Thursday, 24 January 2013
Wednesday, 2 January 2013
HOW AN HIV+ PERSON LOOKS
How on earth does
an HIV+ person look like? Are they all sickly looking with all the
tell-tale signs of death painted all over their faces? If for example,
people were put on an ID parade like they do in police stations and you
were asked to point out the guilty, would you know by casually glancing
up & down the line?
CHECK OUT HOW AN HIV+ POSITIVE PERSON LOOKS LIKE
An HIV positive person looks like the guy seated next to you on a bus, he's just another nondescript brother going through the rigours of life and sero-conversion just happens to be, well, another challenge.
An HIV positive person looks exactly like your child's teacher. The teaching profession has taken one of the severest knockings from this epidemic. Your child's teacher could be one of the millions of people who are living with HIV/AIDS.
An HIV positive person looks like your pastor. And don't give me those raised eyebrows. It's not like your person of God is indispensable as far as carnal matters are concerned. HIV corners folks in all sorts of places & I believe that it is hard for an HIV positive pastor to share his/her experience. That's why they keep their HIV status under wraps.
An HIV positive person looks like your father. You know deep down in your heart that he's the strongest man in the world-but unbeknown to you , an unseen foe has hit his weakest link. But he's still strong isn't he?
An HIV positive person looks like your caring mother. She's stuck with dad through good times & bad. Your old man is dying or dead; your folks are nowhere to be seen, but don't count mama out yet, not even when you think the bell is gone.
An HIV positive person looks like the clinical officer in your local dispensary. She is the first person the community runs to when one of their own is one degree under, now she is silently asking,"who will nurse this nurse?"
An HIV positive person looks like the celebrity who seems to have all the money in the world & not a single worry. She is your idol and idols aren't supposed to get infected, or are they?
An HIV positive person looks like the farmer in the remotest part of Malawi whose only source of livelihood is a hoe and the red earth. You see him in a documentary & go,"HIV can't travel to what's-the-name-of-that-godforsaken place?"
An HIV positive person looks like your sibling. You love her to bits. She can't be...(you can't even finish the sentence). Your sibling? HIV positive? Are you out of your mind or you smoked a lil' some'-some'?
An HIV positive person looks like the thoughtful person who sits on the sixth chair, on the 3rd row, next to the huge mounted speaker in church.
An HIV positive person looks like the we- behind-the-ears Form Two student who seems to know nothing about sex.
An HIV positive person looks like the person you have secretly admired for years and would sleep with if they as much as coughed at you.
An HIiV positive person looks like your ex-lover. Yeah the one you had all the plans with of living happily ever after until you realised that life is not a fairy tale.
What I'm trying to say is that we come across scores of been there done that HIV positive people everyday, it's only that they don't have T-shirts on to proclaim their sero-conversion. They go on with their lives; they rise and fall, they deny and accept, they have fears & faith.
Remember an HIV positive person is born like, lives like, feels like, dreams like, loves like, laughs like, hates like, makes love like, cries like, dies like an HIV negative person.
Get tested, stick to one partner or use a condom for goodness sake!
CHECK OUT HOW AN HIV+ POSITIVE PERSON LOOKS LIKE
An HIV positive person looks like the guy seated next to you on a bus, he's just another nondescript brother going through the rigours of life and sero-conversion just happens to be, well, another challenge.
An HIV positive person looks exactly like your child's teacher. The teaching profession has taken one of the severest knockings from this epidemic. Your child's teacher could be one of the millions of people who are living with HIV/AIDS.
An HIV positive person looks like your pastor. And don't give me those raised eyebrows. It's not like your person of God is indispensable as far as carnal matters are concerned. HIV corners folks in all sorts of places & I believe that it is hard for an HIV positive pastor to share his/her experience. That's why they keep their HIV status under wraps.
An HIV positive person looks like your father. You know deep down in your heart that he's the strongest man in the world-but unbeknown to you , an unseen foe has hit his weakest link. But he's still strong isn't he?
