₦airaland Forum

Wow. But. . . why do they think their own king and his chiefs did it?

I don't see anything in the article indicating that it was them. . .

This thread. . .

[quote author=Jenifa_ link=topic=593966.msg7650205#msg7650205 date=1296614728]what's similar to public make-out? i'm trying not to let my imagination run too wild here  so pls explain
I don't notice to many blacks engaging in PDA though.[/quote]Eh, don't let your imagination run THAT wild, lol. I'm not like that. Anyway, sort of isn't a big deal, and is non-central to this discussion with Sagamite.

^-- How long did you live in Ghana? What other languages do you speak?

my language skills are weak. . . wish I had time to learn more.

Regarding this Akabueze guy. . . yeah, he is with Team Lagos.

Go get your own 

Hrm.

jason123:
The commissioner while giving a vivid analysis of the budget, spread the 10_year budget along six sectors: Water Development $3billion, road and drainage $20billion, power $10 billion, ICT $5 billion, transportation $9.3billion, water and sewage etc, $2.7billion bringing the total sum needed for the next decade to $50 billion.

That is a sh1tload of bread.

Akabueze explained that based on this estimate, the yearly budget of the year is about $2 billion, adding that the state did not at anytime promised to deliver all roads in the state in a period of four years against publicity in the media that potholes are now common features in some roads in the state.

Where will Lagos get this additional 3 billion/year+ from, I wonder? I wonder what fraction of this amount can be raised through PPPs. . .

He stated that the state opted to denominate budget for the decade in US Dollars to counter inflationary trend and other sundry factors.

Makes a lot of sense.

The commissioner noted that Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) from the state moved up 74 percent (N66, 187bn) in 2007 to 85 percent (N144, 191bn) in 2010 with a decreased dependency on Federal revenue transfer from 41 to 35 percent.

Excellent. So pretty much self-sufficient, at this point. I strongly suspect that Lagos is being shortchanged allocation-wise, though.

Nothing wrong with a PDA, whether white, black, whatever.

Anyway, I didn't say it was a public make-out, just something similar.

Obiagu1:
Federalism is good but you have to know you're dealing with murderers. Murderers and normal human beings are not supposed to live side by side, so that rules out federalism.

They should go and find peace and sharia they desire.

Right. But it seems to me that federalism is easier to achieve than outright independence. For outright independence, you need an army. An army that can kick the backside of the other side's army.

Given that the Hausa essentially have an army and the various southern groups do not, seems a bit challenging logistically.

If it were up to me, I'd basically first seek federalism, than start training a "police force" that could then serve as the nucleus of an army.

Sort of hard to negotiate without guns/tanks/fighter jets.

[quote author=Jenifa_ link=topic=593966.msg7650110#msg7650110 date=1296612424]are you speaking from experience?
did people really find it disgusting? lol[/quote]Yes, I've had a personal experience that was similar to this. A bit more happened, but I'd rather not personalize this too much.

Sagamite:
The point of the example as I explained earlier is "make it clear to any reader that it is perfectly normal, sane and universally practiced that laws are put in place based on morality, so I see less mooorons go around and raise such steeeeeeeeeeewpid arguments that you can not ban homosexuality because you feel it is disgusting".

I am saying faggotism is unnatural and disgusting, hence it should be banned and is an ideal candidate for banning. At worst, it should only be in private.

Ahah, so that is my entire point. "Unnatural and disgusting" does not imply "should be banned", or is an "ideal candidate for banning."

You've formed a specific subjective opinion. Which you are certainly entitled to. But it doesn't follow that what you or even a majority of people find disgusting should be banned.

I don't believe it for a second.

Err, go bring your white girlfriend around most places in the south. Make out with her in public. See how people react.

Even better, do this in certain black communities anywhere in the US, see how people react 

That are homosexuals? Nope.

Feel free to show me the videos.

Don't show me documentaries claiming there are birds that give each other Cotonou-Badagry kisses o and tell me the animals are gay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

I've always of the opinion that achieving federalism in the short term is easier than achieving independence.

Is this an accurate impression, or am I wrong?

A lot of nice words, but nothing concrete that will be actually useful.

I'm not opposed to Nigeria splitting up. But how does one practically bring this about?

Sagamite:
That is just to eliminate that lame argument you see pro-gays consistently put forth.

