golf59324

I feel compelled to write something regarding a football club which I have supported, albeit mainly from a distance, since I was a boy. The last disgraceful episode in the history of Aston Villa Fc was the 3-0 defeat at Doncaster in the league cup. I can take nothing away from Doncaster, who played like lions on the night. They were full of running and pressurised us from the word go. However the point here is that a team of Aston Villa's obvious size, standing and sometimes glorious past should have been far too much for even the bravest of lower division teams. This was not a one off; sadly it was indicative of the general malaise which seems to have set in at the club over the last two years.

Here is a good example. our 9million pound club record signing, Juan Pablo Angel strolled round the park (when he did actually move) looking like he did not want to be there. For the most part he loped towards the opposition penalty area when we got forward and then stood around waiting for something to happen. I am no expert in the art of striking, but from many hours watching some of the best strikers in the world even I can tell that a good striker will make something happen, not wait for it to fall into his lap. The fact that he has only managed to score this season against lowly Wickham Wanderers, in an earlier round of the cup, I think says it all.

Liam Ridgewell had a nightmare against Doncaster, giving away a penalty and being lucky not to concede another only a few minutes earlier, however, the fact that he was so noticeably bad at least confirmed some effort on his part. Thomas Sorenson played well throughout and the 3-0 score line will look badly on his record, but was mainly down to shambolic defending. Gareth Barry also had a good game, frequently getting down the left on Doncasters wide pitch. However whenever he did so the moves were broken up by the fact that no one was making the runs into the centre for him and our static strikers were being easily marked by defenders they should have been running rings round.

Perhaps the only other player I cannot fault for effort was Milan Barros, who unfortunately looked like he did not relish the cold and his touch on the ball was often well short of what we know he is capable of. I think the game perhaps turned on the penalty claim which TV replays show was an abject penalty when Milan Barros was chopped down in the box. Villa seemed to give up after the penalty was turned down. That aside Doncaster should have had another one when Liam Ridgewell very deliberately shoulder barged one of their players off the ball.

Considering that the league cup was our only realistic chance of success this season, you would have thought that we could have expected a little bit more from the players. It seems to me that the hunger has gone from the side and we have accepted the mid-table mediocrity that is so often the result of a long hard season. And indeed, the league position suggests that they think that even that will be handed to them on a plate. Quite simply it is not good enough. These players are earning - a very loose definition of the word - thousands of pounds per week, and much of that comes out of the ordinary supporters pockets.

I know for a fact that Aston Villa have some of the most fiercely loyal supporters in the land, which perhaps explains why they continue to spend money on substandard products rather than shop elsewhere. However you cannot help thinking that in years to come, unless things change radically, this will not be the case. In todays society where more and more people are moving away from their towns of birth for employment and social reasons, clubs cannot rely on regional association to maintain their fan base and success, however infrequent, is the only thing which will keep the fans returning.

Aston Villa has always been considered the bigger of the two Birmingham clubs and indeed Birmingham is the second largest city in england. To not have a football team in the top half of the table challenging for honours is unacceptable, or at the very least, surreal.

I have been reading recently that Doug Ellis has finally decided to relinquish control of the club. Doug has done very well for Aston Villa over the years (I am not one of those who blames him for our demise) and has managed to keep the business in a very strong position financially when so many other clubs are in deep financial trouble. Unfortunately the world of football has moved on from when Doug started and it is time for a fresh injection of cash and some new faces to try and revive the club. I sincerely believe it is time for a wholesale change in personnel at the club, players and manager alike.

Irish property developers the Comer Brothers and Michael Neville who are looking to purchase Villa for around 64million will certainly inject some cash to be spent on players, but my cynical side tells me giving it to a manager who fails to inspire his team will merely lead to a squandering of a golden opportunity. Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against david O'Leary as a manager and I think in the right circumstances he is very capable. I am suggesting, however, that he has become associated with the failures of Villa over the past couple of years and retaining him for much longer will keep that link to the bad days, when the club needs much more positive input. Likewise Juan Pablo Angel. He is simply another in the long line of expensive strikers who have moved to Villa and failed to live up to their potential. He is a very talented individual and I think perhaps he would benefit from a change of clubs. It is time to cut our losses.

For the Villa fans, we can only hope that the new year brings a new attitude at the club and that things will improve - lets face it, they cant get much worse after a 3-0 defeat at Doncaster!

America is a nation of self-disclosers, amiably acceptant of our weaknesses. Celebrities, family members, coworkers and friends think nothing of admitting their compulsions and dependencies on alcohol, street drugs, prescription medications. We enter rehab programs, clean up, dry out, and go on with our lives: beating our problem or entering a long series of relapses and treatment episodes. Except, perhaps, for politicians or ministers, there is little social stigma attached to such mistakes unless there are criminal overtones that may lead to incarceration.

