When the denial prefaces the justification

Perhaps you notice how the denial is so often the preface to the justification. – Christopher Hitchens

Last week I wrote about the release of the Public Protector’s report on the Nkandla scandal which discloses how nearly R250-million of taxpayers’ money was squandered on supposed security upgrades to President Zuma’s private home.

On Sunday the President spoke about it for the first time, but his response is both hysterical and contemptible at the same time. While the report was quite clear that Zuma and his family benefitted materially from the upgrades at taxpayers’ expense, and that he displayed both lack of leadership and control, the President prefers to bury his head in the ground.

I did not use taxpayers’ money. They put in windows that I don’t even want. Then they turn around and say this fellow used the government’s money.

This despicable man, who is slowly but surely eclipsing some of Apartheid South Africa’s past Presidents, and even Robert Mugabe, for being the worst example of leadership on the continent, actually expects the public to believe that he did not know what was going on in his own backyard.

Is it reasonable to expect anyone who finds bulldozers busy on his property and massive and expensive renovations taking place, not to question what is going on? What is this bullshit about windows? That does not even begin to address the scale of the renovations, but he glibly mentions this to the group of elderly people he was selling his candidacy to, for the upcoming elections.

It is gratifying to note that the calls for his impeachment are growing and even his own party members who previously closed ranks around him, are now asking him to answer for his scandalous behaviour. However there are still those within the ANC and bewilderingly some members of the public who think it’s okay to misappropriate public money.

Let’s hope that both these miscreants and the President are given what they deserve before the elections in less than two months, because the country surely will not survive another term of office with Zuma in charge.

#In case you’re wondering about the picture. It’s a new meme doing the rounds on social media. It points out that the public did not ask for the very expensive electronic tolling of major highways which the President signed into effect a few months ago, and which is attracting massive resistance.

And oh, you might want to check out this parody of what I would describe as the worst song ever, which suddenly became somewhat likeable.

Kim Jong-il (1941/42 – 2011)

Image via Wikipedia

What are the chances? Kim Jong-il dying at about the same time as Christopher Hitchens who absolutely despised the North Korean dictator. Some coincidence, yes?

While Hitchens’ death was mostly lamented and regretted, Kim’s death was mourned openly, as evidenced by this YouTube video, to a degree that is quite bewildering. Now that is deeply disturbing.

Either the North Korean people genuinely loved the degenerate old tosser, or the show of grief is a put-on by a fearful populace. I’m going with the latter.

The passing of this evil tyrant will be mostly welcomed by all people in the world who have their heads screwed on right, but it also leaves everyone a bit jittery about what’s going to happen to the country which has nuclear capability. Kim’s successor, his own son Kim Jong-un appears to be just as evil, if not more so, just judging by this picture embedded after fact number 14 of this article in The Telegraph.

Off course there are a few sub-humans in the world who are at this moment bemoaning the death of Kim Jong-il and the decimation of the Despots Club; most notably one Robert Gabriel Mugabe of Zimbabwe. And it’s only a matter of time until some dingbat in South Africa’s own dictatorship-in-the-making, the ANC, will come out publicly to sing the praises of Dear Leader.

Now if only Mad Bob would croak before the end of the year in less than two weeks; it would be a bumper year indeed for the obliteration of tyrannical pieces of fecal matter. Come on Santa, make it happen!

Christopher Hitchens (1949 – 2011)

 

Christopher Hitchens would have had no trouble whatsoever to write eloquently about the death of someone both greatly admired and despised, as he himself was. While I count myself in the former category, on the contrary, am finding it not so easy to express with the same degree of articulacy, what a great loss to humanity his death is.

The measure of integrity of the man shone brightly as he maintained his steadfast stance on anti-theism, right through a harrowing fight with cancer, and despite predictions from hate-filled religionists that he would eventually turn to their gods.

Hitchens had the sort of life that most people can only dream off; hard and fast religionists off course denying themselves that simple pleasure. He may be no more but his memory will live as long as man still cherishes true freedom.

What Freedom of Speech Means to Christopher Hitchens

From Vanity Fair article

Whatever your feelings about the robust atheist beliefs of Christopher Hitchens, you will eventually admit that he was a marvellous orator, and an incredibly good writer too.

So it’s rather sad that he is currently fighting cancer, which is now laying claim to his vocal chords as well. However his mind is as strong as ever and it’s unlikely that the dastardly disease will make any inroads there.

It’s therefore a pleasure to be able to continue reading his work, the most recent of which is an article in Vanity Fair where he shares some thoughts on the loss of his voice and what it means to him. It begins so:

Like so many of life’s varieties of experience, the novelty of a diagnosis of malignant cancer has a tendency to wear off. The thing begins to pall, even to become banal. One can become quite used to the specter of the eternal Footman, like some lethal old bore lurking in the hallway at the end of the evening, hoping for the chance to have a word. And I don’t so much object to his holding my coat in that marked manner, as if mutely reminding me that it’s time to be on my way. No, it’s the snickering that gets me down.

