It’s not often I do two posts on the same day, let alone with radically different content, one a humorous parody of a band – and now a genuine serious
article on a matter of great importance to me. I suppose it’s just the way my mind works.

As the outcry over the President’s affair and subsequent fathering a child continous, I have lost whatever tiny smidgen of respect I once had for
Hellen Zille. Unlike most people who may make such a claim – I don’t support Zuma as a politician either however. I don’t think he should be the
president and I don’t think he should be re-elected. Unlike Zille however, my statements to this effect is based on critique of (many of) his policies
(and recognition of the correctness of others), his performance at the implementation of those policies and – most importantly – the fact that he
used weasel techniques and legal technicalities to avoid prosecution for the fraud charges he faced – instead of standing in a proper court. As the
accused he had the benefit of the doubt. He didn’t even have to prove his innocense, he’d walk away a free man with no controversy if they couldn’t prove
his guilt… when you have that kind of odds… and his kind of money… it’s pretty suspicious if you dodge the trial.

But none of this removes his rights as a citizen of the country. Privacy is not a negotiable matter. It’s a basic human right. Like free speech, free labour,
free thought, free association… but then I have never really believed that Zille believes in any of these things. Let’s be clear about this, the DA’s
policies are about as liberal as Rush Limbaugh painted pink… purely skin-deep and even that facade is filled with cracks.
They do not, because most of their voters do not, really believe in these human rights. Like all concervatives they think “I have these rights, and you
can have them too – just as long as you only use them to do and say what I agree with.”
The difference can be summed up like this: concervatives and liberals both claim to believe in freedom of religion. But a liberal means “let anybody have
the right to believe what they want”, a concervative means “let me have the right to force my particular brand of religion on all of society without
restriction”.

Now wrap all that up in a politician and you get Zille’s opportunistic grab at the news headline that Zuma had a child out of wedlock. Zuma rightfully
points out that his sex life is a private matter (and what, in this world is more private than that ?)… and she claims he doesn’t have a right to privacy
about his sex life because other people look to him for examples.
Sorry – reporting his sex life in the newspapers should not be tolerated. Free press does not mean the right to privacy goes away. It means they can
report in the public interest without restriction. Who any particular person fucks is never in the public interest to know… sorry, I can’t think of a
single example where an individuals right to privacy would not outweigh this need. If he was caught with an underaged girl that would be another matter
because now the legality of his private actions are at stake. But sex between consenting adults is a private matter… end of story – there can be
no debate about this – if you start making exceptions on things like this… very soon – none of us will have any privacy.

Think it can’t happen ? We lived in that world not long ago. Remember the puritans ? The victorians ? The latter is barely a century ago –
in what was already a liberal nation! Just 25 years ago, here in South Africa, the government decided that sex with somebody of a different race was
immoral, and forbade mariages between them as a little bonus. Technically it was sex-out-of-wedlock that was illegal, but it would only apply if that
sex happened where wedlock was prohibited. Their morality (which I’m sure Zille would publicly claim not to agree with) came to be a law that caused some of
the greatest hardships in this country.
My fathers generation saw four brothers who all grew up supporting appartheid all become opposed to it during their lifetimes via various routes. For one
of my uncles – the heart of that opposition came about when he was a young prosecutor working in a magistrates court and watching case after case of
people’s lives being destroyed for falling in love with somebody they weren’t allowed to.

Because the people in power had decided that their personal morality should have the force of law.

Fundamental to the democracy we built after 1994 is the basic premise that individual human rights are sacrosanct. That personal choice is a right and
we do not have to conform with every idea of society – even the popular ones. Whether I agree with Zuma’s behavior or not is irellevent. The fact that
I know about it without his deciding to tell me himself is however a basic violation of his rights. This attempt to attack him based on his personal
moral and cultural values and for how they do not comply with those of the conservatives who vote for the DA is nothing but outrageous.

None of the excuses bandied about for why his behaviour should be decried hold any water. We’re told we should violate his privacy and complain because
he is an example to the youth who follow his lead. Nevermind that actual research shows this just isn’t true (at least off sexual behaviour)… the fact is
if his rights had not been violated in the first place- the youth would never have known what his behaviour actually was !
Saying he is a role model who should live by a higher standard is one thing – demanding that to be YOUR higher standard is quite another. Zuma is acting
as a perfect role model for the values he believes in. You may question those values, this is our constitutional right, but you may not force him to accept
yours. That’s the law.