Television and films have educated us on the dangers and side effects of dependence upon alcohol, heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, designer drugs, steroids, pain pills, cannabis and opium. We had to coin the term chemical dependency (CD) to completely cover the broad and ever-growing field. We approach individuals ensnared in their abuse as victims of a disease, to be educated and helped as long as they have a willingness to change and are prepared for the painful journey that owning responsibility for one's own self-destructive behavior demands.

But the most widespread, self-destructive, dangerous addiction afflicting America is never discussed: FOOD.

The treatment of overeating is extensive: diet clinics, fitness programs, fat farms, plastic surgery. We collectively spend billions of dollars on weight loss aids and fitness equipment. We decry the epidemic of obesity that is overtaking our population to an enormous (literally) degree. We investigate metabolism and hormonal effects. We debate the comparative merits and flaws of protein, fats, carbohydrates, and roughage. We develop new vitamin and mineral formulae. Diet books, support groups, internet clubs, and television shows trumpet tips, techniques, special aids and hundreds of weight control regimes that promise inevitable weight loss with the right combination of "tasty" and "delicious" foods, guaranteed to ensure that our comfort levels remain high and our self-discipline minimally challenged.

We fail to confront the irrefutable fact that obesity is caused by food addiction. Excuses and metabolic rationales aside (No, Virginia, no one ever walked out of a Nazi concentration camp or a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp fat -macabre but true) our out-of-control overweight is a direct result of our obsession with, and dependency on, too much food.

You may disagree. After all, the other CD addictions are for substances we can totally banish from our lives whereas we have to eat to live.

Consider the problem from a slightly different perspective. In the United States, an "all or nothing" society, the goal of the typical CD treatment program is total abstention. The alcoholic is taught that one sip of liquor is never acceptable and constitutes a full relapse from which recovery must start over. In Europe, and many other parts of the world, moderation is considered more realistic than abstention. The goal is to lower the level of usage to the point where it has no deleterious effects on the user's life and the problems - work, relationships, mood, productivity -are resolved.

Such a model can more easily be applied to food. Our bodies require a certain level of sustenance to thrive. It is when the intake becomes excessive that problems arise: appearance, the inability to be active, fatigue, depressed mood, and strains on the internal organs. If we can temper that level of intake, we can avert the consequences that follow overindulgence in anything.

Such is indeed the focus of many weight control programs. However, they are missing one vital ingredient: acceptance of personal responsibility. At a 12-Step meeting, members repetitively admit to the group: "My name is B and I'm an alcoholic." Imagine, if you will, the different atmosphere that would be engendered if a member were to state: "My name is B. I drink a lot because I inherited the genes from my drunken parents and I can't drink, like all my friends can, without overdoing it. It's so unfair that everyone else can enjoy a drink and I can't."

Such a statement sounds ridiculous coming from an admitted problem drinker yet that is exactly what we allow from our problem eaters. It is far more likely that we will tell a close friend: "M, I think you have a problem with alcohol and I want you to get help," than we will tell an equally close friend: "G, I think you have a problem with too much eating and I want you to get help."

We remain silent about overweight because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. We use euphemisms like "heavy" and "queen-sized" to avoid the word "fat." When a very overweight friend asks plaintively, "Don't you think this dress makes me look slimmer?" we quietly agree, refusing to give the honest answer that nothing in the world will make her look slimmer except losing 60 pounds of avoirdupois!

One lesson learned over decades of CD research and treatment is that the problem must be acknowledged before it can be addressed and beaten. CD clients are notorious for making excuses, playing mind games with those around them, and shirking self-responsibility whenever they can. If we can bring ourselves to acknowledge that we are addicted to food, it allows for eventual movement into a process of change, bypassing the excuses and rationalizations at which overeaters excel -- to an extent that their CD counterparts would admire.

Confrontation of the problem requires that we drop the faade of politeness and euphemistic phrasing. As a society, we need to look at others and ourselves and call it as we see it. If I'm fat, I'm fat, and it's my responsibility to not only admit that honestly, but to also admit to myself and the world that it is my fault: I am the one who made myself fat. No one else forced food into my mouth. Like the recovering alcoholic at the bar, I can always say no or drink a plain club soda. Like the recovering cocaine addict who learns to stay away from certain street corners or drug houses, I can stay away from bakeries, fast food outlets, and pizza parlors.