Catch the rest of his thoughts here:

Christopher Hitchens: Unspoken Truths Culture: vanityfair.com.

How many Atheists will the Vatican convert? Seriously?

The Pontifical Council must be losing it. Last year they announced an initiative to reach out to Atheists by staging a series of debates and other forms of dialogue, in an effort to foster better relations.

Known as Courtyard of the Gentiles, the Vatican has now revealed that the event will take place in Paris, France on March 24-25. But it seems that they may follow through with their stated intention of not allowing some of the world’s most outspoken Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to participate. Apparently the “irony and sarcasm” of these gentlemen are not appreciated.

One news source I read today proclaimed that the event is aimed at introducing non-believers to God. Ahem!

I would tend to think that Atheists are quite well acquainted with the gods of the world – which is why they’ve become non-believers! It never ceases to amaze me how believers still hang onto the notion that non-believers are just angry with the gods for whatever reason, and it will just take some sort of enticement [such as this Courtyard of the Gentiles initiative], or even the fear of approaching death, to get us back among the faithful again.

Anyway, if “sarcasm and irony” is missing from the event in Paris, it would just be another great big boring preaching session. It’s not like the Church, that bastion of backwards thinking, is going to teach an Atheist something new.

Yawn!

The fight to eradicate cancer and ignorance

I came across two reports of cancer this weekend and how the separate victims deal with it; one filled with inspiration and hope, the other an indictment on religious ignorance.

I know it’s not nice to criticize cancer victims, because the probability of being stricken myself, by this nasty malady is pretty high, but I believe it’s important to expose the ignorance emanating from religion which surrounds this, and other ailments. It’s also important that sufferers learn to deal with the reality of their situation, and not succumb to false hope, usually imparted by supernatural or superstitious belief systems.

Tammie Cohrs a cancer patient, of South Carolina in the USA believes that prayer helped her through a recent MRI scan, and that she received proof of this when the figure of Jesus showed up on her image results. Tammie is going to be mighty disappointed when she eventually finds out that Jesus’s power is limited to showing up on scanned images, and does not extend to eradicating any ailments the scanned image points to. While Cohrs commented that she does not care about what anybody else thinks, she is clearly trying to influence people to believe in the supernatural, through the very act of announcing her peculiar find.

Christopher Hitchens, author of the bestselling book, God Is Not Great contracted a cancer of the esophagus a little while ago, which by his own accounts is spreading to other parts of his body. While the news generally brought good wishes from friends, and offers of prayers from good-hearted theists, it was not surprising that others in the religious fraternity took this opportunity to gloat, as described by Hitchens himself in this Vanity Fair article:

Who else feels Christopher Hitchens getting terminal throat cancer [sic] was God’s revenge for him using his voice to blaspheme him? Atheists like to ignore FACTS. They like to act like everything is a “coincidence”. Really? It’s just a “coincidence” [that] out of any part of his body, Christopher Hitchens got cancer in the one part of his body he used for blasphemy? Yea, keep believing that Atheists. He’s going to writhe in agony and pain and wither away to nothing and then die a horrible agonizing death, and THEN comes the real fun, when he’s sent to HELLFIRE forever to be tortured and set afire.

However, Hitchens has stood up well to his detractors and continues being inspirational in the face of the spreading disease. In the most recent article about his condition in Vanity Fair, he describes how he has tried various scientific remedies, and goes on to relate his utter disgust at a legal block being enforced by religious supporters of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, who prohibit any federal spending in promising stem cell research.

Once again, religious ignorance rears its ugly head; this time to frustrate scientific endeavours to find cures for the dreaded cancer and possibly other diseases too. Hitchens, in his usually erudite style does not mince his words when commenting about the use of non-sentient human embryos:

But now religious maniacs strive to forbid even their use, which would help what the same maniacs regard as the unformed embryo’s fellow humans! The politicized sponsors of this pseudo-scientific nonsense should be ashamed to live, let alone die. If you want to take part in the “war” against cancer, and other terrible maladies too, then join the battle against their lethal stupidity.

Hitchens acknowledges that he may die before any cure can be found, but he is willing to contribute personally (even financially) in any research that will contribute to “enlarging the knowledge that will help future generations.” And so, encouraged by these words from Horace Mann, Hitchens endeavours to trudge on with the chemo routine, augmented if it proves worthwhile by radiation and perhaps the much-discussed CyberKnife for a surgical intervention…

Until you have done something for humanity, you should be ashamed to die.

