Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Laff it off

The elderly Italian man went to his parish priest and asked if the priest would hear his confession. "Of course, my son," said the priest.

"Well, Father, at the beginning of World War Two, a beautiful woman knocked on my door and asked me to hide her from the Germans; I hid her in my attic, and they never found her."

"That's a wonderful thing, my son, and nothing that you need to confess," said the priest."It's worse, Father; I was weak, and told her that she had to pay for rent of the attic with her sexual favors," continued the old man.

"Well, it was a very difficult time, and you took a large risk - you would have suffered terribly at their hands if the Germans had found you hiding her; I know that God, in his wisdom and mercy, will balance the good and the evil, and judge you kindly," said the priest.

"Thanks, Father," said the old man. "That's a load off of my mind. Can I ask another question?""Of course, my son," said the priest.

The old man asked, "Do I need to tell her that the war is over?"



LG said...


Anonymous said...

Common statements of girls after Exams and Wedding Night:

It was tough but It was good.

It was too long.

I got tired.

I know but I was not able to do it well.

krystyna said...


Anonymous said...

To avoid condom related accident use 2 condoms with chilli powder in between them. If outer one breaks she will know and if inner one breaks you will know!

zingtrial said...

Hi!He!He!He! cool .hope you doing well .All the best

MARIA said...


Anonymous said...

NEW DELHI: With US president George W Bush facing criticism from all political parties for his remarks linking the Indian middle class to the international food crisis, it was only natural that US ambassador David C Mulford would try to put the US president’s remarks in perspective.

Reacting to the domestic political criticism against Mr Bush, Mr Mulford said the president was not making any critical comments against India or Indians and maintained, “hostile political commentary is not productive.”

Mr Mulford pointed out that Mr Bush is a ``great friend and admirer’’ of India who in his remarks had merely expressed his support for the progress developing nations were making in both food production and nutrition. The president, he said, had expressed concern about the global food price increase and called on all nations to help in the fight against hunger. He further said that Mr Bush has increased the US food aid contributions to $5 billion over the next two years.

``I believe that this is a time for increased cooperation among nations to solve this problem and that hostile political commentary is not productive,’’ Mr Mulford said in a bid to deflect the attention from the criticism level.
Mr Bush’s remarks had led to outrage among India’s political classes with defence minister A K Anthony calling it a `cruel joke’.

Mr Anthony had further pointed out that the policies of the US which included diversion of agriculture land for bio-fuel purposes, was contributing to the global food shortage. The BJP had called the US president’s assessment `absurd’ and in turn criticised the Manmohan Singh government for failing to react to the issue.

Mr Bush had praised the fast growth of developing countries but pointed out that India’s growing middle class was pushing up consumption leading to higher food prices. He said that prosperity in countries like India is good but that it led to demands for “better nutrition.”

“That’s bigger than America... and when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up,” said Mr Bush said. He had also pegged the Indian middle class at 350 million people who were pushing up food prices. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had also linked the growing wealth of Indians and Chinese in pushing up food prices.

Anonymous said...

Sridhar Krishnaswami
Washington, May 6 (PTI) Close on the heels of President George W Bush's remarks linking Indians' food habits to rising global prices of commodities, the United States has now partly attributed the surge in oil futures to the increased demand in India and China.

"There are a lot of different ways that we can reduce our dependence, but we have more to do and it's just -- and also I would point out that, obviously, the demand for oil is growing around the world," White House Deputy Spokesman Scott Stanzel said in a briefing.

"Many developing nations like India or China are having greatly increased demand, which obviously is having an impact on price," the senior White House official said responding to a question on the crude oil price crossing USD 120-mark.

The senior White House official stressed that it was important for the United States to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

Highlighting the need for "domestic exploration", he said "We also have to do more in terms of building refineries. We haven't built refineries in about 30 years".

Stanzel also spoke regarding Bush's remarks, which have drawn a lot of flak from every section in India, saying the United States saw "higher living standards" of people there as a "good thing".

"We think that it is a good thing that countries are developing; that more and more people have higher and higher standards of living," he said.