Weight control can be simple - eat only what you need to survive - but never easy. The fallacy of many diets is that we can lose weight without suffering. Stopping or minimizing CD abuse is always painful and a craving for chocolate, ice cream, or the urge for sugar (no one seems to crave vegetables) can be as overwhelming to the dieter as the addict's emotional need for his drug of choice.

Naming our national weight problem for what it really is, a plain old addiction to food, releases us to start the process of rehab and recovery that has been so completely developed in the CD field. Honesty, and the willingness to work through pain to reach our goal, allows us to not only accept our responsibility for our problem but also to relish the triumph of our eventual success.

Virginia Bola is a licensed psychologist and an admitted diet fanatic. She specializes in therapeutic reframing and the effects of attitudes and motivation on individual goals. The author of The Wolf at the Door: An Unemployment Survival Manual, and a free ezine, The Worker's Edge, she recently completed a psychologically-based weight control book: Diet with an Attitude:A Weight Loss Workbook. She can be reached at http://www.DietWithAnAttitude.com

Using vitamin C products beyond recommended the limits may cause stomachaches and diarrhea. Even though the body would only use as much as it needs of the vitamin, vitamin C Overdose can hinder metabolic activities in the body.

The recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin C in nonsmoking adults is 75 mg per day for women and 90 mg per day for men. For smokers, the RDAs are 110 mg per day for women and 125 mg per day for men. A dose of 200 milligrams daily is almost enough to maximize plasma and lymphocyte levels.

Higher levels of vitamin C are needed when under environmental stress such as trauma, fever or infection. Full saturation is reached with daily intakes of 200-500 mg per day (in 2-3 divided doses). This is a water-soluble protein, and anything in excess is excreted by the body. vitamin C Overdose can cause diarrhea, gas, or stomach upset. Other side effects could be stomach cramps, nausea, and diarrhea, and an increased risk of developing kidney stones. Large amounts of vitamin C reduce body levels of copper, an essential nutrient. people with iron overload diseases must avoid vitamin C Overdose, as it increases iron absorption. Special medical advice must be taken by individuals who have kidney stones. If a pregnant mother takes 6,000 mg of vitamin C, the baby may develop rebound scurvy due to a sudden drop in daily intake. Hemochromatosis patients should not take vitamin C due to enhanced accumulation of non-heme iron in the presence of this vitamin.

Vitamin C provides detailed information about vitamin C, benefits of vitamin C, topical vitamin C, vitamin C creams and more. vitamin C is the sister site of Frequent Sinus Infections.

What is destiny of man? Or what is destiny of humanity? There are several answers suggested by philosophers but very few could answer it correctly. Philosophies of infinity declare that mans destiny should not be less than his absolute freedom. Freedom not in relative term rather freedom from all relative phenomena. These philosophies were not meditated from the point of man as desiring being rather from the point of being as pure and eternal. Mans destiny thus is not to satisfy only desires rather to realize some more important truths of life. But philosophies of modern age declare another truth and decided another destination for humanity to achieve and it was desire. Desire became the sacred philosophical truth which bore the seed of modernity. And the epistemology that narrated the philosophy of desire was rationalism.

This great narrative of desire which was narrated from the reason took many turns, this time is has incarnated in the form of philosophy of post modernism. In the history of western thought philosophy of desire had always been central theme, it was necessary for every philosopher to make it central point of investigation. Reason which is always contradictory became mans light. This reason which narrates the desire was/is desire itself. It dismantled very thing which did not supported it. Desire is blind, it sees nothing accept desire. Thus all religions and religious philosophies became obscure, irrational, speculations; rationalism which declared hitherto existed everything irrational and speculations was itself speculative from the very beginning . Started with Rene Descartes to till now, the philosophers of rationalism are speculating.

Science too which is based on the rationalist philosophy speculated not less and still is speculating however they declare that their theories are solely based on concrete observations. For example the concept of atom propagated by Vaisheshik philosophy was just speculation but the same thing when invented later by Dalton it became science. Though Dalton could not provided any proof other than a speculative hypothesis that there is a smallest particle in the matter called atom which later declared wrong since there were uncountable particles. Till today, science is speculating about the root of the matter, recently they have speculated that there is a phenomenon in the heart of the matter and thus cosmos, called string; on which everything is based. And this string is floating in time and space, it is both outside and inside, it is a kind of absolute element, from which everything is formed or which forms everything. But a symbolic expression of philosophies of infinity in this regard is useless and just an irrational idea. Einstein in his hypothetical journey once speculated that presence of mass curves space gravity is a property of space but before his death he declared that space has devoured ether and time; it seems to be on the point of swallowing up also the field and corpuscles, so that it alone remains as the vehicle of reality. But when a Vedanta philosopher says that space is primary element in the material phenomena it becomes speculation.

