Chimarto:


If you're in my soup a situation whereby you can't afford #70,000 school fees, you will know that being rich is a huge glory.

damiso:
..
That said it takes a very very high level of scruples not to compromise a bit on certain moral issues eg tax avoidance.Me and hubby had this argument when the HSBC issue was in the news.He said in a way all those millionaires were actually not breaking any laws as some tax havens and tax avoidance schemes are perfectly legal.I said sometimes it's not about what is legal but what is morally right.(and he calls himself a progressive )

He said it's easy to say that now you are on PAYE but let's see how easy it would be for you when the taxman wants to take 50% of your wealth.I honestly think I would pay my fair share but then do I know if I really would

tevinsolt:
the same delusion op is suffering from, is what many black Americans are suffering from. can imagine, they believe they are the true Hebrews taking from Israel to captivity, those idiots skipped History classes. west African descent thinking they're linked to a culture hundreds of miles away on another continent it is laughable and equally sad.

kobonaire:

… Why do we have the most corrupt government system, public/private system and why are we accepting of it as a people? The only think holding a black man back is the black man himself.

kobonaire:
Why can't the "black man" prove himself in the modern day time rather than trying this convoluted approach of staking a claim that "Jesus is a black man". The concept of Jesus is in itself mythical because it is faith based (religion). If the "black man" really wants the "respect and admiration" of the world then she should strive to improve him/her self in this era that we live in.

zizirecords:
... The main reason blacks worship white people and believe they are superior is because we all believe Jesus is white. Change him to black and we will see ourselves as equal if not stronger than white people.

Wallie:
Monday evening musings…

We've been made to believe that Santa Claus and Jesus are white (and Northern European) but are we being mislead?

Santa Claus is a fictional character based on Saint Nicholas who was the Greek Bishop of Myra (part of modern-day Turkey). Jesus is said to be Jew of first-century Palestine.

Would we be wrong in accepting a more dark-skinned (or is it brown-skinned) version of Jesus and Santa Claus or should we just accept them the way they're presented to us?

If you think that we should accept them the way they're presented to us, do you think such acceptance contributes (unconsciously) to our thinking that "white" is more beautiful than "black" or that "white" is good and "black" is bad?

There must be a reason that most blacks, especially in Africa, think being light-skinned is more beautiful or that “black” represents the devil. If you say “black” represents bad and/or the devil, and you’re black, what does that make you?

Empero1:
@OP

I concur 100% . Especially the issues of " all of the things you picture buying, they are only worthwhile to you because you cannot afford them (or have to work really hard to acquire them ".

izuch:

Why waste my precious time?

izuch:
Too long nd boring, all I could see was "$15m" and "$10m"

I made $15m in my mid-20s after I sold a tech startup. I talked to a lot of people about this question, and thought a lot about how to stay the same person I was before and after making money.

Here's my answer: being rich is better than not being rich, but it's not nearly as good as you imagine it is.

The answer why is a bit more complicated.

First, one of the only real things being rich gives you is that you don't have to worry about money as much anymore. There will still be some expenses that you cannot afford (and you will wish you could), but most expenses can be made without thinking about what it costs. This is definitely better, without a doubt.

Being rich does come with some downsides, though. The first thing you are thinking reading that, is, "cry me a river". That is one of the downsides. You are not allowed to complain about anything, ever. Since most people imagine being rich as nirvana, you are no longer allowed to have any human needs or frustrations in the public eye. Yet, you are still a human being, but most people don't treat you like one.

There's the second downside. Most people now want something out of you, and it can be harder to figure out whether someone is being nice to you because they like you, or they are being nice to you because of your money. If you aren't married yet, good luck trying to figure out (and/or always having self doubt) about whether a partner is into you or your money.

Then you have friends & family. Hopefully your relationship with them doesn't sour, but it can get harder. Both can get really weird about it and start to treat you differently. They might come and ask for a loan (bad idea: if you give, always give a gift). One common problem is that they don't appreciate Christmas presents the way that they used to, and they can get unrealistic expectations for how large a present should be and be disappointed when you don't meet their unrealistic expectations. You have to start making decisions for your parents on what does and does not cost too much, and frankly, it's awkward.

Add all of these up and you can start to feel a certain sense of isolation.

You sometimes lay awake at night, wondering if you made the right investment decisions, whether it might all go away. You know that feeling standing on a tall building, the feeling you might lose your mind and jump? Sometimes you're worried that you might lose your mind and spend it all.

