According to cricinfo, there will no cricket series in the US in 2007. I haven't been to a cricket match in 6 years, the last being in Singapore between Pakistan and New Zealand, but how awesome would it have been to have a game going on here, especially if it was a Pakistan-India-Australia tri-series.
India-Australia won't be in New York in 2007
Stillborn in the USA
Martin Williamson
January 23, 2007
Contrary to reports at the weekend, it is highly unlikely that a planned one-day series between India and Australia in North America will be able to include matches in the USA. At present, there are no venues in the country approved by the ICC to host a one-day international. In fact, there are none even close to being recognised.
While Canada might conceivably host a few games at the quaintly named Cricket, Skating and Curling Club, the failure of Project USA - which was intended to develop the US market - has set the game back in the continent at least until 2008.
A new deal between the largely dysfunctional USA Cricket Association, whose utter inability to run the game led to its suspension by the ICC, and a marketing company called Centrex should give cricket in the USA a commercial stability hitherto absent. But it won't happen in time for this series.
To many - mainly the marketing men who so dominate the way cricket is run - the USA remains the untapped Holy Grail. Crack that, so the thinking goes, and the rewards are almost unlimited. Millions of dollars of income - up to $6 million per game for up to seven matches - was touted as a likely reward for the venture. Up to 10 million first-generation Asians make for a lucrative market, even if the average American doesn't care one jot for the game.
There are three main centres in the USA - New York , Florida and California. The speculation over the Australia-India series centred on New York, but there is not a venue there that could host a match. There was talk that an NFL stadium might be used, but that shows the lack of credibility of the reports. The major NFL stadiums are astroturf, and even if the organisers laid an artificial wicket, such a surface would not be approved for an ODI. There is one other minor detail. NFL pitches are far too narrow.
That leaves baseball grounds, and only one - the Mets' Shea Stadium - could conceivably be used. However, the cricket season in New York runs slap bang in the middle of the baseball season, so that's not an option. And drop-in-pitches are not a short-term solution as there are strict rules about transportation of soil and grass across state lines. The raw materials available in New York are just not good enough.
With that in mind, California has been earmarked as the ideal centre for the game, with the right climate and good soil. In the short-term, the venue at Burbank is the nearest to being ready. There are two grounds in Florida - at Fort Lauderdale and Broward County - but neither has pitches nearly good enough for international matches. The grass pitches they have crumble too easily. One expert told Cricinfo that soil with the right amount of clay needed to be imported, probably from Georgia, and that meant a mountain of red tape to be overcome before the project could even start.
When Andy Atkinson, the ICC's pitches guru, was consulted by the bosses of Project USA, he estimated that with the right soil and the will, a pitch could be laid and ready in around eight or nine months. Australia and India's commitments mean that the only spare dates for a North American series is June, and there is no way on earth that any grounds in the USA could be ready by then. As the flamboyant boxing promoter Don King loves to say: "it's got two chances ... slim and none, and slim just left town."
That leaves the one ICC-approved venue in Toronto, which hosted several one-day series in the late 1990s. It offers a foothold on North American soil, but a long series there would have limited appeal, and it's the USA not Canada that whets the two boards' appetites. In terms of TV coverage, they might as well play in some more established neutral centres such as Kuala Lumpur or Sharjah.
Martin Williamson is managing editor of Cricinfo
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A solution for Muslim women that wanna get their soak on:
become a ninja....
according to a report on CNN:
according to a report on CNN:
In a lycra revolution, a cover-all swimming costume is bringing Muslim women on to Australian beaches as lifeguards, unzipping tensions which divided parts of Sydney little over a year ago.
The two-piece "burkini", popular in the Middle East, is proving key to a reshaping surf lifesaving Down Under -- once a bastion of white Australian culture and still a heartland of the country's sun-bronzed, heroic self-myth.
"I am Australian so I always have the Australian life style, but now with the burkini it just allowed me to participate in it more. We used to always go to the beach, but now that I have the burqini I can actually swim," Mecca Laalaa, 22, told Reuters.
Laalaa is one of 24 young Australians of Arab heritage who recently signed up to a 10-week training course run by Surf Life Saving Australia aimed at widening the racial mix on beaches.
The shift follows race riots between ethnic Lebanese Australians and white Australian youths at Cronulla Beach in Sydney's south in the lead-up to Christmas in 2005.
