A Short Guide on Cricket - for Moms!

To read the article as published in Child Magazine - Sept '14 Issue, click here..

The Full, Unedited Article:

As one of the fortunate fathers to have had the privilege of attending most of my two sons’ sport games over the years; I am mostly surrounded by moms on the side-lines, (fortunate in and of itself perhaps), and even the odd youthful au pair I might add.   During this time, I tend to get suckered into spending a great deal of the match as purveyor of the rules of the game (particularly cricket and water-polo).  This may be some elaborately sexist, stereotypically caring way of making me feel less conspicuous amongst the more intuitive sex, in that I’m automatically expected to understand the rules.  Nevertheless I embrace the banter as it inevitably drifts to far more intriguing ‘women’s talk’ a few moments later.  I do feel that at least I contribute something to the social side-lines, no matter how trivial my contribution. 

Despite my generally boosted status and morale, I have felt compelled to offer a short guide on cricket for moms (..and au pairs).  Although it is no easy task by any means, I have selected a few aspects that have popped up more frequently than others as some useful tips to help boost your cricketing prowess. Call it a FAQ & Answers guide if you like.  (Note that I have refrained from including ‘..For Dummies’)!

To start with, it is important that we dispel a few cricketing myths:

·         a box is not something to wrap Xmas presents in, no matter how precious the package;

·         a slip is not a woman's undergarment worn beneath a dress or skirt;

·         an extra cover is not a coat for your son to wear over his jersey;

·         not only those with magnificent figures may field at fine leg;

·         If your son is asked to field at backward point, that doesn’t mean that he is in any way being chastised for making a silly point;

·         and deep mid-wicket is not an innovative name for a follow up sequel to 50 Shades of Grey.  

With some of those out of the way, here are a few tips to help you appear extremely knowledgeable during idle chatter (but strictly only between breaks in play). Just enough to make your friends marvel and cricket knowledgeable dads treat you with a new-found level of side-line respect.  Cricket spectators are a breed unto themselves, particularly the serious ones.  Respect needs to be earned here like no other sport, and that is just the way it is.

·         There are 3 primary forms of cricket; test cricket, limited overs cricket and 20/20 cricket, each being strategically and tactically very different.  This acknowledgement alone will score you incredible points on the side-lines with impressed eyebrow lifting and nodding to boot. 

·         Test cricket is usually played over 4 or 5 days at professional level.  However at school level in order to teach the ‘proper’ game to youngsters with limited attention spans, ‘time or declaration’ cricket is often played to emulate test cricket instead.  This is where there is a strong chance of a draw, when the first side to bat doesn’t have sufficient time left to bowl the other side out, no matter how few runs the latter side may have scored.  Difficult to comprehend, but stay with me here.

·         Limited overs or 50/50 cricket was introduced to offer those with limited attention spans a chance to enjoy the game and put bums on seats back in the 80’s as time and appreciation for the original form of the game started to wane.  Even the ever essential ‘whites’ were replaced by some rather colourful gear in a form of the game that creates much more hype and opportunity for marketing, side-line distraction, TV coverage and most importantly for many spectators - a result (a win or a loss).

·         If the above form wasn’t enough to make true cricketing aficionados roll in their graves, T20 or 20/20 cricket most certainly would have.  As the age of instant gratification became more prevalent amongst sport enthusiasts in the late 90’s, and advertising revenue ruled the roost of professional sport, this form of cricket was introduced to offer shear entertainment.  Here batsmen are enticed to take much greater risks in order to score big runs (4’s and 6’s are encouraged as sex and action are in the movies, for retained attention). 

There is as much off the field entertainment as on, with many spectators not being huge appreciators of fine cricket, side shows became the norm.  Scantily clad dancing girls gyrate after every boundary, in what some might call ‘provocative’ outfits (even in Dubai!), jiving to the beat of a loud cacophony of DJ music mixes, accompanied by pyrotechnics.  The gear is no longer merely colourful, but Gaudi-esque.  To cricket aficionado snobs, this is ‘just not cricket!’  But it’s bums on seats that counts, and this form of the game has made cricket far more accessible and a great day or night out for the entire family. 

