Wednesday, 15 July 2015

Osun workers resume strike action

Two days after calling off their 7-week old strike over unpaid salaries, Osun state civil servants have resumed a fresh strike. The workers are alleging that the state government have reneged on the memorandum of understanding signed with the state NLC leadership before the strike action was called off on Monday July 13th. 
TThe workers say as part of the Memorandum of Understanding they signed, their January salary was supposed to be paid starting from on Monday July 13 while they await the payment of the remaining salaries when the bailout from the Federal government gets to the state. They say they were however surprised that it was only the junior workers in the state that received full payments of their January salary while Senior workers got half of their salaries, a situation the state NLC leaders saw as suspicious and immediately called for a fresh strike.

Tuesday, 7 July 2015

Full Story Of The OAU July 10 1999 Massacre

Friday 10th of July 2015 will exactly be 15 years after the
monstrous massacre which took place against the students
of Obafemi Awolowo University in Ile-Ife, Osun state on
Saturday 10th of July 1999. The attack resulted in the
deaths of eight people and injuring of eleven, all of whom
were students of OAU.
An account of what led to the massacre is given by Prof.
Roger Makanjuola’s book “Water Must Flow Uphill
(Adventures in University Administration)”. Prof. Roger
Makanjuola, following the massacre, became Vice Chairman
of the university and took an active role in both investigating
and punishing those from the university involved in the
murders.
Prof. Roger Makanjuola writes about an initial incident and
it’s aftermath that occurred in the weeks before the
murders: “On Saturday, 7 March 1999, a group of Black Axe
members held a meeting in Ife town. After the meeting, they
drove back to the campus. On the main road, Road 1,
leading into the campus, they were overtaken by some
students in another car. For whatever reason, they were
enraged and gave chase to the students. The students,
seeing them in pursuit, raced hastily to the car park outside
Angola Hall and ran into the adjacent Awolowo Hall for
safety. The Students’ Union, which had also received
information that secret cult members were gathering in a
house in the senior staff quarters, mobilised in response to
the incident. Led by George Iwilade, the Secretary-General, a
group of them drove to the house, officially occupied by Mr.
F.M. Mekoma, and forced their way into the boys’ quarters.
They found nine individuals inside, eight of them students of
the University, with a submachine gun, a locally
manufactured gun, an axe, a bayonet and the black clothing
and regalia of the Black Axe cult. The University authorities
were informed, and the members of the secret cult were
handed over to the Police. They were held in police custody
and taken to the Chief Magistrate’s Court where two weeks
later they were granted bail.”
Prof. Roger Makanjuola documents and raises concerns
over the way the matter was handled by both the police and
court system who broke from protocol, common sense and
destroyed evidence and how this led to the failure to be able
to prosecute the Black Axe members involved in the
incident. Prof. Roger Makanjuola writes: “The case was
heard on 31 March, and to the utmost amazement of
everyone, the Chief Magistrate discharged and acquitted the
arrested individuals. The students who had apprehended the
cult members were not called as witnesses. The
investigating police officer, Corporal Femi Adewoye, claimed
that the witnesses could not be located and actually stated
in Court, “I tried to contact the complainants in this case, all
to no avail. To date, there is no complainant in the case.
Since all the accused persons denied the allegations against
them and there is no complainant, there is no way the
allegations can be proved.” This was the submission of the
prosecuting police officer! Usually, in such cases, witness’
summons were served through the University
Administration but this did not happen. The trial was
concluded in two courtappearances in eight days.
Prof. Roger Makanjuola recalls following the failed
prosecution the Black Axe cultists returned to the university
to study. Much to the dismay and concern of fellow
students. Under pressure from students the university’s
authorities moved to suspend the cultists involved by
issuing a ‘release’ but failing to send the specific students
official letters informing them of their suspension.
Prof. Roger Makanjuola says: “Shortly
afterwards, the University was closed as a result of a
student crisis. When it re-opened three months later, the cult
members returned to the campus and were seen attending
lectures. The students raised an alarm once more. In
response to this, the University issued a release on 2 July
re-affirming the suspensions of the cult members. The
letters of suspension were dated 8 July and it is doubtful
whether those affected actually received them before the
tragic events two days later.”
THE SHOOTINGS AND THE KILLINGS.
On the night of the 9th July 1999 a number of student
groups held a party at Obafemi Awolowo University. The
‘Mirror Online’ reports: “members of Kegites Club on the
campus, Man O’ war members, and various other student
leaders- both former and incumbent, gathered at the open
ground between Angola and Mozambique Halls.” Later in
