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.