·         Now, one of the questions often posed by an irritable mum on the side-lines is ‘why her son isn’t bowling’ or ‘is now batting down the order’.  The reason is most likely simply team strategy and tactics.  A different approach is required for each and every game or form of the game.  It is dependent upon many factors, too many to mention here, but just go with it. 

Your son may be a great opening batsman, but not much good at scoring quick runs required in limited overs.  Much like chess, cricket is a game requiring a great degree of strategic planning and tactical adaptation.  Similarly, on a particular day, your beloved son who is a marvellous little bowler, may not be the most appropriate to bowl at that particular time.  Unfortunately however, as in life, politics and sport are never entirely mutually exclusive.

·         You may feel that your son is a talented all-rounder in your eyes, and that may be delightfully true, but genuine ‘all-rounders’ are rare commodities.  However it is understood that it would ‘be nice’ for your son to do a bit of everything (like Jacques Kallis or AB de Villiers), and in the junior age groups that should be encouraged.  But as he moves up the prep or primary school ladder, it will become evident as to what sort of speciality he is most likely to excel at.  Remember, far fewer than 1% of our darlings will ever play professionally!

·         Some poo-poo cheering on the side-lines, though there are differences in etiquette in the various forms of the game. The stiffest rules pertain to Test Cricket.  However the world is a changing place and shouting encouragement from the side-lines is no longer out of place.  So long as you do so during breaks-in-play.  “Bravo!” is sometimes still a firm favourite amongst some, as is “Jolly good cricket all round chaps!”, but comments like “take his head off”, “moer him!” and the like are generally still frowned upon in all forms of the game. 

·         Finally mom’s, a box is something that your son should choose for himself.  Although he’s bound to choose one that’s way too large for his ‘spud’, it’ll give him some sense of satisfaction even though there may be few pictures of him not readjusting his crotch after every shot.  After all, men are born convinced that size counts, as women are about weight perhaps.  At the end of the day, better a big box than a small box, as the latter is bound to end in tears.

Cricket is a brilliant character builder for those who persevere.  So my advice here is; be brave, be very brave, as your sons have to be in order to enjoy this challenging, complex, yet extremely gratifying game. 

Howzat!?

The Middle East in context for Dummies

I cannot lay claim to this insight, but as it was passed on to me I thought it worth sharing as it puts the conflict in (at least part of) the Middle East nicely into perspective..

This clarifies what's been confusing us about the current situation in the Middle East.

·         We in the US support the Iraqi government in the fight against ISIS.

·         We don't like ISIS, but ISIS is supported by Saudi Arabia, who we do like.

·         We don't like Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but ISIS is also fighting against him.

·         We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government in its fight against ISIS.

·         So some of our friends support our enemies, some enemies are now our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies, who we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.

·         If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they could be replaced by people we like even less.

·         And all this was started by our invading a country to drive out terrorists who were not actually there until we went in to drive them out.

It's all quite simple, really.

Analyse the statistics and C – Y (Inevitable Road Rage in 'Slaap Stad')

I recently received an article written by the ‘illustrious’ Steve Hofmeyer (an Afrikaans entertainer,  loved by a small few, who has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth at times).  Naturally this is not something I necessarily have a problem with, unless of course it’s trite, which is very often is.  Nevertheless, this particular article apparently got him into some trouble for being racist, although I'm not entirely sure it wasn't all a rather poorly orchestrated publicity stunt.  However there was an interesting angle in what he appeared to mean by the article in saying that, ‘South African women are more likely to be murdered by their husbands and partners, but [that] this does not hold true for white South African Women’.

It is a well-known fact that more than 85% of murders in South Africa are domestically based, or involve parties who know one another.  Interesting and rather refreshing one might argue, though it may cause some trust issues amongst spouses.  But where I do come to Mr. Hofmeyer’s defence, purely as a strategist you understand, is the fact that very often it is the analysis of statistical data that can paint a very clear and concise picture and yet is often hidden from the public eye in case it upsets some folk.  More importantly however, this analysis could provide the foundations upon which to build a very focused and relevant set of objectives followed by appropriate and practical strategies in order to either improve or neutralise the issue at hand, whatever it may be.

