₦airaland Forum

WHAT FUTURE LIES AHEAD FOR AFRICA?

One of the most brilliant English historians,Prof Hugh Trevor Roper,once said: "Black Africa's history is darkness...nothing but darkness". Trevor the historian could never know that South Africa's racist president,Pieter Williem Botha,would agree with his words :"The fact that Blacks look like human beings and act like human beings does not necessarily make them sensible human beings. Hedgehogs are not porcupines and lizards are not crocodiles simply because they look alike. If God wanted us to be equal to the Blacks, he would have created us all of a uniform colour and intellect. But he created us differently: Whites, Blacks, Yellow, Rulers and the ruled. Intellectually,we are superior to the Blacks;that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt over the years".

Could there any word with which one may confront those scathing unsympathetic remarks? If there was one,then that would be :racist. We must resist any attempt to change it .But as we do that it is incumbent upon us to examine and cross-examine all the arguments underlying racism. Is there is any scintilla of truth in them?

Great minds,we have gathered today to open old wounds and to reflect on whether posterity will prove Trevor and Botha wrong: what future lies ahead for Africa?

Being the. Chairman's Opening Remarks at the Creative Writers' Club,Ahmadu Bello University,Zaria. 22/8/2015

Liberia's Sirleaf Johnson comes to mind each time the issue of a female president is broached in Africa. We may also hasten to add Caterine Samba Panza,another female president,who now heads the national government in the Central Africa Republic . Regardless of the circumstances that brought them to power,it is worthy of affirmation that African women have a place in leadership . And we must be ready to admit that inclusive development is meaningless without the promotion of gender equality,based on participatory democracy. But does this make sense when one thinks about the tendency of the women folk to refrain from politics today in Nigeria?
To answer this question,recourse must first be made to history in order to show that women's participation in politics is neither a strange nor a bad idea in Nigeria.

The great emancipator Funmilayo Ransom Kuti won for the Nigerian women the right to vote during elections,adding their voice to the agitation for independence in the 40s. In point of fact,she was the central figure to whom credit was given for the shift in the political consciousness of women throughout the country.. Similarly,if more of us are fascinated by the political exploits of Madam Kuti,then the story of Hajia Gambo Sawaba will whet our apetite for more details. In addition to being an activist for the women's cause,Hajia Gambo was a politician and supporter of the defunct NEPU,a position that earned her a deep-seated hatred from both the colonial authorities and the traditional rulers. Her biography unveils the fact of political brutality and assaults to which she was a victim in the arena of politics. Although,neither of them had the opportunity to govern this country,they left an indelible footprint on the sand of time.

The question of whether Nigeria will be the next country to elect a woman president is the recognition of the constitutional right of a sane and qualified woman to become our president. But do we see it happening some years from now,or even in the 2019 presidential race?

Being the topic for intellectual discourse at the Creative Writers' Club Weekly workshop (Ahmadu Bello University).
26/7/2015.

Liberia's Sirleaf Johnson comes to mind each time the issue of a female president is broached in Africa. We may also hasten to add Caterine Samba Panza,another female president,who now heads the national government in the Central Africa Republic . Regardless of the circumstances that brought them to power,it is worthy of affirmation that African women have a place in leadership . And we must be ready to admit that inclusive development is meaningless without the promotion of gender equality,based on participatory democracy. But does this make sense when one thinks about the tendency of the women folk to refrain from politics today in Nigeria?
To answer this question,recourse must first be made to history in order to show that women's participation in politics is neither a strange nor a bad idea in Nigeria.

The great emancipator Funmilayo Ransom Kuti won for the Nigerian women the right to vote during elections,adding their voice to the agitation for independence in the 40s. In point of fact,she was the central figure to whom credit was given for the shift in the political consciousness of women throughout the country.. Similarly,if more of us are fascinated by the political exploits of Madam Kuti,then the story of Hajia Gambo Sawaba will whet our apetite for more details. In addition to being an activist for the women's cause,Hajia Gambo was a politician and supporter of the defunct NEPU,a position that earned her a deep-seated hatred from both the colonial authorities and the traditional rulers. Her biography unveils the fact of political brutality and assaults to which she was a victim in the arena of politics. Although,neither of them had the opportunity to govern this country,they left an indelible footprint on the sand of time.

