Ryan for President

I met a guy a couple of days back. He mentioned in passing that he has tattooed his wife’s name on his finger in place of wearing a wedding ring. Someone’s comment to him was, “So, what happens if it doesn’t work out?” In other words, “Bru, don’t you realize that it’s easier these days to simply get rid of a spouse than to get rid of a tattoo?”

What’s that got to do with the price of eggs? Well, plenty, thanks for asking. I put to you that it is the symptom of the greatest ailment of the human race. (Well, one of the top three greatest ailments of the human race.) (Okay, it is among the top ailments of the human race…)

“And what is that ailment?”, you may ask. “Isn’t the Top Ailment … stinky feet?” Nope. “How about … halitosis?” Nay, I say. “Okay. Then it must be … that kind of uncoordinated, orangutan-like swaying thing that white guys do in clubs when their girlfriends convince them to dance with ‘the group’.” Heck, we all know that’s a crime but no. I’m talking about Selfishness.


Okay, let me call it something else. How about ‘whatever-makes-me-feel-good-at-the-expense-of-anyone-else’. Or ‘Selfishness’ for short.

Now, this tattooed individual’s response to the question posed to him was to say that things had better work out or they would have to remove his finger. Good on yer! I like a man with conviction. The reality, however, is that there are other options when dealing with tattoos. I understand that they vary in degrees of scarring and temporary pain. It’s far easier to simply sign on the dotted line, pay the attorney’s fees and render the ‘missus’ a ‘miss’ again.
 And when the fabric of society is held together only by whatever makes me feel good, then it seems perfectly legitimate to expect to be able to get out of a lifelong commitment faster than saying, “Skin graft, please!” But if a lifelong commitment requires the death of one or both parties (as in ‘til death us do part’) then … well, let’s just say a little laser treatment pales in comparison.

Having said all that, let me now say something in defense of those for whom divorce is a stark reality as it is for many of my friends and some of my own family. The pain I have witnessed in the lives of those I love who have gone through a divorce I can only describe as a living death. It is horrible. Please don’t think for a moment that I am taking a self-righteous high ground and spitting on the ‘lowly scum’ who have walked through this Valley of the Shadow of Death. My heart goes out to you. It is in tribute to your pain that I make these statements, to tear down the façade our society has painted over this heartache. At the risk of getting too serious, I acknowledge the weight of the devastation you have experienced. Divorce, like marriage, is ‘not to be entered into lightly’.

But divorce is not my topic. Neither is marriage. Selfishness is.

Selfishness is enshrined in our constitution. Not obviously, but it is there. I mean, when we base our laws on the statement of ‘my rights’, is that not an orientation on self? Is that not self-ish-ness?

So, what’s the alternative? Well, if I were elected to the public office … yeah, right (can you see the election posters? A thing of beauty… ), it would be my wish to govern the nation from the basis which I will now reveal to the world:

The Bill of Human Rights Responsibilities

1. I have the responsibility to treat every person with dignity, whether they deserve it or not.


2. I have the responsibility to protect human life, whether or not it has been born yet.


3. I have the responsibility to ensure the freedom and security of every person in a manner consistent with my other responsibilities to every other person.


4. I have the responsibility to respect the privacy of every person in a manner consistent with my other responsibilities to every other person.


5. I have the responsibility to respect the beliefs, religions and opinions of every person, and to afford them the opportunity to express these beliefs, religions and opinions in a manner consistent with my other responsibilities to every other person.


6. I have the responsibility to afford every person the freedom to assemble, demonstrate, picket and petition in a manner consistent with my other responsibilities to every other person.


7. I have the responsibility to afford every person the freedom to associate with any other person.


8. I have the responsibility to afford every person the freedom to make political choices and to participate meaningfully in the political affairs of the nation, in a manner consistent with my other responsibilities to every other person.


9. I have the responsibility to conduct myself in the interests of the common good in relation to labour practices.


10. I have the responsibility to conduct myself in the interests of the common good in relation to the environment.


11. I have the responsibility to promote the enhancement of relationships between diverse social, political, cultural, ethnic and generational groups.