Another favourite example of mine is the road accident statistics, where these rather nebulous figures are fed to us as if we were a cluster of mushrooms living in a dark closet.  Although I wish to make it clear that I have absolutely nothing against men (or women) who live in closets, if they so choose, most of us have more insight from our day to day experience than peering through a tiny key hole for the bits of selective light thrown at us by officials.  In each province in South Africa there are obvious transgressors of the laws of the road.  In Gauteng, the most obvious ones are mini-bus taxi drivers, although most folk appear to have adopted the attitude of ‘well if they can get away with it, then so will I’, as they accelerate long after the robot (stop light) has turned orange or even red, as a form of aggressive arrogance or ignorance perhaps.  However on the whole, the most obvious transgressors appear to be those damn taxi drivers.  So then why is that?  Is it the way taxi drivers are incentivised, or trained, or simply because mini-bus taxis are more obvious to spot and therefore a form of slanted research sample, just as most people who complain about aggressive driving refer to BMW drivers in particular?  Perhaps this is because BMW’s allow for fast acceleration and agility like no other relatively mass produced vehicle, and therefore these drivers get annoyed by slow, aimless traffic hogging the right hand lane?  Then again, are aggressive people drawn to the aggressive looking grill of the BMW perhaps, as opposed to the ‘where the hell are we vacant look of a Hyundai’ or the  'where did you say you put that carrot' look Porsche, or are we all just discriminators of a different sort?  

By blaming taxi drivers, is without doubt pointing at a particular demographic and even sex, but is that really the intent, I doubt it.  After all majority of black, male drivers aren't taxi drivers.  Is it therefore racist to generalise about BMW drivers, even if the aggressive driving generalisation may have some truth in it?  Assuming of course that vehicle makes could be constituted along racial lines, that is.  I'm sure the majority of BMW drivers happen to be white males.

It may be equally true therefore that the slow, aimless vehicles are very often driven by people who can’t afford to have theirs serviced regularly, belching smoke from their exhaust pipes as they splutter along the road, or people who lack any sense of urgency and ambition, or even little old ladies chatting to their bridge partners perhaps?  Again I have nothing against bridge playing little old ladies, but ‘the youthfully challenged’ can be a liability on the road, and this includes little old men.  Hence the reason for countries like Canada insisting upon retesting for licenses from the age of 50 every few years.  I know I may regret this in time. My grandmother, aged 82 and still driving in Johannesburg at the time (rather badly I might add), when challenged by one of her granddaughters made the following comment that still sits uneasily with me to this day, she said puffing her chest out, “In all the 64 years I've been driving, I've never had one accident.”  Then after a short pause, “..I just don’t know how many I've caused”, and then proceeded to giggle wickedly to herself.

Having lived in Johannesburg, Natal, London, Toronto and driven in most countries of Europe, particularly Italy and France on many an occasion, as well Australia and the USA, Cape Townians are undoubtedly the worst drivers in the world.  However it’s not the arrogance and aggression shown by Gauteng and Jo’burg drivers in particular, here it’s what I believe is perfectly summed up by the Afrikaans term ‘vaakheid’.  ‘Vaak’ means to be in another world, daydreaming or just simply switched off, though their cell phones aren’t always.  The number of people who run red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings, who hog the right hand lane or simply change lanes without even a glance into a mirror (assuming the mirror is actually not angled towards the driver’s face of course), non-existent side mirrors, and god forbid the effort to toggle an indicator, are quite simply just ‘vaak’.  As much as I love Cape Town for its sleepiness, being the antithesis of hustle and bustle, the driving aspect has me in a mild form of daily road rage.  It is the reason why switched on Cape Townians don’t generally let their kids ride bicycles to school. 

Most interesting to me however is that there is a rather clear observation which one can make day in and day out.  So much so, that it makes one wonder if there’s a concerted effort to find the causes rather than the merely the symptoms  thereof, and that is the drivers who transgress the laws on the road more than any other appear to be drivers from a particular area and group of suburbs in Northern Cape Town.  I’m talking about drivers with ‘CY’ and ‘CF’ number plates in particular.  Now I know that this is going to lead to some gnashing of teeth and comments of ‘generalisation!’ especially amongst the few good mates I have who happen to have these number plates.  Of course I'm not suggesting that everyone is lawless in this case, but it certainly seems to me to be a very clear cut statistic, purely based upon 16 years of neutral observation, and this despite the number of such number plates in greater Cape Town being far fewer than the dominant ‘CA’ plates.  Even my sons have made a bit of a game of it, when someone does something foolish or unpredictable on the road one of them will shout, ‘what do you know – CY’, purely because it inevitably is.