However, he apparently did not go back on Bush's point that Indian food habits were contributing to spiralling prices of commodities, which in turn, were worsening the global food crisis. PTI

Anonymous said...

Barack Obama wins in North Carolina, 'loses Indiana'
Barack Obama again dominated the black vote scoring over 90 per cent
Image :1 of 2

Tim Reid in Washington and Tom Baldwin in Indianapolis
Barack Obama decisively won the North Carolina primary last night, while Hillary Clinton appears to have prevailed in Indiana, a split decision that left the former First Lady running out of time to wrench the Democratic nomination from her rival’s grasp.

Mr Obama’s big win in North Carolina robbed Mrs Clinton of the “game-changing” victory she badly needed to alter the course of the Democratic nomination battle, although her apparent victory in Indiana kept her hopes alive. Defeat there would almost certainly have doomed her campaign.

The likely failure of Mr Obama to win both states, and Mrs Clinton’s inability to cause a big upset in North Carolina, means their marathon battle is likely to grind on until the last contests in South Dakota and Montana on June 3. Mrs Clinton is expected to make clear her determination to press on until the end.

Yet Mr Obama’s aides were far happier with the result than those in the Clinton camp. His victory in North Carolina erased Mrs Clinton’s popular vote majority in Pennsylvania’s primary on April 22, and he was likely to end the night having increased his lead among pledged delegates.

Related Links
Super-delegates refuse to end Democratic fight
US elections: Q&A
Rolling commentary on the results
Full coverage of the US elections
Referring to Mrs Clinton’s recent prediction that North Carolina would be a game changer, Mr Obama declared to cheering crowd in Raleigh: “There was a time when they were saying North Carolina would be a game changer.” He added: “Tonight we stand less than 200 delegates away” from winning the nomination.

With just six contests left, Mr Obama will emerge in June with the most elected delegates, although not enough to clinch the nomination. The race will almost certainly be determined by the party’s 795 unelected “super-delegates” - the congressmen, senators, governors, former presidents and senior officials who can back either candidate. One of her last remaining chances of swinging them her way was to win both North Carolina and Indiana.

“The reality of this is that Senator Clinton would have to win close to 70 per cent of the remaining delegates - that’s a very tall order,” said David Axelrod, Mr Obama’s chief strategist. “We feel good about the position we are in.” Robert Gibbs, his communication director, said: “The finishing line is in sight.”

Mr Obama’s victory in North Carolina was once again based on overwhelming backing from African-Americans. Over 90 per cent voted for him in the Tar Heel state, where 36 per cent of registered Democrats are black.

As Mr Obama took another step toward the nomination, there was nevertheless strong signs that Democrats have become more polarised along race, class and gender lines than at any stage in his battle against Mrs Clinton, increasing concerns among party leaders that it can reunify for the general election in November.

Fully 40 per cent of people who voted for Mrs Clinton in Indiana said they would not vote for Mr Obama in the general election. In both states, two-thirds of Mrs Clinton’s supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Mr Obama as the nominee.

In Indiana, as in North Carolina, over 90 per cent of African Americans backed Mr Obama. Over two-thirds of blue-collar whites in both states backed Mrs Clinton. In North Carolina, Mrs Clinton won white women 63 per cent to 33, and white men 54 per cent to 40. Mr Obama overwhelmingly won the young, and the educated, upper income voting bloc. Two-thirds of older voters backed the former First Lady.

In both states, half of voters said the controversy over Mr Obama’s former pastor had influenced their vote, although it likely galvanised blacks to turn out for Mr Obama, while having the opposite effect for Mrs Clinton.

Paul Begala, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, and a supporter of Mrs Clinton, said of Mr Obama: “We can’t win the White House with egg heads and African Americans.”

Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s campaign manager in 2000 and an African American, retorted angrily: “Stop splitting us. Don’t tell me I can’t stand in Hillary’s camp because I’m black.” Mrs Clinton’s apparent win in Indiana, and her overwhelming white support in North Carolina, will be used to bolster her argument that Mr Obama cannot win over enough white blue-collar voters - a key voting bloc - in a general election against John McCain. Two of the next three contests are in West Virginia and Kentucky, states that favour the former First Lady.