The rationalist- empiricist philosophy which is solely based on rational categorization of things, on sign system, on system of unity destroyed the very human endeavor to jump in the truth infinite. system of knowledge which was earlier free wandering in the matter of things became so rational and closed that it lost its inner wisdom. Rationalisms sole concern was not to take any flight rather to structuralize things, situations, events etc in order to hold power. Its major philosophical concern was to exploit people in the name of progress.

In all this progress of science and society, man was no where only there were concepts in which mans destiny was captured. Mans consciousness which he brought with him became a subject to be governed and all this was done with the political concept of common of rationalists. Man was bolted in the mechanism of common beyond it he has no individuality. Man is man through the common. The day this concept of common came into existence man lost his very freedom to think and meditate. It was Hobbes who formulated it first in his book Leviathan. He was the first rational political philosopher who said that, in the beginning, before the formation of society there was war (and it was for sex and material gain) to get rid of this bloody situation of war in which each was against each one; they came to form a common; a contract that from now on we are bound by a law of common. Of which king became head in which absolute sovereignty resided, no one could transcend his absolute sovereign power of law making and enforcing.

Since than, the theory of common is in practice, no political theory raised any question on the metaphysics of common in which man is destined to suffer. Since Hobbes, all the political theories only upgraded his theory, only refined it and made it more and more complex. Even most acclaimed revolutionary political theory of Marx too could not go beyond Hobbes. Only Heidegger raised question regarding reasons authenticity he said, the domination of intellect and logic has to be broken in order that we may raise question concerning being and nothingness. He contemplated on the relationship between man and every man (common). In being and time he said, the dictatorship of every man might be seen as a conservative, unimaginative narrow minded, and conformist way of endorsing a common cultural background, in which one identifies oneself entirely with traditional stereotype role. He too could not think beyond common though he was against mans rational positioning in the common. He says that one should learn to be responsible for oneself within the matrix of the common. Thus man can not free himself from the commonality of the common. But the Common which was formed as a system of law, in its later phase of evolution transformed in to a mechanism, of which there was a goal.

This goal, which was attributed to the common, was not of people who formed it rather of those who got hold on production mechanism. Thus the common got a goal that in its later development became universal. The goal which was set forth for the common was not any ideal or any virtue or any higher goal like liberation or moksha rather to produce. Production of materials and things related to materialism became the highest goal of common other than this what ever was existed became irrelevant. There is no pursuit of truth, if there is; it should be productive to the mechanism of production. This mechanism of production which is a movement of consciousness of self-interested rationalists, in which comes industrialists and philosophers, poets, cultural thinkers associated to it; is solely based on metaphysics of desire. Desire is the moving force of the production mechanism, in which desire is produced, things of desire is produced even culture of desire is also produced. In this production of desire man is transformed into a little beast, having lost his individuality, his freedom of consciousness; he dreams nothing other than the things of desire. This is the reason that there is no philosophy of dream, no literature of solitude, and no art which reveals mystery.

Philosophy of desire became the enemy of goodness and godliness. In it every thing is bound by desire; it is the soul of all living beings. It is the soul of art and culture which has come to an end with the revolutionary appearance of culture industry. Mans consciousness which have lost its freedom has become common consciousness; the consciousness directed towards the goal to produce the humanity of sex and war. Mans consciousness in the movement of common consciousness neither dances nor sings, if he dances and sings it is because of his business; all sacred values are considered marketable and productive. Man has been dehumanized, objectified, and rationalized in the dynamic of materialist production. In the dynamic of production man is constructed, his subjectivity is defined and re-defined. Through out history mans subjectivity has always been displaced, located, shifted from one system of production mechanism to another.

Is there any option other than the dynamic of materialist production which has now become universal concept of progress, in which man does not exist? When will man find his natural dwelling? When the set meaning of being in the world will change? Is being in the world is being through dynamic of materialist production? Isnt Heideggers suggestion a relevant one in this regard, that man should find an authentic condition of his existence in order to achieve the ideal of being authentically oneself. The ideal of being authentically oneself is what the ideal of Vedanta philosophy is. And later Vedanta as taught in Bhagvata Gita provides complete authentic condition for man to achieve his goal, which he can achieve without losing anything.

