At least we won that World Cup

Crime Statistics Sucker-Punch Nqakula, Selebi

Charles Nqakula must think the South African public very forgiving – or stupid. A few months ago he went on record stating that those complaining about the problem of crime should stop “whinging” and leave the country. Now that he’s been force-fed some humble pie with the latest release of crime statistics, there’s been a spectacular change in choral melody: the exact word he used to describe the dramatic rise in violent crime was “unacceptable”.

Calling Nqakula ‘slow on the uptake’ is an insult to snails. By monthly comparison, there are almost just as many ‘casualties’ in Iraq. Has it taken him 5 years as Minister of Safety and Security to realise that the level of crime might be “unacceptable? With all due respect to the man, he’s certainly not the sharpest tool in the ANC/SACP shed. Actually, I wonder what they do in that shed – backmasking the communist manifesto into the latest Kwaito hits – because short of brainwashing, I’m mystified at the reason for their starry-eyed support. Take another ‘prodigious’ talent sprung from the embers of struggle: Jackie Selebi; national commissioner of the SAPS; president of Interpol – and kissing-cousins with a crime syndicate boss and alleged murderer.

In the beginning of this year, Selebi rhetorically asked, “what’s all the fuss about crime?” It’s hardly surprising that these modern-day aristocrats with their private security details and VIP convoys are out of touch with reality on the street. When asked about the effect of crime on the impending 2010 World Cup, he replied that he doesn’t lie awake at night “with 2010 on his forehead”. He promptly alluded to the botched bombing attempts in Glasgow last week, saying that nobody was scurrying to cancel 2012 Olympic Games. The subtlety in his spurious comparison must’ve evaded his clumsy grasp: Glasgow’s bombings were botched; the horrifying crimes aren’t. Does that make him obtuse -- and a martyr? Sharp as a marble, Jackie… With the horde of foreign media attending the event, it might end up being the proverbial bull’s eye on his forehead. Perhaps he should be lying awake.

In what must rate as the worst comeback in recent memory, Nqakula, when pressed to resign by Afriform, said that he’d rather stay on; even trying to turn the tables by demanding to know what they’re doing to stop the wave of crime. Well, Charles, they’re addressing the problem of crime – and starting with you. A comprehensive response to crime requires visionary leadership, iron resolve and a willingness to think outside a blinkered and antiquated box – qualities Charles seemingly reserves for the dinner table.

Rip van Winkle?

This polish geriatric woke up from a 19-year coma to discover his grim 'worker's paradise' transformed into a flourishing democracy with all its perks -- like having something to buy, and the money to buy it with.

I've always had a suspicion that purely scientific accounts fall somewhat short in giving satisfactory explanations for our existence: consider his wife who nurtured him all those years. I've barely lived that long, for crying out loud!

Anyone who claims that such devotion and loving care is purely the result of biochemical, synaptic sparks can climb back under the cold, clammy rock they got out under. There's enchantment to life -- one just needs to look hard enough.

Only in South Africa...

…would thieves flaunt their audacity by relieving the resident archbishop of his peace ‘trophy’ (among other things) and then be incompetent enough to get bagged by our inept police force. If they had succeeded, would it at least have had symbolic relevance of the ‘struggle’ against crime that is now needed?

On Euthanasia, Part 2

Medical science has progressed in leaps and bounds, but the fountain of youth remains elusive -- stem-cell research being the closest to attain this panacea. Death ultimately is unavoidable; it is only tempered by the means it is approached. In addressing such an emotionally charged matter, a clear distinction needs to be made between the similar, but cardinally different concepts of Active- and Passive euthanasia:

Active Euthanasia is the express intervention with the purpose to kill for the relief of mental/psychological suffering; or the alleviation of economic burden; or for the convenience of the patient/family/society. This can further be divided into voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The former is done with the consent or at the behest of the patient or proxy, while the latter is performed without consent.

Passive Euthanasia is the withdrawal or failure to implement artificial life-support in terminal patients, where death seems imminent with no hope of recovery or cure. The physician accepts the inevitability of death – having tried to save and prolong life; the patient is remitted to the forces of nature. In such cases, the disease or injury is the death-causing agent, not any intervention from the physician. This ethical form is practiced in most hospitals.

