“No pressure,” my beep

Schools opened in early January this year but messages of support are only flooding in now on radio and print, and we seem to be only concentrating on grade 12 pupils, at what seems to be the eleventh hour. What does this say to us and what effect does it have on the pupils themselves?

I was a matric student in grade 12 and for the most of us, there is nothing more difficult. We used to be told that grade 11 was the toughest grade and this resulted in the grade being called matric 1 and grade 12 downgraded to matric 2.0. One does not understand the 'truth' behind the statement until one is overcome by the fear of receiving one's report card on D-day only to wait six hours and remain the last class in the whole school to get their results and fail..

Yup, I failed grade 11 with a mathematics mark of a staggering 18% but instead of being sent back to matric 1, I got parole in the form of "condoned" (the grey area between "pass" and "fail" and the epitome of the standard of education in South Africa). Anyway, I got away with murder and "snuck into" matric 2 on the basis that I was disadvantaged by the teachers strike of 2007 that lasted six weeks.

I seriously sucked at math and no amount of last minute catch-up programme would have likely saved my ass. Over the years, I have noticed how the focus of matric 2 has intensified and wondered if this is a good thing. First of all, I found that the standard of grade 12 has "changed", and not for the good, I think.

While I was terrible at math, I was not so bad at science and I usually enjoyed going retro on the science books I read. I noticed during one visit at the local library that the biology (life sciences) textbook prescribed for grade 12 had the about the same content as an older (by give-or-take 5 years?) prescribed for grade 10!

If you go look at the books for other subjects you will also notice this trend. It seems that in an effort to increase the "pass rate" in grade 12, the government has not only turned "30%" to a pass but they have made things "easier" for matrics. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, I know, but if I am somehow "neutralised" in the near future, please lookout for chalk marks and leather-jacket residue at the scene of the crime, #justSaying.

What I have noticed in my township are the highschools’ obsessive attempts at getting 100% pass-rates. My problem is that extra classes are now being conducted all of a sudden where pupils are made to attend "extra classes" on top of the two extra hours added to the school day. These extra classes suddenly spur just a few weeks before the final exams.

Are highschool principals suddenly shocked by the advent of The Final Exams, jolting them into rapid action to "catch-up"? Why are we having Saturday classes only now as opposed to the eight months of school? Did we not know the exams were coming?

Being a part-time tutor for highschools students, I am very familiar with the frustration of grade 12 students scrambling for revisions and a plethora of "extra classes" they are being forced to attend. In my own experience, many teachers are lazy to keep up with the (now reduced) science and math syllabi and these extra classes seem to be eleventh hour efforts at covering for this.

The pupils are the victims, right? No, some are just as lazy (I've been a super lazy scholar myself, so I know). I have noticed how some pupils have questions that should have been answered by teachers, questions that leave me asking "what have they been teaching you the whole year?" and "what have you been doing in class while the teacher was teaching you?".

It looks all -doom-and-gloom right now and I am yapping about a problem I have not put forward a solution to try fix. Right now, I do not know, perhaps the reader may have a few pointers. Right now, I really hate seeing my sister having to make arrangements to find accommodation by her school because they decided the grade 12 learners need to have extra classes from 4pm to 7pm just two weeks before the beginning of the final exams.

Yes, but no one was around during the big bang!

No-one was around during the big bang, no-one has ever seen a star’s lifecycle from birth to clataclysmic death, and we can’t put these things in the lab to test them, so where do scientists get the audacity to claim that these things happened and are happening?

A few weeks ago, I wrote a column in the Zululand Fever where I put the discipline of science within the confines of testability. I said that when one makes a claim on how nature works, then we can test it and prove it wrong or right and I claimed that anything outside this “testability” perimeter is therefore “unscientific” and “supernatural”.

A friend of mine then asked me about the Big Bang theory and how it is accepted as the origin of the universe, being an event that occurred only once, if it indeed did occur. He said, “We can’t conduct an experiment in the lab where we see the big bang again.” He also listed other things rendered “unscientific” by my testability assertion, such as multiverses and black holes (those massive stars that are so hefty that not even light can escape their gravity).

xkcd

Well, the universe acts in mysterious ways but we can find generalisations from observing how it works, like noticing how objects fall the same way every time you drop them. Scientists then formulate mathematical explanations that need to satisfy these generalisations and once they are up to par, we test them on nature. And if they pass these tests, we call them "laws of nature".