The next thing you need to understand about money is this: all of the things you picture buying, they are only worthwhile to you because you cannot afford them (or have to work really hard to acquire them). Maybe you have your eye on a new Audi -- once you can easily afford it, it just doesn't mean as much to you anymore.

Everything is relative, and you are more or less powerless to that. Yes, the first month you drive the Audi, or eat in a fancy restaurant, you really enjoy it. But then you sort of get used to it. And then you are looking towards the next thing, the next level up. And the problem is that you have reset your expectations, and everything below that level doesn't get you quite as excited anymore.

This happens to everyone. Good people can maintain perspective, actively fight it, and stay grounded. Worse people complain about it and commit general acts of douchebaggery. But remember this: it would happen to you, too, even though you might not think so. You'll just have to trust me on this one.

Most people hold the illusion that if only they had more money, their life would be better and they would be happier. Then they get rich, and that doesn't happen, and it can throw them into a serious life crisis.

If you're part of the middle class, you have just as many opportunities to do with your life what you want of it. If you're not happy now, you won't be happy because of money.

Whether you're rich or not, make your life what you want it to be, and don't use money as an excuse. Go out there, get involved, be active, pursue your passion, and make a difference.

In my experience, for an entrepreneur at least -- getting enough money to have freedom is worth it and a glorious thing.

Here are my experiences:

1. "Made" $10M+ in paper gains on DotBomb 1.0 stock, lost all but $50k. Felt horrible. Took me 4 years to get over it. Horrible. Terrible emotional scars. Of almost having had something, but having lost it forever.

2. Made $2M on first start-up. This was the best experience ever. The good feeling lasted four years -- the good feeling -- every single day, until Lehman Brothers and lost half of it (until the market came back). This was the happiest time of my life, from here until Lehman. Why?

$2M after taxes was about $1.5m. At the time I was making about $150k a year. After taxes that's about $90k in California. So, in selling my first start-up, I made the equivalent of almost 20 years of income (ignoring inflation). Plus, at the time, the market was reliably growing 10% YoY, so I didn't even have to worry about inflation. That meant I never, ever again had to do a job, or something, I didn't want to do. I did have to work again - clearly. So the pressure to work wasn't gone. Which is actually a good thing, it keeps you alive, the need to work at some point, in some fashion. But the freedom to only do exactly what I wanted to do was new. It was glorious.

3. Made $20M on second start-up. Finally, real f'you money. I feel no better. Yes, I bought a better house. I didn't even bother to buy nicer cars. Who cares. I just bought some more jeans. Look, I am intellectually proud and gratified to have this money. But it didn't buy my freedom, which I had from before. It didn't improve the quality of my life.

So the $2M was the best. Losing $10M was the very worst. The $20M wasn't as sweet as the $2M.

So for me at least, the learning is the one thing that matters money can buy you is freedom. Some may call this f'you money, but it's not about that for entrepreneurs. It's about having freedom from the man, freedom to just go for it.

I certainly don't regret it.

Wealth removes constraints. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the extent to which you needed those constraints. If you have a serious alcohol or other drug addiction, wealth could be fatal for you. In general, it makes people more of whatever they already were. If you're an asshole, getting more money will probably make you more of an asshole. However, if you have purpose and meaning in your life that goes beyond chasing the golden carrot, money can give you the freedom to focus on the things that truly matter to you.

One of the biggest dangers of wealth is that it often causes people to cut themselves off from the larger society, either out of fear or the belief that they are somehow better than others. We are all one.

I found wealth to be a personality multiplier. For example, if you're cruel and unkind, then being wealthy will make you even more cruel and unkind (because you don't even have survival-related reasons to be nice to anyone anymore). If, instead, you are kind and generous, then being wealthy will make you more so (because wealth enables more opportunities for doing so, plus people respond more strongly to your positivity, thereby creating a feedback loop).

And because wealth is a personality multiplier, it is also an experience multiplier. If you are miserable middle-class, you will likely be even more miserable wealthy. That's because all your personality traits that causes you to be miserable (eg, greed, cruelty, paranoia, inner turmoil) get multiplied. Similarly, if you're happy middle-class, you're likely to be even happier wealthy, for the same reason. Personality traits that causes you to be happy (eg, generosity, kindness, inner peace) multiply, thereby multiplying happiness.

