John O'Shea Announces Retirement From International Football


The 38 years old John O'Shea the Irishman who graduated from Manchester United in the year 1999 has announced his intention to quit international football at the end of 2019 session.

John O'Shea is a former Manchester United defender.

Further more, in an open letter when John O'Shea announced his retirement from international football in May last year, O'Shea paid tribute to Sir Alex Ferguson, who was recovering from a brain haemorrhage at the time.

He gained cult-hero status at Old Trafford, where he stayed until 2011, winning the Champions League, five Premier League titles, one FA Cup and two FIFA Club World Cups, while he made a total of 393 appearances for the club.

"I would like to acknowledge the support I have always received from Sunderland and, prior to that, Manchester United, in particular, Sir Alex Ferguson," the defender wrote.

"I've never taken anything in life for granted and the passing in the last year of my dad, Jim, and my friend and team-mate Liam Miller has shown me that every moment in life (not just football) should be cherished."

President Donald Trump’s Efforts To End America’s Longest War, Begins In Qater

The United States of America President Donald Trump talked with the Taliban in Qatar. These are part of President Donald Trump’s efforts to end America’s longest war, which began when U.S.-backed forces ousted the Taliban weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

In the consequences of the above, the four-day consultative grand assembly, known as a Loya Jirga, is an attempt by President Ashraf Ghani to influence peace talks between the United States and the Taliban, which the Taliban have excluded his government from.

The Loya Jirga is aimed at building consensus among various ethnic groups and tribal factions and is traditionally convened under extraordinary circumstances. The meeting being attended by 3,200 trial elders, and community and religious leaders from all 34 provinces, aims to set out Kabul’s conditions for any peace deal.

“It is a proud moment for me to have representatives from all over the country here and today we are gathered to speak about the peace talks,” Ghani said in an opening ceremony in huge tent set up for such assemblies in central Kabul.

Categorically,  the opposition political leaders and government critics, including former president Hamid Karzai, are boycotting the assembly. The reason for this actions are known to them.



How to Show Personal Integrity

Personal integrity generates trust and is the basis of many different kinds of deposits.  Lack of integrity can undermine almost any other effort to create high trust accounts. People can seek to understand, remember the little things, keep their promises, clarify and fulfill expectations, and still fail to build reserves of trust if they are inwardly duplicitous.  Integrity includes but goes beyond honesty. Honesty is telling the truth -- in other words, conforming our words to reality. Integrity is conforming reality to our words -- in other words, keeping promises and fulfilling expectations. This requires an integrated character, a oneness, primarily with self but also with life.

One of the most important ways to manifest integrity is to be loyal to those who are not present. In doing so, we build the trust of those who are present. When you defend those who are absent, you retain the trust of those present. Suppose you and I were talking alone, and we were criticizing our supervisor in a way that we would not dare to if he were present. Now what will happen when you and I have a falling out? You know I'm going to be discussing your weaknesses with someone else. That's what you and I did behind our supervisor's back. You know my nature. I'll sweet-talk you to your face and bad-mouth you behind your back. You've seen me do it. That's the essence of duplicity. Does that build a reserve of trust in my account with you.