Now, each of these remains "true" until a more efficient explanation comes along. In other words, we use Ockham's razor, i.e. we cut the rubbish.

Edwin Hubble in 1929 observed that galaxies seem to be moving away from each other, as if the space between them were expanding. This changed the static view of the universe accepted at the time. Around the same time, Georges Lemaitre theorised that if the universe is expanding then it means if you extrapolate backwards it must have existed in one point in space, thus the big bang theory was born (though it was not called that at the time).

It became popular among the scientific fraternity because it was the simplest explanation for the origins of an expanding universe amidst other explanations that were much less elegant.

But we still needed to ‘prove’ the theory by finding evidence for it in nature. Obviously we couldn't use the same physical phenomenon that gave birth to it to prove it so we turned to mathematics and the mathematical results resulted testable (observable) physical phenomena.

One of these was the cosmic microwave background (CMB) which heralded indirect evidence for the big bang as it was found completely independently in 1964. At the moment there are scientists looking to disprove the big bang theory by finding phenomenon not predicted by or against the theory and until that happens, we accept it as the origin of the universe, and all major theories go through this baptism of fire all the time.

“But we can't test it in the lab,” he said. Well, astrophysicists almost never get to touch or experiment on their specimens, but they can construct good enough theories to explain phenomena from little more than star shine and use those to predict other phenomena which

when found to be true are then accepted as true until Ockham comes in.

What of multiverses and black holes? Well, the idea of multi-verses theorises that there are other universes existing outside of ours and this crazy idea came from the observation that some subatomic particles (which operate on a completely different set of laws called Quantum Theory) can exist in two places at once and even disappear here and appear somewhere else.

At the moment, the idea of multiple universes in existence are the best explanation for this and other funny behaviour and it has given birth the mathematical model of the universe called String Theory (or M-theory) which is yet to be proven but is our best bet that can be tested as we get better sophisticated scientific instrumentation.

As for black holes, they were predicted by Albert Einstein in his theory of General Relativity and later found in nature through the powerful gravity they exert on other stars, the x-ray radiation emitted when they devour hapless stars and plumes of gas in space.

Sometimes you just have to observe and deduce and test those deductions by observing somewhere else in nature.

Jesus heals today!

A response to my column from last week

Attention:

Sibusiso Biyela

Perhaps Sibusiso, you need to be where God is at work by His Holy Spirit.

I have seen people delivered from drugs, alcohol & cigarettes. When they realize how much God loves them & what Jesus has done for them. I saw an old lady throw away the hearing aids when she could hear!  Backs, knees & shoulders healed. Warts fall off & dr's confirm that lumps/growths have disappeared.

I have been healed of migraines for 20 years & received other healings too.

Scientists are often proven to be wrong as time passes. Some scientists & unbelievers have become believers in Jesus, whilst trying to prove the Bible to be wrong! Josh Mcdowell, Carl Baugh, dr Grady McMurty, Bruce Malone.. 

No one has evidence that humans 'evolved' from apes. If we had, why are there still apes today? From a pig's tooth they drew Nebraska man?!?

 The Bible mentions Dinosaur/Leviathan eleven times. So besides their skeletons deposited during the Flood, there are shell fossils up in the mountains to prove The Bible is true!

My husband had a bleeding ulcer some years ago when we were on holiday @ Ficksburg.

As he had vomited blood & passed a malaena stool I told him that he will live & not die & declare the works of The Lord! Psalm 118:17

With the authority of Jesus Christ & in His name i commanded the bleeding to stop! Friends prayed with him & we got medication for him. He would not go

to   hospital, so i drove him home the following day. 

He refused to have blood transfusions then, but had 3 pints & an iron infusion 3 weeks later. Tests could not reveal where the blood loss had occurred! The ulcer healed & no scar! 

Signs,wonders & miracles are still occurring today!

We are believers empowered by The Holy Spirit with gifts of healing.

1Corinthians 12:9 We are not Faith Healers.

 By Grace we are saved through faith; & that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God :9 not of works, lest any man should boast. 

See Andrew Wommack healing journeys. People healed of cancer, injuries, medical conditions & a dead baby raised! Joseph Prince, Bill Johnson, Joshua Mills, Patricia King,Cindy Trimm, Alliss Creswell, Joan Hunter & countless others see miracles in their ministry.

 The government in Mozambique declared that the area where Heidi Baker has her ministry is a Malaria-free zone!