The question of whether Nigeria will be the next country to elect a woman president is the recognition of the constitutional right of a sane and qualified woman to become our president. But do we see it happening some years from now,or even in the 2019 presidential race?

Being the topic for intellectual discourse at the Creative Writers' Club Weekly workshop (Ahmadu Bello University).
26/7/2015.

In his Death and The king's Horseman,renowned playwright Wole Soyinka keenly observes the profound disdain shown by the colonial authority for an ancient custom of the Yorubas . This is clearly captured when it becomes news in the play that the Elesin Oba( the king's horseman)will be buried alive,as traditional antecedents demand,following the king's demise. Does that sound strange and nonsensical to us? If it doesn't,certainly it does to the English officer Mr. Pilkings,who makes a resolve to prevent the proposed requiem from taking place. The playwright carefully constructs our understanding of the African colonial experience on the fact that various practices were and are still regarded as repugnant and uncivilized by the colonial masters whose judgments should not only be treated as Eurocentric but be critically and reasonably examined. We may begin by increasing our awareness that there has always been a tendency to measure the validity of the foreign culture by the outright rejection of the African cultural practices.

However,with the ever increasing cultural decline that we now experience,we may be compelled to say that this century may no longer accommodate many of its cultural practices. Is that really a disturbing prediction?Besides,as long as there are those who believe that the utter disregard for and abandonment of the African culture is a sign of grim portent,there are also those who can go as far as to say that barbarity is the major characteristic of most African practices. And the implication of this is that there has always been a confrontational argument,on both sides, as to how reasonable it is to discard cultural practices on the basis of repugnant. Drawing from the above, can we therefore begin our intellectual discussion: Discarding cultural practices on the basis of repugnace : how reasonable?

Being the Chairman's opening remarks at the Creative Writers' Club Weekly Workshop(Ahmadu Bello University,Kongo Campus)

And you all call this a positive development for the Yorubas?For your information there is nothing recent or new in the UK's method of combating criminal activities which includes the infiltration of languages. This method is designed to facilitate effective policing in the UK. Therefore,learning Yoruba language is definitely out of respect for the cultural heritage of the Yorubas.

But if am wrong,my question is still going to be WHY.

MY REFLECTIONS ON CHARLIE HEBDO(first published on wordpress two months ago)

In 1988,the Indian born magic realist writer Salman Rushdie published his fourth novel titled the Satanic Verses which has remained a controversial piece of prose containing several offensive references to the prophet's lifetime. The result was the outrage it provoked across the muslim world;and in 1989 the Iranian supreme leader,Ayatollah Komeini,made a strident call for the book to be banned and even for the author to be put to death. What does this signify? That religious sentiments,once aroused,can spread at a breakneck speed throughout the world. Can we therefore agree that the protest against Charlie Hebdo's maddening depiction of prophet Muhammed(S.A.W)is one intriguing example of sentimental reactions on religious grounds? We all saw the mammoth crowd expressing the general sentiments of the Muslims in the streets of Paris,and the concerned mood of other principle-driven rights groups and individuals.

What does that implant in our minds? That religions play a significant role in peoples' lives by shaping their beliefs,controlling their actions and providing them a tendency to distinguish themselves from other religious groups with whom genuine association seems nearly impossible. Hence,in what appears to be an intentional slander against the reputation of prophet Muhammed(S.A.W),several insinuations have been made not only to distract popular attention from the issue of religious sanctity,but also to give an enormous weight to the rhetoric of liberalism in the spirit of freedom. The questions: Does liberalism promote religious intolerance? Do we find with it the human face its proponents give it ?