This is a secular nation now – with good reason. Because we felt in severe suffering the results of letting morality and religion have the force of law very
recently. Believe what you will, express your beliefs but do not enforce them on others. You may not like Zuma having four wives and an affair – but nobody
is forcing you to do the same, and you can’t force him not to.
Whatever else it may be, it’s not a political issue by any means. You aren’t supposed to pick a politician who agrees with your morals, you’re supposed to
pick a politician just liked you’d hire a staff member. Based on his fitness for the job at hand. We don’t get to ask potential staff members their sexual
preference – the law has seen fit to protect people’s privacy in that regard – why should we get to ask a politician if he believes in polygamy or not ?

It’s probably discriminatory that polygamy is only legal if you ethnically belong to one of the cultures where it has always been tradition, it should be
allowed or banned across the board – but then I don’t believe in giving cultures special treatment – that is what discrimination means. The fact is though,
Zuma has not – in this instance, broken any of the laws of this country. His actions are perfectly within his rights as a citizen of this nation.
That fact that his job is public doesn’t mean his life is. By that logic so is the lives of every other public servant as well. Do you think we have
the right to know if a postal worker is gay or not ? Nor do we have the right to know the sexual activities and preferences of politicians unless they
choose too tell us.
I don’t believe in censorship – but preventing a newspaper (also known as a corporate entity – e.g. NOT a human being anyway) from profiting
from the violation of human rights is not censorship – it’s PROTECTING free speech. Court decisions here and abroad has consistently found that the
sex lives of celebrities are not news in the public interest. A politician is nothing but a celebrity postal worker and should enjoy the same protection of
his rights.
The fact that Zille is jumping up and down screaming “adultering polygamist” while people in her province are starving to death is the very peak of
self-righteous political hipocricy that has caused the terrible state that the world is in today.
It’s one thing for Hayibo to joke about her Botox treatments, it would be quite another for them to steal her medical records to prove their jokes.

I have written many posts on philosophy over the years, today however, I felt like taking a different approach to the old problem. Where do we fit in history ? Does the actions of a single individual really make a difference ? What about long after we’re dead ? Well… maybe we can calculate that using mathematics.

Of course, since I’m not writing a PHD paper here, I’ll be using a few (fair) assumptions, which can be questioned, but I believe that – for the vast majority of cases, my postulation will stand up to scrutiny.

So let’s first think of how we might calculate the actual impact a person may have had on history, as measured at any given point. Let’s call our hypothetical person: Sarah. How much impact did Sarah have on the world ? Well, one way to estimate that would be to find out, at any given moment: how many people alive right now wishes Sarah had never died (or if she’s still alive, that she’d remain so forever), call this value (A). Then, we subtract the number of people who wishes she had never been born (call this B). For most people – the values of both these would be at their highest either sometime during their lives when they do something most impactful – or right after their deaths. With each passing year, both A and B will decrease – as people die and forget, some will tell their children though – so the decrease isn’t absolute.

If we say that Y starts as A-B, and Time is X, then, since there is direct inverse proportion between X and Y (over time the number of people who have any opinion at all of Sarah’s life reduces) there is a very standard function that we can plot here: Y=1/X – the function for an inverse proportion. But this function, by itself, does not consider the case where B is bigger than A. That function has the starting value of Y as a negative amount. So we should plot that with the function:
Y=-1/X (which is the direct polar opposite graph).
So the graph of peoples impact on the world is pretty much always somewhere on these lines:

The Red line shows us the impact of a person who had a high starting value for A and a low starting value for B. The green line shows us a high B and a low A person.
If we use today as a the value of X, then right noow Ghandi and Nelson Mandela is probably right at the very top of the Red line at this moment. Hitler would be near the very bottom of the green line. George Busch and HF Verwoerd just a little higher on the same line.
With each passing day though – the lines get smaller, no matter how far away from zero your line starts – it always approaches it on a long enough timeline. Today – even though almost all of us still know the name of Alexander the Great, hardly anybody really has an opinion on whether we’re glad he lived anymore… yet a few of us do (historians mostly, trying to work out if his impact on history ultimately benefited mankind or not).
The point is though – for no life, no matter how big or small it starts out as – on this function – ever reaches zero. The only way that could happen, is if it starts at zero. Which is pretty much only possible if you were an orphan who became a hermit at the age of 6.
So your life has an impact that spreads throughout the entirety of history from the moment you were born onwards. The impact of your actions influences the world. The influence could be small or big, but it’s never non-existent. And over time, the impact dimishes, but it never goes away. Hitler may not be putting anybody in concentration camps anymore, but the fact that he once did radically changed the world and we still live in many of those changes.
Your life matters. If your life has a largely positive effect on the people around you – the remnants of that effect will last until the end of time, ditto if you had a largely negative effect.
We have very little opportunity to change the size of A and B (though we call get a few), but we sure can determine whether A is bigger than B or not… in other words, you can choose if your line in history is green or red – and the choice matters, because the line never, ever gets to zero.