So what does this all say and how does this tie in with Mr Hofmeyer’s comment regarding murder statistics above?  Well, quite simply that statistics need to be used to narrow down important information in order to take appropriate, cost effective, targeted action that’s all.  No matter how uncomfortable the information may appear at first.  Not to point fingers, but to focus the resources (financial and human) on the areas in which this lawlessness appears to stem or be particularly rife.  I have no doubt that there is something rather odd going on in so far as drivers licenses being issued, testing being undertaken, driving lessons being dished out or all of the above in the area of ‘CY’.  I don’t even know exactly which suburbs make up these licensing districts, but there is no doubt that many elements there are giving the entire lot of drivers with such number plates a very bad rap indeed.  Perhaps it’s now time to investigate the root cause of the problems without worrying about being politically correct!

Size definitely does count

It still intrigues me as to how much is written about the sexual complexities of women.  I think if I have to see another article waxing lyrical on how women are attracted to a combination of personality and sense of humour, slow romantic advances, the need to have at least four different types of organism and a desire for men to merely ‘listen’ to what they have to say as their biggest turn-on; I may have to stick my finger down my throat. 

Melodramatic, perhaps, but then this really is just a load of bollox.   Women’s lib was important in the emancipation of women’s rights and equal opportunities for all, sure.  So now that we’re all equal (in most countries bar Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Uganda, Lebanon, .., OK so there’re a few), but on the whole, why don’t we have much written about the complexities of men?  Now I know that this will no doubt spark some cynical sniggers amongst a handful of the ‘fairer’ sex, but we shall not dwell on such puerility.  I’m sure there are many who wouldn’t and are desperately eager to find out more about men and the fact that we may be equally complex.  Or is it that neither men nor women are in fact complicated after all?

The old adage of ‘size doesn’t count’ for example, is an interesting notion.  Size of what and when may need further clarification, but I have it on good authority that it helps.  To give you an analogy, I recently had to take my car in for some minor panel beating, having reversed rather quickly into a large tree in the pouring rain, despite my very expensive park distance control.  I am told that it takes park distance control a few split seconds to turn on, and therefore wasn’t given enough time to activate prior to impact.  Personally I’m all in favour of foreplay, however it has come to my attention that my rather butch 4x4 Land Cruiser may in fact be female (if Cosmo is anything to go by).  Had I known, (despite her rather androgynous appearance), I would have taken it a little slower in twerking her up against the Pine tree.  But that said, I’m not convinced men wouldn’t favour the slower approach themselves on the whole at times too. 

Having now had to drive a very small hire car whilst my ‘lady vehicle’ is in getting botoxed and face-lifted, I have come to realise that size indeed does count.  No longer am I given the respect on the road that my rather large Land Cruiser Prado afforded me before.  I’ve taken this for granted it seems.  But driving a very small Hyundai has made me appreciate the fact that perception is in fact reality.  The fact that mine is bigger than yours, will immediately intimidate others on the road and command some respect.  However I’ll be quick to add that respect is something that should be earned, and reckless behaviour with a large ‘tool’ is not something to be respected at all.  But what is most incredible is that the lack of respect and common decency I have experienced recently on the road appears to have largely come from women drivers.  Which goes to prove, without a shadow of doubt, that size definitely does count when it comes to women.

To take my plight a bit further, the old adage of ‘shoots and leaves’ is perhaps an unfair one when placed firmly at the feet of men.  Yes there may have been practical reasons in our caveman past to have to get the job done rather quickly before a prowling sabre-toothed tiger lurked up behind us and ended the gene pool rather abruptly.  It may have had something to do with why there are relatively few lesbians around these days, but that’s another interesting study in itself. After all, surely it wouldn’t have worked if the cavewoman wasn’t equally, instantly ready for action at the same time as her knobkerrie (club) carrying man.  I doubt we populated this earth through millennia of unsatisfactory intercourse.  Sadly we weren’t that good at doing it in the trees, as neither monkeys nor baboons appear to be either, which would have saved us a lot of trouble and given us a lot more time to leaf through the Cosmo and others like it for advice.  But on the whole, I’m sure men would agree that the idea of a quickie, although on the whole sometimes rather appealing, moreover is not what guys are after either. 