I strongly believe in my heart that the foundation for liberalism is the recognition of certain human values and principles that are capable of removing harm from the society and encouraging peaceful co-existence among humans. What,however, became of it when in 1988 Salman Rushdie decided to offend the Muslims through his literary venture? Distorted based on the growing feeling that Islam has no place in the 21st century. Where was its human face when the French cartoonists chose to vent their spleen against our noble prophet? Downplayed by the free-will and spitefulness of ignorant men who were determined to achieve fame through a mission many feared,even when permitted by free speech .

Then,what is the result? That they have become overnight celebrities .Salman Rushdie,67,now a British citizen,relishes the acknowledgment of the British royalty,prides himself in his ability to win plaudits from renowned writers and literary review agencies,and gleefully laughs his way to the bank from his palatial home in London. Come to think of it: Charlie Hebdo,the big name. It has risen from anonymity to legendary heights. The fact that it is now a popular name in the global media industry is worth the popping of champagne in Paris. Whether we like it or not, it now has a big name that is greatly admired by other secularist media houses that may soon follow suit. Also,more enchanting and more contributory is the Je suis Charlie(I am Charlie)slogan that has since been used as an endorsement of press freedom in the Charlie's non-conformist fashion after the January attack. Another evidence of its world wide popularity manifested itself in the Indian journalists' solidarity gathering for the victims in New Delhi. Enormous weights they are,given not only to press freedom in Charlie Hedbo but also liberalism in the context of the West.

However,we have been left with no logical solution or peaceful arrangement in the interest of world peace after the sad event. If not anything,the unclothedness of hypocrisy as evident by France's refusal to protest the Gaza killing and its quick condemnation of a similar violent crime should provide an occasion of the excercise of the critical faculty: Why are Muslims always in the news when they are behind the gun? That there are crude stereotypes of Islam,the types that Western civilization is unwilling to discard. Those very strong misconceptions,we can be sure,have been implanted in the mind of the world to do more than preserve the ideals,culture and values that are central to Western civilization. They are also used to justify the invasion of reactionary muslim lands on the platform of defeating terrorism,for example since the 9/11 catastrophe. Hence,by logical insight there is room for inference that can be largely arrived at through the antagonistic relationship between the West and muslim majority countries in the world. The West is going to preserve its ideals at all cost;the survival of free speech and press freedom is non-negotiable. Then,to ensure the survival,it is compelled to stick to its pattern of hostility which implies indirectly the welcoming of any attempt to ravage religious sensibilities and to maintain through physical force the sources of tension in,for example,the Middle East. But as long as it is worthwhile to ensure the survival of the Western ideals,we must also admit that the Muslims have a sacred duty to maintain those values that are central to Islam without relaxing them. Finally,both sides must move beyond the mind set of perpetual ideological conflicts while guiding their cherished values in the name of peace. In fact it is never too late to forgive each other.

MY REFLECTIONS ON CHARLIE HEBDO(first published on wordpress two months ago)

In 1988,the Indian born magic realist writer Salman Rushdie published his fourth novel titled the Satanic Verses which has remained a controversial piece of prose containing several offensive references to the prophet's lifetime. The result was the outrage it provoked across the muslim world;and in 1989 the Iranian supreme leader,Ayatollah Komeini,made a strident call for the book to be banned and even for the author to be put to death. What does this signify? That religious sentiments,once aroused,can spread at a breakneck speed throughout the world. Can we therefore agree that the protest against Charlie Hebdo's maddening depiction of prophet Muhammed(S.A.W)is one intriguing example of sentimental reactions on religious grounds? We all saw the mammoth crowd expressing the general sentiments of the Muslims in the streets of Paris,and the concerned mood of other principle-driven rights groups and individuals.

What does that implant in our minds? That religions play a significant role in peoples' lives by shaping their beliefs,controlling their actions and providing them a tendency to distinguish themselves from other religious groups with whom genuine association seems nearly impossible. Hence,in what appears to be an intentional slander against the reputation of prophet Muhammed(S.A.W),several insinuations have been made not only to distract popular attention from the issue of religious sanctity,but also to give an enormous weight to the rhetoric of liberalism in the spirit of freedom. The questions: Does liberalism promote religious intolerance? Do we find with it the human face its proponents give it ?