I’ve already handled the issue of personal autonomy with regards to suicide or ‘surrogate-suicide’ by the physician in part 1 so will take it from a broader perspective:

The only remotely ethical ground that I can see for the justification of voluntary euthanasia is if it believed that the death would be to the benefit of the patient; it would be morally wrong to kill if it were thought that the patient had any prospect of still living a worthwhile life. From this it follows that voluntary euthanasia is only merited when the physician believes that the patient does not have a worthwhile life. This is tantamount to saying that the ongoing life of the patient lacks any value, hence it can be terminated. I find the gall of such a statement repulsive; what hubris to even think of making such a call.

Further, when assimilated into a legal system that purports to enforce a just social order, these concepts are mutually exclusive. How can such killing be legalised on the premise that some lives lack value when justice in society is based on the non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory premises of ineliminable human dignity and worth.

With the acceptance of voluntary euthanasia, the most compelling reason to reject involuntary euthanasia is removed. Is someone can benefit from being killed, is it reasonable to deprive someone from this benefit simply because they haven’t or are incapable of asking for it? At the very least, acceptance of voluntary euthanasia, allows the claim that certain people cannot be harmed by the termination of their worthless lives – they may be allowed to exist on the indulgence of society. Hence one would find the most vocal advocates of voluntary euthanasia also endorse involuntary euthanasia and even infanticide: enemy of civilized humanity #1, Peter Singer, being case in point.

I won’t even bother going into all the complexities of how voluntary euthanasia can result in coerced ‘voluntary’ euthanasia where ‘the right to die’, becomes ‘the duty to die’. With the horrifying onset of HIV/AIDS as a terminal disease, such a ‘culture of death’ would have inestimable results in Africa which has prided itself as a culture of resilience and life.

Witty Book Review

This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.

-Dorothy Parker on Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'

On Euthanasia, Part 1 – Suicide

In trying to elucidate what is probably the most incomprehensible and troubling of human behaviours, it would help to look at it from the perspective of history. Suicide has long been condemned by western society and philosophical thought since ancient times (with the possible exception of the Stoics and Epicureans), where the bodies of suicides where often hung at cross-roads and ‘mock’ murder trials held over the dead. (Notably, eastern thought has been more accepting given the influential Buddhist concept of illusionary reality and the achievement of Nirvana through a rejection of desire and the ‘self’.)

Even Plato and Aristotle give antiquated arguments against suicide. Plato’s Phaedo gives the primordial variation of the modern Judeo-Christian view: God, as the giver of life, should also be the taker. Aristotle’s Ethics argument was reiterated by Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae:

It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, because every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community. (IIaIIae.64.5)

Hume’s ‘On Suicide’, an attack on the Thomistic notions, gives the classical enlightenment view, where suicide is construed as a libertarian right to be exercised as any other. In contrast, J.S. Mill in his landmark essay 'On Liberty', contends that liberty lies in the power of the individual to make choices; hence any choice that would deprive the individual from the ability to make further choices (such as selling oneself to slavery or suicide) should be prevented.

Although it’s a fallacious appeal to consequence, the following argument is useful to point out the absurdity of the libertarian view. If suicide is a right, then persuading your best friend with a gun to his head not to pull the trigger is a violation of that right and therefore the moral equivalent of kidnapping, theft or the suchlike.

Closer to home, existentialism argues that man is confronted with life – he doesn’t necessarily own it. Indeed, by definition, it is things distinct from one, such as undershorts, that can be owned. The likes of Camus argue that it is in embracing life that sense is made of the absurd – where suicide is an abdication of our responsibility.

In all this flows a sacrosanct view of human life. It is this principle -- the respect for the human person -- that was first formally postulated by Kant as the fundamental principle for his system of ethics. It has been used by contemporary legal philosophers such as Ronald Dworkin as a foundation for rights theories where we have the moral duty to honour and respect the inherent value of human life, regardless of the value of that life to others or to the person whose life it is.

It is self-evident that for all humans to have unalienable rights, they can not be derived from subjective criteria such as wealth or intellect, but rather a respect for the intrinsic worth of each individual.

Undeniably, suicides are usually faced with immense physical or psychological trauma such as acute social isolation, which precipitate an anguished loss of meaning, hope and purpose. Thus one has to question the rationality of a decision taken in that state of mind, given that it is a permanent solution for what is often a temporary problem.

Given the above, is it permissible for suicide within the context of euthanasia? Wait for part 2.

Résumé
Razors pain you, Rivers are damp,
Acids stain you, And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful, Nooses give,
Gas smells awful. You might as well live.

- Dorothy Parker -

On Corporal Punishment

Having been approved by parliament, the Children’s Amendment Bill which outlaws corporal punishment, is one step away from being passed into law.