the night many of the party-goers began occupying the
cafeteria of Awolowo Hall whilst others returned to their
halls of residence to sleep.
At between 3-3.30am (now 10th July 1999) a large number
of cultists (reported to be between 22 and 40) of the Black
Axe confraternity arrived to carry out a preplanned assault
on the university with the intention of carrying out the
assassinations of several prominent members of the
student union. Allegations that these assassinations were
sponsored by the university’s Vice Chancellor Wale Omole
remain to this day but it is unclear if this is the case. It is
said “one of the cultists, Kazeem Bello, aka Kato, confessed
that Wale Omole had a hand in their July 10 dastardly
operation.
Upon arriving at the university the Black Axe cultists “drove
through the main gate and proceeded to the car park next to
the Tennis Courts in the Sports Center. They disembarked
there and went on foot along a bush path to Awolowo Hall,
where they violently interrupted the gyration, firing guns and
also wielding axes and cutlasses.
Although the order of the events that followed vary from
account to account (in terms of who was killed in what
order) it is clear that following the assault, 4 people were
left dead, another died from gunshot wounds later, one
more survived from a gunshot wound and Twenty-five
others received minor injuries, which were sustained during
the stampede out of the Awolowo Hall cafeteria and later on
during the attack.
The Mirror Online reports “The victims, which included the
then Students’ Union Secretary General, George Yemi
Iwilade, (Afrika); 400 level medical student, Eviano Ekelemu;
a graduating student, Yemi Ajiteru; 100-Level Philosophy
student, Babatunde Oke, and Ekpede Godfrey were gunned
down by the “marauding beasts” in Blocks 5 and 8,
Awolowo Hall. Prof. Roger Makanjuola writes: “Tunde Oke
was still alive but died on the operating table. Four others,
George Iwilade, Yemi Ajiteru, Efe Ekede and Eviano Ekelemu,
were brought in dead. Eviano Ekelemu bled to death from
gunshot wounds to the groin and thigh. The other three died
from gunshot wounds to the head.”
Of the targets of the massacre Lanre Adeleke (Legacy)
managed to escape by jumping from a balcony after hearing
the gunfire. “Dexter”, the Chief of the Kegites, also escaped
unharmed. George Iwilade (Afrika), the
Secretary-General of the Students’ Union and a Law student
was not so lucky. Upon entering his room the Black Axe
“shot him immediately in the head. Then they smashed his
head with their axe to make sure he was dead”.
It is reported that George Iwilade (Afrika) was the only
successfully assassinated victim. “Afrika, who was said to
have carried out the arrest (relating to the incident on
Saturday, 7 March 1999), was mercilessly butchered while
the other four were just unfortunate victims”
Prof. Roger Makanjuola’s account of the Black Axe cultist’s
escape is that “The murderers left Fajuyi Hall on foot and
went through the bush path behind the Hall back to their
vehicles. They drove to the Students’ Union building, which
they ransacked. They returned to their vehicles and drove
out of the University through the main gate. The security
staff, having heard gunfire, fled for their lives. Thus the exit
of the marauding thugs was unchallenged.”
THE AFTERMATH AND THE MOTHER OF ALL CONGRESS
The day after the attack it is reported
“President Adeleke (legacy) presided over a congress of
great Ife students in the enormous amphitheater of
Oduduwa Hall and that congress is famously known till
today as the mother of all congresses on OAU ; he
demanded the immediate resignation of Wole Omole, the
loathed vice chancellor who impeded student efforts to
eliminate cults (Omole, for example, failed to expel the
previously apprehended eight cultists). An award of 10,000
nairas ($100 U.S.) was offered for Omole’s capture and
hundreds of students occupied the administration building,
refusing to leave until Omole was fired.”
Prof. Roger Makanjuola writes of what
followed the massacre: “In the aftermath of the attack, the
whole university was envelope in fear and there was chaos
in the halls of residence. However, within a short time, the
President of the Students’ Union, Lanre Adeleke, was able to
restore order and mobilise his colleagues. The students
went to the town searching for the perpetrators in locations
where cult members were thought to be living. They
“arrested” three individuals and brought them back to
Awolowo Hall. These were Aisekhaghe Aikhile, a Part I
student of Agricultural Economics, Emeka Ojuagu, and
Frank Idahosa (Efosa). Efosa and Ojuagu were arrested in a
public transport vehicle that was about to leave Ife.
The VC, Professor Wale Omole, had been out of the country
on 10 July 1999, the day of the attack and in his absence,
the Deputy VC (Academic), Professor A.E. Akingbohungbe,
was in charge. Soon after his arrival, the VC was summoned
to Abuja to give a report of the incident the day after he
returned to campus. On 14 July, his suspension was
announced by the Government. Several days later on the
18th July 1999 Prof. Roger Makanjuola was appointed Vice
Chacellor and as replacement to Professor Wale Omole.
The July 10 massacre has been passed on to the different
generations of students in OAU and a special programme is
usually been held to remember and appreciate the heroes
who were murdered on the day .