I'm not asking what their argument is, I'm asking what yours is. Are you saying that homosexuality should be banned because public m@sturbation is also banned?

What was the point of the example you gave?

Yes, we all agree that certain things the public finds abhorrent should be banned. But it doesn't follow that homosexuality is one of those things that should be banned, simply because the public finds them abhorrent.

Anyway, are you sure we want to decide the rules by simple majority? This has lead to disaster and great evils in the past. . .

Mate, don't bullshyt me, okay. I hope your enormous fraction does not mean "majority"?

In many places in the world, some of which I've visited or lived in for periods of time, it is indeed a majority.

That said, you will conveniently see "mixed-breed" breeding in SEVERAL different breeds of animals without effort, so to me it is natural.

If we want to use animals as a justification, well there are lots of animals who engage in homosexual behavior.

@Chyz*: Presidents simply don't have that power. Even the military dictators did not. Most of those who suggest otherwise are either ignorant or fearmongering.

Eh. . .

Lol, these yan and dan daudas sound hilarious.

Hrm, Sefago, maybe your book should include some dan dauda protagonists as well.

Anyway, if you don't like Buhari, no problem. But if you don't like him because you are afraid he will turn Nigeria into an Islamic state. . . ?

Then seems a bit silly.

Personally, me myself I'm inclined to support GEJ from the present set of options. But that doesn't mean Buhari is necessarily evil, just because I'm not interested in voting for him.

Sharia law only applies to Muslims. Isn't like Christians can go to such a court anyway. And if I'm not mistaken, any incidents involving Christians and Muslims must go to an ordinary court.

Moreover, practically speaking, it is impossible for sharia to be implemented in a state without the governor and legislature of that state approving.

The president cannot single-handedly change the law of the land; he cannot replace the ordinary courts in Enugu State with say Sharia courts and force everyone to bring their cases there.

So I have no clue why southerners give a sh1t about this sharia stuff. Though if it is a valid concern, someone should please explain why to me.

[quote author=Chyz* link=topic=596000.msg7648106#msg7648106 date=1296586224]open your tribalistic eyes dummy. It is either two things, Buhari will use Bakare to get into the seat then dump him because they will disagree when it comes to religious issues to the point Bakare will have to go,or Bakare will just simply be muted while sharia is implemented because we all know that the Vp has no say so at the end in nigeria.[/quote]So your whole concern is that Sharia, which is already implemented in Northern Nigeria will be implemented elsewhere too? In Christian states, for example?

Just want to make sure I know what your fear is before I point out why this shouldn't be a concern for you.

Sagamite:
My point is, there are grounds to ban things if it disgusts us even if it does not physically harm anybody.

Yes, I agree with you. But it doesn't immediately follow that banning homosexuality is one of those things, does it?

That is what one has to argue and provide reasons for.

And do it in a way that also doesn't ban mix-raced couples, something which an enormous fraction of people find abhorrent.

I think the point has already been made. You don't have any integrity.

All you are interested in is scoring cheap political points, no matter how questionable the relevance is to the current situation. Even someone who bailed your oga's @ss out evidently is not safe from your mud-slinging.

oyb:
america is probably quaking in their boots right now.

whenever their despots of choice get toppled (remember the shah of iran?) what follows may be 1979 type revolution.

death to America to the nth power.

Eh, not so fast. America overall is a force for good. Certainly a better option than most of the other contenders for top dog.

So Bakare helped to save Beaf's oga, and now Beaf is slandering the man?

Shameless and despicable.

I hope you are being well-compensated. Would be shame if you were selling your integrity for nothing!

Not if oil prices skyrocket. . .

Sagamite:
You have to be internally consistent at not jumping into conclusions about where I am heading.

My point is to eliminate any possible avenue of a lame argument that we can not create laws based on morality.

The kind of lame arguments you see pro-gays regurgitating that "they are not harming anyone".

The wankstar is not harming anyone too but it will be silly to say he we can not legislate he should be arrested because of that.

Not that I am saying you have said we can not, I just wanted to use you and others to discuss and eliminate it.

So what exactly is your point? That the fact that we are justified legislate against wanking in public => we can legislate against . . . what?

The right of gays to kiss in public?

Against homosexuality, period?

Fill out your argument, then I can proceed.