Is corporal punishment a barbaric practice that together with the likes of slavery should have no place in civilized society? Is it perhaps an age-old institution through which parents instill their understanding of right and wrong on their progeny?

Any discussion on corporal punishment will tend to address its six main facets: the validity of punishment, the transgression; the authority that implements the punishment; the person on whom the punishment is being inflicted; the means; and the consequences of the mutual ‘exchange’.

Without going into normative theories of state, the validity of punishment as a whole is presupposed by the bill – as it seeks to enforce the absence of certain actions with penalties attached when disobeyed. Indeed, the penal system is the formal means by which society through the authority of the judiciary seeks to rout out or punish unsuitable behaviour. By the same measure, in the informal setting of the family, parental authority extends to the behavioral nurturing of their children – punishment being a feature.

Once punishment is accepted, one has to ask which forms are permitted. Is corporal punishment inherently wrong? If so -- why? Many of its detractors claim it intrinsically violent and therefore abusive. One problem with this is that violence is often difficult to gauge in human interaction, and thus a deceptive criterion. A parent slapping a toddler’s hand as it reaches for the red-hot stove is violent, but saves the child from a lot of agony. Is this compassionate act therefore intrinsically wrong or abusive? Is it then perhaps that punishment is imposed against the recipient’s will? As any child will attest, punishment generally tends to be against their will. So is going to school; or eating all their veggies. Hence if it can’t be shown as inherently wrong, shouldn’t it be left up to the parent?

Another argument often thrown into the hat is the numerous cases of the physical abuse that accompany parents in the habit of applying corporal punishment. When discussed in terms of causation, corporal punishment is neither a necessary not sufficient ground for physical abuse. There are many parents who might give the odd hiding when the child has grossly erred, but never abuse their children -- hence, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Further, it’s naïve to judge anything by its abuse. By the same reasoning, alcohol, which causes many more deaths, illness and perhaps broken families, should also be outlawed.

What perhaps weighs heaviest against this bill is the state infringement on the privacy and autonomy of the family unit. In principle I’m immediately riled when the ‘nanny’ state starts prescribing the manner in which parents should raise their children. Should an abstracted and faceless bureaucracy infringe on the highly personal, interactive and diverse responsibility of the family? Obviously the children’s rights should be protected, but a ‘right from discipline’ is certainly not one of them.

This bill will only further strain an already overloaded policing and judicial system. The state should first deal with the current epidemic of crime, before adding another to its list.

Death Cheats Itself

Jack Kevorkian, 79, affectionately known as “Dr. Death” by his many admirers, is to be released from prison next month. Indications are that this convicted felon will go on a speaking circuit, charging as much as $100,000 per engagement. This is only months after his lawyer pleaded for his release citing hepatitis and other ailments as reason for the Doc being at death’s door.

After spending 8 years at American tax-payer expense, Doc has finally decided to “pay some bills”, and what better than to talk about “the right to die”. Kevorkian’s long obsession with death bleeds through the canvas, literally. For a sampling, see here. It’s no small surprise that this prime candidate for the “sorry, try again” photo of beauty treatments hasn’t decided to take a dose of his own medicine, but like other normal people, it seems that Doc is still deeply charmed with his own existence.

It feels like yesterday when this psycho who effortlessly helped over 130 undoubtedly satisfied ‘customers’ to their deaths was being put away for good, but it seems the Doc is back to haunt.

More On Religious Intolerance

Simon Borchardt’s derisive piece on Jaco van der Westhuyzen’s (pictured) antics after the Super14 final offers a suitable case study on a trend of religious intolerance in the media.

It seems that Borchardt had two main problems with the said scenario. Firstly, the white T-shirt with “Jesus is King” scrawled on it, was politically incorrect by virtue of it being a religious text shown at a public sporting-spectacle. Secondly, there seem to be ‘theological’ problems with the context. I’ll focus on the former.

Borchardt cuts to the quick in his lambasting, but gives little substance as to the reason for his outrage. Near the end, he breathlessly rasps, “…South Africa is a secular state and Van der Westhuyzen’s actions were grossly inappropriate”. Sadly, this shows an unmitigated distortion of the concept of a secular state. It seems the only part Borchardt correctly grasped is that South Africa happens to be one.

A secular state is officially neutral on matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious belief, practice or expression. Hence there is no state religion or equivalent. All citizens are treated equally, irrespective of their religious persuasion, with none gaining preferential status due to their faith (or absence of it). Was Jaco – playing for the “Blue Bulls” franchise – representing government? Did Jaco’s action result in a religion gaining government preference? Was there a law altered giving the “Jesus-group” special privileges? No. Then for the life of me, I can’t see how this has diddly-squat to do with South Africa being a secular state.

