Gay Santa

And the winner in the category for best "Seasonal Wish Expressed (either implicitly or explicity)", our dearest friend Kleinbooi Kooi for his personal wish, which follows:

I wanted to send you a holiday greeting, but it is so difficult in today's world
to know exactly what to say without offending someone. So I met with my attorney
yesterday, and on his advice I wish to say the following:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an
environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, nonaddictive,
gender neutral celebration of the summer solstice holiday, practiced with the
most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your
choice with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of
others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at
all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically
uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year
2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures
whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply
that South Africa is necessarily greater than any other country) and without
regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or
sexual preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:

This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely
transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise
by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others
and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of
the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual
application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a
subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to
replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of
the wisher.

Disclaimer: No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a
significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.

Canned Hunting

Oh Ye, yeah Ye, Lancelot. Rise like the noble Knight in Shining Armour I knoweth Thee to be and defend thine Kingdom.

Following my recent comment blog "On Conservation", little did I expect that I would be called for to heroically defend the principle of that comment like a Lancelot fighting for his King. Of course I am talking a total load of shit way out of context, but I just encountered something I find philosophically deplorable on one of my favourite blogs. You can read the whole thing here.

Two Married Bat Eared Foxes

Tony Halls & Vernon Gibbs, two game rangers and the first gay couple on the African continent to get married under South Africa's new Civil Union Act.

"We did not have a very romantic wedding night because we have two baby bat-eared foxes that kept us up all night wanting to be fed and cuddled. And then someone brought in a black eagle with a broken wing and we had
to take care of that. Black eagles are highly endangered and very beautiful. It's been very hectic." - Guardian Story.

"I just have one message I would like to give to everybody, that we are just two men who love each other and who have loved each other for a long time," Gibbs told state television. - Scotsman Story.

The Right [sic] of left handed people.

I just read South Africa's new Civil Union Act, which makes provision for gay couples to marry. In the Preamble, it says:

AND WHEREAS section 9(3) of the Constitution provides that the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including [...]"

Then in the Section "Formula for solemnisation of marraige or civil partnership", under 11(2) it reads: "...and thereupon the parties must give each other the right hand...". And further down in 11(3) it makes provision for those with physical disabilities to be excluded from this right-hand ceremony.

ERM.. HELLO??.. EXCUSE ME!!! But what about non-physically disabled left handed people??? Does this not discriminate???!!! HAHAHA! I'm just waiting to hose myself on seeing some "Right [pun intended] of left handed people" lobby group challenge that.

A revised reading of the bill will have to make provisions so that a marraige officer may not have to be compelled to wed people offering their left hand to one another, lest those from that other extremist superstition think they are giving each other a hand full of shit.

Bush wants to hold the next round of WTO talks in Darfur

If Dubya had sex on his mind nearly as much as his predecessor, the White House website would have been full of cockslips, cumslips and titslips.

From the White House website

Dubya: " We talked about, interestingly enough, the Darfur [sic] round. [South African] President [Thabo Mbeki] is concerned about whether or not the World Trade Organization round will go forward. He recognizes, like I recognize, that trade will lift more people out of poverty than any other mechanism. And I told the President I am committed to the Darfur [sic] round. I believe in trade. And I believe in the necessity of trade. And so we'll work to see if we can't get that issue solved."

Think Twice Before Having a Facelift.

Stiff - The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach of all names, must be one of the more humourous morbid reads of late if you can stand not being grossed out...

Read some Extracts. The Coen Brothers would feel right at home. Mind you so too might the Adams Family.

On Conservation

"The arrogance of stewardship [as informed by the Genesis mythology] consists in the idea of superiority which underlies the thought that we exist to watch over nature like a highly respected middleman between the Creator and Creation."

Arne Næss, founder of Deep Ecology movement in Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy.

Fart lands flight

An American Airlines flight made an emergency landing on Monday after a passenger with severe gas problems struck matches to mask the odour of flatulence, an official said.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/12/07/1165081061811.html

What would Chavez say?

"America's Secret War" by George Friedman is without a doubt the most insightful and comprehensive book I have encountered about all the BS we have seen coming from the Dubya Plutocracy. Now, if this is not a well-orchestrated attempt of Dubya propaganda, then BOY, have I underestimated him. The point is that the presentation of the War on "Terror" in this book is forcing me to make a monumental re-appraisal of - at least the reasons behind Bush's War. It is astounding how all this information has been out there all along, but how the bits & pieces escape public and media comprehension. This book explains in a clinical manner the tapestry behind the 30 second newscasts we see and in the process bucks all conspiracy theories. This is about hardcore realpolitik and the diplomacy (duplomacy is more like it) behind waging war. And here moi have been thinking this has been all about the greed behind oil. An absolute must-read and I readily admit - also the only book about this topic I have read so far (and is likely to). Would Americ'as other right wing party have won the mid-term elections if Chavez asked the UN duplomats whether they have read this book? I wonder...

Scientology and the Cruises

The pic shows Xenu as depicted by the BBC's Panorama (Source: Wikipedia)

Yesterday I read about about the Church of Scientology. The same Tom Cruise's church that litigates anyone who cares to make comments about it on account of Scientology being copyrighted. What prats. If they are truly interested in obtaining "knowledge" as their name suggest, then surely it merits an open public discussion and enquiry into their beliefs.