Cars, shops and churches were damaged in the violence, which followed an attack on a pair of beach lifeguards.
Laalaa, whose ethnic background is Lebanese-Australian, is relying on a home-grown burkini -- a compromise between a burka and a bikini -- to keep her covered on Cronulla's sands.
The full-length lycra suit with hijab head-covering is not too figure hugging to embarrass, but is tight enough to allow its wearer to swim freely. It will soon be manufactured in the iconic red and yellow of Australia's surf life saving movement.
"We are surrounded by water all over Australia, it is totally encouraged for us from all the schools, no matter what school you go to," burqini manufacturer Aheda Zanetti said.
"So when these girls decide and choose to wear the veil, they decide to stop doing that. We didn't want to do that."
The burkini is making its appearance during the 100th anniversary of surf life saving in Australia, which began on Sydney's famous Bondi Beach and has grown to count 115,000 volunteers in more than 300 clubs.
Women were only allowed membership in 1980 and some clubs patrol inland lakes, including Lake Jindabyne near the snow-capped southern Australian Alps.
Zanetti, who sells her burqinis for up to A$200 ($160), hopes to widen the garment's appeal beyond Muslim women at the beach.
"We are also encouraged in Australia to cover up not due to modesty but for sun protection, so this is not just a modesty aspect swimming suit, it is also a protection against the sun, surf and sand," she said.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Beckham mania in the the US?
Like most Americans, I don't watch soccer. With Beckham moving from Real Madrid to L.A. Galaxy, I am still pretty sure I wont watch soccer here. Not because I don't think he's a great player, he certainly is, but soccer in the US is just not fun to watch. Besides, with College football, NFL playoffs, March Madness, NBA finals, MLB playoffs and then back to college football (the way I watch sports in the US), I can't be bothered to watch Beckham or anyone play soccer.
Beckham: Money not the motive
Press Association
Former England captain David Beckham has denied his £128 million move to the United States is purely for money, saying he wants to boost the game's popularity.
The multi-millionaire footballer is to play for LA Galaxy in a massive deal which will see him earn more than £70,000 a day.
The five-year deal is bigger than anything any footballer has signed and experts believe it will also help protect Beckham's status as a global marketing brand.
But his decision to turn down a host of major British and European clubs may be seen by some as the beginning of the end of his career as one of the world's top players.
"People will be turning round saying, 'He is only going there to get the money'. It is not what I am going out there to do," Beckham, 31, said.
He said the decision to join the club had been "extremely difficult" but he was excited by the challenge of "growing the world's most popular game" in a country where it has little status compared with American football, baseball or basketball.
The move should also appeal to Beckham's pop star wife Victoria, who counts Tom Cruise's new wife Katie Holmes among her Hollywood friends.
Beckham quit as England captain following last summer's disappointing World Cup and has fallen out of favour with Real Madrid coach Fabio Capello.
New England manager Steve McClaren has also snubbed the former favourite, failing to even consider him for friendlies.
Beckham joins the illustrious list of football stars, including Pele and Franz Beckenbauer, to spend their twilight years plying their trade Stateside.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Firms Fret as Office E-Mail Jumps Security Walls
Interesting....
From the NYTIMES
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 10 — Companies spend millions on systems to keep corporate e-mail safe. If only their employees were as paranoid.
A growing number of Internet-literate workers are forwarding their office e-mail to free Web-accessible personal accounts offered by Google, Yahoo and other companies. Their employers, who envision corporate secrets leaking through the back door of otherwise well-protected computer networks, are not pleased. “It’s a hole you can drive an 18-wheeler through,” said Paul D. Myer, president of the security firm 8E6 Technologies in Orange, Calif.
It is a battle of best intentions: productivity and convenience pitted against security and more than a little anxiety.
Corporate techies — who, after all, are paid to worry — want strict control over internal company communications and fear that forwarding e-mail might expose proprietary secrets to prying eyes. Employees just want to get to their mail quickly, wherever they are, without leaping through too many security hoops.
Corporate networks, which typically have several layers of defenses against hackers, can require special software and multiple passwords for access. Some companies use systems that give employees a security code that changes every 60 seconds; this must be read from the display screen of a small card and typed quickly.