I strongly believe in my heart that the foundation for liberalism is the recognition of certain human values and principles that are capable of removing harm from the society and encouraging peaceful co-existence among humans. What,however, became of it when in 1988 Salman Rushdie decided to offend the Muslims through his literary venture? Distorted based on the growing feeling that Islam has no place in the 21st century. Where was its human face when the French cartoonists chose to vent their spleen against our noble prophet? Downplayed by the free-will and spitefulness of ignorant men who were determined to achieve fame through a mission many feared,even when permitted by free speech .

Then,what is the result? That they have become overnight celebrities .Salman Rushdie,67,now a British citizen,relishes the acknowledgment of the British royalty,prides himself in his ability to win plaudits from renowned writers and literary review agencies,and gleefully laughs his way to the bank from his palatial home in London. Come to think of it: Charlie Hebdo,the big name. It has risen from anonymity to legendary heights. The fact that it is now a popular name in the global media industry is worth the popping of champagne in Paris. Whether we like it or not, it now has a big name that is greatly admired by other secularist media houses that may soon follow suit. Also,more enchanting and more contributory is the Je suis Charlie(I am Charlie)slogan that has since been used as an endorsement of press freedom in the Charlie's non-conformist fashion after the January attack. Another evidence of its world wide popularity manifested itself in the Indian journalists' solidarity gathering for the victims in New Delhi. Enormous weights they are,given not only to press freedom in Charlie Hedbo but also liberalism in the context of the West.

However,we have been left with no logical solution or peaceful arrangement in the interest of world peace after the sad event. If not anything,the unclothedness of hypocrisy as evident by France's refusal to protest the Gaza killing and its quick condemnation of a similar violent crime should provide an occasion of the excercise of the critical faculty: Why are Muslims always in the news when they are behind the gun? That there are crude stereotypes of Islam,the types that Western civilization is unwilling to discard. Those very strong misconceptions,we can be sure,have been implanted in the mind of the world to do more than preserve the ideals,culture and values that are central to Western civilization. They are also used to justify the invasion of reactionary muslim lands on the platform of defeating terrorism,for example since the 9/11 catastrophe. Hence,by logical insight there is room for inference that can be largely arrived at through the antagonistic relationship between the West and muslim majority countries in the world. The West is going to preserve its ideals at all cost;the survival of free speech and press freedom is non-negotiable. Then,to ensure the survival,it is compelled to stick to its pattern of hostility which implies indirectly the welcoming of any attempt to ravage religious sensibilities and to maintain through physical force the sources of tension in,for example,the Middle East. But as long as it is worthwhile to ensure the survival of the Western ideals,we must also admit that the Muslims have a sacred duty to maintain those values that are central to Islam without relaxing them. Finally,both sides must move beyond the mind set of perpetual ideological conflicts while guiding their cherished values in the name of peace. In fact it is never too late to forgive each other.

MY REFLECTIONS ON CHARLIE HEBDO(first published on wordpress two months ago)

In 1988,the Indian born magic realist writer Salman Rushdie published his fourth novel titled the Satanic Verses which has remained a controversial piece of prose containing several offensive references to the prophet's lifetime. The result was the outrage it provoked across the muslim world;and in 1989 the Iranian supreme leader,Ayatollah Komeini,made a strident call for the book to be banned and even for the author to be put to death. What does this signify? That religious sentiments,once aroused,can spread at a breakneck speed throughout the world. Can we therefore agree that the protest against Charlie Hebdo's maddening depiction of prophet Muhammed(S.A.W)is one intriguing example of sentimental reactions on religious grounds? We all saw the mammoth crowd expressing the general sentiments of the Muslims in the streets of Paris,and the concerned mood of other principle-driven rights groups and individuals.