Yet she cannot ignore the fact the the arithmetic of the race, and her failure to spring a surprise last night, leaves Mr Obama in a commanding position.

Hide the form

Have your say

300 characters left

* Name
* Email

* Town

* Required

Remember me

Terms and conditions

PrintEmailPost to del.icio.usPost to FarkPost to Yahoo!Post to Digg
Also in US Elections
Barack Obama wins in North Carolina, 'loses Indiana'
Super-delegates refuse to end Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama
Indiana and North Carolina 'split' between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

Anonymous said...

ONE of the easiest ways to heckle or ignite an NRI, I found was to ask in the midst of a genial conversation, “Wash or wipe?”

The context is unmistakable and the question goes home immediately. We all know that paper or water in the toilet is no yardstick to measure the degree of patriotism but it very well could be going by my NRI friends’ discomfiture.

Looks like the conversion to a western way of life tentatively begins with the unruly Indian tongue massaging its “r”s into doughy “zh”s and definitively ends with the bottom demanding paper over water.

And between the tongue and the bottom, between wash and wipe, lies a long-drawn process of cultural adjustment and appropriation and a great continental shift in world view.

Starting with better adjusted candidates — Vinu Warrier from Canada insisted that the “wash or wipe dilemma was the most under-mentioned problem of diaspora”.

He asserts his dual citizenship by always wiping with paper first and later washing in the tub. (Thanks for telling.

When I visit you I shan’t roll in your tub.) An uncle of mine admitted that he washed in India and wiped in America (that must be one long journey for so poor a cause!).

Sathya in Australia confessed that he wet paper with water and used them as wet wipes (eligible candidate for dual citizenship).

Moving on to difficult customers — Raghavan s(h)itting pretty in Boston delivered a stinging monologue on the state of the Indian loos before condescending to answer the question “Wash or wipe?” “With the western loo,” he boomed, “you have to deal with your own ass being a little less than squeaky clean after a trip.

With the Indian style loo, you are frequently wondering what exactly you are stepping on when you enter.

So, given the choice between having a little of my own produce on my ass and having other people’s produce on my feet (and possibly hands) I choose the former, as any rational human being would. So that resolves it, right?”

Pavithra in London discussing the “yuck factor” of Indian toilets said, “Despite all the newfound economic prosperity we Indians seem quite reluctant to give up our rusty iron bucket in the loo bequeathed to us by our grandmothers.

Also, you are sure that the previous visitor, after finishing his business picked up the bucket with his unwashed hands and put it back in place under the dripping tap. Paper is definitely cleaner, drier and undeniably better,” she concluded.

On her first visit to India, Rumi after just one typical Punjabi meal declared, “Why water? Indians need ice.” When the fire in her tongue (and elsewhere) subsided she couldn’t stop laughing over the all new Indian bathroom contraption.

“The mini shower hose is a riot, an invention to apparently ensure dry bathroom floors. My aunt sort of missed the whole point. She dethroned from the western closet, squatted on the floor and got her aim wrong and ended up spraying her tummy and face before she finally figured it out. Boy! Paper is god sent!”

The “Wash or wipe?” question seems a dipstick study on an NRI’s love or contempt for his country and its way of life.

The toilet paper I am afraid is no ordinary tissue — it is the final cord that permanently binds our brethren to the alien land, a filament that severs the umbilical cord with their homeland, a line that draws our brothers out of the Indian amniotic waters.

Beyond the wash-and-wipe dilemma lies the great NRI toilet dream that my good friend Raghavan dreams for the east and west alike. “Sometimes as I sit on my own humble loo with just a roll of paper on the side, I dream about a day when every loo will spray, dry, powder and fondly pat each ass that comes its way.”

Now we know what lies in the bottom of the Non Resident Indian’s heart or should we say in the heart of the Non Resident Indian’s bottom?