During the heydays of Radio in India in 1960s and 1970s, there were many popular radio programmes. There was one Radio programme called “Chayageet” on Vividh Bharati daily at 10 PM. The songs played in this song were typically old songs which I as a young kid regarded as boring. There were certain songs which I associated with this programmes. Typically, songs which were “bhoole bisre” and not so popular with the janta were played in this programme.

I cannot tell with certainty if I have actually heard this song in “Chayageet”, but it is just the kind of songs which were played in this programme and which I found soporific for me. Of course, the fact that 10 PM was considered late night in those reasons may also be a contributing factor in making me sleepy while listening to such songs.

Now of course, I find such songs as absolute classics. In fact, I am seriously considering calling such songs “chayageet” kind songs. Once I collect enough number of such songs in this blog, I may be able to present my own “chayageet” in this blog.

Something about the picturisation. The hero was Pradeep Kumar, then on his way out as a hero. The heroine is called Sayeeda Khan.There is very little known about Sayeeda Khan, but I have managed to dig out some information about her. She was a small time actress active in Bollywood in 1960s and she acted in a few movies. For instance, she acted opposite Kishore Kumar in movies like “crorepati” and “Apna haath Jagannath”. She married Brij Sadanah (producer of Victoria no. 203). In 1990, her husband Killed Sayeeda Khan and their daughter, before killing himself. Luckily their son Mike, who was not at home, survived. Mike Sadanah later acted as Hero in a movie called “Rang”.

Coming to the song itself, there is little doubt that it is one of the classic songs from that era. The male voice is Mukesh, and the femalae voice is Suman Kalyanpur. And both these voices are so melodious that I regard this song as one that acts as massage for your mind. “mental massage” song, and a “chayageet” song ? Yes, to me, this song does belong to these two categories that I have just thought about.

Song-Ye mausam rangeen sama (Modern Girl 1961) Singers- Mukesh, Suman Kalyanpur, Lyrics- Gulshan Baawra, MD-Ravi

Lyrics

ye mausam rangeen samaa thahar zaraa o jaan-e-jaan
teraa meraa meraa teraa pyaar hai to phir kaisaa sharmaanaa
ye mausam rangeen samaa thahar zaraa o jaan-e-jaan
teraa meraa meraa teraa pyaar hai to phir kaisaa sharmaanaa
ruk to main jaaun jaan-e-jaan mujhko hai inkaar kahaan
teraa meraa meraa teraa pyaar sanam na ban jaaye afsaanaa

ye chaand ye sitaare kahte hain mil ke saare aajaa pyaar karen
ye chaand ye sitaare kahte hain mil ke saare aajaa pyaar karen
ye chanda bairi dekhe aise mein bolo kaise iqraar karen
dil mein hai kuchh kuchh kahe zubaan pyaar yahi hai jaan-e-jaan
teraa meraa meraa teraa pyaar hai to phir kaisaa sharmaanaa
ye mausam rangeen samaa thahar zaraa o jaan-e-jaan
tera mera mera tera pyaar hai to phir kaisa sharmaana

ye pyaar ki lambi raahen kahti hain ye nigaahen kahin door chalen
ye pyaar ki lambi raahen kahti hain ye nigaahen kahin door chalen
baithe hain gheraa daale ye zaalim duniyaa waale hamen dekh jale
jalta hai to jale jahan
thahar zaraa o jaan-e-jaan
tera mera mera tera pyaar hai to phir kaisa sharmana
ruk to main jaaun jaan-e-jaan mujhko hai inkaar kahaan
teraa meraa meraa teraa pyaar sanam na ban jaaye afsaanaa
ye mausam rangeen samaa thahar zaraa o jaan-e-jaan
teraa meraa meraa teraa pyaar hai to phir kaisaa sharmaanaa

El Juicio de Nuremberg (Judgement at Nuremberg, 1961) de Stanley Kramer, es una película en la que la palabra tiene una primacía fundamental, es cine con largos diálogos y dramáticos monólogos, durante todo el tiempo que dura la cinta las palabras expresan el horror, el odio, la duda y el dolor.(1) La película cuenta con un  notable reparto: Spencer Tracy, Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich, Burt Lancaster, Judy Garland y Maximiliam Schell. Nos encontramos en el proceso que se siguió en la ciudad Alemana ocupada de Nüeremberg contra los magistrados Friedrich Hofstetter (Martin Brandt), Werner Lampe (Torben Meyer), Ernst Jenning (Burt Lancaster) y Emil Hahn (Werner Klemperer), acusados de sentenciar sobre la base de unas leyes injustas en juicios amañados donde el sentido de la sentencia se sabía incluso antes del inicio del proceso.(2) Entre los acusados destaca el juez Jenning, inspirado en la figura del juez Franz Schlegelberger, que en la cinta aparece como un reconocido tratadista del Derecho, redactor de la Constitución de Waimar y Ministro de Justicia de la República de Weimar.(3)

La temática elegida por Stanley Kramer no es fácil, mayor incluso si consideramos que la cinta se filmó apenas quince años de finalizada la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Si en el proceso que se siguió contra los principales líderes y criminales de guerra nazis, la única duda parecía ser la base legal para castigar sus actos, en los juicios de quienes formaron parte de la burocracia del Estado durante el gobierno del Reich el tema es mucho más complicado, basta para ello tener en cuenta que el partido nazi llegó a contar con más de ocho millones de afiliados y hubiera sido impensable desde un punto de vista práctico que todos los colaboradores del régimen fueran encausados por sus crímenes.(4)

El juicio seguido contra estos cuatro magistrados está lleno de aristas y de complicaciones que son abordadas con acierto en la cinta, tales como la aplicación por parte de los tribunales de una ley injusta, las relaciones entre la justicia y el poder y cuáles son los límites para quienes dicen actuar con obediencia a la ley.