On the other hand, suppose you were to start criticizing our supervisor and I basically told you I agree with the content of some of the criticism and suggest that the two of us go directly to him and make an effective presentation of how things might be improved. Then what would you know I would do if someone were to criticize you to me behind your back? For another example, suppose in my effort to build a relationship with you, I told you something someone else had shared with me in confidence. "I really shouldn't tell you this," I might say, "but since you're my friend..." Would my betraying another person build my trust account with you? Or would you wonder if the things you had told me in confidence were being shared with others? Such duplicity might appear to be making a deposit with the person you're with, but it is actually a withdrawal because you communicate your own lack of integrity. You may get the golden egg of temporary pleasure from putting someone down or sharing privileged information, but you're strangling the goose, weakening the relationship that provides enduring pleasure in association.
Integrity in an interdependent reality is simply this: you treat everyone by the same set of principles. As you do, people will come to trust you. They may not at first appreciate the honest confrontational experiences such integrity might generate. Confrontation takes considerable courage, and many people would prefer to take the course of least resistance, belittling and criticizing, betraying confidences, or participating in gossip about others behind their backs. But in the long run, people will trust and respect you if you are honest and open and kind with them. You care enough to confront. And to be trusted, it is said, is greater than to be loved. In the long run, I am convinced, to be trusted will be also mean to be loved.
When my son Joshua was quite young, he would frequently ask me a soul-searching question. Whenever I overreacted to someone else or was the least bit impatient or unkind, he was so vulnerable and so honest and our relationship was so good that he would simply look me in the eye and say, "Dad, do you love me?" If he thought I was breaking a basic principle of life toward someone else, he wondered if I wouldn't break it with him.
As a teacher, as well as a parent, I have found that the key to the ninety-nine is the one -- particularly the one that is testing the patience and the good humor of the many. It is the love and the discipline of the one student, the one child, that communicates love for the others. It's how you treat the one that reveals how you regard the ninety-nine, because everyone is ultimately a one. Integrity also means avoiding any communication that is deceptive, full of guile, or beneath the dignity of people. "A lie is any communication with intent to deceive," according to one definition of the word. Whether we communicate with words or behavior, if we have integrity, our intent cannot be to deceive.
When we make withdrawals from the Emotional Bank Account, we need to apologize and we need to do it sincerely. Great deposits come in the sincere words ;  "I was wrong." "That was unkind of me." "I showed you no respect." "I gave you no dignity, and I'm deeply sorry." "I embarrassed you in front of your friends and I had no call to do that. Even though I wanted to make a point, I never should have done it. I apologize."
It takes a great deal of character strength to apologize quickly out of one's heart rather than out of pity. A person must possess himself and have a deep sense of security in fundamental principles and values in order to genuinely apologize.  
People with little internal security can't do it. It makes them too vulnerable. They feel it makes them appear soft and weak, and they fear that others will take advantage of their weakness. Their security is based on the opinions of other people, and they worry about what others might think. In addition, they usually feel justified in what they did. They rationalize their own wrong in the name of the other person's wrong, and if they apologize at all, it's superficial.
"If you're going to bow, bow low," say Eastern wisdom. "Pay the uttermost farthing," says the Christian ethic. To be a deposit, an apology must be sincere. And it must be perceived as sincere. Leo Roskin taught, "It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong  I was in my office at home one afternoon writing, of all things, on the subject of patience. I could hear the boys running up and down the hall making loud banging noises, and I could feel my own patience beginning to wane.
Suddenly, my son David started pounding on the bathroom door, yelling at the top of his lungs, "Let me in! Let me in!"  I rushed out of the office and spoke to him with great intensity. "David, do you have any idea how disturbing that is to me? Do you know how hard it is to try to concentrate and write creatively? Now you go into your room and stay in there until you can behave yourself." So in he went, dejected, and shut the door.
As I turned around, I became aware of another problem. The boys had been playing tackle football in the four-foot-wide hallway, and one of them had been elbowed in the mouth. He was lying there in the hall, bleeding from the mouth. David, I discovered, had gone to the bathroom to get a wet towel for him. But his sister, Maria, who was taking a shower, wouldn't open the door. When I realized that I had completely misinterpreted the situation and had overreacted, I immediately went in to apologize to David. As I opened the door, the first thing he said to me was, "I won't forgive you."  "Well, why not, honey?" I replied. "Honestly, I didn't realize you were trying to help your brother. “ Why won't you forgive me?"  "Because you did the same thing last week," he replied. In other words, he was saying. "Dad, you're overdrawn, and you're not going to talk your way out of a problem you behaved yourself into."
Sincere apologies make deposits; repeated apologies interpreted as insincere make withdrawals. And the quality of the relationship reflects it.  It is one thing to make a mistake, and quite another thing not to admit it. People will forgive mistakes, because mistakes are usually of the mind, mistakes of judgment. But people will not easily forgive the mistakes of the heart, the ill intention, the bad motives, the prideful justifying cover-up of
the first mistake.
When we make deposits of unconditional love, when we live the primary laws of love, we encourage others to live the primary laws of life. In other words, when we truly love others without condition, without strings, we help them feel secure and safe and validated and affirmed in their essential worth, identity, and integrity. Their natural growth process is encouraged. We make it easier for them to live the laws of life -- cooperation, contribution, self-discipline, integrity -- and to discover and live true to the highest and best within them. We give them the freedom to act on their own inner imperatives rather than react to our conditions and limitations. This does not mean we become permissive or soft.
That itself is a massive withdrawal. We counsel, we plead, we set limits and consequences. But we love, regardless.  When we violate the primary laws of love -- when we attach strings and conditions to that gift -- we actually encourage others to violate the primary laws of life. We put them in a reactive, defensive position where they feel they have to prove "I matter as a person, independent of you."  In reality, they aren't independent. They are counter-dependent, which is another form of dependency and is at the lowest end of the Maturity Continuum. They become reactive, almost enemy-centered, more concerned about defending their "rights" and producing evidence of their individuality than they are about proactively listening to and honoring their own inner imperatives. Rebellion is a knot of the heart, not of the mind. The key is to make deposits -- constant deposits of unconditional love.