However we do tend to over analyse what is, or at least should be, a rather basic human behaviour, and much of that perhaps has to do with imposed religious ‘morality’, which tended to take the joy out of a lot of things in life.  Whatever happened to mutual, raw, animal behaviour?  Just because we tart up in suits and ball gowns doesn’t make us any less raw and animalistic deep down at heart at all.  In fact it merely forms a coating of schizophrenic confusion, where many find it difficult to know when to be animal and when to be posh and upstanding, what-what.

There is no doubt that we’ve overcomplicated things when it comes down to the sexes, and it is perhaps time for us to drop our loincloths and our guard a little more often, and not be fooled or intimidated by the analysis paralysis that is sure to set in if we believe everything we read. 

Israel vs. Hamas; a War of Blind Faith?

I know when I enter into this space that it’s likely to set the cat amongst the hadedas, but after weeks of listening to and reading much of the media coverage regarding the conflict in Gaza has made it impossible for me to remain silent about it out of shear frustration and bewilderment.

At risk of sounding clichéd, I regard myself fortunate to have a number of very close friends of both the Jewish and Islamic faiths.   Despite my Methodist-Protestant heritage, for what it’s worth, they all know me for my fervent anti-religious views.   However on many occasions I have highlighted to all of these mates, usually over a glass of wine or limoncello late in the evening, of the fact that their faiths, traditional lifestyles, traditional dress and personalities are so similar that they could be ‘sub-sects’ of one another.  They’ve only lost a broader perspective of one another due to religious fundamentalism leading to distrust and even hatred.  Not something any religious person wants to hear of course.  Interestingly however their reaction has never refuted my reasoning, which perhaps may offer some hope for the Middle East.  Allow me to elaborate.

The traditional rules pertaining to Jewish and Islamic dress, for example, are surprisingly similar.  All for the purposes of not dressing to emphasise physical appearance or to attract attention, not to mention to protect one from the extreme elements of living in hot, desert conditions.  I suspect that some of this may have stemmed back to the fact that both religions (whose origins are intertwined incidentally) practiced arranged marriages, even to a greater or lesser extent today, but certainly more so in the past.  I say this in that it may have had something to do with not wanting to disappoint the prospective bride or groom with a ‘fugly’ suitor prior to marriage. After all, if no-one else, besides the ‘unlucky’ spouse could see their arranged partner fully exposed after marriage, no-one would judge, be envious, tempted or left gagging at social events.  A woman may wear a burqa (Islamic scarf) or mitpachat (Hebrew scarf) or tichel (Yiddish).  A man would protect his bald patch from the elements with an Islamic taqiyah or Jewish yarmulke , both skull caps.  Prayer shawls, robes, etc., are all part of the dress, and very similar depending upon their exact origins and orthodoxy.  There are many more similarities all with practical origins, not religious at all.   However, practicalities over the years can become traditions which in-turn can later become rigorous religious laws. 

The same is true for food restrictions between halal and kosher, practically passed down due to the hot, Middle Eastern climate that Jews and Muslims originated from, all for practical, life preserving reasons.  According to the Quran, the only foods explicitly forbidden are meat from animals that die of themselves, blood and the meat of swine (porcine animals, e.g. pigs).  Food hygiene is an important part of Islamic dietary law and rightfully so back in the day or even in modern, unhygienic settings.  The animal slaughtered must be killed quickly with a sharpened blade for humanitarian reasons.  It must not suffer.  It must not see the blade and it must not see or smell the blood from a previous slaughter.  In Judaism, the Torah specifies that the shellfish such as lobsters, oysters, shrimp, clams and crabs are all forbidden as is the ‘rock badger’, hare and pig because they don’t have ‘fins’ or lack cloven hooves are therefore not kosher .  Those are merely practical ways of differentiating beasts who’s meat can be easily infected by disease or goes off quickly if unrefrigerated.  Cattle, sheep, goats, antelope and game are kosher, but must be killed in accordance with humane Jewish law.  As with halal, kosher requires that all blood must be drained from meat and poultry or broiled out of it before it is eaten as the blood is the part of the animal that runs the risk of going off first. Obviously, these all had practical health and preservation motivations, and are remarkably similar, bar he who may bless or slaughter the beast.  That’s where the ‘tradition’ stepped in and tribal infighting left the Middle East in religious twain.  In other words, best it’s someone you know and trust who butchers your meat and provides it to you to ensure its quality control and your best interests at heart.  Practical?  Of course!  There is much wisdom in the good ‘books’ of old.  But I maintain, merely guides to practical living rather than religious fervor.