El Juez Haywood (Spencer Tracy), encargado de presidir el Tribunal, es la figura central de la trama. Nos encontramos en el año 48, acaba de terminar la Segunda Guerra Mundial y al borde de la guerra fría, pero los juicios contra los miembros del régimen nazi ya han pasado de moda y no interesan a nadie. El experimentado juez Haywood lo sabe, pero actuará con justicia, lejos del ánimo vengador que le imprime el fiscal Lawson (Richard Widmark) y discrepante al final con la eficiente defensa que hace Herr Rolfe (Maximiliam Schell) de la inocencia de su patrocinado. Haywood intentará entender las razones que llevaron a hombres no sólo los ordinarios sino hasta los más capaces a seguir a Hitler y a cometer las mayores atrocidades.

El argumento de la defensa es elemental. Estos jueces se limitaron a cumplir estrictamente las leyes del gobierno de Alemania, no hacerlo significaba un acto contrario a la patria. El propio Janning se encargará de echar por tierra a su propia defensa, no está dispuesto a repetir la farsa en la que ha participado cientos de veces: ¿dónde estábamos cuando Hitler empezó a destilar odio en el Reichstag? ¿dónde estábamos cuando se llevaban a nuestros vecinos por la fuerza en plena noche a Docheau? ¿dónde estábamos cuando en cada aldea del país había una terminal que recibía vagones de carga para llenarlos de niños y despacharlos a los campos de exterminio? ¿dónde estábamos cuando nos gritaban en la noche? ¿estábamos sordos?¿mudos?¿ciegos? Mi abogado dice que no sabíamos nada del exterminio de millones. Les pondrá como excusa que pensábamos que eran cientos no millones ¿eso nos libera de culpa? quizá no sabíamos los detalles, pero si no sabíamos era porque no queríamos saber. Janning no se quedará en una acusación general de colaboración silenciosa, afirmará que su caso es aún más cuestionable que aquellos que actuaron de forma ignorante o incluso activa: Ernst Janning es peor que todos ellos, porque sabía lo que eran y colaboró con ellos de todas formas. Ernst Janning transformó su vida en excremento por caminar al lado de ellos. El perdón bajo estas circunstancias es inaceptable. Hay situaciones de las que se es culpable incluso aunque uno pueda disculparse, escribió en sus memorias Albert Speer, arquitecto personal de Hitler y Ministro de Armamento y Producción Bélica del Reich, pues la enormidad del crimen es tan desmesurada que anula toda posibilidad de disculpa.(5)

Haywood dicta sentencia sin tomar en cuenta paradójicamente, como sí lo hicieron los acusados, las presiones ejercidas por el gobierno americano para que las penas no fueran severas. Los rusos habían bloqueado Berlín y era necesario contar con el apoyo del pueblo alemán, lo cual podría complicarse si se encarcelaban a todos sus líderes y dirigentes. La sentencia develará una de las verdades del régimen nazi, de la boca del Juez Haywood se escuchará decir que: si los acusados hubiesen sido seres pervertidos y degenerados, si todos los jerarcas del Tercer Reich hubiesen sido monstruos sádicos y maniáticos, estos hechos no hubieran tenido mayor relevancia moral que un terremoto o un desastre natural. Pero en este juicio se demostró que en una situación de crisis nacional, los hombres ordinarios e incluso los capaces y extraordinarios pueden engañarse a sí mismos y cometer delitos tan grandes y atroces que superan su propia imaginación. Sin embargo, la cinta permite que Herr Rolfe nos despache otra versión, que no sólo quienes participaron de la barbarie que significó el nazismo deben encontrarse en el banquillo de los acusados. El nazismo debe entenderse ciertamente a partir de la colaboración cómplice de millones de ciudadanos pero también por la pasividad de las potencias occidentales que permitieron que Hitler ocupara Checoslovaquia, Renania, Austria y militarizara el país violando el Tratado de Versalles, de los industriales americanos que comerciaron armas con la Alemania nazi, de la Unión Soviética que firmó con Alemania un pacto de no agresión que permitió la invasión de Polonia y que después se sumó al festín del reparto polaco, de Churchil que alabó públicamente al Fürer como un gobernante modelo sólo un año antes del inicio de la guerra. Grafica bien lo dicho el alegato el abogado defensor: en última instancia el responsable es la propia civilización.

En la cinta Nuremberg (Nuremberg, 2000) de Yves Simoneau, una película menos honesta y más maniquea que la que analizamos, aparece el testimonio de Rudolf Höss, Obersturmbannfürer de la SS y comandante del campo de exterminio de Auschwitz. Höss actúa en el Juicio de Nüremberg como testigo de Ernst Kaltenbrunner (Christopher Heyerdahl), Obergruppenführer de la SS y lugarteniente de Himler. Durante el interrogatorio al que le somete el Fiscal Jackson (Alec Baldwin), Höss señala con detalle los pormenores de la labor de exterminio: Construí cámaras de gas donde cabían dos mil personas a la vez, comparados con los doscientos de Treblinka. Construí cuatro hornos enormes para cremar los restos. Logré eliminar diez mil personas en horas. En promedio despachábamos a dos mil personas al día. Cuando el Fiscal Jackson termina el interrogatorio, Höss vuelve a intervenir sólo para aclarar que: no toleré la crueldad. Mi gente estaba ahí para exterminarlos no para torturarlos, cualquier mala conducta de los guardias era penada se lo aseguro.(6) Höss destaca no su desprecio a la vida como imagina el director de la cinta sino, ante todo, su profesionalismo como miembro de la burocracia del Estado, lo cual es ciertamente más grave y aterrador.

