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.