An HIV positive person looks like your caring mother. She's stuck with dad through good times & bad. Your old man is dying or dead; your folks are nowhere to be seen, but don't count mama out yet, not even when you think the bell is gone.
An HIV positive person looks like the clinical officer in your local dispensary. She is the first person the community runs to when one of their own is one degree under, now she is silently asking,"who will nurse this nurse?"
An HIV positive person looks like the celebrity who seems to have all the money in the world & not a single worry. She is your idol and idols aren't supposed to get infected, or are they?
An HIV positive person looks like the farmer in the remotest part of Malawi whose only source of livelihood is a hoe and the red earth. You see him in a documentary & go,"HIV can't travel to what's-the-name-of-that-godforsaken place?"
An HIV positive person looks like your sibling. You love her to bits. She can't be...(you can't even finish the sentence). Your sibling? HIV positive? Are you out of your mind or you smoked a lil' some'-some'?
An HIV positive person looks like the thoughtful person who sits on the sixth chair, on the 3rd row, next to the huge mounted speaker in church.
An HIV positive person looks like the we- behind-the-ears Form Two student who seems to know nothing about sex.
An HIV positive person looks like the person you have secretly admired for years and would sleep with if they as much as coughed at you.
An HIiV positive person looks like your ex-lover. Yeah the one you had all the plans with of living happily ever after until you realised that life is not a fairy tale.
What I'm trying to say is that we come across scores of been there done that HIV positive people everyday, it's only that they don't have T-shirts on to proclaim their sero-conversion. They go on with their lives; they rise and fall, they deny and accept, they have fears & faith.
Remember an HIV positive person is born like, lives like, feels like, dreams like, loves like, laughs like, hates like, makes love like, cries like, dies like an HIV negative person.
Get tested, stick to one partner or use a condom for goodness sake!
Sunday, 19 August 2012
POEM GORDON READS AT WAYNES FUNERAL
Sunday, 12 August 2012
COMMUNICATION
Speaking is not indispensable. It is communicating that is.
You see, many millennia ago, before people learned to speak, they could communicate.
A language is merely a medium of communication. It is not the language that is important.
It is what the language conveys that matters.
For purposes of this paper, by language is meant that medium of communication that relies on phonation.
You see, dear reader, not all people can speak. On the other hand, all people can communicate.
This reality clearly captures the folly of laying too much emphasis on the ability to speak, to literally lend voice to one’s thoughts.
In future, Zambia should elect a president who cannot speak English, or better still, one that cannot speak at all.
It is difficult to imagine this, yet allow it, but it should be permitted because it is not the speech of a person that we should focus upon, it is the content of his mind that we must decipher and understand.
From the outset, let me state that this paper does not present an argument against language or speaking.
This paper merely argues against the exaggerated emphasis that human societies have placed on language.
This paper argues for letting all people communicate.
You see, dear reader, language can indeed be a barrier to communication.
Let me illustrate.
Take Zambia for instance. Zambia has adopted English as its official language.
Now, dear reader, how many Zambians today, in April of 2011, can speak in English let alone understand it well?
The answer to this question ought to worry every advocate of communication.
The answer is that only a small fraction of the 13 million Zambians can articulate their thoughts fluently in English or understand thoughts articulated to them fluently in English.
From the foregoing, you will then see that when emphasis is placed on the expression of one’s thoughts in one language this then becomes a veritable barrier not only to communication but to the participation by people in matters dear to their own welfare.
Lamentably, sometimes such emphasis, a veritable form of segregation is legislated for and enforced by law.
Through such fallible legislation, many people, people that have something of value to ‘say’ or communicate are not allowed to do so and by such exclusion, many human societies are denied the indispensable contribution to human advancement from many.
In Zambia, if a person cannot speak in English or understand what is being said in English, such a person is often viewed as possessing a lower standing in society.
Such a person is treated askance, frowned upon and shunned as if with a disgusting disease.
People that are so discriminated against are often viewed as inferior in intelligence or backward.
This is wrong.
