... apparently, that was an interpretation some chose to scurrilously derive from a
previous post of mine
1. I can see, in hind-sight, how this conclusion could have been drawn. It is, of course, possible that I am merely making a desperate attempt at back-pedalling having heard news which proves this position wrong. Actually ......
yes, dear reader, I am sorry to report that this is precisely what I am doing. You see, it turns out that the Saudis have seen fit to hold a
beauty contest. Upon hearing this news I was gleefully expecting that all contestants would be wearing, like, burkas or something which would have allowed me once again to poke fun at those wacky Saudis. In actual fact, it turns out that the contestants were all so immodestly dressed even by
western standards that I am finding myself forced to order a large serving of my own hat for dinner this evening. Anyways, without further ado, I give you the winner:
Oh, yeah. Work it, baby, work it....
Posts
7 comments:
"Last November a leading authority of Saudi Arabia's hardline school of Islam comdemned camel beauty contests as evil, saying those involved should seek repentance in God."
I suggest you seek repentance too Fitz.
'[Star goat and progenitor of most contestants] Burgan was not on display at the show as the owners fear he could be afflicted by the "evil eye".'
Apparently the average Times Columnist reader is better acquainted than I with goat pageantry, since the paper didn't see any need to elaborate on the "evil eye".
Can anybody fill me in? Is the "evil eye" given by 1) other goats, 2) rival breeders, 3) corrupt judges, or 4) hooligans and trouble-makers in the audience?
Will the "evil eye" afflict Burgan's 1) rugged good looks, 2) 'shaggy hair with a fine, silky quality', 3) prowess with the nanny-goats, or 4) eligibility to vote?
Dave, you're good with sporting minutiae. When have other goats been struck down with the "evil eye"? What are their chances of returning to the professional circuit? What can the pageant's regulatory body do to prevent this and other forms of witchcraft and hoodoo distorting open competition, and tarnishing the image of competitive goat-fancying?
I think it's referring to this.
Sorry for the serious comment.
Come on Dave, work with me.
Burgan's owners fears are sadly well-founded.
Let's face it, corrupt judges, rival breeders, goats of the right persuasion and most of the audience want to be with Burgan (who wouldn't?), while the remaining goats and audience members want to be Burgan. While only the latter category can effect Burgan directly, our unfortunate goat can be afflicted either way.
The first major problem regulatory bodies face here is that it's notoriously difficult to even identify when an affliction is actually caused by the evil eye. Was goatly sire A's inability to 'get it up' down to the envy of his peers, or was the mood lighting just not quite right this time? To be sure, the curious 'Bad Boy Billy incident' of '69 certainly raised some eyebrows, but who's to say that he didn't spontaneously combust due to natural causes?
The second major problem is that, even when a direct causal link can be drawn between that unfortunate wart and the evil eye, who should be punished if he who is without envy must cast the first stone?
Go and comment on Kim's blog!
Admittedly, the goat is cute.
Post a Comment