5 Paradigms of Human Interaction


There are five major paradigms of human interactions. Win-win is not a technique; it's a total philosophy of human interaction. The alternative paradigms are win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose, win, and Win-Win or No Deal TM
Win-Win
Win-win is a frame of mind and heart that constantly seeks mutual benefit in all human interactions. Win-win means that agreements or solutions are mutually beneficial, mutually satisfying. With a win-win solution, all parties feel good about the decision and feel committed to the action plan. Win-win sees life as a cooperative, not a competitive arena. Most people tend to think in terms of dichotomies: strong or weak, hardball or softball, win or lose. But that kind of thinking if fundamentally flawed. It's based on power and position rather than on principle. Win-win is based on the paradigm that there is plenty for everybody, that one person's success is not achieved at the expense or exclusion of the success of others. Win-win is a belief in the Third Alternative. It's not your way or my way; it's a better way, a higher way.
Win-Lose
One alternative to win-win is win-lose, the paradigm of the race to Bermuda. It says "If I win, you lose.  In leadership style, win-lose is the authoritarian approach: "I get my way; you don't get yours." Win-lose people are prone to use position, power, credentials, possessions, or personality to get their way.  Most people have been deeply scripted in the win-lose mentality since birth. First and most important of the powerful forces at work is the family. When one child is compared with another -- when patience, understanding or love is given or withdrawn on the basis of such comparisons -- people are into win-lose thinking. Whenever love is given on a conditional basis, when someone has to earn love, what's being communicated to them is that they are not intrinsically valuable or lovable. Value does not lie inside them, it lies outside. It's in comparison with somebody else or against some expectation. And what happens to a young mind and heart, highly vulnerable, highly dependent upon the support and emotional affirmation of the parents, in the face of conditional love? The child is molded, shaped, and programmed in the win-lose mentality.  "If I'm better than my brother, my parents will love me more." "My parents don't love me as much as they love my sister. I must not be as valuable."
Another powerful scripting agency is the peer group. A child first wants acceptance from his parents and then from his peers, whether they be siblings or friends. And we all know how cruel peers sometimes can be. They often accept or reject totally on the basis of conformity to their expectations and norms, providing additional scripting toward win-lose.  The academic world reinforces win-lose scripting. The "normal distribution curve" basically says that you got an "A" because someone else got a "C." It interprets an individual's value by comparing him or her to everyone else. No recognition is given to intrinsic value; everyone is extrinsically defined. "Oh, how nice to see you here at our PTA meeting. You ought to be really proud of your daughter, Caroline. She's in the upper 10 percent."  "That makes me feel good." "But your son, Johnny, is in trouble. He's in the lower quartile." "Really? Oh, that's terrible! What can we do about it?" What this kind of comparative information doesn't tell you is that perhaps Johnny is going on all eight cylinders while Caroline is coasting on four of her eight. But people are not graded against their potential or against the full use of their present capacity.
They are graded in relation to other people. And grades are carriers of social value; they open doors of opportunity or they close them. Competition, not cooperation, lies at the core of the educational process. Cooperation, in fact, is usually associated with cheating. Another powerful programming agent is athletics, particularly for young men in their high school or college years. Often they develop the basic paradigm that life is a big game, a zero sum game where some win and some lose. "Winning" is "beating" in the athletic arena.  Another agent is law. We live in a litigious society. The first thing many people think about when they get into trouble is suing someone, taking him to court, "winning" at someone else's expense. But defensive minds are neither creative nor cooperative.
Certainly we need law or else society will deteriorate. It provides survival, but it doesn't create synergy. At best it results in compromise. Law is based on an adversarial concept. The recent trend of encouraging lawyers and law schools to focus on peaceable negotiation, the techniques of win-win, and the use of private courts, may not provide the ultimate solution, but it does reflect a growing awareness of the problem.
Certainly there is a place for win-lose thinking in truly competitive and low-trust situations. But most of life is not a competition. We don't have to live each day competing with our spouse, our children, our co-workers, our neighbors, and our friends. "Who's winning in your marriage?" is a ridiculous question. If both people aren't winning, both are losing. Most of life is an interdependent, not an independent, reality. Most results you want depend on cooperation between you and others. And the win-lose mentality is dysfunctional to that cooperation. ooperation between you and others. And the win-lose mentality is dysfunctional to that cooperation.
Lose-Win
Some people are programmed the other way -- lose-win.  "I lose, you win."