12. I have the responsibility to promote justice, fairness, goodwill and peace for every person in a manner consistent with my other responsibilities to every other person.


So, look out for me on the next ballot paper. And read my lips; NO NEW TAXES!!

Intolerant Tolerance

So a mosque is being built two city blocks from the site of the Twin Towers in Manhattan. There’s a whole lotta irony right there. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing and I’m not saying it’s a good thing. It’s not that I’m undecided; I’m just not saying.


But it does throw the tolerance debate back into the ring as it was quietly trying to slip back to the change-room, and give it a piledriver for good measure. So let me try a couple of headlocks and maybe a flying back elbow or two.

Tolerance. Roughly understood to mean ‘I don’t like you, but you can be in my space – it’s okay’. Roughly. But straight away, I can hear Helen Zille knocking on my door as my lack of political finesse comes to light. That’s because I have absolutely no academic background in political science or sociology or even knitting.

My training was in the engineering disciplines and ‘tolerance’ to me meant how close I could get to a correct answer and still miss the mark. For example, this concrete beam is 500 millimetres high, give or take 5 millimetres. Or, this road is three kilometers long, give or take twenty metres. Or, as engineering students were often to plead, “Officer, I have had only three beers … give or take a case”.

So tolerance is a useful thing when you don’t have to be correct, or when things don’t add up exactly but you know you’re in the right ballpark. It will get you close enough to get the job done. And I guess, when used in the social arena, the concept translates … sort of. It allows two parties to approach each other and even if they don’t converge on the same point, they can still be considered ‘together’ in some sense. Maybe you have to squint your eyes and tilt your head but in some loose, ill-defined sense, they can be considered to co-exist. Just don’t look too closely.

The problem is that society is governed by laws (we’ll assume to exclude anarchical societies for now). Try applying the ‘tolerance’ theory to your tax return and see what you get. Five to ten years. Or how about to the voting polls during election time. “The ANC won 50% of votes ... give or take 5%.” (Will somebody tell Helen Zille I’m busy?!)

So if we define law and order as that behaviour we find acceptable in our society, and then base that acceptance on a flimsy concept like tolerance, dress it up in the tuxedo of ‘Human Rights’ and call it ‘Our Constitution’, we are on shaky ground indeed. (Yes, Helen, I’ll call you back…) How about we define law and order by something else a little more … well, solid? Heck, I’d just settle for something a little less contradictory. For instance, in the US, in the name of tolerance, it is illegal to sensor hate-speech. In other words, we must tolerate everyone’s view, especially those who are intolerant. But what we cannot tolerate … is intolerance.

Is it just me, or does that not seem a little confusing?

How about we just go back to something simple, like ‘Love your neighbour as you love yourself’. Yes, it’s old-fashioned and a little preachy, but think about it. It gets into all those hard-to-reach places that ordinary brushing can’t. And it goes where tolerance has never and can never go: right into your inner … well, you.

Excuse me. I need to take a call.

(Oh ... has Helen hung up?)

The start of Something Great

I heard a term the other day (the other year, actually): Pre-tech. It refers to that demographic for whom cell phones are an enigma beyond human comprehension and the Internet is, well not the antichrist, but potentially a tool in his hands. Actually, that's probably a bit harsh. But have you ever got to an ATM and the person in the queue in front of you approaches the machine holding their card like its a fire arm and they're not sure that they don't actually have to hold up the machine to get it to give them money? Pre-tech. Not that its a generational thing. Let's face it, Steve whatshisname, the Apple CEO is practically a bullet and I don't even know how to turn on an iPhone.

No. Pre-tech refers to that state of technological sophistication which separates the men from the geeks. You either have it or you don't. And don't wave that iPhone at me like you know how to use it; if you feel the need to prove that you can, you probably can't. But my point is that it has been with reluctance and much previewing that I have set up this blog. And as I'm typing, I still have little confidence that this will result in a coherent posting which can  be viewed by the admiring public. (If you're reading this then I guess it worked.)

So pray for me. I hope to have more useful posts in the future; things like the quickest Rubix Cube solution, where ball-point pens go when they die, that type of thing. But for now, this is it. And to my loyal fans out there: I love you, Mom.