What does that implant in our minds? That religions play a significant role in peoples' lives by shaping their beliefs,controlling their actions and providing them a tendency to distinguish themselves from other religious groups with whom genuine association seems nearly impossible. Hence,in what appears to be an intentional slander against the reputation of prophet Muhammed(S.A.W),several insinuations have been made not only to distract popular attention from the issue of religious sanctity,but also to give an enormous weight to the rhetoric of liberalism in the spirit of freedom. The questions: Does liberalism promote religious intolerance? Do we find with it the human face its proponents give it ?

I strongly believe in my heart that the foundation for liberalism is the recognition of certain human values and principles that are capable of removing harm from the society and encouraging peaceful co-existence among humans. What,however, became of it when in 1988 Salman Rushdie decided to offend the Muslims through his literary venture? Distorted based on the growing feeling that Islam has no place in the 21st century. Where was its human face when the French cartoonists chose to vent their spleen against our noble prophet? Downplayed by the free-will and spitefulness of ignorant men who were determined to achieve fame through a mission many feared,even when permitted by free speech .

Then,what is the result? That they have become overnight celebrities .Salman Rushdie,67,now a British citizen,relishes the acknowledgment of the British royalty,prides himself in his ability to win plaudits from renowned writers and literary review agencies,and gleefully laughs his way to the bank from his palatial home in London. Come to think of it: Charlie Hebdo,the big name. It has risen from anonymity to legendary heights. The fact that it is now a popular name in the global media industry is worth the popping of champagne in Paris. Whether we like it or not, it now has a big name that is greatly admired by other secularist media houses that may soon follow suit. Also,more enchanting and more contributory is the Je suis Charlie(I am Charlie)slogan that has since been used as an endorsement of press freedom in the Charlie's non-conformist fashion after the January attack. Another evidence of its world wide popularity manifested itself in the Indian journalists' solidarity gathering for the victims in New Delhi. Enormous weights they are,given not only to press freedom in Charlie Hedbo but also liberalism in the context of the West.

However,we have been left with no logical solution or peaceful arrangement in the interest of world peace after the sad event. If not anything,the unclothedness of hypocrisy as evident by France's refusal to protest the Gaza killing and its quick condemnation of a similar violent crime should provide an occasion of the excercise of the critical faculty: Why are Muslims always in the news when they are behind the gun? That there are crude stereotypes of Islam,the types that Western civilization is unwilling to discard. Those very strong misconceptions,we can be sure,have been implanted in the mind of the world to do more than preserve the ideals,culture and values that are central to Western civilization. They are also used to justify the invasion of reactionary muslim lands on the platform of defeating terrorism,for example since the 9/11 catastrophe. Furthermore,by logical insight we are provided the chance for inference that can be largely arrived at through the antagonistic relationship between the West and muslim majority countries in the world. The West is going to preserve its ideals at all cost;the survival of free speech and press freedom is non-negotiable. Then,to ensure the survival,it is compelled to stick to its pattern of hostility which implies indirectly the welcoming of any attempt to ravage religious sensibilities and to maintain through physical force the sources of tension in,for example,the Middle East. But as long as it is worthwhile to ensure the survival of the Western ideals,we must also admit that the Muslims have a sacred duty to maintain those values that are central to Islam without relaxing them. Finally,both sides must move beyond the mind set of perpetual ideological conflicts while guiding their cherished values in the name of peace. In fact it is never too late to forgive each other.

The OP is right about his careful observation. But we don't seem to get something right at all: Buhari needs to improve his communication skills,at least that should excite a considerable decrease in his Fulani Accent. There is one prominent Nigerian leader,in fact his kinsman,to emulate : Alhaji Abubakar Balewa.

Why Balewa? That he was a vocal and stylistic orator. You could hear some strong Churchillian accent(Wiston Churchill)in his voice and his oratory gait admits of no comparison. The very first time I heard his speech I was amazed at his ability to do the British accent fairly well and I think that might have earned him the ALIAS: the golden voice of Africa.

And,I humbly think that a slight British accent will be cool(only if he is willing to receive some lessons). There has got to be a change on his part with regards to his speech.
Anyway,GOD BLESS our president and our country.