"Go ahead. Have your way with me."  "Step on me again. Everyone does." I'm a loser. I've always been a loser."  "I'm a peacemaker. I'll do anything to keep peace." Lose-win is worse than win-lose because it has no standards -- no demands, no expectations, no vision. People who think lose-win are usually quick to please or appease. They seek strength from popularity or acceptance. They have little courage to express their own feelings and convictions and are easily intimidated by the ego strength of others.  In negotiation, lose-win is seen as capitulation -- giving in or giving up. In leadership style, it's permissiveness or indulgence. Lose-win means being a nice guy, even if "nice guys finish last. Win-lose people love lose-win people because they can feed on them. They love their weaknesses -- they take advantage of them. Such weaknesses complement their strengths.
But the problem is that lose-win people bury a lot of feelings. And unexpressed feelings never die; they're buried alive and come forth in uglier ways. Psychosomatic illnesses, particularly of the respiratory, nervous, and circulatory systems often are the reincarnation of cumulative resentment, deep disappointment, and disillusionment repressed by the lose-win mentality. Disproportionate rage or anger, overreaction to minor provocation, and cynicism are other embodiments of suppressed emotion.  People who are constantly repressing, not transcending, feelings towards a higher meaning find that it affects the quality of their self-esteem and eventually the quality of their relationships with others.
Both win-lose and lose-win are weak positions, based in personal insecurities. In the short run, win-lose will produce more results because it draws on the often considerable strengths and talents of the people at the top. Lose-win is weak and chaotic from the outset.  Many executives, managers, and parents swing back and forth, as if on a pendulum, from win-lose inconsideration to lose-win indulgence. When they can't stand confusion and lack of structure, direction, expectation, and discipline any longer, they swing back to win-lose -- until guilt undermines their resolve and drives them back to lose-win -- until anger and frustration drive them back to win-lose again.
Lose-Lose
When two win-lose people get together -- that is, when two determined, stubborn, ego-invested individuals interact -- the result will be lose-lose. Both will lose. Both will become vindictive and want to "get back" or "get even," blind to the fact that murder is suicide, that revenge is a two-edged sword.  I know of a divorce in which the husband was directed by the judge to sell the assets and turn over half the proceeds to his ex-wife. In compliance, he sold a car worth over $10,000 for $50 and gave $25 to the wife. When the wife protested, the court clerk checked on the situation and discovered that the husband was proceeding in the same manner systematically through all of the assets.  Some people become so centered on an enemy, so totally obsessed with the behavior of another person that they become blind to everything except their desire for that person to lose, even if it means losing themselves. Lose-lose is the philosophy of adversarial conflict, the philosophy of war. Lose-lose is also the philosophy of the highly dependent person without inner direction who is miserable and thinks everyone else should be, too. "If nobody ever wins, perhaps being a loser isn't so bad.
Win
Another common alternative is simply to think win. People with the win mentality don't necessarily want someone else to lose. That's irrelevant. What matters is that they get what theywant.  When there is no sense of contest or competition, win is probably the most common approach in everyday negotiation. A person with the win mentality thinks in terms of securing his own ends -- and leaving it to others to secure theirs. Which Option Is Best?  Of these five philosophies discussed so far -- win-win, win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose, and win -- which is the most effective? The answer is, "It depends." If you win a football game, that means the other team loses. If you work in a regional office that is miles away from another regional office, and you don't have any functional relationship between the offices, you may want to compete in a win-lose situation to stimulate business. However, you would not want to set up a win-lose situation like the
"Race to Bermuda" contest within a company or in a situation where you need cooperation among people or groups of people to achieve maximum success.  If you value a relationship and the issue isn't really that important, you may want to go for lose-win in some circumstances to genuinely affirm the other person. "What I want isn't as important to me as my relationship with you. Let's do it your way this time." You might also go for lose-win if you feel the expense of time and effort to achieve a win of any kind would violate other higher values. Maybe it just isn't worth it.
There are circumstances in which you would want to win, and you wouldn't be highly concerned with the relationship of that win to others. If your child's life were in danger, for example, you might be peripherally concerned about other people and circumstances. But saving that life would be supremely important.  The best choice, then, depends on reality. The challenge is to read that reality accurately and not to translate win-lose or other scripting into every situation.