En su libro Eichmann en Jerusalén, Un estudio sobre la banalidad del mal, que constituye un análisis de un expediente judicial, Hanna Arendt destaca que los lideres nazis, en su vida cotidiana, no fueron hombres pervertidos ni sádicos, sino terrible y terroríficamente normales: Desde el punto de vista de las instituciones jurídicas y de nuestras reglas morales, esta normalidad resultará siempre más terrorífica que todas las atrocidades juntas, pues implica que este nuevo tipo de delincuente comete sus delitos en circunstancias que casi le impiden saber que realiza actos de maldad. Es allí donde reside la banalidad del mal.(7)

(2) Al finalizar la Segunda Guerra Mundial se suscribieron el Acuerdo de Londres (8 de agosto de 1945 por los representantes de Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, Francia y Unión Soviética) y la Ley número 10 (20 de diciembre de 1945, promulgada por el Consejo Aliado en Berlín). El Acuerdo de Londres previó el establecimiento de un Tribunal Internacional Militar para enjuiciar los crímenes de guerra cometidos por los nazis. El 18 de octubre de 1945, en la ciudad alemana de Nüremberg se inició el juicio de 21 líderes que formaron parte del gobierno de Tercer Reich. Después del primer juicio de Nüremberg, se celebraron otros 12 procesos bajo la autoridad de la Ley 10 del Consejo. Hubieron en total 185 acusados. Entre ellos, médicos que habían llevado a cabo experimentos sobre enfermos y prisioneros, industriales que habían participado en el saqueo de los países ocupados y en el programa de mano de obra forzada y jueces que habían cometido delitos encubiertos bajo la apariencia de un proceso legal.

Hamsters in A Nunnery

Hamsters in a nunnery…
Say it over rhythmically.
Pretty ditty! Even witty!
So I laughed when it revealed
In naked thought, a lilting yield:
A natty pulse, a little beat
Setting sprint into my feet.
Phrase odd,
I’ve placed the hamster next to God.
But why?  Oh, my,
Oh, my, that’s it!
Incongruous ideas have hit
My funny bonafides.
Hypothetically,
The phrase could just as well have been
“House mouse in a wiferie…”
Both dresses stress one frailty –
I’d guess that holy nun
And carnal wife have more than one
Habit alike to dress alike more frailties.
After thought:
This too unknowledgeable mind,
When, for diversion, cats aspersion,
Finds a blind and loving fool
Who’ll have to wait,
Like all the others.

Hamsters In A Nunnery 1961/1990

A Sense of The Ridiculous

Arlene Corwin

         Cause To Wonder

Suffering, buffering

Four months asylum.

Frightened, tense,

Heightened by

A sense of loss;

Lost:

September, 1 July.

Ma: “Remember, I just try.”

Dismembered August

Tossed away

To come again

Some other day?

Bosh! A

Washed away

October, and

My god.

One fluid figure

Sent floating in brine,

Stomped out, estranged

From a crudely changed spine

One crushed,

Untouched

Backbone

Gone.

Who sent for that?

And meant for what?

An un-consented absence for

Uncovering unheated love.

For pulling the cord

From the bellyhole socket

Which strengthened my spine

With my newly wound twine;

From smothering motherhood,

-ism and -kind

And bearing myself

From the womb in my mind.

©Cause To Wonder 1961

Pure Nakedness;

Arlene Corwin

            Ah, Love #5

In thee, I will great fault not find:

I could, but would not still a mind

That is my own

When I must tone

My own brain first.

Perfect sees as perfect is;

And frail sees what too is his.

I will not find great fault in thee;

The time consumed thus doth fast flee.

As fault by fault is gleaned and tried,

Not a strength is classified;

For your disgruntle, my dismay

Such waste of crime does not to pay.

Great fault I will not find in thee

Because I am not blind to me;

And love should choose itself to serve,

Or cut itself off nerve by nerve.

Should I erase

Each grace by grace,

And built a vault

Thick walled with fault,

This heart must brace,

(Steeled walls replace

Each trace of play

With lead) and lead

The dead critique away.

© Ah, Love, #5 1961

Love Relationships;

Arlene Corwin

Spears and Guns welcome you or anyone else.

This was my first impression when I came to Nagaland for an Interview conducted by The Selection Board, Nagaland Government (Headed by Mrs Mamgin, Chairman of Assam Selection Board) in May 1961 for selection as a Circle Officer, an Administrative job (Class II, Gazetted).

State of Nagaland was in the formative stage, This was the interim period of 1961-1963. Nagaland was to be inaugurated on 1st December, 1963 as a full fledged sixteenth State if India. The State was established under The State of Nagaland Act, 1961, enacted by the Parliament of India in pursuance of the provisions of Article 361A, Constitution of India.