 Sid Roth interviews with people on dstv/Google are amazing! Nick Griemsman

delivered from Schizophrenia & John Waller from Bi-polar.  

 If testimonies to God's goodness were printed in your paper you would receive hundreds/thousands locally! To God be the glory!

 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the Name of His Son Jesus Christ, & love one another, as He gave us commandment. 

Meribah

PS. Where healing has not manifested, Cayenne Pepper  excellent for heart & gastric ulcers. Daily lemon juice for ulcers too. 

Where logic and reason fail

I am a self-proclaimed advocate of science, but I have learnt over the years that mine is a stupid venture. Science is a body of knowledge that is applied by people we call scientists to understand the physical world using experimentation and reasoning to come to conclusions.

It is very important that advocates of science such as myself drive in their own lanes and realise that science cannot solve, know, or understand everything. This is a very humbling fact, one that needs to be accepted as is, on account of the existence of opinions and the growing tendency to let logic and reason take a backseat in a world ruled by counter-knowledge.

Now, I have been told, and have subsequently read many a literature on the internet, telling me that there are some things that science cannot know and can never explain. That statement can seem very flat-worldly, but such an analysis would be unfair to the advocate of the supernatural who feels his opinion matters as much as any.

Fair enough but how can we differentiate between established facts and counter-knowledge? Well, the western world has come up with a few useful tools for the physical world: experimentation and Ockham’s razor sums up most of these tools. When researchers are faced with a natural phenomenon that is not yet understood, they use experimentation to determine the mechanism driving the phenomenon.

Where experimentation fails or is not possible (such as a historical event), it is useful to ‘cut the crap’. This is where Ockham’s razor comes in; it looks at the many explanations presented and cutting the bullshit, settles for the simplest one.

In other words, where there is a perfectly natural explanation for a phenomenon, the supernatural is frowned upon –that is until testable and reliable evidence supports it.

It is important that the most established theories of nature encounter the most rigorous and revealing episodes of scientists trying to prove it wrong, and the most accepted are only so as they withstand the plethora of attempts to disprove them. Such is for the physical world, though, whilst the supernatural has a different set of rules outside the realms of science.

And out there, pretty much anything goes. This reminds me of an old slogan of The Church of Scientology; if it’s a fact for you, it’s a fact. Let us consider a man of God who claims that the Holy Spirit resides within him. This is a 'fact' that cannot be tested, and therefore resides outside science.

If, however, the ambitious man of God claims that he can use the Holy Spirit to heal the injured, cure AIDS and cancer through prayer, he then brings aspects of the supernatural world to our physical reality, and at this point allows scientific testing of these claims. No occurrence of faith healing being proven to work has been reliably recorded.

A more physically viable explanation would be that he who claims to be healed by a faith healer through nothing more than prayer is telling an untruth. Whilst this may break the credibility of the witness, it keeps intact the laws of physics by cutting the crap, in other words, we use Ockham’s razor.

Whilst this fact means faith healing does not work in the physical world, it says nothing of the supernatural, which as I said earlier, anything goes. This place where anything goes is called by Collin Campbell as the cultic milieu; which is the cesspool of all that is unbelievable and where those that forgo reason, logic and choose to ignore all manner of established evidence, reside.

I have been told also, that miracles cannot be explained by science because they operate outside the laws of physics. This is a face-palm-worthy statement at face value, but then I remember how science cannot explain “everything.”

When it comes to so-called miracles and the hocus pocus that plagues the cultic milieu, the phenomena of this supernatural world are only as strong as those who believe in it, the advocates. And this is where science (which encapsulates logic and reason), differs: it works whether you believe in it or not.

So, what do you believe in?   

Bad apologetics

(The incorrect use of science and faith to defend atheism/theism that seems to strengthen each's arguments but instead greatly undermines it. )

I thought I should write on some of the Earth-shattering and very heated (as heated as text can get) conversations on Facebook I sometimes find myself engaged in.

Many of these conversations usually start with an atheist or theist (usually a Christian) making bold claims in defense of their belief. Ideally, I prefer to not get involved with them. Ideally.

The issue arises when an apologetic uses (either on purpose or blatantly) unsupported claims to attack the other belief or defend one's own. In many a debates between Christians and atheists, I find myself hopping between the two parties when I find that the side I have chosen uses bad apologetics.