The outrageous aspect is that ‘secular state’ is brazenly extrapolated to infer a relegation of religion from all public arenas to the private. Not only does this beg the question of the validity of such a bold public/private distinction, it assumes government interference and opposition to all public expressions of religion – a tenet incompatible with secularism. This is a two-edged sword: it protects the state from religion, but equally protects religion from state meddling. It seems that Borchardt had interpreted freedom of religion to mean freedom from religion.

Borchardt further implies that the tender egos of non-funky-Christians were shattered at the exhibition. I’ve just about had it with the Politically Correct crowd. To demonstrate, let’s say Jaco wore a bright pink T-shirt saying “Pronutro is King” – or perhaps one saying, “Aliens Exist”, or “They arrested me for being the ugliest man alive – could your dad come to the local jail to prove them wrong”. The first is a statement of preference. We all know Pronutro… but I might personally prefer iphalishi. Big deal. The second is an unproven statement which could be either right or wrong. The last, is an insult to every humourless cretin that reads it. Jaco’s T shirt lies somewhere between the first and second and is agonizingly innocuous as far as T shirts go nowadays. If he had scrawled a four-letter verb followed by “…you, sharks!” it would probably have been converted into a lucrative clothing brand.

Borchardt’s offense at some bloke expressing his religious belief is just an indication of his bald-faced intolerance and prejudice against religion. However, as much as I will defend Jaco’s right to show off his shoddy handwriting, I’ll defend Borchards gold-plated drivel. He’s as much entitled to his opinion as the next person – only he shouldn’t pass it off as unbiased ‘sport’ reporting.

Public Servant Strike Justified

To echo the words of Cosatu general-secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, “If 57 percent is good for the president, if 50 percent is good for the ministers, if 20 percent is good for the judges, then six percent is an insult to all of us.”

As an uncultured pleb looking up at the imposing hierarchy of government, I’ve considered throwing in my lot with the ‘downtrodden’ public servants. Surely if government is in the business of doling out lucrative pay-hikes, why should the grunts on the ground be left holding the empty money-bag while the powers that be get VIP seating on the gravy train?

The Intolerant Tolerant

Pierre’s response to my comments seems to ignore, at best the indifference, and at worst, the contempt, religion has enjoyed from western academic and philosophical circles since the enlightenment period: to a lesser degree germinating from Kant’s scathing critique of metaphysics, through to Hume’s Guillotine, the rantings of Nietzsche’s madman and culminating in the likes of Russell’s logical censure of Christianity. Hence, as aptly exhibited by Pierre, theology and other philosophies of religion find little or no credibility in the contemporary academic arena – perhaps with good reason. Hence, it is to the credit of religion’s resilience that this ‘opiate of the masses; the sigh of the oppressed’ is still held as a formidable force by the contemporary intelligentsia.

As for the media’s supposed silk-glove approach, one need look no further than the recent Ted Haggard debacle to see how scathing it can be. Whether it be a priest caught red–handed with a hand in the altar boy’s… uhm… cookie jar, an off-duty traffic cop caught speeding, or a lawyer showing blatant disregard for the law -- it always draws a flitter of laughter from the crowd when hypocrisy is unmasked.

To say that an objectionable religious teaching (such as a church’s position on homosexuality) should be “spurned by the media, vilified in editorials, reported to the Human Rights Commission and taken to the equality court” is an exercise in question-begging. That is tantamount to having the Holy Office peer-review the latest articles of Scientific American. Criticising a belief purely by its result is a thinly veiled ‘appeal to consequence’ and therefore logically fallacious. By this I don’t say that the consequences should be irrelevant. Rather, religious tenets are a matter of propositional truth and should be critically evaluated through comparative religious dialogue and exegetical scrutiny of valid texts.

Now on to the main thrust of my rebuttal: toleration. Taken as a solitary pillar of interaction, this ‘virtue’ of modern liberalism runs into some serious pitfalls. By definition, it can only be exercised when there are beliefs, actions or practices the tolerator would prefer not to exist – not merely when indifferent. Herein lies the rub: from the actions of its proponents, it seems that philosophically, one can tolerate any position, so long as it is not claimed to be ‘true’; morally, one can practice anything, so long as one does not claim it the ‘better way’; religiously, one can hold to anything, so long as it does not mention a ‘supreme being’.