So my advice is: learn to be happy BEFORE becoming wealthy. Most importantly, learn the skills that lead to inner peace, inner joy and compassion. Those skills make you happy when you're middle class, and will make you even happier when you get rich. Without those skills, the most likely outcome of wealth is misery.

jcflex:
...
Some officials stated that the party hierarchy viewed Mr. Obasanjo’s public departure from the party as a dangerous signal and as a major threat. “Chief Obasanjo doesn’t just come out swinging the way he has done recently unless he is privy to the existence of some third forces that are against President Jonathan. And to the best of our knowledge, the former president has never fought a battle like this and lost, no matter how long it takes him,” one of the officials said.
...
http://saharareporters.com/2015/02/17/pdp-faction-wants-jonathan-out-candidate-party-faces-deepening-schisms

Section 131 says: “A person shall be qualified for election to the office of President if (a) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth; (b) he has attained the age of forty (40) years; (c )he is a member of a political party; and (d) he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.

“In Section 318, School Certificate or equivalent means (a) a Secondary School Certificate or its equivalent, or Grade II Teacher’s Certificate, the City and Guilds Certificate; or (b) education up to Secondary School Certificate level; or
“(c) Primary Six School Leaving Certificate or its equivalent and (i) service in the public or private sector in the Federation in any capacity acceptable to the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC) for a minimum of 10 years; and
“(ii) attendance at courses and training in such institutions as may be acceptable to the Independent National Electoral Commission for periods totaling up to a minimum of one year, and
“(iii) the ability to read, write, understand and communicate in the English Language to the satisfaction of the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC); and “(d) Any other qualification acceptable by INEC.”

mikeansy:
...
The above is completely different from the case of perjury against him in which he claims his certificate is with army even though he possibly may not have one. This is a criminal case that could lead to imprisonment if found guilty!

omolami:
Ignorance is not an excuse in law.Learn fast.Buhari is liable and so will face disqualification.

perculiarperson:
If they were used to rig, how come PDP didn't win in Osun? At least the winner was declared by the court today? Nigerians are too gullible!!!

That army man should be brought to book. If it was the truth, why didnt he include his name?

APC Fools!!! APC has failed woefully!!!

investnotspend:
A Nigerian Army Captain, who leaked the audio evidence of how some top officials of the Federal Government and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, used the Nigerian Army and other security agencies to rig the governorship election in Ekiti and Osun States last year, has spoken out about the matter.
In a statement entitled: “How Nigerian Army personnel were used to rig Ekiti and Osun States Gubernatorial Elections 2014″, Captain Sagir Koli gave details of all that transpired between himself, his commanding officer, two ministers and some politicians prior to the elections in Ekiti state....

ilugunboy:

Shut up and prove your allegations..

FreeGlobe:

nwanne God bless you mightily. End of discussion

Sunnybobo3:

Kpokom!

ROSSIKE:
Actually it was "assertions" made by US soldiers who were directly quoted in the links posted. Showing these silly pictures does not obviate their claims, and is of no comfort to their bereaved families.

Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor — and in many cases, their families are buying it for them — despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way....

"What we hear from soldiers is that they are told that they are going to get body armor just before they leave or just after they get there. But they don't want to take a chance,"...A bill being considered in Congress would reimburse families who bought body armor before the Army asked for increased production to bridge the gap between soldiers who had armor and those that did not...

Body armor is always a compromise: mobility and comfort (and thus speed and stamina) are inevitably sacrificed to some degree when greater protection is achieved. This is a point of contention in the U.S. armed forces, with some favoring less armor in order to maintain mobility and others wanting as much protection as is practical. Troops who primarily ride in vehicles generally want the highest practical level of protection from IED's and ambushes, while dismounted infantry often make the case that impaired mobility can prove just as fatal as inadequate armor.

The debate is especially valid in the Iraq war, when comparing lightly equipped insurgents with U.S. troops routinely burdened with upwards of 100 lbs. of weapons, ammunition, armor, food, water, and other assorted equipment. Many troops have complained that under such conditions, they are simply unable to pursue their guerrilla opponents. Side armor has been sent to Iraq in increasing amounts, but many troops do not want to wear it because it adds 10 lb to the 16 lb vest and they say the added weight could decrease mobility and get them killed in certain combat scenarios

Infantry: Troops Reject New Body Armor as Dangerous

March 28, 2006: The new, heavier, body armor arriving in Iraq is creating a potential public relations problem. Many of the troops don't want to wear the new stuff. Why? Because the heavier new armor could get them killed. The new protective vests includes side armor.