That is too much for some employees, especially when their computers can store the passwords for their Web-based mail, allowing them to get right down to business. So far, no major corporate disasters caused by this kind of e-mail forwarding have come to light. But security experts say the risks are real. For example, the flimsier security defenses of Web mail systems could allow viruses or spyware to get through, and employees could unwittingly download them at the office and infect the corporate network.
Also, because messages sent from Web-based accounts do not pass through the corporate mail system, companies could run afoul of federal laws that require them to archive corporate mail and turn it over during litigation.
Lawyers in particular wring their hands over employees using outside e-mail services. They encourage companies to keep messages for as long as necessary and then erase them to keep them out of the reach of legal foes. Companies have no control over the life span of e-mail messages in employees’ Web accounts. “If employees are just forwarding to their Web e-mail, we have no way to know what they are doing on the other end,” said Joe Fantuzzi, chief executive of the information security firm Workshare. “They could do anything they want. They could be giving secrets to the K.G.B.”
Hospitals have an added legal obligation to protect patient records. But when DeKalb Medical Center in Atlanta started monitoring its staff use of Web-based e-mail, it found that doctors and nurses routinely forwarded confidential medical records to their personal Web mail accounts — not for nefarious purposes, but so they could continue to work from home.
In the months after the hospital began monitoring traffic to Web e-mail services, it identified “a couple hundred incidents,” said Sharon Finney, DeKalb’s information security administrator. “I was surprised about the lack of literacy about the technology we depend on every day,” she said.
DeKalb now forbids the practice, and uses several software systems that monitor the hospital’s outbound e-mail and Web traffic. Ms Finney said she still catches four to five perpetrators a month trying to forward hospital e-mail.
The Web mail services may also be prone to glitches. Last month, Google fixed a bug that caused the disappearance of “some or all” of the stored mail of around 60 users. A week later, it acknowledged a security hole that could have exposed its users’ address books to Internet attackers.
Even the security experts most knowledgeable about the risks of e-mail forwarding to personal accounts acknowledge doing so themselves. “Of course I do it; who doesn’t?” said Kimberly Getgen Bargero, vice president for marketing at Sendmail, an e-mail software company in Emeryville, Calif. Ms. Bargero said she often used her Yahoo Mail account on business trips so she does not have to access her corporate network remotely.
It is difficult to quantify exactly how many otherwise model employees are opting to use services like Yahoo Mail or Google’s Gmail over their company’s authorized e-mail programs. Sophisticated users at the companies most lax about e-mail security can automatically forward all of their work e-mail to their personal accounts, hopscotching over the various requests for passwords meant to ward off intruders.
The more casual e-mail scofflaws send only the occasional message to their personal accounts — or just “cc” messages to their Web in-boxes to preserve them for later use — even when the messages contain sensitive company information.
Some companies frown on office use of any Web-based accounts, even for personal messages. At the business software maker BEA Systems, Anthony Bisulca, a senior security analyst, estimated that around 30 percent of his employees were using private e-mail accounts in the office, even though the company’s Internet policy clearly prohibits it.
But it is not easy to wean people off of their online mailboxes. “Of course they scream,” said Todd Wilson, an operations manager at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. “They look at me like I have three heads.”
Mr. Wilson said that the use of the Web services had become a “huge concern,” partly because copies of the forwarded messages sit untouched on the school’s servers, taking up space.
Many corporate technology professionals express the fear that Google and its rivals may actually own the intellectual property in the e-mail that resides on their systems. Gmail’s terms of service, however, state that e-mail belongs to the user, not to Google. The company’s automated software does scan messages in Gmail, looking for keywords that might generate related text advertisements on the page. A Google spokeswoman said the company has an extensive privacy policy to ensure no humans at Google read user e-mail.
Paul Kocher, president of the security firm Cryptography Research, said the real issue for companies was trust. “If you can’t trust employees enough to use services like Gmail, they probably shouldn’t be working for you,” he said.
Many companies apparently do not have that level of trust. In a survey conducted last year, the e-mail security firm Proofpoint found that 37 percent of companies in the United States used software to monitor office use of Web mail.
The Internet companies themselves are looking to take advantage of consumer preferences for Web based e-mail services. This year, Google plans to introduce a more secure version of Gmail for use in large companies.
But Microsoft and other providers of traditional internal e-mail systems, which the research firm Radicati says generated $2.5 billion in sales last year, are helping companies combat employee use of the Web services.
