Sunday, October 25, 2015

Is Eva the Problem at Stanford Bridge?

Breaking:

Unconfirmed reports have it that Chelsea players have all missed those delicate touches of the delectable Eva and are deliberately punishing Mourinho for how he treated her. Sources, who spoke under anonymity, say that should Eva be begged and persuaded to return, there'd be a change of fortunes at the Bridge.

Players who were contacted for confirmation of these allegations failed to provide responses to our questions. Mourinho could not be reached for his opinion on the matter. Repeated attempts to converse with the gaffer were atypically rebuffed and in one case the reporter barely managed to escape unscathed.

As investigations continue on this matter, it goes to confirm the improbable unbelievability of the Blues' fortunes this season. A team that was practically unbeatable and who are the defending champions from last season lie 15 on the 20-team table with a paltry and unconvincing 11 points from 10 games. It has lost half of those games to teams that it could beat on paper, drawn 2 and only managed 3 wins, some in controversial circumstances.

Many fans are deeply pained and most cannot understand, nay comprehend, the strange territory the team finds itself with wins so hard to come by at home and away. The situation in Europe isn't too different. They cannot fathom what the crisis is as the inclusion of Pedro, from Barcelona, and Falcao, from Man U, to a proven and tested winning formula ought to produce better results than is presently the case.

Could Eva's touch be the missing piece of the puzzle of Chelsea's incredulous crumbling? Or are there other reasons that could be adduced to as the basis for this dumbfounding misfortune for a club that boasts such fine quality of players and technical bench? Could it be karma catching up with the manager for badmouthing the Prof Wenger whose team now ironically seat at the top of the log, albeit for a few hours?

The jury is out on that but our investigations continue. Keep it locked on and you're sure to be the first to know should an answer be found. Keep a date with us. Same time. Same station. Cheers and have a beautiful week ahead.

- Moore Numental, 2016
#DontBelieveEverythingYouRead

Friday, October 16, 2015

Playing With The Power of Questions

Playing With The Power of Questions

In castigating the volte face of certain kindred of the former president who have publicly denounced him as being lily-livered (especially one grand pa like that), the impervious Abati expressed a very common local sentiment no sensible subscriber will argue against: "Will all these have been said had GEJ won?"

He moved beyond those initial stinging comments to claim that Jonathan's loss was attributable to power-play. That nebulous attribution, clear as it may be to him, evokes questions that may not jell well with him and his co-travelling acolytes. But that has never stopped my asking, anyway.

They shouldn't bother you too. I pray.

Here:

1. Back at him, straight away - If Jonathan had won, would he have come forth so?

2. If this was true, was the patriotic thing not to join in the titanic battle to make sure the rest of the country is rescued from the power game that had Jonathan locked on all fronts?

3. In the power-play to which he referred, was the GEJ-camp stolid? Or were they not that play's most vociferous and active component thoroughly trashing the weatherworn image of the ex-general?

4. Had they spent a fraction of the energy expended on their own version of this power-play in burnishing the image of their principal and another fraction in hemming in the excesses and rambunctiousness of Mama Peace's utterances, perhaps oga Jona would still have a job better than being an Election Observer in Africa.

5. If anyone was to cry of power-play victimisation, is he utterly certain that the GEJ-camp's whining is justified?

6. Aren't these the antics of a cremated pen pusher seeking to once again command some relevance?

7. Can't he at least confess that Nigeria is finally free to claim her lost glory and redeem herself so that while he quietly resigns to the dustbin of history's lost and forgotten, he can perhaps get closure?

I have more questions but never mind.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

The Politics of Active Inconsistency

Some consistency fellas.

It was a laughing session when it appeared the party was unprepared for the in-fighting that greeted its "ideal" choices for the leadership of the National Assembly. Anyone who could string a few disjointed sentences together upbraided the party in power for it's infantile handling of the imbroglio. They were seen as unprepared for leadership and the diplomacy of horse-trading for which the democratic practice is famous.

A few of the more lettered amongst these critics - on both sides of the divide - who remonstrated with the party counselled for an adoption of a more proactive process that takes the confidence of those involved - especially actors with clout who invested time, money and effort in no small measure to the instrumentality of the emergence of the old general as the head honcho of this new government - into account when sorting out critical positions.

Now that it "appears" that the party has followed that counsel and that there has not been any noticeable fracas in the listing of cabinet positions - albeit partially - there is again another round of hue and cry, the most notable being that this list could have been released immediately after the May 29 event (or any time after that).

Really?

Aren't we fatigued with the desolation political chicanery evokes from the wild orgy for power and position? Don't we realise, given the lessons that we are still learning from the Senate President's "palace coup", that several compromises have to be made which of themselves can allow for the change that we fantasise for the country? Where is the wisdom of experience if after the brouhaha the previous leadership tussle elicited, the government allowed itself to become embroiled in something as preventable as a repeat performance?

Now, let us allow ourselves to conjecture.

Which will be a softer landing for the government? Is it making enemies of those who helped it come to power - though of questionable character - or keeping them on its side whilst allowing the body tasked with screening them do their due diligence on them? Think about it this way. The administration has done its part in allowing time to satisfy the different blocs within while "rewarding" their loyalty and assistance. In so doing, it has ensured that some internal peace within the party is maintained. Nigerians are thus spared another round of unproductive weeks internecine flame-throwing (because whether you agree or not, the political sabre-rattling accounts to losses for all of us as time that could have been politically and economically engaged productively is frittered away for zilch).

It is now left for the nominated and the body tasked with their screening.

Two things can happen going forward. Those nominated may fail to scale the hurdle at the screening which may necessitate their substitutions (and a good number of them have that axe hanging over their heads, no?). Or they may advance from that stage and still rope themselves in by hanky-panky behaviour in their future portfolios (or maybe by EFCC in their previous constituencies) for which I believe this government will be all too pleased to show them the exit and follow up with some prosecution (maybe I'm too optimistic). Both scenarios offer some exciting outcomes to look forward to. And anyone who knows me will understand why.

However, jumping on the bandwagon of railing the administration for doing what it can to allow for the peaceful conditions necessary to face the tasks at hand and do its actual work of seeing to the welfare and security of the people it serves because it affords us a platform to be in one voice with those who have their personal gripes with the government of the day doesn't augur well. It is an opinion. It is personal. But it is held with reason. Some things are better rushed into. Others, not so. But we shouldn't tell one to both rush and tarry in the same circumstances.

Consistency, fellas. Consistency.