History

The early history of Nagaland is the customs, economic activities of the Naga tribes. The people were originally referred to as Chingmee (Hill People) or Hao (Tribes) in the history of Manipur. The Naga tribes had socio-economic and political links with tribes in Assam and Burma - (officially called Myanmar by the current ruling military junta)even today a large population of Naga inhabits Assam. Following an invasion in 1816, the area along with Assam came under direct rule of Burma. This period was noted for the oppressive rule and turmoil in Assam and Nagaland. When the British East India Company took control of Assam in 1826, they steadily expanded their domain over modern Nagaland. By 1892, all of modern Nagaland except the Tuensang area in the northeast was governed by the British. It was politically amalgamated into Assam. The Christian missionaries played an important part in transforming Nagaland. Many Naga tribes embraced Christianity, in particular the Baptist faith.

After the independence of India in 1947, the area remained a part of the province of Assam. Nationalist activities arose amongst Naga tribes, who demanded a political union of their ancestral and native groups damaged government and civil infrastructure, and attacked government officials and civilians from other states of India. The Union government sent the Indian Army in 1955, to restore order. In 1957, the Government began diplomatic talks with representatives of Naga tribes, and the Naga Hills district of Assam and the Tuensang frontier were united in a single political entity that became a Union territory - directly administered by the Central government with a large degree of autonomy. This was not satisfactory to the tribes, however, and soon agitation and violence increased across the state - included attacks on Army and government institutions, as well as civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes. In July 1960, a further political accord was reached at the Naga People’s Convention that Nagaland should become a constituent and self-governing state in the Indian union. Statehood was officially granted in 1963 and the first state-level democratic elections were held in 1964. Insurgencies were quelled in the early 1980s. Violence had re-erupted and there was conflict between rebel group factions till the late 1990s. On 25 July, 1997, Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral announced that the Government after talks with Isaac group of the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) declared a cease-fire or cessation of operations with effect from 1st August, 1997 for a period of three months. The cease-fire has since been extended.
(Source: Wikipedia)

Ah, Love #1Ah, love, how fine you are for me.

Your ways incline a higher me.

Conditioned in a hundred ways,

Before you, uninspired I lay -

Adjusting here, adjusting there,

Each man an orb in passion’s sphere.

If self-control can rule me now

I yet may reap what I would sow:

A union free of ‘you are mine’ -

The earthly view of love divine.

Self-control, I beg you stay.

To live without you day by day

Is suffering mute, a suffering huge -

Not at all what God intended.

Live within till all is mended -

Flood me with your dry deluge!

© Ah Love #1 1961

Love Relationships; To The Child Mystic;

Arlene Corwin

Frans TEUGHELS meldt :

“Ik ben afgestudeerd in 1961, samen met mijn broer Erik.  Onze Gust+ In 1962″.

Dat betekent :

Frans TEUGHELS (1961, welke afdeling ?)
Erik TEUGHELS (1961, welke afdeling ?)
+ Gust TEUGHELS (1962, welke afdeling ?) - Gust is inmiddels overleden (Wanneer ?, Overlijdensbericht en foto beschikbaar ?).

We vermoeden dat de TEUGHELS-broers ons heel wat documentatie kunnen bezorgen.

Ein Update von Berlin Beatet Bestes (eine Erweiterung).

Eine Single von Fred Oldörp (einer der drei Travellers) mit zwei alten Berlin-Hits.

Die Single war wohl auf Reaktion des Mauerbaus (um 1961) erschienen. Damit ergeben die zwei Gassenhauer einen tieferen Sinn.

Titel:

1. Fred Oldörp: Ich hab’ so Heimweh nach dem Kurfürstendamm
2. Fred Oldörp: Ich hab’ noch einen Koffer in Berlin

“Night In Tunisia” performed by Art Blakey the his Jazz Messengers; This footage is from a 1961 show in Tokyo. Enjoy this moment in time:

LeFtOoO

It was the fall of 1997. My wife Kelly and I had been married three short months. Laying in bed one night I turned to Kelly and said, “I think I want to buy
a VW Bus.” Knowing we had about five bucks to our name and wondering with what money I was going to purchase said VW, Kelly responded (in so many words), “Dream on—with what money?”

Hopes dashed and completed irked with the way Kelly had pointed out the obvious, I put my dream of owning a van with plaid curtains and a mini fridge on hold.

Fast forward three months. I’ve been working as a landscaper for Bud Jones & Sons out of Mason, Ohio. I had shared with my boss (and any one else who had a pulse) about my desire to own a VW bus and during lunch that day he mentioned to me that someone that used to work for the company had a van he was looking to sell or trade for landscaping work. My boss said it wasn’t a VW, but that it had a lot of character. I decided to check it out.

I found my way to the guys house that owned the van and he gave me the keys and showed me around his 1961 Ford Falcon van. As we approached the 36 year old vehicle only two words came to mind: Mystery Machine. While it was white and the Mystery Machine was rather colorful (and lacking windows), I couldn’t help but be swept away by the beauty of this amazing piece of American machinery.

We walked around the van and the seller told me about how he had given it new brakes, rebuilt the engine, put new tires and rims on it and basically taken care of everything mechanical problem.

Like udders in the hands of a farmer or mud on the face of a pig—I felt completely in my element getting behind the wheel for a test drive.

For the first time ever I learned about things like “three on the tree” (which made for an interesting start!), lead additives in gasoline, the existence of foot powered washer fluid sprayers, and old school built in coffee warmers (the engine was right where one might rest their right arm).

This thing screamed, “Look out world—here comes Sig.”

I finished up my test drive and asked the seller, “How much?” He replied, “$1,000.” Now a grand back then was like ten grand now. Not wanting to give up on the dream, I asked him if he’d be willing to trade anything for it and he said he’d take $500 cash and let me work 40 hours for his landscaping company to pay the other half off.