Maybe this summer I'll have the time and money to visit Igboland. Some of ya'll will have to mention a good (safe!) hotel to go to, different sights to see.

The editorialist unfortunately doesn't seem to see that the subsidy needs to be removed BEFORE people will want to invest money.

NERC has the right of it.

NEWS that a new electricity tariff will soon be announced is clearly an attempt to put the cart of the much touted power sector reform before the horse of improved electricity supply in the country.

Chairman of the National Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), Dr. Sam Amadi, confirmed the imminent increase in tariff, even when most consumers of power are still waiting for increased power, which would encourage them to more eagerly pay any reasonable new tariffs.

After years of literally living in darkness, what Nigerians are looking forward to, as a result of the promised reforms, is efficient and regular power supply not higher tariffs.

Amadi, who gave the hint when he paid a visit to a media house in Lagos recently, said his Commission has already commenced the process that would culminate in electricity tariff increase, adding that the new regime would be made public soon.

Based on this statement and similar policy positions that have been made public previously by various officials since the commencement of the on-going power reform programme of the President Goodluck Jonathan administration, it is obvious that tariff increase has been projected as a pre-requisite for the success of the proposed reform programme. The argument has been that investors may not be interested in the nation's power sector as long as the tariff remains as low as it is presently.

Over the years, Nigerian governments have been laying claims to subsidizing electricity, though most consumers have consistently complained of irregular supply of power, total darkness in some areas, unfair billing and such like. A report, for example, claims that the Federal Government subsidized power with about N177 billion in 2009 alone. It said that Nigerian consumers currently pay about N6 per kilowatt of electricity instead of about N11 projected as the unit cost of the product.

While we do not deny the fact that full commercialization of the power sector, through the unbundling of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), would eventually lead to payment of higher rates for electricity, we wonder how the introduction of new rates now, when the expected improved services have not yet been achieved can be justified.

We, therefore, advice NERC and all the other agencies involved in the electricity reform process to borrow from the example of the transformation of the telecommunications sector in Nigeria.

When Nigerians depended solely on NITEL, they suffered so much of poor services that even the subsidized rate they were paying was a burden. Very few privileged people had access to telephone services then, which was still very inefficient. But when NITEL's monopoly was broken and private operators took over, providing far better services, Nigerians eagerly paid the higher tariffs they charged.

Since then, telephone tariffs in the country, comparatively, have remained one of the highest in the world; yet, Nigerians are appreciative of the services.

The point being made is that Nigerians are ready to pay for quality services.

So, we find it hard to accept the argument that tariff has to be increased before investors show interest in a business that offers so much potential.

Power is a critical need in Nigeria and therefore an obvious gold mine. Any serious investor should be willing to invest in the sector first before reaping the profits that are literally guaranteed.

We, therefore, counsel against the moves to increase tariff now and urge would-be investors to bring in the right equipment, provide power and thereafter name a reasonable price for it.

Before the introduction of the new tariff, we suggest that the unbundling of PHCN should proceed to its logical conclusion as quickly as possible.

Nobody needs to be told that the entire nation is waiting for power for the expected rapid development of the country.

The industrial sector in particular, which has become comatose, is waiting for power since many large and small scale industries have folded up or relocated to neighbouring countries, primarily due to lack of electricity.

Also, other critical sectors of the economy and social life, which depend on regular supply of electricity, have remained seriously hampered as a result of poor supply of electricity.

What the country, therefore, urgently needs are, serious investors not asset strippers or brief case businessmen, charlatans or fraudsters out to dribble Nigerians or loot the treasury through the back door as happened in the past concerning NITEL.

When such investors come, they are likely to do first things first and these include shedding excess weight, replacing out-dated infrastructure with modern facilities, ensuring sufficient generation of electricity and putting in place an efficient distribution network.

Once these and other fundamental measures are taken and Nigerians are offered regular electricity, the demand for an appropriate price for power will even be warmly welcomed by an appreciative populace.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201101311222.html

That is a nice road.

Surely they'll go to court and try to have it overturned?

@EzeUche: Aganga actually isn't Yoruba, he is from Edo. However, he went to Christ School in Ado-Ekiti and grow up in Lagos, so I claim him 

Guess they want to drive Mimiko into the PDP.

I hope that Mimiko prevails against the evil Tinubu.