Side armor, which adds about ten pounds to the 16 pound weight of the Interceptor Protective Vest, has been available since 2003 (when 250 sets were sent to Iraq.) About a thousand sets were delivered in 2004, and more last year. Side armor is obviously not new, but its availability has not been widespread. While the side armor provided useful protection, the added weight (for a trooper already carrying over fifty pounds), and material, restricts movement. The new armor is most popular with those guarding convoys. These troops spend most of their time sitting down, and the side armor provides additional protection from roadside bombs, which throw out a lot of fragments, at troops sitting facing forward. The bombs are often accompanied by an ambush force armed with machine-guns and assault rifles. Sometimes, the troops have to get out of their vehicles and battle the ambushers. This is often intense and disorganized combat, with fire coming from all directions. Again, the side armor can be very useful. But the troops won't be running around so long that the additional weight and movement restriction will become a major problem. For the same reason, combat troops that are spending most of their time in their vehicles, don't mind the disadvantages of the side armor.

But infantry that are out running around most of the time, going up stairs, through windows and battling the enemy in an urban environment, nimbleness is more important. Some of these guys have been known to leave the back plate, or even the front plate, out, just to save a few pounds. Not being able to scramble through a window in time can get you killed, as can many battlefield maneuvers that put a premium on speed and maneuverability. American commandoes, including Special Forces, often go into action without the body armor, because the consider mobility more important.

These different attitudes towards how much armor to wear are similar to those found in police forces. That's why the police have both lightweight armor (worn by most cops, most of the time) and heavier rigs for SWAT teams or anyone out on a raid, and even heavier getup for bomb disposal personnel.


The senior commanders are under a lot of pressure to "protect the troops." Many people back home have invested a lot of themselves in efforts to get better armor for the troops. Hearing that the troops value lightness and speed, over armor and more weight, will upset some politicians and pundits. But if the opinions of the troops counts for anything, weight matters, often more than anything else.

…the government giving away thousands of Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, weapons and more pedestrian items such as cars and clothing, even smaller police departments in cities and towns with low crime rates are acquiring items...

…The 12-person police department in High Springs received an MRAP in the last year. …

…Jefferson County Sheriff John P. Burns said his department acquired a Humvee a couple of years ago and then an MRAP six months ago. Burns said it ensures his police officers can be protected in a hostage situation or when executing warrants….

…The Dakota County Sheriff's Office received the state's first MRAP last August…said the redistributed equipment is a "good use of tax dollars." "If we were to go out and purchase the vehicle, it would be well over $800,000," he said….

… Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo…didn’t hide her outrage at how the Defense Department’s military surplus program is administered...“What in the world are we doing buying things that we’re not using…McCaskill criticized the Defense Department program, in particular, for giving mine-resistant trucks, also known as MRAPS, to police departments.

ROSSIKE:
[size=15pt]CNN Refuses To interview Poorly Equipped US Troops[/size]
...
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1139
...

5/10/2013
Study: U.S. Soldiers Not Adequately Equipped for War
By Sandra I. Erwin


It costs the United States $1.2 million to send one soldier to fight in Afghanistan for one year. American troops, despite that large investment, are not being equipped or trained to overmatch their enemies, says a new report by the National Research Council.

The Army champions its soldiers as the most important weapons in its arsenal, but yet continues to shortchange them in how they are equipped and trained for war, says the report, titled, “Making the Soldier Decisive on Future Battlefields.” The 255-page study, released May 10, began three years ago at the request of the assistant secretary of the Army.

A group of retired officers and researchers who participated in the study concluded that the Army's procurement methods and policies have not caught up to the realities of combat.

Testimony from hundreds of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were interviewed for the study reveals that the current “suite of equipment and support does not afford the same high degree of overmatch capability exhibited by large weapons platforms,” says the report.

Soldier weapons and gear are designed to be technologically advanced, but often do not take the “human dimension” into account. As a result, equipment designs do not “adequately include the complexities of individual soldier tasks and human interactions within teams.”

Army leaders have touted small units as the center of gravity in current and future battlefields. That requires a different way of thinking about weapons and gear that soldiers will need when they operate as a small unit, the study says. While the Army provides soldiers with advanced rifles and other small arms, it does not offer them other “less-than-lethal alternatives” that might be useful in low-intensity conflicts or situations when they need to control civilians without injuring or killing them.

The Pentagon’s acquisition policies are harshly criticized in the report for being counterproductive. The Defense Department’s procurement apparatus is geared to buy big-ticket weaponry, and soldier gear does not receive the attention it deserves, the study says. “The goal of achieving overmatch capabilities cannot be accomplished until small-unit and soldier requirements are accorded the same high levels of attention as major materiel systems requirements.” It is unlikely that “solutions to achieve overmatch capabilities can be successfully implemented within the Army’s current acquisition framework.”

Army officials have recognized these shortcomings, and have kicked off a modernization plan that focuses on the needs of the squad. But it could take years for these efforts to materialize.