So what else is a wide-eyed, Falcon-crazed, 20-something supposed to do? I emptied my bank account, signed on the dotted line and worked 40 of the most mind-numbing hours of my life weed-eating miles upon miles of endless Ohio greenery.

But I had my van. The van. Oh, it was a piece of work.

Over the next few months I worked to restore the interior. Fixing the speedometer, painting the floor and installing carpet (it had a bare metal floor when I bought it). I loved driving around in it. Not only was it fun to drive—it could haul full sheets of plywood (which worked out great in those days when I was managing my skate park ministry).

That van and I were tied at the hip. I loved it and (I think) it loved me back. We weathered 12 inches of snow on 13″ rims, taught skate park kids how to drive in the church parking lot, hauled skate park tools and supplies around and every once and a while hauled everyone to Taco Bell for 69 cent tacos and endless Mountain Dew.

Then one day—completely out of the blue—I decided to buy a brand new, 1999 Nissan Frontier (King Cab). While I loved my van, the appeal of that new car smell and small things like…air conditioning (ever been to Ohio in August?)…fuel economy…safety (the van had no seat belts)…and the ability to defrost my windows without having to use Kelly’s hair dryer overcame my love for the Ford Falcon.

Now unfortunately, Kelly and I lived in a townhouse and there we were only given two parking spaces. I decided it would be best to sell my dream van—not only for the space I needed for the new truck, but because I could sure use some cash as I was now paying $400 per month for car payments as well as an increase of 300% on my car insurance.

I phoned up Auto Trader and placed my van for sale in the auto classifieds section. I was surprised when all of Cincinnati and the tri-state area wasn’t knocking down my door for a test drive. But finally, just before I was about to leave for a missions trip to Mexico, I had an interested party.

Young, naive, and wooed by it’s beauty, the 20-something kid came to test drive the van. We drove around and he asked questions about the Falcon. I showed him the foot powered windshield washer sprayer, the fact that you can open the hood inside the van and tune it as you’re driving down the road, and all the other little things that made the van so mesmerizing. As we drove I could see that glassy eyed, romantic look in his eyes. I thought for sure I had the van sold.

As we drove we talked and I got the impression that this kid was like most college kids out there: chasing after girls, excited about the next beer-pounding extravaganza, and looking to fill his heart with every other vice that will never satisfy and only leave him feeling like how I almost always kept the van’s fuel levels…empty.

We pulled into the parking space and he said he’d buy it in a heartbeat, but that he would need to come up with the money. He called me later to tell me that he wouldn’t have enough to purchase it. I told him I understood, hung up the phone and continued packing for my trip to Mexico the next day.

Fast forward to the end of the Mexico trip. I’m on the plane flying home and I’m having a quiet time on the plane. Inbetween reading and staring out the window as I contemplate Jesus words, I come across Matthew 6:19-21:

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. “But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. “

I’ve read this verse before. As I’m reading I take note that I’ve already highlighted this passage and that other’s have brought it to my attention as well (I always put someone’s initials and a date next to a scripture passage that is given to me in a letter or some other note). Needless to say—this passage isn’t new to me. I know what it means and I’ve tried to live by it. But as I read it I feel God pulling on my heart speaking these words to me: Give the van away.

“Give it away?” i question.

“Yes. Give it away.” I hear God telling me.

Now let me use this opportunity to clarify something. God didn’t send down bolts of lighting, I didn’t hear these exact words in my head, and I’m pretty sure the guacamole I had for breakfast was fairly fresh…

All that to say - I didn’t need God to bring fire from heaven. I heard the quiet voice of the Holy Spirit confirming in me that I had an opportunity to serve him and secure a reward from him in heaven.

I prayed and resolved that I would call up that kid who wanted to buy the van and offer it to him at only one price: 30 minute of his time. In that 30 minutes I planned to share the Gospel with him and explain to him how God loved him and had a plan for his life. i would tell him what I told the kids at my skate park…that God thought he was the best thing since sliced bread and wanted to know him.

My heart swarmed like electrified red jello as I ran through the conversation in my mind and played out the transaction in my mind. The kid would be shocked to hear that I wanted to give him the van …I would tell him of God’s love, answer any questions he may have, give him the keys and the title and say good bye and pray that God would do an amazing work in his life.

It was a great plan. God’s plan. And I was excited to be his servant.

On the drive back to the church from the airport I shared my excitement with a close friend about my decision to give away my van. Surprised, he offered to me that it would be better to just sell it. After all - I need to provide for my family and think about them first. I believed that God speaks to us through the Bible, through sermons, through prayer and also through Christ-centered friends. As I listened to my friend speak I was persuaded to ditch what I felt God had called me to. Persuaded that my family came first, I pushed away any thought of giving away my van.

Oh how I wished I would have stayed the course. Maybe it was due it part to my friend’s convincing arguments. Maybe it was the fear to be so bold in my faith. Maybe both.

I was recently reading a book called The Treasure Principle by Randy
Alcorn. As I flipped the small pages (it’s one of those small books that packs a big punch) I came across this excerpt:

“I know a single man who came to Christ in his twenties, read the
Scriptures, and got so excited that he decided to sell his house and give
the money to God. But when he shared this plan with older believers in his
Bible-study group, something tragic happened: They talked him out of it.

If you ever feel inclined to talk a young believer (including your own
child) out of giving; restrain yourself. Don’t quench the Spirit of God,
and don’t rob someone of the present joy and future rewards of giving. Instead,
watch and learn. Then lay God’s assets on the table, and ask him what He
wants you to give away.”