Though it truly reflects intelligence, the ability to speak a language, be it English or any other, is not a direct or reliable or sole measure of an individual’s intelligence.
There are many people in the world today that simply cannot speak and yet they are intelligent, knowledgeable and wise.
Note that.
You see dear reader, there should come a time in the life of Zambia as a nation when one should be allowed to become Republican president without placing one’s language as a pre-condition, without insisting that such a person should be able to speak at all or speak in a particular language such as English.
It is not the language that one uses that is important. It is what they have to communicate that we must place the premium on.
Besides, should interpretation be called for when one wishes to communicate, let the services of one so coached in such ways be engaged for purposes of ensuring that the audience receives the message from the one sending it.
Media of communication are many.
Dear reader, observe that in human life, there is both verbal and non-verbal communication. And fluency in both these ways of communicating can indeed be attained.
It is not that we should let the people speak; it is that we should let the people communicate.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Republican president expressing his or her thoughts in Chitonga, Chichewa, Icibemba or Kikaonde.
Such an approach to communication would broaden the field for people to participate in their own governance without the now extant subtle yet real exclusive practice.
In addition, such an approach would enable all to benefit from the thoughts of many.
At present, only a few exposed citizens have the opportunity to undertake national activities for the sole reason that they can express themselves well in English, albeit itself a foreign language.
The shameful thing is that the excluded many are very knowledgeable people, are profoundly intelligent and are admirably wise.
Usual are the moments when out of courtesy people do not protest when their leader addresses them in English.
Despite their not understanding what their leader is saying, they remain quiet based on the fear of being found out that they cannot understand him or her or merely because of sheer politeness.
In times like these, communication then fails.
The leader then goes away mistakenly thinking he passed on the message, and the audience leaves quietly disgruntled and muttering under their breath their anger at the arrogance that seemingly educated people tend to exhibit. Discord remains.
Dear reader, there should come a time in Zambia when fluent in Chikunda, a Republican president will articulate in that language the contents of a National Development Plan (NDP) to the country’s citizens.
An interpreter or interpreters will then play their part to make the message understandable to the rest of the citizens that are Chikunda-naive.
Such a level of national tolerance and acceptance shall veritably reflect a higher state of being for the country.
The argument in this paper is that the deaf and dumb are not idiots.
An idiot is here defined as a person whose mental capacity is so rudimentary as to render such a person non-functional.
The deaf and dumb, you see, are truly not idiots.
Many of them, if not all, are highly intelligent people, people that possess knowledge and wisdom, who merely suffered the misfortune of losing the ability to speak and hear either from birth or afterwards.
Now, dear reader, here is the million dollar question. Would you allow a deaf and dumb person to become your Republican president?
Chances are, because you are so bigoted, you would not allow it and yet it is perfectly in order that such a person should be offered an equal chance at such leadership.
The probability of a deaf and dumb person becoming Republican president anywhere in the world is a slim one if at all extant.
This is so not because such people cannot lead. It is because society is so mistakenly prejudiced. It is because we do not exist in a barrier-free environment.
Though Nature provides for such people to lead, on the other hand, man has mistakenly erected huge barriers such as language which preclude the participation of such people in national leadership as exemplified above.
Dear reader, note that a ‘deaf and dumb’ person is here used metaphorically as well as literally.
A deaf and dumb person is in this paper illustrated as a proxy for someone who cannot speak.
After all, as an example, if you cannot speak Kikaonde or French, aren’t you really deaf and dumb in as far as that language is concerned?
You see, the use of language is a veritable exaggerated fixture in the lives of human beings.
When emphasis is placed on speaking one particular language for communication in a nation, this then represents a clear barrier that excludes the participation of many in their own affairs.
Barriers can be a good thing. Naturally, barriers define what should be done and what should not.
For instance, in Nature, barriers prescribe the boundaries of what is evil and what is not. Nonetheless, barriers to human survival and prosperity ought to be eliminated.
Dear reader, English in Zambia is a veritable barrier to the progress of many.