The new version of Microsoft’s corporate e-mail service, Exchange Server, offers administrators improved tools to monitor the content of employee mail and block forwarded messages.
At the same time, upgrades to Exchange and Microsoft’s e-mail program Outlook have made it easier for traveling employees to access e-mail on the corporate network from a Web browser. Microsoft also recently began urging corporate technology departments to give employees more storage space in their e-mail accounts.
But the Web services are improving as well, and employees will no doubt continue to find them tempting. “We have as high a security standard as any company,” said Ms. Bargero of Sendmail, “and sometimes it is just too difficult to access our e-mail.”
From the NYTIMES
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 10 — Companies spend millions on systems to keep corporate e-mail safe. If only their employees were as paranoid.
A growing number of Internet-literate workers are forwarding their office e-mail to free Web-accessible personal accounts offered by Google, Yahoo and other companies. Their employers, who envision corporate secrets leaking through the back door of otherwise well-protected computer networks, are not pleased. “It’s a hole you can drive an 18-wheeler through,” said Paul D. Myer, president of the security firm 8E6 Technologies in Orange, Calif.
It is a battle of best intentions: productivity and convenience pitted against security and more than a little anxiety.
Corporate techies — who, after all, are paid to worry — want strict control over internal company communications and fear that forwarding e-mail might expose proprietary secrets to prying eyes. Employees just want to get to their mail quickly, wherever they are, without leaping through too many security hoops.
Corporate networks, which typically have several layers of defenses against hackers, can require special software and multiple passwords for access. Some companies use systems that give employees a security code that changes every 60 seconds; this must be read from the display screen of a small card and typed quickly.
That is too much for some employees, especially when their computers can store the passwords for their Web-based mail, allowing them to get right down to business. So far, no major corporate disasters caused by this kind of e-mail forwarding have come to light. But security experts say the risks are real. For example, the flimsier security defenses of Web mail systems could allow viruses or spyware to get through, and employees could unwittingly download them at the office and infect the corporate network.
Also, because messages sent from Web-based accounts do not pass through the corporate mail system, companies could run afoul of federal laws that require them to archive corporate mail and turn it over during litigation.
Lawyers in particular wring their hands over employees using outside e-mail services. They encourage companies to keep messages for as long as necessary and then erase them to keep them out of the reach of legal foes. Companies have no control over the life span of e-mail messages in employees’ Web accounts. “If employees are just forwarding to their Web e-mail, we have no way to know what they are doing on the other end,” said Joe Fantuzzi, chief executive of the information security firm Workshare. “They could do anything they want. They could be giving secrets to the K.G.B.”
Hospitals have an added legal obligation to protect patient records. But when DeKalb Medical Center in Atlanta started monitoring its staff use of Web-based e-mail, it found that doctors and nurses routinely forwarded confidential medical records to their personal Web mail accounts — not for nefarious purposes, but so they could continue to work from home.
In the months after the hospital began monitoring traffic to Web e-mail services, it identified “a couple hundred incidents,” said Sharon Finney, DeKalb’s information security administrator. “I was surprised about the lack of literacy about the technology we depend on every day,” she said.
DeKalb now forbids the practice, and uses several software systems that monitor the hospital’s outbound e-mail and Web traffic. Ms Finney said she still catches four to five perpetrators a month trying to forward hospital e-mail.
The Web mail services may also be prone to glitches. Last month, Google fixed a bug that caused the disappearance of “some or all” of the stored mail of around 60 users. A week later, it acknowledged a security hole that could have exposed its users’ address books to Internet attackers.
Even the security experts most knowledgeable about the risks of e-mail forwarding to personal accounts acknowledge doing so themselves. “Of course I do it; who doesn’t?” said Kimberly Getgen Bargero, vice president for marketing at Sendmail, an e-mail software company in Emeryville, Calif. Ms. Bargero said she often used her Yahoo Mail account on business trips so she does not have to access her corporate network remotely.
It is difficult to quantify exactly how many otherwise model employees are opting to use services like Yahoo Mail or Google’s Gmail over their company’s authorized e-mail programs. Sophisticated users at the companies most lax about e-mail security can automatically forward all of their work e-mail to their personal accounts, hopscotching over the various requests for passwords meant to ward off intruders.