Monday, 6 July 2015

Super Eagles striker Emmanuel Emenike Turns Muslim

Super Eagles striker Emmanuel Emenike has sensationally
told Fenerbache coach Vitor Pereira that he is a Muslim.
Emenike failed to join the squad up for breakfast on
Saturday, prompting the Portuguese to probe his absence
on why he didn’t join up with the squad in the morning: “I’m
fasting,” Emenike reportedly told the coach according to
Turkish daily Fanatik.
Pereira however replied: “You’re not a Muslim,” insisting
that Emenike is a Christian. But in the response, the former
Spartak Moscow player did not back down.
“I became a Muslim, I am a Muslim,” he continued to claim.
Emenike is yet to feature for Fenerbache in their two pre-
season games so far.

Sunday, 5 July 2015

OAU DROP-OUT DAPO ADARALEGBE NOW CALLED STEPHANIE ROSE BLASPHEMES.


SHOCKING: “God is beginning of all foolishness and evil!” — Nigerian transgender, Stephanie Rose wrote
Another Nigerian transgender has come out with shocking blasphemous words on God.

This Nigerian transgender who calls herself Stephanie Rose, is following in the footsteps of Miss Sahhara, a known ‘woman-man’ who has been pouring invectives at God and Jesus Christ.

Rose, who was born as a man and given the name Dapo Adaralegbe, was a popular homosexual studying Law at the prestigious Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife, but was expelled in 2001 due to his identity crisis, escaped to Holland and had a sex change and became a woman.

S(he) is now a non-conformist God-Hater who throws insults at the maker at ever opportunity.

On June 23, 2015, Rose took to her Facebook page and gave the almighty a ‘piece of her mind,’ calling Him all sorts of names like idiot, wicked, maggot and foolish.

She has even written a book entitled: Nobody Goes To Heaven Because Nobody Goes To Hell Fire

Read her many insulting posts on God:

“I HATE GOD, FUCK HIM ….Such wicked and useless God can go fuck himself and eat shit.

GOD IS SHIT AND WICKEDNESS.

That is not a good God but a very foolish and useless skydaddy! A God that destroys people’s lives and destroys their bright hopes in life is a very wicked Maggot!

A God that instigates violence, instigates humiliation, instigates rejection, instigates bloodshed and instigates the killing of people is a pervert and a very devilish idiot!