When applied to any religious concept of moral ‘wrong’, tolerance erroneously comes up trumps – the said moral is wrong simply by virtue of its ‘intolerance’. The reasoning is that if there is no way to guarantee religious or moral truth (as many of these tolerevanglists proclaim), then we aren’t justified to impose out moral precepts on others. However, the self-defeating nature of this contention becomes visible when tolerance is itself proclaimed as the Moral Truth. Why should tolerance receive special treatment?

I’m certainly for tolerance, but not in its current ungrounded, watered-down and self-serving form.

Kicking the Super14 Away

All credit to the Bulls for pulling off a remarkable last-minute victory in the Shark Tank – well, almost. I think the Sharks played a none-too-small hand in their own demise. Holding a 6 point lead with a minute on the clock, James got clean ball on his 10-metre line – and, good heavens, opted to kick the ball downfield! The Bulls counterattacked with a powerful surge only to have Botha hoof a lackluster grubber into the hands of the waiting Steyn. What the…?! Steyn also puts in an aimless kick in the general direction of the Bulls try line. The resulting counter produced the match-winning try by flyer Habana; the kick in front a mere formality.

Being a bit of an armchair sports critic, I realise the triteness of 20/20 hindsight; but consider what could have happened: with a minute to play, the Sharks had the ball. Instead of holding on to it, and thus negating virtually any possibility of the Bulls scoring, they kicked it away pointlessly. Instead of keeping it tight and taking it through three or four phases before booting it into the delirious crowd, they played right into their opponents hands by opening up the game.

For all purposes, having had it in their hands, the Sharks might as well have kicked the Super14 trophy away. The only consolation is that South African rugby looks ominous in a World Cup year. Who knows?

It's just too close to call

With the Super 14 Final exploding in the Shark Tank on Saturday, I have to join a host of others saying this game is too close to call. The Sharks have won more games, finished top of the log, and enjoy home-ground advantage, but the Bulls have been murderous in their last few outings. I've seen few teams playing with such clinical self-confidence. These teams are evenly matched -- the Bulls might have the extra beef in their forwards, while the Sharks have the bite in their backs.

Being a banana-boy, I'll have to root for the local team, thankful though, that whichever way it goes, the trophy has finally returned to RSA. I've already bid my fingernails farewell.

Community Justice and Law Enforcement

An alleged thief was stripped and severely beaten by a mob that caught him mugging a woman.

While I personally prefer the due process of law, I've started to tolerate communities that apply some home-grown justice. Is it just me, or has crime become endemic to this country and even its culture? If we haven't been the victim of it, we know people who have. Per Capita, South Africa leads the rape rate, is second with murders and fourth in robberies. Hence, it is no surprise when communities vent their frustrations on these hapless criminal who are clueless yet brazen enough to get caught by innocent bystanders.

If it's not a symptom of poor law enforcement, it's certainly one of a country with a flaccid sense of morality. If murder, rape and robbery are to remain unacceptable in our country, steps will need to be taken. I applaud attempts by government to implement 'moral regeneration' programs, or to decrease the unemployment rate (face it folks, boredom breeds peccancy), but the simple fact is that they need supplementary assistance. On the flip-side, kangaroo courts have a reputation for hasty and often incorrect decision-making.

Pastor Jacob?

I didn’t know the church was in the business of conferring honorary pastorships – but even so, this one sent the warning bells ringing. Educational institutions such as universities usually confer honorary degrees to recipients who have demonstrated a level of eminence and scholarship sufficient to formally earn such a degree. I would assume that in the church’s case it would require the exhibition of a high level of moral and spiritual repute. Not to mention that it might even be a prerogative for the candidate to be of that particular religious persuasion.

How then does Mr Zuma, a public figure who’s been endlessly embrangled in embarrassing scandals which range from rape to corruption, qualify? Isn’t the church meant to uphold societal values such as loyalty and virtue? This man publicly admitted to having sex with his best friend’s HIV positive daughter – and then having a shower as a contraceptive/anti-retroviral measure; shamefully impetuous. If anything, he’s provided more reason for society to distrust the political elite rather than any form of virtuous puissance.

Perhaps this has nothing to do with morals or ‘playing church’. Perhaps this has everything to do with the next leader of the ANC being chosen at the end of this year and the political and fiscal ramifications associated with this.

Rather than a clerical collar, they should have handed him his cheque-book and dispensed with the farce of pandering to the choir.

DOH regulations allow embryonic stem cell research in SA

(Cartoon compliments of Zapiro)

The proposed regulations published for review on Jan. 5, 2007 can be found here.