I have been struck by how similar the Israelis and Palestinians actually look in Israel, having spent some time there working and travelling around the globe.  In fact, I was constantly mistaken as to who was who, unless they identified themselves by their dress or the area in which they lived (Apart!).  Naturally, I didn’t expect to find Palestinians working and living on a Kibbutz, yet it appears they may really want to, having gone to the trouble of building complex networks of underground tunnels in order to access them.  Perhaps it’s purely a network of tunnels lovers from different ‘sides’ use to gain access to one another in secret, like royal lovers and concubines of old?  Perhaps that’s wishful thinking for now.

So, why with all that’s similar then is there this ongoing hatred and distrust in the Middle East?  Simply put, it is political more than religious, where religion is used merely as a convenient form of division and alienation.  It stems back to the Jews being incarcerated by the Egyptians thousands of years ago, yet even that fact is being disputed. 

There is no doubt that what is going on in Gaza and Israel is horrendous and that there has to be a workable political solution to the conflict and hatred.  Yet what is somewhat perplexing however is how the world at large appears to be aghast at the Israeli military response to thousands of deadly rockets being fired indiscriminately by Hamas into their cities and suburbs.  These rockets are not aimed at military targets, not in the slightest.  Yet the fact that the Israeli’s have what is known as the ‘Dome’, an automated counter measure protective response to enable the shooting down of missiles mid-air, has prevented tens of thousands of Israeli’s (Jewish, Christian, Muslim and others like me perhaps) from being slaughtered arbitrarily from a distance.  What is Hamas' real agenda I wonder?  Of course more Palestinians are going to be killed in such a response; however that’s not because Hamas intended for their rockets to kill few Israelis or to be shot down mid-air and not reach their ‘soft’ targets in suburban Israel.  The fact that hundreds of millions of Dollars have clearly been channelled from the building of schools and infrastructure in Gaza to supporting dozens of tunnels in order to infiltrate Israel speaks reams of fundamentalist Palestinian priorities.  So the response of any government to defend its people is understandable.  Nevertheless, the killing of innocent people is never acceptable, however it is clear that Hamas have absolutely no qualms in doing so themselves, yet quick to throw their arms up in horror when the reverse occurs, despite unusual Israeli warnings being issued in advance.  This whilst the heads of Hamas hob-knob with Middle-Eastern ‘Royalty’ safely outside of the conflict zone.

Israelis themselves are just as guilty of racism and being somewhat overzealous when it comes to how they react militarily.  There’s much pent up anger, hatred and desire for revenge at any opportunity from both sides.  It’s like an open wound.  Things have just spiralled out of control and it’ll take a lot to bring it back from the brink.  But it is still possible.

Being South African, the experiences we’ve endured have taught us many things about the stupidity of ‘blind faith’ and ‘traditional ignorance’ when it comes to people of different cultures, creeds and traditions.  Despite Apartheid we have an incredibly tolerant and embracing society, on the whole, and much to offer those in war torn parts of the world.  Israelis and Palestinians need to forget the differences and focus on their similarities.  The hope for one’s children’s futures, for decent living conditions, good education, infrastructure, peace, neighbourliness, freedom of cultural traditions and peaceful interaction.  There is little doubt that there is so much that is similar, far more so than the differences between them.  It is time to leave the ‘religious fundamentalism’ behind and sit down as parents, grandparents, lovers and children and focus on common desires.  There’s got to be room to accommodate all, amicably.  Sadly however, religious fundamentalism and inherent distrust will never allow for such practical alternatives to divide and rule.