One Facebook encounter occurred a few hours before I started writing this column and this friend of mine is a self-proclaimed atheist whom I met during a science communication competition in Grahamstown. Now, he shared a status updated by a friend of his:

The reality is, Jesus was a mythical figure. It was the political establishment that sought to historize the Jesus figure for social control…. thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud.
And for the next 1600 years, the Vatican maintained a political stranglehold on all of Europe, leading to such joyous periods as the
Dark Ages, along with enlightening events such as the Crusades, and the Inquisition….Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age.

This statement is riddled with misinformation which should render the argument against Christianity devoid of any true substance. There are many flaws here but I will mention a few.

The most obvious flaw is the utterance that Jesus Christ was a "mythical figure". While one cannot divulge on the divinity of the Christ, his existence is almost a certainty as far as the Bible's historical integrity is concerned.

The Dark Ages (formally Middle Ages) are marked by the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 4th century and considered "dark" by historians due to the decline of historical records from the period, and not so much Christian violence as the statement may suggest.

Petrarch, an Italian scholar and historian who coined the term "dark ages" saw the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of the Age of Classical Antiquity. He also considered the Age he lived dark from the "lack of cultural achievements" as compared to the previous age.

Now, Protestants of the 16th and 17th centuries considered the Middle Ages as a period of Catholic (not Christian) corruption. Like Petrarch, who did not attack Christianity per se, the protestants were seeking a restoration of biblical Christianity. [Emphasis mine].

British historian, Gilbert Burnet, at the last quarter of the 17th century in one of his earliest works: The Epistle of Dedicatory to Volume I of The History of Reformation of the Church of England said,

The design of the reformation [the Protestant movement] was to restore Christianity to what it was at first, and to purge it of those corruptions, with which it was overrun in the later and darker ages.

The purported evidence of the violent nature of Christianity ( sometimes considered a vehicle of many wars) is in many ways flawed as the mentioned periods of conflict are not in fact attributed to the ideals of Christianity but are the result of some individuals in authority who saw Christianity as a means to dominate and rule the masses.

My stating these facts is not to discredit atheism or support Christianity, but to try to do away with the use of unsupported assumptions and unchecked information to push forward a belief in an attempt to defend as this has the effect of working against the apologetic in the case that he is debating with people who are less inclined to ignorance (and happen to own a smartphone).

Atheists and theists alike should refrain from making arguments and stating facts from the top of their heads and using information they have not checked themselves, to defend their beliefs.

Also of great importance is the personal slander and insults thrown by either side when the facts run out. I say let the facts speak for themselves and defend your belief by doing a little Googling and actually reading the bible before attacking or defending Christianity.

Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu once said, "Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." Let us check our facts, people.

Gay genes

It is very likely that a certain reader or the occasional browser who reads the newspaper just to look important has just found out that their spouse, friend, sibling or neighbor is gay. I cannot blame the reader for asking what is wrong with that special person who has just dropped this bomb on you either by choice or by way of catching them.

A few months ago I came across an article that wrote on the biological basis of homosexuality in humans. This is all well and good until the writer warns of the danger of the study. Think about it, if the study concludes on a genetic malfunction or hormonal imbalances (note how both terms are negatives) than people would consider homosexuality as a disorder of some kind that can be "cured".

A concept of note I found particularly interesting is that of homosexual antagonism. The idea basically tries to explain how homosexuality in men has a prenatal cause. It can get very technical but the basic idea is this; men who have older brothers are more likely to be born gay.

The theory is that an antigen that makes unborn boys straight induces antibodies in the mother's immune system. This means that the mother's own immune system acts against the unborn boy's heterosexuality.After the pregnancy, the immune system is ready for another attack thereby increasing the chances of the next male sibling being gay.

I can already imagine the social uproar from gay-rights activists and sympathisers as expecting mothers start terminating or somehow altering their child's genetic sequence to prevent the child from being born gay.

Now, homosexuality will always be a touchy issue, but when homophobes have science in their arsenal, I foreseesexual apartheid. I know, that feels as weird as it sounds and when you have a homophobe in power, this just might be a possibility.

Homophobes aren't the only problem, as we have a history of pandemic deniers and the US has the unfortunate problem of climate-change deniers and those guys are just plain stupid and dangerous.

But back and closer to home, I think we really need to sit down and change the way we look at homosexuality and stop hiding behind religious and biological concepts and outright admit to senseless homophobia.

Historical misinformation may also play a role. Some people have this idea that homosexuality is only emerging now, as if it is a by-product of the times. A day at the history section at the local library might do a lot of us some good in this respect.