Most situations, in fact, are part of an interdependent reality, and then win-win is really the only viable alternative of the five. Win-lose is not viable because, although I appear to win in a confrontation with you, your feelings, your attitudes toward me and our relationship have been affected. If I am a supplier to your company, for example, and I win on my terms in a particular negotiation, I may get what I want now. But will you come to me again? My short-term win will really be a long-term lose if I don't get your repeat business. So an interdependent win-lose is really lose-lose in the long run.  If we come up with a lose-win, you may appear to get what you want for the moment. But how will that affect my attitude about working with you, about fulfilling the contract? I may not feel as anxious to please you. I may carry battle scars with me into any future negotiations. My attitude about you and your company may be spread as I associate with others in the industry. So we're into lose-lose again. Lose-lose obviously isn't viable in any context. And if I focus on my own win and don't even consider your point of view, there's no basis for any kind of productive relationship. In the long run, if it isn't a win for both of us, we both lose. That's why win-win is the only real alternative in interdependent realities.  I worked with a client once, the president of a large chain of retail stores, who said, "Stephen, this win-win idea sounds good, but it is so idealistic. The tough, realistic business world isn't like that. There's win-lose everywhere, and if you're not out there playing the game, you just can't make it." "I'd lose my customers." "Then, go for lose-win -- give the store away. Is that realistic?" "No. No margin, no mission."
As we considered the various alternatives, win-win appeared to be the only truly realistic approach.  "I guess that's true with customers," he admitted, "but not with suppliers." "You are the customer of the supplier," I said. "Why doesn't the same principle apply?"  "Well, we recently renegotiated our lease agreements with the mall operators and owners," he said. "We went in with a win-win attitude. We were open, reasonable, conciliatory. But they saw that position as being soft and weak, and they took us to the cleaners."  "Well, why did you go for lose-win?" I asked. "We didn't. We went for win-win." "I thought you said they took you to the cleaners." "They did." "In other words, you lost." "That's right." "And they won." "That's right." "So what's that called?" When he realized that what he had called win-win was really lose-win, he was shocked. And as we examined the long-term impact of that lose-win, the suppressed feelings, the trampled values, the resentment that seethed under the surface of the relationship, we agreed that it was really a loss for both parties in the end.
If this man had had a real win-win attitude, he would have stayed longer in the communication process, listened to the mall owner more, then expressed his point of view with more courage. He would have continued in the win-win spirit until a solution was reached and they both felt good about it. And that solution, that Third Alternative, would have been synergistic -- probably something neither of them had thought of on his own.
Win-Win or No Deal TM
If these individuals had not come up with a synergistic solution -- one that was agreeable to both -- they could have gone for an even higher expression of win-win, Win-Win or No Deal.  No deal basically means that if we can't find a solution that would benefit us both, we agree to disagree agreeably -- no deal. No expectations have been created, no performance contracts established. I don't hire you or we don't take on a particular assignment together because it's obvious that our values or our goals are going in opposite directions. It is so much better to realize this up front instead of downstream when expectations have been created and both parties have been disillusioned.
When you have no deal as an option in your mind, you feel liberated because you have no need to manipulate people, to push your own agenda, to drive for what you want. You can be open. You can really try to understand the deeper issues underlying the positions.  With no deal as an option, you can honestly say, "I only want to go for win-win. I want to win, and I want you to win. I wouldn't want to get my way and have you not feel good about it, because downstream it would eventually surface and create a withdrawal. On the other hand, I don't think you would feel good if you got your way and I gave in. So let's work for a win-win. Let's really hammer it out. And if we can't find it, then let's agree that we won't make a deal at all. It would be better not to deal than to live with a decision that wasn't right for us both. Then maybe another time "I'd lose my customers."  "Then, go for lose-win -- give the store away. Is that realistic?" "No. No margin, no mission."
As we considered the various alternatives, win-win appeared to be the only truly realistic approach.  "I guess that's true with customers," he admitted, "but not with suppliers." "You are the customer of the supplier," I said. "Why doesn't the same principle apply?"  "Well, we recently renegotiated our lease agreements with the mall operators and owners," he said. "We went in with a win-win attitude. We were open, reasonable, conciliatory. But they saw that position as being soft and weak, and they took us to the cleaners."  "Well, why did you go for lose-win?" I asked. "We didn't. We went for win-win." "I thought you said they took you to the cleaners." "They did." "In other words, you lost." "That's right." "And they won." "That's right." "So what's that called?"
When he realized that what he had called win-win was really lose-win, he was shocked. And as we examined the long-term impact of that lose-win, the suppressed feelings, the trampled values, the resentment that seethed under the surface of the relationship, we agreed that it was really a loss for both parties in the end. If this man had had a real win-win attitude, he would have stayed longer in the communication process, listened to the mall owner more, then expressed his point of view with more courage. He would have continued in the win-win spirit until a solution was reached and they both felt good about it. And that solution, that Third Alternative, would have been synergistic -- probably something neither of them had thought of on his own.