The NRC report also stresses the value of training. “Focused training is essential to improving the performance of soldiers and tactical small units to levels that can assure overmatch,” the study says. “With the tactical small unit as the centerpiece of future Army operations, small- unit leader training will be more important than ever.” It recommends the Army invest in more individual and collective training events, including live, virtual, and constructive simulations and electronic games.

Another major point in the study is the need to integrate soldiers and small units into the Army’s information networks. “The Army has already recognized the important role of the network in achieving expanded capabilities in combat,” the report says. “Yet, dismounted soldiers and tactical small units today have limited organic capability, such as radios, to take advantage of networking in all mission environments.”

When a small unit leaves a forward operating base or disembarks from a vehicle, it has very limited access to technology for command decision tasks such as communicating, developing situational understanding, and understanding the human terrain, the report says. “A squad leader's communications system provides bandwidth rates in the tens of kilobits per second — a far cry from the multiple megabyte rates available within a FOB.” Sand tables and paper maps are used for mission rehearsal and execution. Sensing during a mission is primarily dependent on the eyes and ears of members of the unit. “These shortcomings prevent small units and soldiers from achieving optimal performance in making and executing personal and team decisions.”

Soldiers should have “timely, relevant information on the location of friendly assets, the identification and location of enemy forces and equipment, the identification and location of noncombatants, and the ability to document and communicate this information to each other and higher echelons. … Information must be timely to ensure that units are not surprised in tactical situations.”

A small unit lacks the capability to send and receive secure data, voice, and streaming video at adequate ranges and with sufficient reliability, the study says. The Army is attempting to address these needs with the Nett Warrior program, and with experiments using smartphones. The Nett Warrior, however, is limited by low bandwidth, and the smartphone effort is dependent on commercial networks, the report says. “High-bandwidth communications networks are needed that can operate in austere locations, in complex terrain, in all weather, and under day and night conditions.”

Information exchange — especially for digital images and streaming video — is currently “very poor” at the small unit level, the report says. “Bandwidth rate is one issue. Another is that operation tempo does not give units time to download, evaluate, and make judgments on available information. … Soldiers would benefit from advances in dynamic information networks that enhance information exchange.”

The NRC panel also raises the issue of combat load, which has been a subject of much debate in the military over the past decade as troops’ rucksacks grew heavier and more cumbersome. “Excessive soldier loads degrade not only maneuverability of both individual soldiers and units but also their resilience, survivability and effectiveness,” the report says. “With such heavy burdens, traversing rough terrain and making rapid changes in direction, speed, and orientation greatly increase soldiers’ susceptibility to injuries." One possible solution, the panel suggests, could be to offload gear to robotic carriers.

Massive loads of batteries that soldiers need to power their devices contribute to the problem. “There is no doctrinal philosophy for the small unit to recharge the battery; there is no organizational equipment to support recharging; there is no hint of the training required; there is no parallel materiel development of a recharger or fuel reformer to exploit new rechargeable battery or fuel-cell technologies,” the study says. “Advances in portable power will contribute to the decisiveness of small units by giving future soldiers high confidence that their equipment ensemble will have sufficient energy to carry out the mission. Achieving this goal will help to reduce fatigue, eliminate the anxiety associated with resupply.”

Many of the topics covered in the NRC study echo critics, such as retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales, who have blasted the Pentagon for not paying enough attention to the needs of small infantry units.

Scales, a military historian and analyst, has pointed out that ground forces are “not dominant” in combat partly because of inadequate equipment and training. Compared to the overwhelming superiority that the United States has in naval and air warfare, when it comes to ground combat, the American military “hasn’t come as far as it should,” says Scales. “It doesn’t dominate in the tactical fight.”

Scales blames these deficiencies on a Beltway culture that is fixated on expensive weapon systems, on “picking a fight with China” and on hypothetical wars in space and cyberspace. Washington policy makers dodge meaningful discussions about the tactical aspects of war on the ground because close-contact combat is “dirty, horrific and bloody,” says Scales. “People just don’t want to talk about that.”

SirShymex:


Lmao...it's a new year, let the sleeping dog lie. Just leave it yeah.
...
Happy New Year, Wall.e. Just read more and learn how to be a critical thinker without bias. It helps a lot.

SirShymex:


Fvck off, I finished my 2nd degree when ya pops was still tapping palm wine in ya village, you primeval stark illiterate.

Run along, kiddo.

SirShymex:


I hope this post wasn't for me.

Don't be cowardly about it - name names, so I can talk some sense into ya head.