Some hide their staunch prejudices behind texts like the Holy Bible and say that it says this and that. Ah, and then there's the naturalist who claims how unnatural it is for a man to be romantically involved with another man.

I would personally think it unnatural if homosexuality never existed, I'd wonder how it is that we are hardwired to exclusively fall for only the opposite sex. Our intelligence and freewill distinguishes us from all the other creatures of this planet and part of that freewill compels us to challenge any conventions.

If this was not the case, science, art and even religion would not exist.

There would not be any need for these cultural traits. One flaw of the human race is our ways of settling differences and a misguided sense of self preservation. And history has
shown us how dangerous it is when segregation and the suppression of a group (be it racial, religious or sexual) are applied in an attempt to preserve a self elevated group.

Even Voldomort failed in his attempts to eradicate mud-bloods. We are more than our genes and I think we have evolved beyond the ideas and propaganda of old. If we don't like something, we should just out and say it, and engage like sane human beings in constructive debate and maybe we can all just try to get along.

I know history is against us but if one reader should apply an open mind toward homosexuality than I haven't wasted a good hour writing this.

Stay hungry. Stay curious. Keep an
open mind.

Why you should care about science

If you ask any scientist why they do what it is they do, you might get varying answers. For instance, an undergraduate might tell you something very different from a post doctorate student (who by this time would have asked themselves the same question with increasing frequency over the years).

SMBC

I could run out of op-ed space explaining to you the many reasons why science is important in our lives but for the purpose of this column, I will only tell you that it is to vanquish ignorance and exercise a healthy dose of skepticism. Too many of us are victims of pseudoscience, myths, misconceptions and incorrect use of science in marketing ploys.

Ignorance in its purity can be very easily overcome. Throw in a dash of ego into the mix and you’ve got yourself a misguided sense of self-preservation when it comes to “touchy” issues such as creationism, vaccination, evolution, alternative medicine and nutritional information.

Thankfully, all these can save one a big headache if you apply the simplest skills of science among which resonates “assume nothing and question everything”. Now, science journalism is there not only as a fact-checking tool but as a standard by which we practice healthy skepticism (not cynicism) to better ourselves intellectually.

It is unfortunate, in my opinion that science stories do not hold a lot of weight in terms of editorial space in many national (and indeed local and community) papers in South Africa. They have to compete with sports and politics, with the latter being in great supply.

As a science advocate, it is my duty to try to convince you why you should like (or at least care about science) but I have found out that it isn’t that simple. A sports journalist doesn’t need to convince sports fans (who cover most of the population) as to why they should like sports.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say that writing such stories is easy as being a journalist requires one to have a ridiculously hectic life and the non-existance of a stable social life. Those who are able to achieve the latter are overachievers or frauds or both.

I have to also admit that science on the surface for someone who is not initially interested is intimidating. I’d love to, more than anything, tell you that science is all about the discovery of some wonder material or newly discovered giant killer chicken or the advent of a space rock on a collision course with Richards Bay (I’d really love to) but I have learnt that this is not always the case.

Hey, don’t get me wrong, these stories are amazing and you can see a lot of them on reputable websites with a favorite being I Fucking Love Science and a few others such Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy and the best science journalists in the world at National Geographic's Phenomina (seriously, go check them out on your phone).

I think what we need is some dose of skepticism and do away with our fear of science. Yes, we need to fall in love with the wonder of science but be very careful not to turn into “bumper-sticker” science, as one of South Africa’s foremost science journalists (and author of Searching African Skies) once put it.

Science can be so much more than that, it’s clear that if we really apply ourselves to the scientific process and understand the scientific method, we can greatly improve (or install!) our bullshit-o-meters to protect ourselves from this pre-zombie-apocalypse era we find ourselves in.

First MeerKAT receptor launched

The receptor stands 19.5 meters and weighs 42 tons!

THE first MeerKAT antenna and high-tech center was launched two weeks ago (27 March) in the Karoo observation site 90 kilometres from Carnarvon in the Northern Cape.

The launch was that of the first of 64 dishes being constructed as part of the MeerKAT project, a pathfinder to the Square Kilometre Array (SKA). The SKA is an international effort to build the world’s largest radio telescope with a collecting area of one million square metres. The launch also includes a new state-of-the-art data centre for the MeerKAT telescope which has been constructed in an underground bunker.

The inauguration was attended by the Minister of the Department of Science and Technology (DST) Derek Hanekom as well as various ministers from the many SKA partner countries. These included representatives from the Australia, Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Madagasar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia and Zambia.