Win-Win or No Deal TM  If these individuals had not come up with a synergistic solution -- one that was agreeable to both -- they could have gone for an even higher expression of win-win, Win-Win or No Deal.  No deal basically means that if we can't find a solution that would benefit us both, we agree to disagree agreeably -- no deal. No expectations have been created, no performance contracts established. I don't hire you or we don't take on a particular assignment together because it's obvious that our values or our goals are going in opposite directions. It is so much better to realize this up front instead of downstream when expectations have been created and both parties have been disillusioned.
When you have no deal as an option in your mind, you feel liberated because you have no need to manipulate people, to push your own agenda, to drive for what you want. You can be open. You can really try to understand the deeper issues underlying the positions.  With no deal as an option, you can honestly say, "I only want to go for win-win. I want to win, and I want you to win. I wouldn't want to get my way and have you not feel good about it, because downstream it would eventually surface and create a withdrawal. On the other hand, I don't think you would feel good if you got your way and I gave in. So let's work for a win-win. Let's really hammer it out. And if we can't find it, then let's agree that we won't make a deal at all. It would be better not to deal than to live with a decision that wasn't right for us both. Then maybe another timeSome time after learning the concept of Win-Win or No Deal, the president of a small computer software company shared with me the following experience:  "We had developed new software which we sold on a five-year contract to a particular bank. The bank president was excited about it, but his people weren't really behind the decision. "About a month later, that bank changed presidents. The new president came to me and said, 'I am uncomfortable with these software conversions. I have a mess on my hands. My people are all saying that they can't go through this and I really feel I just can't push it at this point in time.' "My own company was in deep financial trouble. I knew I had every legal right to enforce the contract. But I had become convinced of the value of the principle of win-win. "So I told him 'We have a contract. Your bank has secured our products and our services to convert you to this program. But we understand that you're not happy about it. So what we'd like to do is give you back the contract, give you back your deposit, and if you are ever looking for a software solution in the future, come back and see us.'  "I literally walked away from an $84,000 contract. It was close to financial suicide. But I felt that, in the long run, if the principle were true, it would come back and pay dividends. "Three months later, the new president called me. 'I'm now going to make changes in my date processing,' he said, 'and I want to do business with you.' He signed a contract for $240,000." Anything less than win-win in an interdependent reality is a poor second best that will have impact in the long-term relationship. The cost of the impact needs to be carefully considered. If you can't reach a true win-win, you're very often better off to go for no deal.
Win-Win or No Deal provides tremendous emotional freedom in the family relationship. If family members can't agree on a video that everyone will enjoy, they can simply decide to do something else -- no deal -- rather than having some enjoy the evening at the expense of others.  I have a friend whose family has been involved in singing together for several years. When they were young, she arranged the music, made the costumes, accompanied them on the piano, and directed the performances. As the children grew older, their taste in music began to change and they wanted to have more say in what they performed and what they wore. They became less responsive to direction.  Because she had years of experience in performing herself and felt closer to the needs of the older people at the rest homes where they planned to perform, she didn't feel that many of the ideas they were suggesting would be appropriate. At the same time, however, she recognized their need to express themselves and to be part of the decision-making process. So she set up a Win-Win or No Deal. She told them she wanted to arrive at an agreement that everyone felt good about -- or they would simply find other ways to enjoy their talents. As a result, everyone felt free to express his or her feelings and ideas as they worked to set up a Win-Win.
Agreement, knowing that whether or not they could agree, there would be no emotional strings.  The Win-Win or No Deal approach is most realistic at the beginning of a business relationship or enterprise. In a continuing business relationship, no deal may not be a viable option, which can create serious problems, especially for family businesses or businesses that are begun initially on the basis of friendship. In an effort to preserve the relationship, people sometimes go on for years making one compromise after another, thinking win-lose or lose-win even while talking win-win. This creates serious problems for the people and for the business, particularly if the competition operates on win-win and synergy.  Without no deal, many such businesses simply deteriorate and either fail or have to be turned over to professional managers. Experience shows that it is often better in setting up a family business or a business between friends to acknowledge the possibility of no deal downstream and to establish some kind of buy/sell agreement so that the business can prosper without permanently damaging. Of course there are some relationships where no deal is not viable. I wouldn't abandon my child or my spouse and go for no deal (it would be better, if necessary, to go for compromise -- a low form of win-win). But in many cases, it is possible to go into negotiation with a full Win-Win or No Deal attitude. And the freedom in the attitude is incredible.

