Mandrakel

.....on which day did God create fossils?

3) Would you or do you have any tattoos on your body? (Leviticus 19:28 Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord)

4) Do you condone homosexuality? (Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination)

5) Do you often pick cherries?

Father: Son, I see by your report card here that you are the absolute bottom of the class once again. What the heck anyway, that is no real indicator of your intelligence and there are flaws in the system so don't worry. What's on at school tomorrow?

Son: Aw weow Dad, wear gonna disgust Hairy Potta in English clarse.

Father: I don't think so, I will write a note excusing you from class. What other subjects do you have.

Son: Oh yeah weow wear gonna do science clarse and learn about Ever lootion and biol........

Father: .......Not going to happen. I'll write another note excusing you from that class as well. 

Son: I fink I will go wotch the TV now. There's a dok....doc...documenatry by Neal Grassy Tyson and then there's Family Guy.

It has been done before. There will always be some colorful charlatan who comes out of the woodwork to suck in a bunch of naive, gullible followers to believe and do exactly what he tells them. 

For example, we have seen the likes of Jim Jones and David Koresh who did more than their fair share of damage to society. Both shared the same characteristics; charismatic, narcissistic,  controlling and self-righteous. Each claimed to be the son of God. Yet, each of them offered a life of purity and an afterlife of bliss to their impressionable disciples and flocks.

In each case, the leaders (plus a heaping helping of their followers) met with a sticky and gruesome ending. What's the bet that oh, let's say, three hundred years from now, a bunch of hermits; outcasts from town, find a bunch of old Time magazines scrunched up like a scroll in their cave. One edition (November 1978) just so happens to depict the Jonestown massacre. The hermits go to a Greek publisher to tidy up the text a bit and print something that sounds a lot nicer.

As we know, the story of the immaculate conception starts off with a messenger of God propositioning a young virgin bride to be by telling her that "the Boss" has an overwhelming desire to inseminate her.

To which she naturally says "No". But then, she is asked a second time to submit to the request. Again, she makes it quite clear that the answer is "No".

Mary was then given an ultimatum that she had better do as she is told because it is the "Boss" and the "Boss" is going to be not happy otherwise. The rest is Biblical history of course....a perfect baby who doesn't cry for some reason, is born.

Now, considering the barbaric and uncivilized ways that were rife in those times let's just fast-forward to today's more genteel and sensitive new-age society. Picture this; a young lady goes to work one day, oh and she just happens to be a virgin and engaged to her boyfriend. A colleague comes up to her and says, "Hey, the Boss wants you in his office right now. He is going to get you pregnant". The lady, of course, refuses the invitation and says "No" yet the colleague says it again....."Come on now, you know you want to do it for the Boss, now do it". She again refuses the request by saying "No" in no uncertain way at which time the colleague states, "Listen, read my lips. Get into the boss's office right now or you will suffer the consequences". The rest is history and the reluctant mother gives birth nine months later. Now, in this scenario, what legal term would we give to the act which took place in the Boss's office and what word, starting with the same letter would we legally call the boss? And, what is the meaning of the word "No"?

Take a look at dolphins. Really cute and inquisitive creatures that have an obvious affection and affinity with us humans. And that infectious never-ending smile on their dials shows that they are infinitely happy-go-lucky creatures.

But, wait a minute. Did you know that dolphins rank upon one of the ugliest, vial and cruel predators ever to swim the oceans? They commonly reproduce by means of the males of the species roaming around in packs gang-raping the females, often causing severe wounds or death. They also often "play" with infant dolphins like football, again, causing grisly fatal injuries. And, forget about that so-called "smile"....that just so happens to be the default biological shape of their mouths which of course, belies their cruel, bullish nature. Like any other animal that sucks up to humans, dolphins are after only one thing.....food. In any case it has been known that dolphins have frequently made vicious attacks on humans. So, could this be a case whereby we could do without such a lecherous, inharmonious species?

Whales on the other hand, are quite placid creatures that go about their daily business of feeding and reproducing without harming anyone. But then, so are cows and bulls, yet we breed, torture, bondage and slaughter them by the millions every year for beef and dairy products.

Think about it. Whale hunting was a big industry and many countries were built up on the trade of the many biproducts from whales; meat in many forms, fuel, medical potions, cosmetics. And all from one animal. Perhaps animal rights activists and blubber-huggers should take note that for every one hundred and fifty cattle we slaughter we only need to harpoon one whale to get the same yield. Worth thinking about; and we don't need to take up so much land and use so much fertilizers raising cattle that contribute more than cars to global warming due to methane emissions. Whales could be responsibly farmed in the ocean and be processed humanely and far more efficiently than the bovine alternative.

So, should we be doing the right thing and get rid of undesirable, cruel species (dolphins) and adopt more reasonable methods of farming protein and countless more biproducts (whales)? As for me, well, I'm going to hoe down into healthy bowl of miso with whale sushi and fried blubber puffs and watch a retro-series of Flipper on TV.

After all, ninety-nine years old is no big deal nowadays so we can't just blindly write off the death of such a figure as simply being due to "old age" can we? Especially given that he had the best resources and lifestyle of anyone in the world to live longer.

And, there were many motives for any number of people to want Philip knocked off his perch. We could start with his wife for example. The Queen had to endure a whole marriage of infidelity from her second fiddle and there is evidence of spousal violence from her majesty; it is well recorded that she had a penchant for demolishing pieces of fine bone china over Philip's skull.

And what about those frequent bouts of illness and hospitalization of Philip over the past few years. Such a regimen is consistent with someone having been poisoned with cyanide or arsenic whereby toxins build up in the body over time and causing bouts of illness after each dose....only saying.

We also have to look at the fact that it was only 2 months until Philip would have turned 100. Now that is a coincidence that we should not ignore.

So, what about other parties that would have wanted to end the reign of his highness. Philip was known for his undiplomatic slips of the tongue and his undercurrent of racism and bigotry. Some time back, when greeting an Australian Aboriginal in one of the usual after function line-ups, he made the comment, "Where's your spear?" That indigenous guy had every reason to throw a boomerang in the direction of his highness, without the intention of it returning either. Of course, the palace would keep quiet about the fact that the royal surgeons would have spent hours removing v-shaped splinters of gumtree from the fatally wounded prince's brain.

Will we ever get to know the truth?