Karma yoga opens highway for humanity to reach its goal but without any accident, without any suffering. Rationalists think that there is no philosophy other than objective rationalism in which desire finds its eminence. Because they do say that all philosophies of infinite turn their face towards asceticism. These thinkers never come across the theory of karma yoga and Indian tantrik philosophies in which desire is not discarded rather is being put in a proper plane of idealist discourse. Desire is considered divine in Gita, the teacher of Gita says, desire is myself i.e. of the nature of truth itself; but only that desire which does not violate the law of Rit -the dharma underlying all phenomena.(dharma viruddhokamosmi).

In Buddhist Mahayana tantricism desire and passion is being considered as a path to realization of ultimate truth-Sunyata. In Indian philosophies desire has been regarded most important aspect of humans and it was never repressed as in the case of Christianity. In Christianity it is sin because of which man has fallen from the heaven but in Hindu philosophies it is desire when raised spiritually causes liberation.

But alas! Real question of materialist philosophers is not that that desire is not finding its eminence rather how desire could find a proper plane in their discourse of exploitation. Rationalist discourses on life never provided any solution for man. What they provided throughout the ages is the discourses of exploitations; this that how man could be enchained. How mans dignity and freedom of consciousness could be placed in the proper plane of materialist production machinery but not in materialist discourse since they know this that it can take a leap( it too can be dangerous for them). And in this they succeeded but since man can not live with bread only, every time they face problem from mans inner fluttering for liberation. This is why they go on philosophizing, creating bunch of philosophies.

Capitalist production machinery is spending a lot of money to produce a solution to the basic human problem of freedom but under the mechanism of common only. But they dont understand that reason can not provide any solution to humanity since it is divided and confused. Reason can not see the complete truth in its entirety. This is the reason that throughout its history it has a tendency to return back to theologies for support. Reason has destroyed all possibilities of mans leaping into unknown realities. It has destroyed the tradition of philosophizing the questioning of extra ordinary as Nietzsche have said. The philosophies of reason have always organized things, made arrangements, fitted man in a situation from where he could not escape. The whole history of rationalism shows that it has never had any holy purpose; it was vicious from the very outset, since than, when it rejected the very tendency of peoples questioning about infinity. It rejected mans quest for timeless value, a timeless truth not from the rational point of view rather from the sake of rejecting itself since it never fully took the systematic rational approach.

For instance, the approach of scientific experimentation is based on the to see the truth in the laboratory through physical means only, if any said truth is not tested in laboratory or through any physical testing mechanism it is bluntly declared false. Truth must be seen in microscope since only than it could be utilized, could be usable, could be made for production. Everything sublime was thus destroyed for the sake of materialist production. Though these philosophies of infinity were always helpful in providing humanity some immortal values as for as humanity as such is concerned. For materialist production mechanism these philosophies had been useful throughout the ages and still it is, but now some postmodernist want to destroy the remaining ties too. Because they want to make humanity utterly material, the materially refined man, a man-machine even they want to open factories where subjectivities would be produced.

In producing mechanical subjectivities culture would play the most important role as it played in history. Marxists have used it in their struggle against capitalism. This question of culture is most important regarding society of control and on this issue Theodore Adorno has fought most remarkable war against capitalist ideologues. Being Marxist he was always in the favor of autonomy of culture since he wanted to save mans being: pure and authentic. When he was invited by one American researcher of American Traditions of Applied Social Research Mr. Paul Lazaesfeld to help in his research on the relations between culture and policy, he refuted his request remarking that, culture is opposed to administration. Culture would like to be higher and more pure, something untouchable which can not be tailored according to any tactical or technical considerations.

In educated language, this line of thought makes reference to the autonomy of culture. Popular opinion even takes pleasure in associating the concept of personality with it. Culture is viewed as the manifestation of pure humanity without regard for its functional relationships within society. Against his approach to culture Researcher Mr. Paul reacted that Adorno should aspire to greater empirical precision, that culture might be precisely that condition that excludes a mentality capable of measuring it. Thus the capitalist intellectuals want to exclude people (those who can raise any question) from the field of culture in order to control them through the culture itself. New destiny of man is machine and he is becoming. All philosophies which advocate mans freedom through a system are administrative philosophies and are aspiring towards absolute power therefore are against man. When most sublime aspect of humanity is structured, becomes organizational, territorial, productive, and mechanical than know that man is dead. In this dark age of mechanical production of mans consciousness there is only light; to raise questions and wage a war against those criminals of humanity, who having lost all hopes in the divine play of life want to play the game of war and sex.

Author is an art critic and writer of three books 'contemporizing Buddha', ' Hindu Tantra Yoga' and 'Concerning The spiritual In Art-an Indian modern art perspective'. He has been awarded with 'Lalit kala Academy Scholarship Award' for art criticism in 2005. Currently working on a book 'Buddhist tantra yoga'. He lives and works in Delhi india.