Say Noakes to Vegans

As an ardent non-believer in religions and extremist fads or any shape or form, there are more than a few dishevelled Vegans who have a beef with me.  Some have gone so far as to de-friend me from their Facebook list of gaunt friends.  I must be honest, I have been tempted to photo-bomb their sites with pictures of crackling and lard, but decided to refrain.  One or two of the disenchanted are relatives, so de-friending me may not be an option, although my family has always encouraged robust debate, yet I’ve always particularly favoured the ‘bait’ part of the term.  Perhaps it’s the suppressed politician in me?

Over the past year however, it has been intriguing to witness the ‘reborn’ Noakes-ists, who have overtaken many an ardent vegetarian by dominating the dinner party conversation.  (Prof Tim Noakes, for those who have been visiting another planet, or living on an island - no Australia's not an island - is the mastermind behind the 'Real Meal Revolution' which endorses the ancient Banting Diet of high fat low carbs) facebook.com/timnoakesrevolution. Yet instead of the usual, ‘ooh, I don’t eat slaughtered offerings’, it’s now, ‘do you have extra fatty bacon to go with my kale?”.  Who’d even heard of kale until the revolution began beyond the tracks of the Sport Science Institute in Cape Town's leafy Newlands suburb?

The revolution has caused much divide, particularly amongst the anorexically challenged.  Physiologists are having to deal with couch potatoes ruing their evening’s inclusion of a spud with their tuna steak for dinner, or God forbid, a peach or nectarine, once believed to be a healthy fruit, now vanquished horror balls of deadly sucrose, almost as deadly as a glass of Coke (a-cola..).   The Noakes biblical ‘Red List’ says so!  It conjures up images of health clinics dressed with stained glass windows, a slaughter altar and a piece of rump with an halo hovering over it, whilst the acoustics echo sounds of oversized, smiling praise singers.  Sound familiar?  

It has been a while since I attended a dinner party, ate out at a restaurant or even stood beside the school rugby field and didn't hear something about ‘hold the carbs, and load the beef’ and how much weight they've lost as a result thereof.  How does one pass on a bacon and egg roll on a misty Saturday morning on the sidelines just because rolls are made of carbs?  Rolls were made to hold bacon and eggs, they’re carriers of delight.  Holding is good, we all need to be held from time to time.  However, that said, perhaps there's nothing more delightful than the thought of a 'roll' made of woven crispy bacon, though I see that I'm not the first to fantasise about such things.

As a meat lover, this new found ‘religion’ has played beautifully onto my plate, although clearly I must be doing something wrong, as one thing I haven’t lost is weight.  I know I’m not doing it religiously, but as I said, religions scare the hell out of me (oops, Freudian slip).  So I sin from time to time, and I’m told, like the devil, when one sins with carbs one’s body saps up every last morsel like a sponge, leaving one worse off than when one simply ate carbs every day.  So sue me, I repent once a week.  

Call me a turncoat but I must be honest, I haven’t been to visit my cardiologist for a cholesterol check up for a few years now.  Something I started doing decades ago due to my family history of heart disease.   My grandfather was merely 34 years old when he died of a heart-attack whilst playing golf, and my father 48 when he had his first massive coronary followed by a quadruple bypass.  Both were lean and fit men at the time.  My poor father, despite having survived this horrific ordeal for another 18 years thereafter, was forced onto the Heart Foundation’s ‘low cholesterol’ diet of almost zero fat, including steamed chicken and fish, lots of carbs, margarine instead of butter, lean cuts of beef, no chicken skin, no prawns or crayfish, low fat cheese, skim milk, low fat yogurt, steamed veggies, etc.  Sadly, this was perhaps more deadly than was ever imagined at the time.  Though never one to grumble, he sat there eating his miserable, tasteless meals night after night, as we sat around eating something else.  Enough to kill anyone, particularly one such as myself who believes that life’s just too short for average food, palatable wine and merely acceptable company. 