The more casual e-mail scofflaws send only the occasional message to their personal accounts — or just “cc” messages to their Web in-boxes to preserve them for later use — even when the messages contain sensitive company information.
Some companies frown on office use of any Web-based accounts, even for personal messages. At the business software maker BEA Systems, Anthony Bisulca, a senior security analyst, estimated that around 30 percent of his employees were using private e-mail accounts in the office, even though the company’s Internet policy clearly prohibits it.
But it is not easy to wean people off of their online mailboxes. “Of course they scream,” said Todd Wilson, an operations manager at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. “They look at me like I have three heads.”
Mr. Wilson said that the use of the Web services had become a “huge concern,” partly because copies of the forwarded messages sit untouched on the school’s servers, taking up space.
Many corporate technology professionals express the fear that Google and its rivals may actually own the intellectual property in the e-mail that resides on their systems. Gmail’s terms of service, however, state that e-mail belongs to the user, not to Google. The company’s automated software does scan messages in Gmail, looking for keywords that might generate related text advertisements on the page. A Google spokeswoman said the company has an extensive privacy policy to ensure no humans at Google read user e-mail.
Paul Kocher, president of the security firm Cryptography Research, said the real issue for companies was trust. “If you can’t trust employees enough to use services like Gmail, they probably shouldn’t be working for you,” he said.
Many companies apparently do not have that level of trust. In a survey conducted last year, the e-mail security firm Proofpoint found that 37 percent of companies in the United States used software to monitor office use of Web mail.
The Internet companies themselves are looking to take advantage of consumer preferences for Web based e-mail services. This year, Google plans to introduce a more secure version of Gmail for use in large companies.
But Microsoft and other providers of traditional internal e-mail systems, which the research firm Radicati says generated $2.5 billion in sales last year, are helping companies combat employee use of the Web services.
The new version of Microsoft’s corporate e-mail service, Exchange Server, offers administrators improved tools to monitor the content of employee mail and block forwarded messages.
At the same time, upgrades to Exchange and Microsoft’s e-mail program Outlook have made it easier for traveling employees to access e-mail on the corporate network from a Web browser. Microsoft also recently began urging corporate technology departments to give employees more storage space in their e-mail accounts.
But the Web services are improving as well, and employees will no doubt continue to find them tempting. “We have as high a security standard as any company,” said Ms. Bargero of Sendmail, “and sometimes it is just too difficult to access our e-mail.”
Monday, January 08, 2007
BCS BLOWOUT
GATORS OWN THE BUCKEYES.
I don't like either team, but I hate those buckeyes. As a Michigan fan, you just need to travel to Columbus for a MICHIGAN-ohio state game like I did this year to understand what this rivalry is all about.
I feel so damn good that they lost!! For all those Michigan fans talking about this win being for the big 10. You all need to understand that the win would have been for osu, not the big 10 and we would have said the same thing if we had 5 more minutes on Nov 18. So what if Urban Meyer went on this media blitz of Michigan. In hindsight, we should have done the same.
Enough said. Hopefully our season does all the talking for us next year.
I don't like either team, but I hate those buckeyes. As a Michigan fan, you just need to travel to Columbus for a MICHIGAN-ohio state game like I did this year to understand what this rivalry is all about.
I feel so damn good that they lost!! For all those Michigan fans talking about this win being for the big 10. You all need to understand that the win would have been for osu, not the big 10 and we would have said the same thing if we had 5 more minutes on Nov 18. So what if Urban Meyer went on this media blitz of Michigan. In hindsight, we should have done the same.
Enough said. Hopefully our season does all the talking for us next year.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
FAN TALK: U-M football
From the Detroit Free Press
We gave fans one last chance to vent about U-M's stunning Rose Bowl loss.
Derrick Little, Riverview, 24
Thoughts on the Rose Bowl? Disappointing loss; there was no passion on offense or defense.
Did losses to Ohio State and USC make this season a failure? No. They grew well as a team, and the young players really matured.
Is it fair to put Lloyd Carr on the hot seat after going 11-2? Not at all by looking at his career stats, but he needs to get his players to react better in bowl games.
Who else would you like to see coach U-M? Steve Mariucci.
Biggest change you want to see next season? Finish the way you started the season.
Prediction for next season? They will finish strong at 12-1.