Though its use should not be abolished but encouraged instead, the use of other languages, languages that Zambians are comfortable with and fluent in should also be legislated for, encouraged and reach wide acceptance.
Knowledge, intelligence and wisdom are not expressed in one language.
These are universal to all human beings.
Yes, let the people speak, but more importantly, let the people communicate.
You see, a visit to the lion’s den teaches one a lot about the lion.
Similarly, your habitat says a lot about you, dear reader.
You see, many millennia ago, before people learned to speak, they could communicate.
A language is merely a medium of communication. It is not the language that is important.
It is what the language conveys that matters.
For purposes of this paper, by language is meant that medium of communication that relies on phonation.
You see, dear reader, not all people can speak. On the other hand, all people can communicate.
This reality clearly captures the folly of laying too much emphasis on the ability to speak, to literally lend voice to one’s thoughts.
In future, Zambia should elect a president who cannot speak English, or better still, one that cannot speak at all.
It is difficult to imagine this, yet allow it, but it should be permitted because it is not the speech of a person that we should focus upon, it is the content of his mind that we must decipher and understand.
From the outset, let me state that this paper does not present an argument against language or speaking.
This paper merely argues against the exaggerated emphasis that human societies have placed on language.
This paper argues for letting all people communicate.
You see, dear reader, language can indeed be a barrier to communication.
Let me illustrate.
Take Zambia for instance. Zambia has adopted English as its official language.
Now, dear reader, how many Zambians today, in April of 2011, can speak in English let alone understand it well?
The answer to this question ought to worry every advocate of communication.
The answer is that only a small fraction of the 13 million Zambians can articulate their thoughts fluently in English or understand thoughts articulated to them fluently in English.
From the foregoing, you will then see that when emphasis is placed on the expression of one’s thoughts in one language this then becomes a veritable barrier not only to communication but to the participation by people in matters dear to their own welfare.
Lamentably, sometimes such emphasis, a veritable form of segregation is legislated for and enforced by law.
Through such fallible legislation, many people, people that have something of value to ‘say’ or communicate are not allowed to do so and by such exclusion, many human societies are denied the indispensable contribution to human advancement from many.
In Zambia, if a person cannot speak in English or understand what is being said in English, such a person is often viewed as possessing a lower standing in society.
Such a person is treated askance, frowned upon and shunned as if with a disgusting disease.
People that are so discriminated against are often viewed as inferior in intelligence or backward.
This is wrong.
Though it truly reflects intelligence, the ability to speak a language, be it English or any other, is not a direct or reliable or sole measure of an individual’s intelligence.
There are many people in the world today that simply cannot speak and yet they are intelligent, knowledgeable and wise.
Note that.
You see dear reader, there should come a time in the life of Zambia as a nation when one should be allowed to become Republican president without placing one’s language as a pre-condition, without insisting that such a person should be able to speak at all or speak in a particular language such as English.
It is not the language that one uses that is important. It is what they have to communicate that we must place the premium on.
Besides, should interpretation be called for when one wishes to communicate, let the services of one so coached in such ways be engaged for purposes of ensuring that the audience receives the message from the one sending it.
Media of communication are many.
Dear reader, observe that in human life, there is both verbal and non-verbal communication. And fluency in both these ways of communicating can indeed be attained.
It is not that we should let the people speak; it is that we should let the people communicate.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Republican president expressing his or her thoughts in Chitonga, Chichewa, Icibemba or Kikaonde.
Such an approach to communication would broaden the field for people to participate in their own governance without the now extant subtle yet real exclusive practice.
In addition, such an approach would enable all to benefit from the thoughts of many.
At present, only a few exposed citizens have the opportunity to undertake national activities for the sole reason that they can express themselves well in English, albeit itself a foreign language.
The shameful thing is that the excluded many are very knowledgeable people, are profoundly intelligent and are admirably wise.
Usual are the moments when out of courtesy people do not protest when their leader addresses them in English.