Section 9.a states:

"[Ownership of] excess embryos from in vitro fertilisation, for the purpose of research, is vested with the donor."

While Section 10.a states:

"[Ownership of stem cells derived from] excess embryos for the purpose of research, is vested with the State."

For those not savvy with the SCR method -- harvesting stem cells from an embryo effectively destroys it.

The problem is that these 'embryos' are immature human beings. This is supported by medical, embryological and biological science. From the moment of fertilization, this genetically unique entity will require only nutrition, oxygen and a suitable environment to develop into a fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent and ultimately adult human being. This dynamic process of growth gives very little in the form of distinct moments where functional humanity can be determined.

Bioethicists may use Personhood Theory or suchlike to propose that these embryos aren't in fact human -- or rather they're not human enough to be entitled to any of the rights that functioning humans are (e.g. the right to life). In response, there are convincing rebuttals which suggest that the latency exhibited by embryological/fetal growth is fundamentally comparable to the functional latency of sleep or a short-term comatose state. If the likes of Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, had their way, parents would be able to 'off' their retarded children.

Obfuscation aside, I suggest that the DOH is grossly neglecting clear scientific evidence by allowing free reign to embryonic experimentation and to crown it all claiming ownership of another human's stem cells: biotech slavery.

Takes one to know one, Bheki

"He is a self-made, arrogant, non-accountable individual who purports to be a good citizen and I will dare to argue that he is also a racist."

This is how KZN's transport and community safety (sic) MEC Bheki Cele (centre, sporting the 'car-guard' garb) describes a whistle-blowing motorist who got shoved off the fast lane by a blue-light motorcade speeding at over 160 km/h.

Cele then had the gall to demand the particulars of this whistle-blower from the newspaper that ran the story. Apparently this motorist is a reckless hazard to society by following the speeding convoy and using his cellphone -- to take pictures of the event. It seems like you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a self-important politician in South Africa.

The sheer arrogance of this statement borders on the narcissistic. Since when are public servants so incredibly important that they are above the law? What nerve. Is Cele arrogant? Check.

Next, he refuses to face up to the concept of responsibility -- instead demonising the person who brought it to public attention. In this instance, is Cele a 'non-accountable individual'? Check.

The race card is getting insipid and stupefyingly dull. Is seems that whenever anyone is accused of anything, this gets thrown out. How can Cele even have a clue if he's still demanding to know who the whistle-blower is? This country has a long way to go if politicians are instantly deemed the martyrs of racial assault whenever they're criticised. It would seem that colour is still the main filter through which politicians view the public. So, is Cele a racist? Check.

Personally I don't have a problem with a speeding convoy if there's an emergency -- but I have my doubts about whether being late for a meeting qualifies as one. The crux lies in how this matter was handled and the irony of the attempted 'white-wash' (bad pun intended). I suggest a tad more humility, coupled with a sense of responsibility towards society from our current leadership.

The Goracle's Epistemology

(Cartoon compliments of Michael Ramirez)

If Al Gore falls in the forest and there's no media around to hear it, does he make a sound?

I think not. This envirovangelist is quite a gas -- and mostly hype.

Once upon a TIME it was worth reading it

Ah! Wonderful! TIME mag's '100 Most Influential People'. Let's see... What the? Sacha Baron Cohen?! This sleazeball couldn't possibly tell a joke below the belt -- because the belt is dangling around his ankles. His gags are just that: puke! He's influenced me all right -- I want to change the channel each time I see his smug mug.

Moving on. Soon to be Dr, Al Gore?! The tree-hugging, doom-merchant who releases more greenhouse gasses in a day, flying around to give his 'save-the-planet' speech and attend Oscar acceptance parties, than the average American does in a year? We'll change when you do, Al. Nuff said.

Hmm... some of these are not bad. Right on!

Wait a minute. Something's not right here. What happened to the single most powerful man in the world -- Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces? I see Osama Bin Laden made the list. What about the man with the big stick that he's hiding from? Condolezza Rice and John Roberts made the list. What about the man who appointed them? The one who's busy waging a 'global war on terror' and has hundreds of thousands of men and women embroiled in costly war of attrition against fanaticism?

This can't be a popularity contest since leaders from some oppressive countries, namely China, Iran and Cuba made it. What about the leader of the free world? Seeing this it TIME, I might be wrong. If it is a popularity contest, then you left out 'Mlume'! Everybody loves my dog.