Brandon Ferguson, Southgate, 24
Thoughts on the Rose Bowl? We were outcoached. Morgan Trent on Jarrett you CANNOT DO IT, and the secondary was bad.
Did losses to Ohio State and USC make this season a failure? Failure is such a harsh word. Disappointing fits the description.
Is it fair to put Lloyd Carr on the hot seat after going 11-2? It is -- his bowl record says it all.
Who else would you like to see coach U-M? Nick Saban or Mike Shanahan.
Biggest change you want to see next season? A better passing game.
Prediction for next season? First in the Big Ten, 12-1.
Michael Raupp, Huron Twp., 21
Thoughts on the Rose Bowl? Disappointing. The Big Ten needs to delay their season because the layoff is too long.
Did losses to Ohio State and USC make this season a failure? Yes, you are judged by the big games.
Is it fair to put Lloyd Carr on the hot seat after going 11-2? Yes, bowl record and big-game losses prove it.
Who else would you like to see coach U-M? Ron English.
Biggest change you want to see next season? More of an unpredictable offense and put away opponents when the opportunity is there.
Prediction for next season? 12-1, lose to USC in the national title game.
Brandon Monzon, Southgate, 22
Thoughts on the Rose Bowl? Typical Michigan team cannot win out on the West Coast.
Did losses to Ohio State and USC make this season a failure? Yes, your measuring stick is always the rivalry games.
Is it fair to put Lloyd Carr on the hot seat after going 11-2? Yes ... you have to win down the stretch.
Who else would you like to see coach U-M? Ron English.
Biggest change you want to see next season? Little bit more explosiveness on offense.
Prediction for next season? 10-3, will lose to OSU.
Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying
Relationship experts report that too many couples fail to ask each other critical questions before marrying. Here are a few key ones that couples should consider asking:
1) Have we discussed whether or not to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver?
2) Do we have a clear idea of each other’s financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh?
3) Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement on who will manage the chores?
4) Have we fully disclosed our health histories, both physical and mental?
5) Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?
6) Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences and fears?
7) Will there be a television in the bedroom?
8) Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?
9) Have we reached a clear understanding of each other’s spiritual beliefs and needs, and have we discussed when and how our children will be exposed to religious/moral education?
10) Do we like and respect each other’s friends?
11) Do we value and respect each other’s parents, and is either of us concerned about whether the parents will interfere with the relationship?
12) What does my family do that annoys you?
13) Are there some things that you and I are NOT prepared to give up in the marriage?
14) If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?
15) Does each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?
1) Have we discussed whether or not to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver?
2) Do we have a clear idea of each other’s financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh?
3) Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement on who will manage the chores?
4) Have we fully disclosed our health histories, both physical and mental?
5) Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?
6) Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences and fears?
7) Will there be a television in the bedroom?
8) Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?
9) Have we reached a clear understanding of each other’s spiritual beliefs and needs, and have we discussed when and how our children will be exposed to religious/moral education?
10) Do we like and respect each other’s friends?
11) Do we value and respect each other’s parents, and is either of us concerned about whether the parents will interfere with the relationship?
12) What does my family do that annoys you?
13) Are there some things that you and I are NOT prepared to give up in the marriage?
14) If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?
15) Does each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Pakistani minister asks Afghan refugees to leave
As a Pakistani, it seems to be getting more and more frustrating every time Karzai is put in front of the media. Not only was his 'government' recently rude to the Pakistani media, but his constant whining in front of the camera is just sickening.
KABUL: The Pakistani prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, said that he wanted the three million Afghan refugees still living in Pakistan to go home, as one way to end the problem of insurgents using the country as a haven.
The remarks, made Thursday after a meeting with President Hamid Karzai here in the Afghan capital, marked the first time Pakistan had been so blunt in demanding that the Afghan refugees leave. Many fled Afghanistan more than 20 years go during the Soviet occupation and have been living in Pakistan ever since.
Aziz arrived for talks with Karzai in an effort to smooth tensions between the neighbors, but after more than two hours Karzai bluntly acknowledged that relations were only growing worse.
"Unfortunately, the gulf in relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan is getting wider, and it is not getting narrower," Karzai said after their meeting.
The two leaders emerged with no agreement on the main areas of contention, namely Pakistan's plan to fence and mine the border, and Afghanistan's project to convene two tribal gatherings, or jirgas, of national representatives from both countries, to try to foster peace between the countries.