While extolling the immense contributions which digital technology has always rendered to our mode of communication,it is worthwhile to discuss the cons that often accompany it,with a special emphasis on pre- marital and marital relationships as they struggle to meet some of the challenges in our age of rapid changes and colliding cultures. The big moral question that we may like to ask is should partners have equal access to each other's phones.


In every relationship,the significance of trust can't be downplayed. It is the only foundation for confidence and fidelity. But it is surprising how it soon suffers at the hand of bellicosity after a startling discovery is made by either of the partners who are in love. This exactly captures and describes the experience of Tina,a 22 year old banker,who became suicidal after browsing through the messages on her boyfriend's phone. She had trouble dealing with his unfaithful act and soon abandoned herself to an uncontrolled lifestyle.

Kunle,27,would have known nothing of Mariam's sexual escapades with Alhaji Turaki,had he missed the chance to listen to the voice messages exchanged between them. There he sat,completely bitter,inside his Toyota mulling over how to respond to Mariam's debauchery. Finally,he summed up that a bottle of acid would actually be a final solution.

Believe it or not,someone somewhere in this society is either a Tina or a Kunle,differing only in their looks but not actual experience. So,can we then embrace this exciting occasion for the excercise of the critical faculty: Should partners have equal access to each other's phones?

@Kghaliso.For you:08090731216

The ethos of self-determination that gave birth to national resistance movements during the epoch of colonialism,has also given today's insurgent group,Boko Haram,the will,the confidence and the stamina to endure till now.We are being threatened by an affliction:terrorism,under whose watch ,an irrepressible desire for the nation's disintegration is growing stronger daily.This affliction,having attained a global configuration,has slided into a litany of our national deficiencies and is largely responsible for the dearth of critical thinking,a psychosocial theme which finds its most strident manifestation in our blank approach to the abysmal activities of Boko Haram.
I totally concern myself with the typical manners by which the insurgency is addressed on the social media:the reactionary and the apologetic.The two,as a matter of fact,are the serious consequences of the scarcity of critical thinking,a problem that finds its existence in the sudden loss of our sense of proportion.
Every reactionary element displays an accelerated impetus for an avengefull action at the mention of any terrorist attack.They let out a string of expletives such as ALLAH BLOOD SUCKING MONSTER,ISLAM IS HELL and Bleep MOHAMMED.This position is majorly advanced by the christians who take delight in attacking Islam for any wrong committed by Boko Haram.They always show some ignorance about Islam particularly when they relate ALLAH(God) to some evil god.Hence it can't be argued that the entire Muslim society in Nigeria is being faced by a large segment of the christian population that has little or no knowledge about Islam .
A concerned muslim qualifies as an apologetic element when some sympathy is expressed toward the victims of a terrorist attack.He also indulges in the act of condemnation,but not in the manner of a reactionary christian:He does not blaspheme his creator.He,instead,dissipates his energy to reclaim Islam,to correct misconceptions,while seeming intent on apologising.Although,his identity MUSLIM is greatly embarrassed,yet he sees the entire issue with clarity and with a convinced mind that the Islam does not hide its frown upon terrorism.
After everything,it is incumbent upon every element,whether reactionary or apologetic,to avoid being trapped continuously under such conditions.The exercise of the critical faculty should instead be encouraged and indulged in.We must look far beyond the scenes of the crimes and the criminals,because there is more to the story.

Jibril

Unique things like this artistic work always generate confusion :interpretations and counter-interpretations.After the famous Italian painter Da Vinci completed the work on MONALISA there was a series of interpretations and counter-interpretations.
Monalisa is the painting of a lady whose facial expression denotes two things that are unique:HAPPINESS and SADNESS.
They describe the dialectical nature of everything in the world.
I CAN CLEARLY SEE A LADY AND NOT A BIRD.
RELAX PALS:the hand is thrown across the head.
Focus your eyes on that TAIL it gives a perfect shape of a lady's leg and again look at the part painted white on the head, that is the face.
APPRECIATE CREATIVITY!