People do not understand the kind of God they claim they love. Jesus Christ is NOT a valid representation of this wicked occultist God. That is why prayers remain unanswered, that is why people die prematurely because such useless God is too wicked to care about lives, rather such hopeless God is concerned about the destruction of lives as he did to Sodom. I see God worshippers as shit worshippers!

For the Children of Sodom and Gomorrah would have done much better and prospered more exceedingly if the ” foolish God ” had given them the same fair opportunity in life.

A daft and senseless God that prevented their progress in life and instigated their destruction is the epitome of all evil and wickedness. Jesus Christ is not a valid example of such occultist God of this World. All religions are true! No body goes to Heaven because no body goes to Hell fire.

He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, killed the progress of Sodom and killed the bright prospects of Gomorrah … instigating violence, instigating rejection, instigating humiliation, instigating hostilities, instigating bloodshed and the killing of gays and transgender people even till today!

All hate crimes and violence suffered by gay, lesbian and transgender people are instigated by this fucked up moron God even till today.

JESUS CHRIST IS NOT A VALID REPRESENTATION OF THIS RUBBISH GOD. Jesus Christ remains an untrue story and myth.

FOR SUCH FOOLISH GOD NEVER BECAME JESUS CHRIST AS THE BOOK OF JOHN DECEIVED CHRISTIANS, THAT IS WHY THE WORLD IS SO WICKED TODAY, IT IS BECAUSE SUCH USELESS WICKED MAGGOT GOD IS LORD OF HIS OWN WICKEDNESS.

Jesus Christ is not a reflection of such hopeless wicked Abrahamic God of all religions!

ALL RELIGIONS ARE TRUE, Jesus Christ is an untrue story and not a valid representation of the indifferent and wicked God of this World.

Where is the true reflection of Jesus Christ in a World marked with people dying prematurely, all avoidable World tragedies, all preventable natural disasters, all inconsistencies of nature ( done by nature ), etc … it is all deception, Jesus Christ does not exist in reality and can not be found in such hopeless and foolish occultist God of this World.

NO BODY GOES TO HEAVEN BECAUSE NO BODY GOES TO HELL FIRE …. All religions are true and remain valid, no religion will negate the other till the end of time.

We are animals, we exist like animals and one day we will all die like animals.

God is beginning of all foolishness and evil!

Thursday, 2 July 2015

Buhari Sacks DSS Cheif, Ekpenyong, Appoints Lawal Daura

President Muhammadu Buhari has sacked the Director General of the State Security Service, Ita Ekpenyong, and appointed Lawal Daura in his place. Ekpenyong’s removal was announced Thursday by the Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Danladi Kifasi.
Daura was born in Daura, Kastina state, on the August, 5, 1953. He attended Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria from 1977 – 1980. He started his carrier in the State Security Service in 1982 and rose to the rank of Director.
He was at one time the Deputy Director, Presidential Communication, Command and Control Centre, at the Presidential Villa Abuja between 2003 and 2007.
He also served as State Director of Security Service at various times in Kano, Sokoto, Edo, Lagos, Osun and Imo States.
He attended various professional courses both home and abroad including the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, (NIPSS) Kuru. The appointment is with immediate effect.
 

Are you Making love or Just having sex?