I’m Having Second Thoughts About Being An Atheist

Now don’t get me wrong; I haven’t had an epiphany or earth-shattering change in my way of thinking. And I don’t intend returning to the religious fold any time soon, or ever. I’m merely considering that maybe attaching the label, Atheist to myself is not exactly such a good thing. Allow me to explain…

Over the last month or so, I’ve been having a debate with some guy (I will just use his first name, Daniel) on Atheist Nation, over the “ideology” associated with Atheism. Atheist Nation is a closed/members only group for Atheists, but Theists and in fact anyone are welcomed as members. Our debate concerned the apparent degeneration of Atheism into just another patronising, arrogant and self-important ideology which had slowly assumed the mantle of intolerance that Religionists display so proudly. Daniel went on to assert that world-famous authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens were fanning the flames of intolerance and zealotry in Atheists by their “hypocritical” criticism and condemnation of religion and its followers. Daniel maintained that by insulting all Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. collectively we were stooping to the same level as any unthinking, uncritical, religionist. Daniel, by the way is an Atheist, but actually prefers the term skeptic which is also favored by Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society and editor of Skeptic magazine.

The point, which I admittedly, at first failed to come to terms with, and which, Daniel was trying get across in often lewd terminology, was that religion itself was not the problem, but the ideological thinking behind it, more specifically the uncritical, dogmatic and irrational approach to reality by the adherents of religions. Atheists it seems, were being led to believe that religion itself was abhorrent because of the centuries-old antagonism and strife between the various religious faiths, and the despicable fundamentalist behaviour of many of its followers.

Daniel also pointed out that Dawkins equates Atheism with superior intelligence and thus relegates it to an elitist world-view, but I think this is a bit harsh on Dawkins. I am confident that Dawkins’ sincerity is beyond reproach. However, the insinuation remains and the best defense I can offer on behalf of Dawkins is that it was certainly not intentional, and he should not be held responsible for an individual’s interpretation of his work. What is important here is that this should serve as a warning to Atheists; that they, in their interactions with Theists, should be careful of giving or creating the impression of intellectual superiority, and a smug attitude.

It’s also true that Atheists and Theists face the same problems and challenges every day; we just deal with them differently. Instead of coercing Theists into adopting new “tools” for dealing with reality, we just need to make them aware of the choices and let them decide for themselves. I still however, favor the use of (respectful) dissonance to stimulate or provoke a change in thinking in Theists, but not in any way that could be construed as proselytizing. I know Daniel wont like it, but I don’t think it is that hard to do this, without succumbing to the behaviour described earlier.

I had this idea all along that Atheism was going to save the world; that we (Atheists) were going to save the religionists from themselves. But, we were going about it all the wrong way; by succumbing to near-fundamentalism ourselves. I now see how we Atheists could indeed become that which we were trying so hard to irradicate. It’s hard to believe that this could be true, but if I apply the critical, rational thinking I advocate, then I have no choice but to accept that it could be so.

So back to the label of Atheist. When accosted by a religionist, will I be able to just say “I’m just a skeptic, I lack a belief in God, the burden of proof is on you.” Or will my perverse desire to “kick some ass” come to the fore? Time will tell.

Curse All Automated Telephone Answering Systems

Last Friday, my broadband connection suddenly stopped working. Since I was out partying the whole weekend, I did not get a chance to report the problem to my service provider. When I did eventually try on Monday afternoon, I became embroiled in a battle of raw perseverance with my service provider who shall remain nameless.

After following the voice prompt process of keying in what seemed like interminable choices, I waited on the line for about 25 minutes, listening to crappy music interspersed with some guy with the most irritating voice droning “You are currently holding for a (name of service provider) Broadband Consultant, please stay on the line; we will be with you shortly,” and then gave up. After trying to re-configure my router and a few other things, I decided to call it quits for the night.

I tried again on Tuesday night, this time determined to outlast that droning voice and the boring music. I settled into a more or less comfortable position, with the receiver cradled between my left ear (for some reason, I tend to hear better with my left ear) and my shoulder, and I started to read Christopher Hitchens’ book “The Portable Atheist.” After an hour and twenty minutes of bad music and “You are currently holding for a (name of service provider) Broadband Consultant, please stay on the line; we will be with you shortly,”  I decided to put an end to this torture by telephone. By this time my neck was sore as hell and I finally realised that the reason I was waiting so long for this elusive Broadband Consultant, was probably because my service provider had not hired him or her yet.

Anyway, I tried another tact the following day; I got onto my service provider’s website at work, and bombarded them with nasty, nearly threatening mails and complaints about their poor service. This seemed to do the trick and my broadband link was restored on Friday afternoon.

So there you have it, don’t put up with poor service, get nasty…