Kongo Campus:Tafawa Balewa Hostel.Block C &

people don day mad o!na mandela dey dey name any pikin we dey born for this month
BasiraDELA.SunmonuDELA.YinkaDELA etCCC

How Camera Lenses
Beautify or Uglify
Your Pretty Face Ever wonder why you may look
prettier in some photos and uglier
in others, even with the same
smile and the same lighting? It's all
about the camera lens. These
portraits—taken by Stephen Eastwood—show how this works. If you have ever used a dating site
and thought "damn, he/she
looked so hot in those pictures!
What happened?" or "wow! He/
she looks a lot better in person!"
you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's all about the lens distortion
(which is also affected by the
subject's distance to the camera).
Lenses make the world look
different than it does through
your eyes. They bend light rays, capturing the scene within a
certain field of view into a limited
bi-dimensional frame: the
photograph. Depending on the
lens' focal length, the image will
deform more or less, affecting how faces and objects look in
photos. You can see how the deformation
works in this Eastwood's series,
who took the same photo with a
wide range of optics, going from a
350mm to 19mm. Eastwood
moved the camera to frame the subject in exactly the same
position so you could clearly see
the effect. The shorter the focal length, the
more field of you view you can
capture. With something like a
15mm fish eye lens or the 19mm
that Eastwood used, the effect is
really obvious. Your face would be extremely deformed, like the rest
of the environment. But as you go
up, the distortion gets more
subtle. Sometimes this distortion
can make a face prettier than it
actually is. Sometimes the effect makes a face uglier. Since this
subtler distortion is not obvious,
your mind just buys the image
thinking that this is what the
person looks like. The same happens with larger
focal lengths. At 350mm there's
also a distortion of reality: the face
of the model becomes flatter and
wider. In theory, shooting with
something like a 135mm would
produce the best, most accurate
results, but there's no right or
wrong here. It depends on your
subject's anatomy. That's why some people are "photogenic"
with certain cameras and at certain
angles, and look horrible with
others. If you pay attention, you can really
observe this effect in everyday
photos taken with cellphones and
compact cameras. You can even
see it without even changing the
lens focal length. While taking photos with my iPhone on a
recent trip, placing some people
on the center of the frame made
them look better, especially from a
distance. Then, as I moved them to
the sides of the frame, they looked sightly different. The distortion is
more obvious near the sides, and
it was enough to make them less
attractive. The funny thing is that
the contrary happened with me: I
looked better on the sides than on the center. Or maybe it was just
that I had a horrible hangover the
whole trip. Images by Stephen Eastwood via Petapixel You can keep up with Jesus Diaz the author of this post, on Twitter or Facebook. JESUS DIAZ on GIZMODO P 219,589 g 1 1 116 L E Discuss L K @

see this beautiful and photogenic presido.....Yar adua

Cuter than the cutest....
Just ME

Our society has continued to accentuate its internal inadequacy which is evident in its oppressive judgement against wrong gendered people.Feminine looking men or men with feminine features(eyes,body etc.) are considered less desirable.They continue to wallow in self-hate which leads to depression and eventually suicide.
If someone like Nigeria's former president Yar'adua could rise to fame irrespective of his crass feminine look,then we should stop killing potentials inherent in those guys.We have to be tactful towards them.Now to the girls:If you hate then stop looking at them.You damn have no idea of what your offspring are gonna look like.
NIGERIANS let us imbibe the culture of tollerance and mutual respect.

@ODO-OTONU.Let it go forth that you have been diagnosed as suffering from congenital malady.Your show of shame has just begun.JAMBITO,ABU faculty of law is like a labyrinth of streets and certainly no place for an alphabetically challenged orphan that you have proven to be.So,count your teeth before you start barking.The last sign of the end time is your scoring above 200 in ABU PUTME.:p

MOCHI
and LIRUSHEN,you are sick!

Damn you!

Ignoring someone!

The past is never lost.It lives in the present.I used to be a prospective student that most of you are.Now that am a bonafide student I must confess to saying that it was not magical.I did have what you may term as "connection".I did not pay any "shishi" to anybody,so beware of a rogue called PAKAVY who penitently duped some students last year.

Good lord