Randy’s story reminded me of my own story. What I call the Ford Falcon Treasure Principle. Alcorn’s words and Christ’s words mentioned in The Treasure Principle have stirred in me a passion to take a closer look at money and possessions. I want God to speak into my life and my finances like did when I was 21. The truth is…I’ve probably listened to other believers too much. I need to get back to listening for God’s voice and not letting any other voice drown his out.

Jesus - bring me back to that place of surrender and give me the courageto follow through on the plans you whisper to me. help me to not give into what I or others may think is the better idea. Help me to follow you and storeup treasure in heaven. After all, I came here with nothing and I leave with nothing. Call me God, I’m listening. - Chris.

(1886-1977) Como militante comunista desde los primeros momentos, en 1919 había participado junto a Béla Kun en el intento fallido de crear la primera república socialista húngara. Ante el fracaso revolucionario tuvo que emigrar a la Unión Soviética y pasado el tiempo luchó con las Brigadas Internacionales en la Guerra Civil Española. Al terminar la Segunda Guerra Mundial fue nombrado jefe de la policía de Budapest y posteriormente embajador en Moscú. En octubre de 1956 fue Ministro del Interior en el Gobierno Nagy. Colaborador de János Kádár, participó junto a éste en la formación del “Gobierno revolucionario, obrero y campesino” de 4 de noviembre y fue nombrado Vicepresidente y Ministro de Defensa. Siempre fiel al comunismo soviético, perteneció al Politburó del Partido Socialista Obrero Húngaro kádárista entre 1957 y 1965; también en esta época, de 1958 a 1961, ocupó el cargo de Primer Ministro, y entre ese último año y 1965 fue Ministro de Estado.

No, I have not seen the movie, obviously. I watched the trailer a while ago set to the phenomenal song “Wild is the Wind” by Nina Simone. I think that song made that trailer, because no matter what you think, trailers do affect whether we see films or not.

I can’t even put a number on the times I have closed a trailer 10 seconds into it because of inane music, awkward nonsense, embarrassing Hollywood action hero close-ups (I’m talking to you Marky “Max Payne” Mark, and of course unintentional plot spoilers. They do the latter with romantic comedies all the time! For some reason they will show a series of “funny” introductions to both characters, show them bickering and crying and staring at each other longingly, and then during a terrible music montage, they show the characters making out against an elevator or something! What? Isn’t the point of a trailer to make us want to see the film to find out what happens? But hey with Hollywood these days, who doesn’t foresee the overpaid blank stars hooking up in a badly written romance? Yes I said blank, not minimalistic, blank. I’m sorry but there is a difference before Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Keanu Reeves. Moot point.

And back from my ramble, Revolutionary Road! Wow, I remember reading this book. I read it in conjuction with watching Into the Wild. Horrid combination. I came out feeling horribly depressed about the state of my life living in plastic white boxes, and watching poetry pass by as I read my calculus book. Lovely feeling. But listen, I loved reading Revolutionary Road and I loved Into the Wild (though in hindsight…Christopher McCandless could have been a tad bit practical).

Revolutionary Road was written by Richard Yates in 1961, where two vastly different generations were pit against each other in this world. You can practically understand where Yates is coming from, his general distaste (I’m assuming) for the suburbs popping up everywhere like a disease, and the loss of originality and passion in this trite era. And the final grudging acceptance of something that cannot be prevented. All this sounds like a pile of bullshit, but that’s because it’s coming from me. Go read that book. You’ll understand the distress he and his characters go through trying to live their live to the standards they had once set for themselves in such a suppressing environment. It’s depressing, and yet poetically written. I find that funny that a book about monotony can be so poetic. It’s a testament to Yate’s subtlety and genius.

And the trailer has put me into high hopes. Though I occasionally regret that we can’t have some new unknowns helm this film, I think the casting was well done. And from the 3 minutes that I have seen, Sam Mendes seems to have injected that melancholy into this film. Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio will reunite and play the strained couple, Frank and April Wheeler. Kathy Bates is on for the ride as the superficial Helen Givings. I’m a bit skeptical about that, but what I am fascinated most by is Michael Shannon being cast as the crazy but brilliant John Givings. I hope he does that complex character justice, the film couldn’t possibly be complete without some good acting on Shannon’s part. They didn’t show his part, but I hope to see his character isn’t cut down too significantly in the film. Honestly, the trailer showing mainly DiCaprio and Winslet was probably a marketing move to get people excited. You know, the whole “Titanic Part 2, this time without Celine Dion” deal going on with them reuniting.

Anyways, I think I’ve dissected a simple trailer more than is necessary. I’m off, enjoy your day and take it for what it’s worth.

-me

(1889-1961) Se convirtió en Presidente del Gobierno tras el triunfo del Partido de los Pequeños Propietarios en las elecciones del 4 de noviembre de 1945. Pocos meses después -1 de febrero de 1946- abandonó ese puesto para ocupar el cargo de Presidente de la República. En la primera mitad de los años cincuenta se le obligó a retirarse de la vida pública y sufrió arresto domiciliario. Durante la insurrección de octubre y noviembre de 1956, en el segundo Gobierno de Imre Nagy, fue nombrado Ministro de Estado en representación del Partido de los Pequeños Propietarios. En 1958, en el mismo proceso judicial urdido contra Nagy, Tildy fue condenado a seis años de prisión. Liberado en 1959, murió dos años después.