“The relatively young science of radio astronomy has, to give you only one example, made a major and direct contribution to the development of wifi technology, which has become an everyday part of our existence. Intellectually, what can be more important than seeking a better understanding of our cosmic origins, understanding how the universe was born, how galaxies and stars were formed, how the Sun and the Earth were born, and how life originated?” said Minister of Science and Technology, Derek Hanekom at the inauguration.

The project has been met with excitement locally as Thulani Jili, a senior lecturer and researcher at the University of Zululand, is working on getting the university’s Physics Department involved. He sees the project as a great opportunity, having the most powerful scientific instrument in the world in “our backyard.”

“This is the biggest project that science has ever undertaken and we want to be involved with it.  That is why we want to introduce astronomy as a course and we hope this will go some way in contributing to the project,” said Jili.

The antenna stands at 19.5 metres tall and weighs 42 tons. Its design is based on the “Offset Gregorian” design which means each of the 64 antennae will have two reflectors- a main reflector with a 13.5 metre projected diameter and a smaller sub-reflector with a 3.8 metre diameter.

When completed, the MeerKAT array of 64 identical antennae will be connected by 170 km of underground fibre-optic cable. In this way all 64 receptors can operate as a single highly sensitive astronomical instrument, controlled and monitored remotely from the MeerKAT control room in Cape Town.

The full array of 64 receptors will be completed by the end of 2017, but astronomers from all over the world have already signed up to start using it as soon as 16 receptors have been commissioned (around June 2015).

A Taxi is No Place For A Bibliophile

Being a writer isn't easy. At least that's what I've read. But some say it comes naturally and they cannot believe they get paid to do something that they love so much. Yet still they take the money anyway. I'll let you know my own thoughts when I become a full fledged writer myself.

One thing I do know, however, is that any good writer has to be a bibliophile. Oh, that's just a fancy (and politically correct) term for a book worm. I am it, so I can safely say I'm well on my way to being the guy who sits on his veranda sipping on cold coffee, in my multi-colored gown, flip-flops, messy hair (my locks are nearing that) and jotting on my tablet (21st century stuff) how people's lives are playing out as I watch them pass by, reciting punchlines to myself for my next bestseller.

For now, however, I have to deal with a matter that affects me almost everyday. As a tutor, I commute quite a lot between Esikhawini and Richards Bay/ Empangeni (my autocorrect says Empanadas) and my expertise familiarity with the rolling landscape has eliminated the need to look out the window. Like any self-respecting bibliophile I bring a book along and hope to cover a chapter or two of Walter Isaacson's Einstein: His Life and Universe.

Alas, my fellow commuters do not share my passion for a good autobiography and this is evident in the weary stares I sometimes get (in this day and age nogal). Just the other day I was commuting to tutor a student in Empangeni in the late afternoon. So I found an almost empty Quantum ( a great coincidence if you happen to be reading Einstein) and took a seat as close as possible to the left-hand side of the vehicle having calculated that the sun would be on the other side of the vehicle for the most part of the trip.

As luck would have it, as I was discovering Einstein's extramarital relations with his cousin, the full taxi was finally Empangeni bound. As we sped down the picturesque N2 the hydrogen bomb that is our Sun shed some of it's rays through the sunroof (I noticed its existence then). Needless to say, the brightness of my book compelled me to read it in an awkward angle. At last I succeeded in placing the page in the shadow of the book, alas, the page itself was then out of view.

Still blinded by the book, and with a curious blue hue in my vision, I reluctantly returned my book in my backpack and looked up at the sunroof looming over our heads. And I asked myself the very constructive question;

"Who the f@3¥ puts a sunroof on a bloody taxi?". My question fell unanswered by long train of pondering and was put in the shelf of cold cases such as that of why seatbelts are locked away in taxis and why foreign owned shops are looted.

On the very same day as I entered the taxi that would take me home, I got some weird stares when I scanned the taxi's roof before asking: "J1?". Again I sat in a carefully chosen seat but this would not be my day as the geyser who chose to sit next to me had the whiff of a small brewery, and the people in the seat behind me didn't hesitate to ask me to keep changing  the air conditioning from the window (we call it i-weather in loxion slang).

It is clear to me now that my bibliophiliac tendencies will forever be under house arrest which is problematic in this day and age of mobility and convenience. You can't even read in the library these days, they play East Coast Radio in Richards Bay.