On Saturday I was at Ellis Park Stadium where Nigeria were playing Argentina. And in the spirit of the African World Cup, some Nigerians came with pet chickens to sheer up their super Eagles but they where told no chickens were allowed into the stadium. John Okoro told the South African Press Association (SAPA) that “We were allowed to take our chickens in 1998 World Cup, but these people wont let us.” Read the full article here

I don’t even particularly like football. But I love the World Cup.

How can Cameroon be losing to Japan? I just texted a friend of mine. Africa’s first World Cup is my World Cup. And judging from the shouts emanating from the restaurant downstairs whenever there’s a game, I’m not the only one who feels like that.

I asked a friend who his teams are for the World Cup. Africa, he said. I have six teams. And whilst my heart may beat for Cote d’Ivoire this year, I know exactly what he means.  It’s why I took special pride in Ghana’s win over Serbia. And why Cameroon’s defeat by Japan felt personal. Do other continents feel this same sense of solidarity?

There is a different buzz about Harare – the frequency that already revels in a veneer of normalcy, of a false sense of stability after years of uncertainty has reached a new pitch since the Samba Boys’ visit. I feel compelled to double check with people that they’ll be at work, that they’ll keep an appointment – that they won’t be watching a match.

My neophyte’s enthusiasm might make a more dedicated fan of the sport cringe.  But I was thrilled when a dedicated follower explained to me just how simple it is to understand football. So for others who might want to get caught up in it this month, I‘ll share his instructions:

a) score goals
b) don’t go off sides

Yip. That’s about it for starters. You just want to score goals. You have 90 minutes to do so. And the good news is, to win a World Cup game you only need to score one or two. Unless of course your team is Australia. And the other team is Germany . . .

Two friends and I entered Harare’s Got Talent on Saturday night, with a pantomime dance performance of Kenny Roger’s The Gambler. We were last minute cowboys, really. It started off as a joke, a bit of a dare one evening, but suddenly there were Auditions. And rehearsals. An official run through. A compulsory warm up. And a Performance.

My co-workers were quite game about our “board room” [read foyer] getting taken over for a rehearsal space. One of them even got roped into writing up our blocking, and taking notes on our props list. I was a bit worried our land lord would come and investigate, but 17 “know when to hold ‘em” choruses later we were still safe.

The blocking document was titled The Meddle, and included things like:

• J and A do the hop
• J shoots A
• A plays tambourine
• A and J show their aces
• Chorus: Go crazy
• A shoots K

And the props included:

• Bottle stick
• Cards
• 2 x Guns
• 3 x Cowboy hats

The show took place at Harare’s Rep’s Theatre – like the snap of the marquis above, it’s shabby on the outside, well meaning enough, on the inside, but stuck in the same bygone era that Harare’s post offices and government buildings seem to still be in.

There were a good 45 acts or so – a motley assortment of novices and veterans, across a range of ages and talents. I overheard one dancer ask another why there were so many singers. I overheard one musician ask another why non musicians were in the show. The people who knew they were neither singers nor dancers knew better than to posit why their numbers were so low. They were the only people I overheard asking – why are we here again? Go figure.

In the end, guitarist singer and song writer Christessa took second place, and Mumbai Jackson [think Bollywood meets Thriller] won first prize, with a three-person dance to original choreography. In the process, scores of people got first hand experience with the behind the behind the scenes elements of a performance – the tension and off stage drama, as well as the gritty, unglamourous sweat and frustration that it takes to pull something like that off. And the audience of 400 or so got exposed to performers they’ll be hoping to see more of in future, and others – like the last minute cowboys – that they’ll know they want to avoid.

Homosexuality is not something that is new to African society, that there is a lexicon in African languages to describe it is proof enough of this. Yet recent events, fuelled by ignorance and political expediency would have us believe otherwise. Perhaps the problem is not whether homosexuality exists at all, but rather it may be the extent of the expression of that sexuality within the context of our society.

Pambazuka News most recent issue publishes a very interesting piece titled Pink Imperialism: LGBTQ and the Middle East.

Middle Eastern Society is more conservative than our own, yet LGBTQ persons found ways to make spaces for themselves in their society. In the article, blogger A of Arabia notes that Western approaches to secure gay rights in other parts of the world neglect acknowledgement of the economic security and opportunities associated with being openly gay in a given society.

Much as I lament, along with many people it seems, the oil leak off the USA coast, I must also say, “glad it happened to them”.

It follows on another report I heard, some two weeks before and now long forgotten, that the US armed forces were having trouble keeping their numbers up. Too many potential recruits were obese.

Do so few people see the connection? Everyone is caught up in the blame game – BRITISH Petroleum (there is no petrol in Britain!) – blame them! Make them clean it up! Etc. The only United Stateser (an American from the United States, as opposed to an American from Guatemala or Brazil) to say anything sensible is the Governor of California, (and he is an Austrian by descent!) who will not support any more offshore drilling.

Why the confusion? United Statesers are too fat to defend themselves. United States consumes 80 percent (last I heard) of the world’s oil. The blame (and therefore the solution) is too easy! Stupid yanks – park your cars, get off your FAT asses, and start walking. Then, you could actually defend yourselves, and the world (no longer driven by your fat demands), could stop drilling for offshore oil. In the meantime – glad it happened to you.

There is a lot of hype about the male circumcision issue. It is being hailed as the answer to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Is it? I do not think so. On what assumptions is the success of the male circumcision program being based on?

Are those pushing the program assuming that an alarming number of men do not use condoms to begin with? Because if they believe that condoms are being used consistently and correctly, then there is no need to be trying to replace or ‘compliment’ something that has got a 99% chance of preventing infection with something with a 60% chance.

My opinion is that the male circumcision program will actually increase the rate of infection: When it comes to sexual matters, the human brain is feeble at best of times. The logic will be why wear a condom if I have just had a procedure that’s supposed to reduce my chances of getting infected. If it is insisted that one were a condom even after being circumcised, then what’s the point in being circumcised.

So we can only say male circumcision is a worthwhile intervention if we assume that a large number of men do not use condoms. Those who use condoms do not use them correctly and consistently:  Say a man is spending the whole night with a woman; he will wear a condom the first time around and remove it when he is done.  If he feels like having another he might wear another condom if she insists. But does he wear another condom if he wants to have another go at midnight, I don’t think so. And if he has been sleeping with the woman for a week?

Those who use condoms correctly and consistently please stand up.

What about the young man who has been dying to sleep with a beautiful local girl for months. A chance presents itself and there are no condoms around. Does he dash off to the shops fro a packet of condoms? And risk her changing her mind?

We have to admit that a lot of men are not using condoms or at least not correctly and no amount of shouting will ever change that. So male circumcision might save a few of them; after all 60% is better than 0%, trying to sell condoms and male circumcision at the same time sounds absurd to me.

We can only hope that the male circumcision program will not convince the few who were using condoms to stop using them altogether: Honestly, how many will actually think of the percentages? The message that a shocking number of men – and women will get, is that male circumcision prevents HIV infection and the proponents of the dubiously noble initiative do not intend that to the message. And HIV/AIDS messages should not be mind-boggling, like the one that says that people should use both contraceptive pill and the condom. The contraceptive pill is for married couples, Period! Asking a married couple to use condoms is expecting too much.

I hope the male circumcision program achieves its desired goals, whatever they are. Honestly it’s all a bit vague in my mind.