Erik TEUGHELS, broer van Frans, zie voorgaand bericht, heeft niet alleen onze website ontdekt, maar er meteen een positieve bijdrage toe geleverd.  Nu we toch contact hebben gekregen met de TEUGHELS-brothers, meteen de vraag of zij geen eigen foto’s of documenten hebben in verband met het atheneum.  Stuur ze naar Frans MERTENS of Willem VAN COTTHEM voor vervollediging van deze website.  Zij sturen jullie na gebruik de documenten terug.  Met overweldigende dank.

En dan hier het bericht :

Senator Barack Obama has secured the Presidency of the United States with a landslide 338-156 victory (with 44 Electoral votes to be assigned). His victory was announced and confirmed at 11:00 PM November 4th, 2008.

President-Elect Obama gave a speech in Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois to a crowd estimated at over 100,000 people. His message focused not on past glories, the hard fought campaign, or what we did. Rather, President-Elect Obama spoke in his eloquent manner about what we must do to continue the fight for a better America. A brighter America for our children.

As we were sitting and watching this history taking place, my wife said something profound and I’d like to share it with you. She said: “I get it know.” When I asked her what she meant, she said, “I finally understand what the people who supported John Kennedy felt when he was elected President. That feeling of hope and optimism. Things will get better.”

All I could do was nod in agreement. Things will get better, but it will be a tough road. As President-Elect Obama said, (and I am paraphrasing here), the real work starts now.

I want to shift gears here and talk a little about Senator John McCain. As Keith Olbermann said, ‘let’s call him the runner up,’ I can’t bring myself to call him a loser. Yes, he lost the campaign. Does this make him a loser? No.

Senator McCain did the right thing in giving a quick concession speech. Of course, this was a clear Obama victory, so any move McCain made would be seen as political suicide. In his speech, the John McCain of old, the knowledgeable, wise man whom I once held such great respect for, came once again to the surface. He was secure, I think, and happy, that the long and arduous fight was over.

In his concession speech, John McCain regained his humanity, and the courage to stop his followers from shouting nasty things or getting ugly. This is the John McCain I respected; the true Maverick of Washington.

I want to publicly thank John McCain for not dragging this country through the mud in a long drawn out process of litigation and Supreme Court rulings. It would’ve been bad for the country and I am glad and heartened that John McCain recognized that and graciously stepped aside when he did.

I’ve been critical of you, Senator McCain, and I apologize for the harsh words. It was a campaign, after all, and these things are done in a political campaign. Sure, I wasn’t exactly the front lines here, but my obvious support of Barack Obama was, I think, helping out the cause in some small way. I honestly don’t know if I changed anyone’s mind or not by what I wrote here. If I did, fantastic. If I didn’t, well that’s okay too.

Senator McCain, you are a classy man and a fine opponent.

The next four years will be difficult. None more difficult than the next few months when the changeover of power will occur and the swearing in ceremony. I will watch on TV and see the man I helped elect lead this country to new heights.

In retrospect, and by the numbers, this is what the 2008 Presidential Election means to me.

Barack Obama: He was born in 1961, three years before the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.
WonderGoon: I was born in 1971, 7 years after the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Barack Obama: He is 47 years old.
WonderGoon: I am 37 years old.
Barack Obama: He was born at a time when America had never heard of a place named Viet Nam.
WonderGoon: I was born at a time when America wished they’d never heard of a place named Viet Nam.

For me, these are striking numbers. Sure, they don’t mean squat to anyone else, but its interesting to note them for the fact that these numbers mean I feel a kinship with Barack Obama that goes deeper than party affiliation. We are of the same generation and that’s one reason, one of the main reasons why I supported him for President.

It brought home a sense that I can accomplish great things, too. In Barack Obama I see what America could be; it’s greatness restored on a world stage. “We can once again be a shining beacon of democracy for the world,” President-Elect Obama said in his acceptance speech.

In Barack Obama I see that shining light, that moral example, of how great this country once was, and could be again.

President-Elect Obama has given a lot of Americans hope. Hope that, we too, can have a better future, a brighter future, not only for us, but for our children, and their children as well.

And if you are one of those Americans who think that we Obama supporters signed your death warrant, all I can say to you is please give President Obama a chance to prove you wrong. I honestly believe that Obama was the best choice for the Presidency, and I hope that after a few months in office, you will see that things are looking up. And things will get better. Life, like politics, economics, etcetera, is cyclical. We’ve had a downturn. Soon, an upturn will occur. It’s the way of the universe. Just have patience and everything will be fine.

I know this is a rambling post, and I covered a lot of ground, but I felt I had to say these things. I felt the need to wax poetic, if you will, on the state of this country and the future we all share.

May whatever Gods and/or Goddesses you pray to bless you with prosperity and joy for all the days of your life.

Edited to add video of President-Elect Barack Obama’s victory speech.

http://umbral.uprrp.edu/audioconferencia/los-cambios-e-u-el-punto-vista-la-ciudadani

Today, let’s talk about the biggest, baddest, most powerful man-made explosion in the history of the human race.  No, I don’t mean the experience you have whenever you bite into one of Taco Time’s Crisp Meat Burritos when they’re hot with that unbelievable salsa they serve (though that would be mighty close).  I’m referring to an actual explosion…and it’s a doozy.