Despite their not understanding what their leader is saying, they remain quiet based on the fear of being found out that they cannot understand him or her or merely because of sheer politeness.
In times like these, communication then fails.
The leader then goes away mistakenly thinking he passed on the message, and the audience leaves quietly disgruntled and muttering under their breath their anger at the arrogance that seemingly educated people tend to exhibit. Discord remains.
Dear reader, there should come a time in Zambia when fluent in Chikunda, a Republican president will articulate in that language the contents of a National Development Plan (NDP) to the country’s citizens.
An interpreter or interpreters will then play their part to make the message understandable to the rest of the citizens that are Chikunda-naive.
Such a level of national tolerance and acceptance shall veritably reflect a higher state of being for the country.
The argument in this paper is that the deaf and dumb are not idiots.
An idiot is here defined as a person whose mental capacity is so rudimentary as to render such a person non-functional.
The deaf and dumb, you see, are truly not idiots.
Many of them, if not all, are highly intelligent people, people that possess knowledge and wisdom, who merely suffered the misfortune of losing the ability to speak and hear either from birth or afterwards.
Now, dear reader, here is the million dollar question. Would you allow a deaf and dumb person to become your Republican president?
Chances are, because you are so bigoted, you would not allow it and yet it is perfectly in order that such a person should be offered an equal chance at such leadership.
The probability of a deaf and dumb person becoming Republican president anywhere in the world is a slim one if at all extant.
This is so not because such people cannot lead. It is because society is so mistakenly prejudiced. It is because we do not exist in a barrier-free environment.
Though Nature provides for such people to lead, on the other hand, man has mistakenly erected huge barriers such as language which preclude the participation of such people in national leadership as exemplified above.
Dear reader, note that a ‘deaf and dumb’ person is here used metaphorically as well as literally.
A deaf and dumb person is in this paper illustrated as a proxy for someone who cannot speak.
After all, as an example, if you cannot speak Kikaonde or French, aren’t you really deaf and dumb in as far as that language is concerned?
You see, the use of language is a veritable exaggerated fixture in the lives of human beings.
When emphasis is placed on speaking one particular language for communication in a nation, this then represents a clear barrier that excludes the participation of many in their own affairs.
Barriers can be a good thing. Naturally, barriers define what should be done and what should not.
For instance, in Nature, barriers prescribe the boundaries of what is evil and what is not. Nonetheless, barriers to human survival and prosperity ought to be eliminated.
Dear reader, English in Zambia is a veritable barrier to the progress of many.
Though its use should not be abolished but encouraged instead, the use of other languages, languages that Zambians are comfortable with and fluent in should also be legislated for, encouraged and reach wide acceptance.
Knowledge, intelligence and wisdom are not expressed in one language.
These are universal to all human beings.
Yes, let the people speak, but more importantly, let the people communicate.
You see, a visit to the lion’s den teaches one a lot about the lion.
Similarly, your habitat says a lot about you, dear reader.
REASONS I DON'T LIKE VISITING RICH PEOPLE.
Question: "what would you like to drink...coffee, tea, fruit juice, milo, hot chocolate or soda?
A. Tea please
Q. Ceylon tea, herbal tea, bush tea,honey bush tea,ice tea or green tea?
A. Ceylon tea please.
Q. How would you like it? Black or white?
A. White please.
Q. Milk, whitener or condensed milk?
A. Milk please.
Q. Milk from freezeland, or Afrikaaner cow?
A. Afrikaaner cow please.
Q. Warm or cold?
A. Warm please.
Q. Full cream, low fat or fat-free?
A. Ummmm..you know what, I'll rather take it black.
Q. Would you like it with sweetener, sugar or honey?
A. Sugar please.
Q. Beet sugar or cane sugar?
A. Cane sugar please.
Q. White, brown or yellow sugar?
A. Ok, just forget about the tea, I'll just have a glass of water instead.
Q. Mineral or still water?
A. Mineral water please.
Q. Flavored, non-flavored or spakling?
A. Hey, voetsek man, just get me water from the river...I don't wanna' know which river...and stop asking so many damn questions!!!