It is often said that “making love” is just a euphemism for “having sex.” To be sure, these terms are frequently used interchangeably. Unfortunately, this common use (or misuse) can mask the important distinction between these two activities. Indeed, many people who have “good sex” mistake it for love only to find out that their apparent lover was not the person with whom they cared to spend their life. 
This is not to proclaim the moral, or prudential, superiority of making love. Indeed some would prefer to just have sex. “Sex alleviates tension,” said Woody Allen, “Love causes it.” Still, it is important that one gets what one bargains for. 
Of course, making love (as distinct from beingin love) necessarily involves having sex.  But having sex, even great sex, is not necessarily making love—just as a nice cool beer is not a glass of wine. Truly, some may prefer the taste of the one to the other, and a beer may be the drink of choice on a given occasion (say, at a Knicks game); but it would indeed be unfortunate if one ordered a glass of Merlot in an intimate setting and was served a Budd. 
So are you making love or just having sex? Are you getting what you really want? And if not, how can you get it?
The first of these three questions can be answered only if one knows the difference between having sex versus making love. But this, in turn, requires pinning down the meanings of each.
According to philosopher Alan Goldman, sexual desire is desire for contact with another person's body and for the pleasure which such contact produces; sexual activity is activity which tends to fulfill such desire of the agent.
Goldman claims that sexual activity is not necessarily a means to any further end. For example, procreation is not the essential purpose of having sex; so you are not doing anything wrong (that is, misusing your body) if you are having sex without trying to get pregnant. Indeed, according to Goldman, there is no essential purpose to sex beyond fulfilling your desire for contact with another person’s body. 
I think we can take Goldman’s account of sexual activity as a working definition for developing and contrasting the idea of love-making. Inasmuch as sex is a desire for physical contact with someone else’s body, it is a mechanical activity. Rubbing, touching, caressing, kissing, sucking, biting, and, of course, intercourse, as fulfillments of a desire for physical contact, are all sexual activities in this sense. Here, a key word is “mechanical” because these activities are essentially ways of mechanically stimulating or arousing oneself. Per se, they are self-regarding. They seek self-gratification—fulfillment of a purely self-interested desire. As philosopher Immanuel Kant stated, “Sexual love makes of the loved person an Object of appetite; as soon as that appetite has been stilled, the person is cast aside as one casts away a lemon which has been sucked dry.” Here the idea that “sexual love” is self-regarding is clearly articulated by Kant. However, for Kant, it is in the transformation from self-regarding to other-regarding sexual activity that sex partners begin to see each other as personsrather than as mere objects or things.  Thus he says, “under the one condition, that as the one person is acquired by the other as a thing, that same person also equally acquires the other reciprocally, and thus regains and reestablishes the rational personality.”
Such reciprocal sexual activity is, for Kant, possible only in the context of monogamousmarriage where each sex partner gives the other a contractual right to the other’s body. In this case, mutual desires for physical contact with one another’s bodies are gratified by each sex partner. But while this mutual sexual agreement (whether inside or outside the context of marriage) may be a precursor to love-making, the latter takes more than mutual consent to let each other satisfy a sexual desire. This is because such mutuality is still mechanical and focused on one’s own state of arousal as distinct from that of the other and therefore fails to capture the intimate character of love-making. So Kant’s idea of “sexual love,” even in its mutual sense, is not truly that of love-making.
So what else besides mutuality is involved in love-making?
As distinct from mere sex, love-making dissolves the chasm between “you” and “me.”  The resolution, however, is not “us” because “we” can still be divided. Instead, in love-making there is the mutual consciousness of unbounded unity without partition. “Love,” says psychologist Eric Fromm, is “in the experience of solidarity with our fellow creatures.” It is, explains Aristotle, “composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies." In making love, your loins are mine, and mine yours.  The titillations of mine are yours also, and conversely. My past, present, and future; my hopes, dreams, and expectation; and yours, coalesce as one--not two--persons. There is resignation of separateness to inclusion of the other.  It is an ecstatic resonance that defies any breach in Oneness. 
It takes two to Tango, and so too does it take (at least) two to make love. Unreciprocated love-making is unsuccessful love-making. The flames of love-making are quick to die when one gives oneself, body and soul, only to be turned away. Where the other seeks only a body, wanting only sex, love-making is squandered even if it is not (at least at first) apparent to the one attempting to make love. It is a counterfeit if based on pretense because there is duality, not unity, and there is manipulation and objectification, not authentic, mutual respect.