Think Win-Win is the habit of interpersonal leadership. It involves the exercise of each of the unique human endowments -- self-awareness, imagination, conscience, and independent will -- in our relationships with others. It involves mutual learning, mutual influence, mutual benefits.  It takes great courage as well as consideration to create these mutual benefits, particularly if we're interacting with others who are deeply scripted in win-los. That is why this habit involves principles of interpersonal leadership. Effective interpersonal leadership requires the vision, the proactive initiative, and the security, guidance, wisdom, and power that come from principle-centered personal leadership. The principle of win-win is fundamental to success in all our interactions, and it embraces five interdependent dimensions of life. It begins with character and moves toward relationships, out of which flow agreements. It is nurtured in an environment where structure and systems are based on win-win. And it involves process; we cannot achieve win-win ends with win-lose or lose-win means.  

God’s Retirement Plan

Moses was eighty years old when he made a fiery discovery that would forever alter his life. Though the adopted son of an Egyptian princess, he never forgot his Hebrew lineage and raged at the injustice he witnessed against his kinsmen (Exodus 2:11–12). When Pharaoh learned that Moses had killed an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew, he planned to have him killed, forcing Moses to flee to Midian, where he settled (vv. 13–15).

Forty years later, when he was eighty, Moses was tending his father-in-law’s flock when “the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up” (3:2). In that moment, God called Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery (vv. 3–22).

At this moment in your life, what might God be calling you to do for His greater purpose? What new plans has He placed in your path?

"The angel of the Lord appeared to [Moses] in flames of fire from within a bush." Exodus 3:2

Archaeologist Dr. Warwick Rodwell was preparing to retire when he made an extraordinary discovery at Lichfield Cathedral in England. As builders carefully excavated part of the floor of the church to make way for a retractable base, they discovered a sculpture of the archangel Gabriel, thought to be 1,200 years old. Dr. Rodwell’s retirement plans were put on hold as his find launched him into an exciting and busy new season.

Lord, we thank You for creating us with purpose and inviting us participate in Your grand plan You have for us. We pray You would open our hearts and eyes as You lead us so that we are able to follow You faithfully. Thank You Father. In Jesus name we pray. Amen!

Today's Scripture: Exodus 3:1–10

Bible in a Year: 1 Kings 3–5; Luke 20:1–26

Reference :Our Daily Bread By Ruth O’Reilly-Smith

Teenage Boy Fired Gun in California Synagogue



A boy in her teen age opened a fire gun in one of the Synagogue church in California, killing one person and leaving three injured including the preacher  during worship to mark the final day of Passover.

The shooting in the town of Poway, north of San Diego, came exactly six months after a white supremacist killed 11 people at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue -- the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in US history.

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore said those wounded included the rabbi -- who had injuries to both index fingers -- as well as a female minor and 34-year-old man who were injured by shrapnel. A 60-year-old woman died from her wounds.

In the consequences of the above , Gore identified the suspect, who was arrested after fleeing the scene, as 19-year-old John Earnest and said he had no prior arrest record.

The ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State, President Muhammadu Buhari, Supports Guinea Bissua's Election

In his capacity as Chairman of the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State, President Muhammadu Buhari, in response to an urgent request for assistance by the government of Guinea Bissau graciously approved support for the country's election process, including 350 units of electoral kits, 10 motorcycles, five (Toyota) Hilux, two light trucks and $500,000, the Presidency said in a statement by Buhari's Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Mr Garba Shehu.

The President directed the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama, to undertake an urgent mission as his Special Envoy to Guinea Bissau in company with the ECOWAS Commission President, Jean-Claude Brou.

The Presidency said Buhari made the donations in response to an "urgent request" by Guinea Bissau to support the electoral process in the small West African country.

The Presidency added that Onyeama was given another task to "undertake a mission to Cotonou, Benin Republic, to deliver a personal message to President Patrice Talon from President Buhari".

BEWARE OF MODERN DAY IDOLATRY

OPENING PRAYER:
Father, please save my home and church from all forms of modern day idolatry.

BIBLE PASSAGE: Exodus 20:3-5
3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

MEMORY VERSE:
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”. Matthew 22:37

LESSON INTRODUCTION:
An idol is anything that replaces the one true God in our lives. It can be anything that appeals to our own heart more than God does, and anything that takes significant amount of our time leaving us with little or no time to spend with Him. While the scriptures condemn idolatry in strong terms (Jer. 25:6: Exodus 20:5), many Christians engage in idol worshipping today without knowing it.