A. Ceylon tea please.
Q. How would you like it? Black or white?
A. White please.
Q. Milk, whitener or condensed milk?
A. Milk please.
Q. Milk from freezeland, or Afrikaaner cow?
A. Afrikaaner cow please.
Q. Warm or cold?
A. Warm please.
Q. Full cream, low fat or fat-free?
A. Ummmm..you know what, I'll rather take it black.
Q. Would you like it with sweetener, sugar or honey?
A. Sugar please.
Q. Beet sugar or cane sugar?
A. Cane sugar please.
Q. White, brown or yellow sugar?
A. Ok, just forget about the tea, I'll just have a glass of water instead.
Q. Mineral or still water?
A. Mineral water please.
Q. Flavored, non-flavored or spakling?
A. Hey, voetsek man, just get me water from the river...I don't wanna' know which river...and stop asking so many damn questions!!!
Friday, 10 August 2012
LIFE ADVICE- CAN PEOPLE IN A RELATIONSHIP HAVE OPPOSITE SEX FRIENDS?
By the time we spend countless hours at work or school, along with other activities with friends of the opposite sex, we often end up associating with our "friends" more than we interact with our partner. Not to mention, how easily technology and social media have created new platforms for friendships with the opposite sex—yet, again, not with our own spouse.
As society becomes increasingly more integrated among gender lines, the age-old question remains: "Can men and women really just be friends?" While many people think that platonic friendships can indeed exist, the answer often differs from those who are single and those who are in a relationship. The idea of meeting an opposite-sex friend for coffee or a movie seems fraught with the possibility for misinterpretation and hurt feelings with our significant others.Over the years I have asked a few of my friends and received mixed answers. Most were totally against opposite sex friends while others found nothing wrong with the idea. Responses ranged from, "My man and I made a deal early on to not have opposite-sex friendships. I think relationships are hard enough without adding that stress to it". "I trust my g/f and feel certain she would never act inappropriately outside of our relationship." Some manage to maintain opposite-sex friendships. If both partners agree, the friendship can shift to a group dynamic, with each friend bringing their respective partners into the mix. Not all opposite-sex friendships are well received. I'll give you a story: Jane’s b/f was training for a marathon with a group of women and men. However, Jane became extremely uncomfortable when she learned that her b/f was running the long runs solely with another woman. "He has never given me reason to worry, but I still didn’t like the thought of just the two of them spending so much time alone," says Jane. She told her b/f about her feelings and after reassuring Jane that there was no attraction, he eventually agreed to stop running alone with the woman when he started getting mixed signals from the other woman. Here are a few tips to ponder: 1. Listen to your intuition. If you feel deep down that your friend has romantic feelings for you, do not pursue the platonic friendship. 2. Keep personal space and physical touch in check. Although the relationship may be more relaxed than a workmate, schoolmate or client, keep the same amount of distance and space you would with your friends g/f or b/f. Close proximity and intimate touch is reserved for your partner alone. 3. Don't discuss your partner's flaws with your friend. Even if you consider yourself very close friends, it's a form of betrayal to vent to your friend about your partner's shortcomings, especially without addressing it with your b/f or g/f first. 4. Meet in public places at appropriate times of day. Just like mom used to say, "Nothing good happens after 1:00 a.m.," the same holds true with your friend. Time and place is a consideration when meeting with your friend of the opposite gender. 5. Include your b/f or g/f in your plans. If it's only platonic, there should be no problem with one more person tagging along. 6. Your partner always comes first. If your relationship with your friend is causing problems in your relationship, your first consideration should always be your partner. While there is no clear-cut answer to that age-old question of whether men and women can truly be just friends, for people in relationships, the message is clear: tread carefully and keep your relationship with your partner above all others. No matter how successfully you think you’re managing your relationship and your opposite-sex friendship, if your partner thinks it’s a problem, then it is indeed a problem. PS: It's difficult to not create relationships with the opposite sex if they are your co workers or school mates |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)