As philosopher Martin Buber would express it, the intimacy of love-making is at the level of “I-Thou” as distinct from “I-It.” Thus, you cease to be an object or thing and instead become “Thou.”  I am bound up with you as Thou and you with me. Of course, as Buber reminds us, the unity of the “I-Thou” is not permanent and I must at some point begin to see you as an “It.”  For example, in touching each other’s body, each does what he or she knows is most erotically felt by the other. Here there is a sort of delicate, momentary analysis and deliberate targeting of a body part. But instantaneously each becomes Thou again with co-mingling of not just body but soul. In making love, there is thus a virtually seamless reciprocity between I-It and I-Thou.
There is also powerful symbolism in love-making as depicted. Foreplay gradually builds to climax as in the unfolding of a life of two living as one.  As such, making love is inspirational, for it signifies and embodies two mutually living as one. 
Erich Fromm maintains that there is separateness as well as unity in love; “In the act of loving, I am one with all, yet, I am myself, a separate, unique, limited mortal human being.” Here, Fromm is careful tostress that love (in all of its manifestations and not just in romantic love) is not bondage and subjection to another human being or denial of one’s autonomy. However, the mutuality of love-making as depicted here guards again domination, for the goal is not to control the other but instead to lose oneself in the other as the other in oneself. 
This has implications for the cognitive, perceptual, and symbolic aspects of love-making. When one merely has sex, one perceives the other as an object of pleasure, as Kant describes. In mere sexual activity one may seek to dominate, control, and even humiliate in order to elicit sexual pleasure. Indeed, there are as many ways to cognize and treat one’s sex partner as there are ways the human animal can satisfy a sexual desire.  But, love-making is unifying whereas these cognitions are relational and assume logically distinct beings.  For example, masochistic sex—thinking of oneself as lowly and servile relegates oneself to somethingless than and therefore distinct fromone’s sex partner.
In contrast, the language of love-making involves thoughts (and perceptions) that unite rather than separate, divide, or alienate. “Two hearts beating as one” expresses a unifying metaphor, although it is not very sensual; while “I want to feel you all over” can be very erotic but still objectifying. “I want to get lost inside of you” can be both erotic and unifying. Unifying thoughts can be deeply personal and can replay in the mind’s eye moments of intimacy and solidarity. They can reflect tenderness; an adoring (or adorable) look; or the instant when you knew you wanted to be together for an eternity. They can be ineffable and unspoken; simply expressed; or set into poetic verse. “One half of me is yours,” speaks Shakespeare’s Portia ( in his Merchant of Venice), “and the other half—my own half, I’d call it—belongs to you too. If it’s mine, then it’s yours, and so I’m all yours.” In its diverse nuanced forms, from Shakespeare to the average Joe, the language of love-making symbolizes, and invites, the coalescence of two into one. In contrast, compare the dis-unifying, objectifying nature of the four-letter language of just having sex.
Adapting a metaphor gleaned from the neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus, the unity experienced in love-making may be compared to an axiomatic system.  Each axiom is essential to the system and cannot be understood apart from it; but the system itself is over and above and distinct from any of its axioms.  Similarly, the unity of love-making is not possible without the two lovers, but it is over and above and distinct from them.  So, in this sense, there is still distinctness in unity.  But it is the Oneness of love-making that itself admits of no division.
Accordingly, it is essentially this unifying aspect of the activity of love-making that largely distinguishes it from mere sex.  And here is a central “how” of love-making that follows from it:  Surrender yourself to the other; sensually coalesce; and trust that the other reciprocates.  For, like religious experience, love-making has an element of faith. If you attempt to have sex without such faith, then you will only have sex. 
Transcend the self-interested desire for sexual satisfaction so that your sexual partner’s self becomes yours, and conversely, making the goal of other-regarding sex moot.
So, do you have to be in love in order to make love?  To get a handle on an answer to this question you might consider what I have had to say in my blog on How good are you at making love?  In any event, my considered judgment is that it can help to be in love.  But this doesn’t mean that one must be in love.  For I suspect that many people make love well before (if ever) they are actually in love. 
Given its powerful symbolism, building a loving sexual relationship, as here described, may even pave the way to a more loving relationship beyond the bedroom. Try it out. The taste of wine is what you may crave. But sometimes one may also want a tall, cold one. So it doesn’t mean you can’t, when the mood is right, just have sex.