So with all said and done, perhaps there’s something to be said for ‘all things in moderation’, as the saying goes.  Go to Shabbat on Friday, Mosque on Sat and Church on Sunday.  A fine combination of Kosher kitka bread, Halaal chicken and Reborn Parma ham.  All washed down with copious amounts of wine, water and more wine, makes for a superb meal and a good life.  Perhaps even the folk in Gaza might like to join me for dinner.  No knives or other sharp objects set, just inspired debate and conversation accompanied by good fatty food, some wine blessed by all of the gods and a few decadent ‘tatoes too-boot.  Peace and love!

Undeniably Fascinating Study of Biblical Proportions

I have never been known to be quiet particularly when it comes to sex, politics or religion, and have enjoyed much animated banter and heated debate on all equally so.  Sadly however, there have been one or two casualties along the way, yet very few, where I may have alienated some folk who have disagreed so vehemently with me, that they felt it too difficult to preserve the friendship.  Sad indeed in that I have loved and respected friendships with people whom I regard as passionately differing in views to myself in many respects, yet with the ability to discuss and debate challenging issues maturely, eruditely, openly and honestly, without emotions getting in the way.  Other than Veganism, religion however has been the only one where these casualties I speak of have arisen, and only Christianity at that.  Perhaps that speaks reams about the religion and the unease and vulnerability in which it has left many of its so-called converts or believers.  However, that is my opinion of course, yours may differ and I encourage you to tell me why?

I suppose my biggest surprise has been a few of my better educated mates, who can still believe in what I've understood so clearly since my youth to be clear contradictions in-terms across almost any facet of the Bible.  Blind faith and intellect I have always felt to be oxymorons.  But as I say, there are a few who appear to contradict this conclusion of mine, and why I just cannot comprehend.  As a moral guide, I accept the Bible has a place, although even there I have difficulties based upon the absurd violent, misogynistic, sociopathic cruelty that besets the Book from start to finish, particularly so in the Old Testament.  There is a clear distinction in the God of ‘old’ and the God of ‘new’.  The former was ruthless and revengeful, speaking openly and frequently to His/Her/Its chosen subjects, whilst the latter only spoke to Jesus apparently.  Not even a burning bush to set hearts on fire in the New Testament. 

But of course I could go on and on.  I mean, why go to all the trouble to create little people in ‘your own image’ only to have to drown them all, bar a small family, a few centuries later for bad behaviour.  As for the incest that clearly followed, well that’s something else to comprehend.  So who created ‘bad behaviour’ then after all, I beseech thee?  After all, who was THE creator of EVERYTHING, mosquitoes included?  And so I could go on asking why babies die before being able to make the so-called choice, people who have been born and died over thousands of years without hearing the ‘word of God’ or Jesus.  What was the point of having all of them around at all?  But let me stop it at that before I can’t stop.

Recently I was forwarded a website that I found profoundly fascinating and have spent some time going through it in my spare time.  The site is http://bibviz.com/ , according to which, aspires to be a beautiful and interactive resource for sceptics and believers alike to explore some of the more negative aspects of the holy books, such as Bible contradictions, biblical inerrancy and the Bible as a source of morality.  It was deeply inspired by the Reason Project's poster of biblical contradictions, which in turn was inspired by Chris Harrison's Bible Visualizations.  Worth Googling in their own right.

Many of the contradictions shown stem from a literal interpretation of the stories in the Bible (biblical inerrancy). Some verses may be mistranslations, allegories, exaggerations, etc. and can be interpreted in the context of the society in which they were written, rewritten, or otherwise modified over time, while others are very clear contradictions.

Considering that 46% of Americans apparently believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis (and probably other portions of the Bible) and the fact that many sects disagree on which parts to take literally, it seems reasonable to include these contradictions based on literal interpretation.

The developer intends for this massive project to show that whilst the Bible may have much to offer us, biblical inerrancy and morality it certainly does not. Without inerrancy it's simple to see that we just do not know which parts are the ‘word’ or ‘will’ of God are true or factually correct, if any. Basing our morality on vile, abhorrent stories from a long-forgotten era of humanity in a part of the world many have never even seen seems absurd to me. What the Bible does offer us however is an amazing look into humanity, our past, our desires and our fears.  No more so perhaps than Steven Covey’s, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

So with that said, let the stoning begin..