The secrecy with which this "Church" operates is indeed bizarre. I must admit that my sources of information regarding them came from Wikipedia. Apparently the "Church" sued Google for making links to websites critical of them available to the public. The Wikipedia website goes at length to mention how "new recruits" had to build a flower garden overnight for Mr. Tom (not of Finland) so that he could impress Nicole Kidman. I remembered a feature of Nicole some time after her divorce with Tom (was it the Vanity Fair?). It featured some lovely shots with that actor who used to be good looking a few centuries ago but is now bald with 6 inch long chest hair. He's always playing cocky astronauts etc. They seemed all enraptured in a field of flowers, a natural one, not a makeshift garden. I couldn't help but wonder whether or not she was communicating - sending a "secret" message for those who know. After all, when she remarried she did it in a Catholic Church. Perhaps Kidman & Cruise got divorced because she was no longer willing to believe in "Xenu (also Xemu) [..] an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of aliens to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to wreak chaos and havoc today" (Source: Wikipedia - fuck only knows what Tom Cruise not being gay has to do with that as it is so covertly inserted into the text). But now that I have a little bit more (unconfirmed) information about Scientology, it confirmed something I always thought about our man "Cruise" - he is not the brightest celebrity around. In fact, his talent is questionable even when he is at his best, such as in Magnolias. But he remains good to look at. But nevertheless, I respect his right to believe any bullshit he wishes to believe. It is what makes us free.

If the ignorance of the belief system of "science" maintains that we evolved from a massive cosmic accident, it only figures that some prat will come up with a belief that humans evolved from clams. It is unreasonable to call reason an accident. I mean really. How fucking mentally retarded and stupid must you be to believe that? But AFA Scientology is concerned, bottom line is that scepticism of anyone who offers you knowledge for which you must pay for the purpose of profit and who maintains ownership therof, is well founded.

Gay Marraiges in South Africa

I recently posted this comment to the Commentary blog on the debate that lead to the legalisation of gay marraiges in South Africa (with some changes).

The whole gay marraige thing has not been dealt with in the most appropriate context. The whole debate centred around whether or not straight people should or should not, on account of being a majority, permit homosexuals to marry. The ACDP and Freedom Front + opponents who recited hellfire and brimstone messages in parliament sorely missed the point. They argue that marraige as a social institution is an act under the whateverness of some god or the other, with the assumption that there is only one true god and that all people must be believers in this silly god and furthermore that gay marraige must be prevented on account of SA being a democracy and the majority of the population is opposed to it.

That these minority parties took this view to me represents their own long term strategic suicide. This whole issue has nothing to do with the will of the majority. This is plain and simply an issue concerning minority rights. That a minority party such as the FF+ (whom I happen to care little for) voted against minority rights will surely weaken their cause. As a minority party, they should be supportive of all minority rights. Instead they of all people used the ad hoc excuse of the will of the majority to vote against gay marraige. It is only a matter of time before they will shout out in favour of their own minority rights and they are now on record to be in support of the will of the majority. Equality before the law is a principle that protects minorities from discrimination and in this case, it is the only one that matters. Whether or not the majority of people want it is irrelevant, because we know they don't and we know that minority rights require protection for this very reason.

But above all, the - to my knowledge - unchallenged assumption by the ACDP and FF+ of the god factor in the making of laws deserves to never be tolerated. The law is meant to be as secular as possible (for it will ultimately be influenced by beliefs arrising from society) for a very good reason, namely the constitutional right to freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience includes the right not to have to worship as much as it includes to right to worship freely. That any god should be used to justify discrimination and non-equality before the law is unacceptable in the strongest possible terms. The ACDP ought to be taken to task in the severest possible manner in this regard, yet no-one dares to speak out about it.

As far as the institution of marraige and the effect on society is concerned...This institution exists because it arose from the very same superstitious beliefs in god(s) et al and as far as the original institution of wedlock is concerned, it discriminated unbearable on a gender based role. This institution has undergone significant reform made possible by the secularity of the law for the better . If it were still practiced in its original superstitious guise, divorcees would suffer as did past Kings of England (not to mention the 8 Queens of Henry) and as do Catholics and Muslim women who can be left a helpless divorcee by a simple renunciation by their husband of their wedding vows. In fact the whole institution of marraige is primarily one based on commercial concerns, not on whatever religious froth blisters out of the mouths of the faithful [PS: and not on pro-creation either - people do that without getting married. They marry to raise a family, which is comparable to a business partnership and costs money and time, hence, in that way marraige is a commercial concern with investment values of emotional and survival fulfilment, even though the "products" will not be traded in the common sense of commerce - except in the case of girls in many "traditional" and other superstitious cultures] . In centuries gone past, women had virtually no right to a publlic life, including the right to trade and make a living - this is still evident in countries ruled by that other extremist superstition and in many cases in African custom itself, where a deceased man's brother becomes the caretaker / husband / guardian of his brother's widow and the father of his children. Divorce is a legal tool that liberated women from the paternalism which saw them being abused by their husbands without a foot to stand on afterwards. The equal application of the law to gender concerns have allso played its part. Women today no longer need to marry to put dinner on their plate. The institution of marraige has not evaporated because of these incredible reforms. It has continued to survive. There truly is no reason why "the effect on society" of reform of this sad and sorry tradition should be used as a scapegoat to prevent homosexual people from enjoying the legal protection and recourse which the state affords heterosexual married couples in the form of tax and estate law. Regarding the requirement of two opposite genders, let us not forget how the law in years gone past have used gender to also discrimnate against men. As divorcees they almost never obtained custody of their children in the case of a dispute. Making this "instituion" genderless is for the benefit if men as well as women.

I take my hats of to the ANC and the ANC Youth League and Cosatu. As the parties representative of the majority of South Africans they have done the most to protect the rights of minorities in this country - not minority parties, nor the religious righteous. Thank You to them.