TEXT REVIEW : EXODUS 20:3-5 - "WARNING"
I. The Mosaic law refers to as "Torah" in Hebrews which means "teaching" is divided into three (3), namely:
i. The moral law dealing with God's standard for Holy living. Exodus 20:1-17.
ii. The civil law dealing with Israel's legal and social life. Exodus 21:1-23.
iii. The ceremonial law dealing with ceremonies of worship/sacrifices. Exodus 24:12-31.
II. God forbids idol worshipping outrightly with the following instructions:
i. Thou shall have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:3.
ii. Thou shall not make no graven image of any likeness be it in heaven, earth or underneath the earth. Exodus 20:4.
iii. Thou shall not bow to them. Exodus 20:5a.
iv. Thou shall not serve them. Exodus 20:5b.
III. God gave reasons for these directives to show how serious they are:
i. He is the Lord thy God (Sufficient to be followed and worshipped). Exodus 20:1.
ii. He is the deliverer from bondages of Egypt (and any forms of bondages or captivities). Exodus 20:1b.
iii. He is a jealous God and would punish perpetrators who violate the commandment to the third and fourth generations. Exodus 20:5b.
iv. He is a merciful God and would show mercy to those who keep the commandments and love him. Exodus 20:6.

LESSON OUTLINE 1: FORMS OF MODERN DAY IDOLATRY
i. Modern day idolatry is all pursuit and craving of man to leave the God out of their equation or lives. Isaiah 42:8.
ii. It is the act of portraying and painting God in unbiblical precepts to suit personal values and ideologies. 2 Tim. 4:3.
iii. Self worship expressed through aggressive pursuit and realization of goals and dreams without God.
iv. Materialism i.e. excessive regards for worldly possession. 1 Cor. 7:31; Col. 3:5.
v. Pride and ego i.e. forms of obsession with careers, business or job in order to raise social status. Eccl. 2:21-23; Prov. 8:13.
vi. Idolizing fellow humans i.e. referencing renowned individuals like musicians, actors, footballers, ministers of God, politicians, spouse, etc.
vii. Naturalism and the power of sciences i.e. illusion that man is the lord of his world due to scientific and technological breakthroughs. 2 Peter 3:10-13.
viii. Self indulgence i.e. this is expressed through alcohol, drugs, devotion to television programmes, social media, etc.
ix. Clubbing/partying, pornography, gambling and so on. 1 Cor. 10:31.

CLASS ACTIVITY 1: Differentiate between traditional or conventional idol worshipping and modern day idol worshipping.

LESSON OUTLINE 2 : CONSEQUENCES OF MODERN DAY IDOLATRY
i. Divine curse on the perpetrators. Daniel 4:30-33.
ii. It leads the perpetrators away from the law and teachings of the Lord. 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 3:1-4.
iii. Those who are involved lose their zeal for things of God. 2 Tim. 4:10.
iv. It has grievous consequences of eternal separation from God. 1 Sam. 2:29-36.

CLASS ACTIVITY 2 : Identify other consequences of getting involved in the modern day idolatry.

SUMMARY: Flee modern day idolatry.

CONCLUSION:
The worship of 'self', is the basis of all modern day idolatry. God warns against it (Exodus 20:30). It is a lifelong battle in Christian life that must be resisted. Eph. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:3.

EVALUATION:
Identify forms and consequences of getting involved in modern day idolatry.

CLOSING PRAYER:
Father, liberate your Children from all forms of modern day idolatry.
SUNDAY SCHOOL HYMN
1. O Sunday School, on the Lord's day,
O how I love Thee well,
I am happy, it makes me glad
To rejoice at Thy birth.

2. O Sunday School, on the Lord's day,
Thy friend friendship suits me well,
Both young and old will sing Thy song,
We long for Sunday School.

3. O Sunday School, on the Lord's day,
Christ was Thy first teacher,
The Holy Spirit, great teacher,
Does manifest in thee.

4. O Sunday School, on the Lord's day,
This testimony is sure,
That God, the Father Almighty,
Poured His blessing on Thee.

5. O Sunday School, on the Lord's day,
Though the sun be so bright,
Or if the clouds be black with rain,
I'll be in Sunday School.

6. O Sunday School, on the Lord's day,
I rejoice to see Thee,
Will thou pass over me today?
Without my being blest?

ASSIGNMENT:
Mention ten (10) things which have gradually taken the position of God in some peoples' lives and their consequences (either physical or spiritual).

REFERENCE: RCCG SUNDAY SCHOOLTEACHER'S MANUAL FOR 2018/2019