is correct that a system that looks more into class rather than race is much better. I agree that it happens in a staggering percentage AA goes overboard from the original intent. And may translate to injustice if not handle well.
You said “If doing poorly in school is a characteristic associated with blacks by blacks themselves, this is a major road-block to success and racial reconciliation”
I don’t know where this theory is from coz who on earth would want to be associated with failing and funny enough you said they like it “failing is a hobby? Something to be proud of?” this is strange, I don’t know may it depends on personalities and if that is the case then it can not be made to appear like a behavior of only pple from that particular ethnicity coz by doing that then we will be stereotyping them, don’t you think so?
You said “Here at Cornell, we pride ourselves on "Such diversity in one university". However, we sponsor de facto (which means willful, by choice) segregation by having such residence programs as Ujamaa, where the blacks go live, the Hispanic living center near Risley, and the International Living Center. We don't officially section people off, but we let them choose to section themselves off. I don't really understand how that's supposed to help people become more tolerant of other races.”
Jack I absolutely agree with you on this, I personally find it so problematic, it is really even causing more intolerance, this is something may be pple need to speak about it and even lobby about it to the university admin. Coz I think it not the right intent of diversity as Ezra Cornell wanted it to be “open doors, open hearts and open minds”
Man I hope you will find my comments helpful. Though I was writing them while I was watching my soccer.
By the way my team won Friday night game I was so happy about it.
Hey talk to you later.
Pat
******E N D ******
I think it is always a good idea to have discussion and engage each other on the “hot” issues in our societies today. In doing so I think we can learn from each other and positively influence each other.
I just decide to post this archive from one of the discussions that I have heard with friends especially in College concerning controversial issues in our societies today. Jack and I are great friend and we agree in almost many things.
Here is our conversation on Affirmative action (AA)
Notice that Jack seeked my opinion on AA, which he had with another friend. That is why am quoting some of the thinks he said or the other friend said in their conversation and I was stating my position on the same. Some of the quoted stuff may not be all Jack’s, could be other friend who said it. Anyways here we go:
Hey Jack, My comments are in blue, I picked some of the points that I thought I had a different perspective from yours.
You said, “Letting in people who won't do as well brings down the mean, which makes it easier for me to get an A in my classes. I'm for it!”
This is really interesting from your point of view and I think you are making an assumption that the highest percentage of those who score relatively low are from the “minority groups”. Absolutely I disagree with you, coz no statistics show your claim is truth so I think to begin with; you are headed in the wrong direction! If that is your reason for supporting AA, then it is misplaced.
You said “Judging people on anything but previous performance and experience is racism”
Absolutely I agree with U on this
You said “It makes sense that if I preform better than those applying at the same time with me then I would have a better chance to get in, right?”
No argument about it that is how it is supposed to be
You said “Affirmative action allows for less qualified persons to have equal or better chances of getting accepted than myself because of their race or financial background, in short that's 'inverse racism.' (bear with me) I know (because in the last six months I've applied to over 40 places) that on many job applications employers have added a comment under the "ethnicity" question that says "this information is not used for job placement." I've also noted that the information is not required at all, that an applicant can be judged only by their record and not their race or financial background. This should be a model for college admissions offices, accepting people only on their performance and experience NOT on their ethnicity for that IS racism.
Affirmative action is not justice but a roadblock for those in our country who work hard.”
I agree that people should be accepted based on their performance and experience, but your idea that AA allows less qualified persons to have equal or better chances I don’t agree. How I think of AA is that it tries to give equal opportunities to pple from diverse backgrounds, it is not about accepting less qualified pple and barring those who are qualified. It is giving equal opportunities to all who are qualified, but taking into consideration diversiveness in order to create a well balanced community in terms of ethnic groups, assuming that there are more qualified persons than the openings available. Coz you don’t expecting somebody a low scorer in high school to be accepted to Cornell or any other good schools just because of their race or background. It is about equal opportunities to those qualified but from diverse backgrounds. Imagine a situation where you have 3 pple both qualified and there only 2 openings. Two of them come from the same ethnicity and one from a different ethnicity, what will you do as an employer? For me I will pick one from each ethnicity and reject taking both from same ethnicity. I think that is what AA is about. So in this scenario do you think AA is injustice?
You said,”I propose a system that looks more into class than race...”
I actually see the point you are making here which I really think it is correct that a system that looks more into class rather than race is much better. I agree that it happens in a staggering percentage AA goes overboard from the original intent. And may translate to injustice if not handle well.
You said “If doing poorly in school is a characteristic associated with blacks by blacks themselves, this is a major road-block to success and racial reconciliation”
I don’t know where this theory is from coz who on earth would want to be associated with failing and funny enough you said they like it “failing is a hobby? Something to be proud of?” this is strange, I don’t know may it depends on personalities and if that is the case then it can not be made to appear like a behavior of only pple from that particular ethnicity coz by doing that then we will be stereotyping them, don’t you think so?
You said “Here at Cornell, we pride ourselves on "Such diversity in one university". However, we sponsor de facto (which means willful, by choice) segregation by having such residence programs as Ujamaa, where the blacks go live, the Hispanic living center near Risley, and the International Living Center. We don't officially section people off, but we let them choose to section themselves off. I don't really understand how that's supposed to help people become more tolerant of other races.”
Jack I absolutely agree with you on this, I personally find it so problematic, it is really even causing more intolerance, this is something may be pple need to speak about it and even lobby about it to the university admin. Coz I think it not the right intent of diversity as Ezra Cornell wanted it to be “open doors, open hearts and open minds”
Man I hope you will find my comments helpful. Though I was writing them while I was watching my soccer.
By the way my team won Friday night game I was so happy about it.
Hey talk to you later.
Pat
******E N D ******
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