Afghanistan has repeatedly condemned the project to fence and mine the border as a diversion from the real problem of terrorism, which it says is being incubated in Pakistan. Pakistan has also dragged its feet on organizing the tribal gatherings, promising only to form a commission to work on the idea.
"The Afghan people want to remove all those obstacles which create the divide in our relations," Karzai said. "Those obstacles are created by terrorist activities which are hindering Afghanistan's reconstruction and making our schools burn.
"Security will not come to Afghanistan unless together we and Pakistan, with good and friendly relations, become tough in the fight against terrorism."
He added that he wanted to hold the gathering of jirgas so people could speak their minds.
Without offering specifics, Aziz said the two leaders had agreed to work on resettling three million Afghan refugees back in Afghanistan and removing the sanctuary that refugee camps provide to insurgents.
"Refugee camps on our side of the border sometimes are safe havens for elements who are from Afghanistan and take safe haven there after conducting activities," he said.
He also defended Pakistan's plan to fence and mine the border as one way to restrict the movement of people who represent a threat to security.
In what appears to be the first exchange with a journalist since he went into hiding five years ago, the Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, said that he had not seen Al Qaeda's chief, Osama bin Laden, in five years, The New York Times reported from Peshawar, Pakistan.
Omar also said he would never negotiate with the U.S.-backed government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. He also threatened to continue the war until foreign troops withdraw from Afghanistan.
The statements were made in written response to questions sent by e-mail messages to the Taliban spokesman, Muhammad Hanif, who often speaks to journalists by telephone from an undisclosed location. Hanif said that Omar had written the replies himself and that a courier had returned the answers on a USB computer drive.
KABUL: The Pakistani prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, said that he wanted the three million Afghan refugees still living in Pakistan to go home, as one way to end the problem of insurgents using the country as a haven.
The remarks, made Thursday after a meeting with President Hamid Karzai here in the Afghan capital, marked the first time Pakistan had been so blunt in demanding that the Afghan refugees leave. Many fled Afghanistan more than 20 years go during the Soviet occupation and have been living in Pakistan ever since.
Aziz arrived for talks with Karzai in an effort to smooth tensions between the neighbors, but after more than two hours Karzai bluntly acknowledged that relations were only growing worse.
"Unfortunately, the gulf in relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan is getting wider, and it is not getting narrower," Karzai said after their meeting.
The two leaders emerged with no agreement on the main areas of contention, namely Pakistan's plan to fence and mine the border, and Afghanistan's project to convene two tribal gatherings, or jirgas, of national representatives from both countries, to try to foster peace between the countries.
Afghanistan has repeatedly condemned the project to fence and mine the border as a diversion from the real problem of terrorism, which it says is being incubated in Pakistan. Pakistan has also dragged its feet on organizing the tribal gatherings, promising only to form a commission to work on the idea.
"The Afghan people want to remove all those obstacles which create the divide in our relations," Karzai said. "Those obstacles are created by terrorist activities which are hindering Afghanistan's reconstruction and making our schools burn.
"Security will not come to Afghanistan unless together we and Pakistan, with good and friendly relations, become tough in the fight against terrorism."
He added that he wanted to hold the gathering of jirgas so people could speak their minds.
Without offering specifics, Aziz said the two leaders had agreed to work on resettling three million Afghan refugees back in Afghanistan and removing the sanctuary that refugee camps provide to insurgents.
"Refugee camps on our side of the border sometimes are safe havens for elements who are from Afghanistan and take safe haven there after conducting activities," he said.
He also defended Pakistan's plan to fence and mine the border as one way to restrict the movement of people who represent a threat to security.
In what appears to be the first exchange with a journalist since he went into hiding five years ago, the Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, said that he had not seen Al Qaeda's chief, Osama bin Laden, in five years, The New York Times reported from Peshawar, Pakistan.
Omar also said he would never negotiate with the U.S.-backed government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. He also threatened to continue the war until foreign troops withdraw from Afghanistan.
The statements were made in written response to questions sent by e-mail messages to the Taliban spokesman, Muhammad Hanif, who often speaks to journalists by telephone from an undisclosed location. Hanif said that Omar had written the replies himself and that a courier had returned the answers on a USB computer drive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)