The office of the President of the United States of America, irrespective of political leaning or popularity is the single most influential person. How have other people in this list been more influential? Have they saved lives? Have they taken away lives? Have they helped the world economy? Have they slowed the economy? Have they done any of these to the same extent that the president can and has? We're talking about the fella who just recently told Congress and the Senate to "shut up, sit down" when he vetoed their 'cut-and-run-from-Iraq' bill. After reading this list I'm expectantly waiting for the next winner of American Idol to be proclaimed "TIME's Man of the Year".

I'm not even going to get started on how Barack Hussein Obama makes it there ahead of him. Maybe they were handing out 'risk-free presidencies' since I've never seen him take a stance on any of the controversial and important issues:

"Uh, President Obama, Osama just threatened to drop a nuke in NY if you don't come have a happy-meal with him at the local McDonals!"

"Lets take a poll and see if there's a consensus on this issue."

When TIME gets done patting itself on the back for yet another rip on Dubbya, they'll realize that no one cares what they have to say -- people will have moved on to journalism where news is reported – not made.

I have one question for whoever drafted this list: are you smoking your magazine?

Fanaticism, forgiveness and "the Banality of Evil"

I was physically sick when I read of the 3 staff members of a bible publishing company in Turkey who were brutally attacked by an Islamic fundamentalist group. Unverified reports claim these animals filmed their heinous deeds on cellular phone as they proceeded to disembowel, dismember and repeatedly stab their helpless victims, before slitting their throats.

I struggle to understand how the human creature can intentionally kill another in cold blood, let alone barbarically torture for no reason other than incompatible religious beliefs. Psychologists would probably opt for the insanity defense, but given some of the perpetrators already owning up to the crime, I strongly suspect that this insult to civilized society was planned, psyched and executed with the full knowledge of what they were doing.

In attempting to understand I refer to philosopher Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: a Report on the Banality of Evil, where she argues that great evils, such as the holocaust, are not committed by fanatics and sociopaths, but rather by very ordinary people who having embraced certain common premises, participate with the view that their actions are normal and acceptable -- even ordinary.

Is it possible that these young, obviously impressionable and mutually motivated men thought their atrocities were acceptable, even normal? Is it possible that they were given credibility by their mutual disdain of a foreign religion? Are their actions much different from the insanity of the suicide bombers who are daily blowing up hundreds of their fellows in mutual contempt of an invading army?

On one side I see a religion which can so easily be construed to encourage mindless violence in the name of Jihad -- whether for preservation or proselytization. Yet on the other I see the Banality of Evil. It's everywhere. You don't need to look any further than South Africa -- which parades the second highest number of murders per capita in the world. We're only 'one-upped' by a country where kidnapping for ransom while growing some freakish narcotic is the national sport. Of the 150 children being raped per day in SA, 3 out of 5 of the mothers are aware of the abuse. Oh yes, South Africa is by far the world leader in rapes per capita. Without a doubt, there's a little Eichmann inside each of us, waiting to be released.

Amongst all this turmoil, there stands the wife of one those tortured and murdered in Turkey -- publicly forgiving these men, emulating those immortal words, "for they know not what they do".

This is a stark reminder of the choice that each one of us faces -- every moment, of every day.

I have a dream

"I still have a dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up against each other and erupt into an oasis of crime, grime and home to racial attacks and injustice.
"I have a dream that my children will be repeatedly raped, sodomised and left to fend for themselves long after HIV and Aids have taken me away.
"I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day farmers shall be brutally murdered and workers thrown into a lions' den.
"Let chaos ring from the streets of South Africa - and when this happens we will all join hands and sing: 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'
"What have you done with your freedom South Africa?
"Don't let it go to waste, cherish it.
"This Freedom Day message sadly brought to you by Sowetan - the soul truth."

Gimme 'Cho' Gun

The bodies of the fateful Virginia Tech Massacre victims were hardly cold before the pro-gun control lobby jumped on the bandwagon, citing this tragedy as yet another reason for stricter gun regulations.

The problem is that Virginia Tech is a 'gun-free zone'. Permit-carrying students are prevented from wearing concealed weapons. Perhaps mad-gunman Seung-Hui Cho just wasn't aware of the 'rules' or he'd have come with a less lethal repertoire of weapons -- like a rubber mallet, 'cap' gun or pea-shooter. If only they had put up large neon signs declaring, "This area is a gun-free zone! Leave your gun at home so you can feel safer!" they could have avoided this disaster.

The fundamental irony is like bitter gall given the many lives lost: gun control only applies to law-abiding citizens -- the section of the populace least likely to commit violent crime and most in need of protection from animals like Cho. You'd have to subscribe to the dense Liberal Logic to expect criminals (who by definition break the law) to abide by any such 'regulations'. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if a criminal could choose between helpless victims or an environment where they're liable to shoot back, the choice is a simple one.