On October 30, 1961, the Russians detonated the largest nuclear device ever…Tsar Bomba.  The hydrogen bomb was huge in physical size, weighing 27 tons.  It dwarfed the 5-ton device dropped on Nagasaki in 1945.  And in terms of explosive force, nothing really came close, either.  50 megatons: 100,000,000,000 pounds of TNT.  For a point of reference, the 1989 San Francisco earthquake released about 27 megatons of energy.  This was a huge bomb and it could have been “huger”, but the yield was halved (yeah, this beast was capable of 100 megatons) for the test in order to keep radioactive fallout to a minimum.

Dropped from a heavily-modified Tupolev Tu-95 Bear, the bomb was set to detonate at 13,000 feet above the ground of Novaya Zemlya, a remote island just below the Arctic Circle.  In order to the give the plane time to get away, a massive parachute slowed the bomb’s descent.  And at 11:32am, the planet took a big bite of a piping hot Crisp Meat Burrito…almost.

YouTube has a few of the videos, and they’re pretty awesome.  Check them out.

The fireball from the explosion touched the ground, which means it was nearly six miles in diameter.  The light from the blast could be seen more than 600 miles away (find a map and locate a place 600 miles from where you’re sitting…you could see the light from there), and the mushroom cloud rose to (are you ready?) 210,000 feet (Mount Everest is 29,000 feet tall).  The thermal pulse was felt 170 miles away.  Windows were broken at 550 miles.  Buildings were completely flattened 35 miles away.  Anyone within 60 miles would have received 3rd degree burns…and likely died.  And a measurable shockwave circled the planet…3 times.  Had this been a full-yield explosion, the results would boggle the mind still more.

Of course, Tsar Bomba was completely impractical.  It was too large and heavy to really carry on a bomber, required all kinds of special handling equipment, and frankly, a much smaller device (or a multi-warhead ballistic missile) would effectively destroy any city.  But it was the 60’s, and the Cold War was in full swing.  Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev needed a way to intimidate the West, so what better way to scare the nuclear powers than with the single most powerful nuclear weapon ever?  The bomb was designed and built in a matter of months, and there would only be two examples built.  The one we know about.  The other, a model, was put in a Soviet museum.

But now my mind is on those Burritos, even though I just had some yesterday…

Recommended Activity: Find a Taco Time restaurant and eat Crisp Meat Burritos - Nearly the same explosion of flavor as you’d get from Tsar Bomba…way less fallout to rot your teeth.

For the movie review I initially thought I would do the Wizard of Oz, but then I decided I wanted to watch a movie I had never seen but one that so many people have raved about to me; Breakfast at Tiffany’s. This 1961 movie was based off a Truman Capote novel and captured the life of Holly Golightly, or Lula Mae, who is played by the one and only Audrey Hepburn. The movie itself, I loved. The main thing that caught me throughout it was the repetition of Moon River during different scenes and times– many times it was a different version or way of displaying the song; through whistling or through different instruments as opposed to the actual song. Anyway, I also liked the colors in the movie and the natural old-quality of the movie. I do love how for the most part Holly was always wearing her well-known black dress and smoking. There were certain scenes I particularly liked: the one where Paul and Holly are in the convenience store and she wants him to steal something since he never has. There is an angle they take at one point that focuses on the hands of her going over each item in the store. I also liked the scene at the end with Holly and Paul in the cab and her throwing the cat out– this is where I really saw the old quality and loved the outside picture and the rain. Finally, I really liked the sets that were used for the apartments. I felt like they really showed what things looked like in the past, and even more specifically in New York City. For never seeing this movie before I really enjoyed watching it; however, I would like to watch it again and just take in the movie instead of watching for certain aspects of the movie that I liked and didn’t like.

The movie “nazraana” of 1961 had not one but two deepawali songs. One was a happy deepawali song and the other was the sad one. The sad deepawali song ” ek wo bhi deewali this ek ye bhi deewali hai” is the most pupular song of this movie.

Today is Deepawali, I present the lesser known deepawali song on this occasion. And I wish happy deepawali to all the visitors of this blog.

Song- Mele hain chiraagon ke rangeen deewali haiai(Nazraana 1961) Singer-Lata, Lyrics-Rajinder Krishan, MD-Ravi

Lyrics

Mele hain chiraagon ke
rangeen deewali hai
mahka hua gulshan hai
hansta hua maali hai
Mele hain chiraagon ke
rangeen deewali hai
mahka hua gulshan hai
hansta hua maali hai

Iss raat koi dekhe dharti ke nazaaron ko
sharmaate hain ye deepak aakash ke taaron ko
Iss raat koi dekhe dharti ke nazaaron ko
sharmaate hain ye deepak aakash ke taaron ko
is raat ka kya kahna
is raat ka kya kahna
ye raat nirali hai
mahka hua gulshan hai
hansta hua maali hai
Mele hain chiraagon ke
rangeen deewali hai
mahka hua gulshan hai
hansta hua maali hai

Khaa jaaye nazar dhokha
jugnu hai yaa phuljhadiyan
Khaa jaaye nazar dhokha
jugnu hai yaa phuljhadiyan
baraat hain taaron ki
ya rang bhari ladiyan
baraat hain taaron ki
ya rang bhari ladiyan

hothon pe traaane hain
hothon pe traaane hain
bajti huyi taali hai
mahka hua gulshan hai
hansta hua maali hai
Mele hain chiraagon ke
rangeen deewali hai
mahka hua gulshan hai
hansta hua maali hai

Champs Elisees, 1961

Η κόρη ενός ναυάρχου μπαίνει κρυφά στο πλοίο που διοικεί ο πατέρας της για να συναντήσει τον αγαπημένο της.

To learn more about these great photographs click on them or write eaphotoclub@chogenki.com