Several comprehensive studies by reputable economist John Lott et al, conclude that, "[a]llowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths." Also, "...concealed handgun... laws reduce the number of multiple victim public shootings. Attackers are deterred and the number of people injured or killed per attack is also reduced, thus for the first time providing evidence that the harm from crimes that still occur can be mitigated."

In a country with as high a rate of violent crime as South Africa, it would be criminal to further disarm the innocent population -- leaving them at the mercy of an inept, incompetent and apathetic police force that would just as soon join in on the ‘fun’ than prevent it.

Bobby Mugabe as paranoid as ever

After almost single-handedly dragging his country into the sewer, Bob still has the audacity to lay the blame at Blair's feet. Gaining power over what was once the bread basket of southern Africa, Mugabe and his ragtag herd of ZANU-PF 'war veterans' (some of them not old enough to be 'veterans' at a game of marbles) have raped, pillaged and bullied their way through a land-reform program that must be hailed as the bungle of the decade.

Facing severe food shortages, runaway inflation, currency devaluation and almost 70% of his work force fleeing to neighbouring countries, this 'hero of transformation' has stood valiantly by his ill-conceived and even worse executed policies of national strangulation. The general strike that sparked this drivel is the savoury fruit of his own toils. It boggles the mind that this self-styled Zimbabwean Misinformation Minister can make such an incredulous claim without fogging up his bullet-proof glasses in shame.

Zuma hogging the road?

A politician making a public nuisance of himself -- sounds all too familiar. When are they going to realise that the private citizens they treat like dirt voted them to power in the first place?

My theory is that Jake had an acute attack of IBS and needed a restroom -- it would be consistent with his refusal to comment on the 'security matter'.

Khompela and his blunderbuss of hot gas

As if we don't have enough politicians making fools of themselves (how's the shower-cap fitting you, Jacob?), another prime specimen wades into the bullring: Butana Khomphela, chairperson of South Africa's Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Sport, has threatened to withhold the passports of the South African Springbok Rugby team ahead of the World Cup in France if the team does not show sufficient "transformation".

Not only is this a violation of the South African Constitution, which states succinctly in Chapter 2, Section 21.4, "Every citizen has the right to a passport...", but it opens up a whole new can of worms.

Race has always been a sensitive issue in RSA, so let me first set a few tent-pegs straight: I find it intellectually insulting that one should keep making the distinction between "players of colour" and "the rest". I can't wait for the day where in the words of ol' Marty King, one could just look at the character of the man, rather than the colour of his hide. Why should this lovely country walk boldly into the future staring directly backwards?

However, since Khomphela's brought it up, one might as well take it on his terms -- and his obtuse logic. He insists that there should be at least 6 "players of colour" in the world cup squad:

This destroys any concept of competitive professional sport. When any team runs out against another, they expect to play against the best players the opposing country/club can bring to bear. They don't want to play against the most "politically correct" team, or the team that has best lined the pockets of the pertinent politician. Why bother playing, it will only have token significance.

At its essence, it seems that Khomphela requires the team to be representative of the entire South African demographic. Why then does he discriminate against women? And the handicapped? If he wants it to be representative, there should be at least 1 blind person, 7 1/2 females and 3 pets in the Springbok team! Why should race be the deciding factor here?

Obviously excelling in a certain sport is rooted in that which is embraced by a culture -- and the skills which are subsequently nurtured from childhood. There will always be an inconsistency while certain cultures favour certain sports. You're more likely to find an expert in martial arts than a cricket player in the orient. As cultures amalgamate, this will slowly be reflected in the national teams – which is exactly what’s happening. How pretentious of Government to set the benchmark for this amalgamation.

The inconsistency of this application is immediately visible if one looks at a sport which is predominantly enjoyed by "players of colour"; soccer being a case in point. When watching the PSL, I double take when I see a "player of non-colour (pah!)" on the field. One possible reason for such a meager representation is ngoba bayizinkomo! Generally in Africa, white man can't jump -- nor kick the soccer ball. Maybe there simply aren't that many who can -- and want to -- compete at such a level of the game.

So why then aren't the PSL clubs forced to implement a quota system for "players of non-colour"? Why stop at PSL? All sports -- from absailing to figure-skating to zookeeping -- should have quotas implemented. The rest of the world might stop laughing by 2020.

It is no wonder the sport talent is leaving South Africa in droves.