Saturday, September 20, 2014


Buttocks & Brains

My article as posted on News24 Voices
September 20, 2014

The Darwin Awards have been around since the mid 1980′s and are awarded to individuals who remove themselves from the gene pool in an effort to aid human evolution. Think of it as HTH for a green pool, where the algae represents the dumbest of the dumb that humanity has to offer.

It’s such a pity then that politicians who really should be striving to attain Darwin Award status, are instead multiplying and breeding faster than slum-rats. Wouldn’t this world be a much lovelier place in the absence of politicians, and bankers too for that matter?

Famous people say dumb things all the time, and celebrities seem to bask in the glory of their faux pas fame.
Take Brooke Shields for example, who once famously said “Smoking kills. If you’re killed, you’ve lost a very important part of your life.” Now some might say that Brooke was never the sharpest tool in the shed, and admittedly her claim to fame relied more on her looks than her brains, but when you’re Governor Of California one would hope that you were elected because you have some degree of intelligence. Arnold Schwarzenegger proved this theory false when he said “I think Gay Marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” Money is no guarantee either that the words coming out of your mouth will first have been processed by your brain. Mariah Carey was lampooned for once having said “Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can’t help but cry. I mean I’d love to be skinny like that but not with all those flies and death and stuff.

South African politics has not been spared a spanking with the Stupid Stick.
Just this month our Minister Of Water And Sanitation, Nomvula Mokonyane, was quoted as saying “We will defend Zuma with our buttocks.” Feminists throughout the country were left gobsmacked and members of the ANC Women’s League hurriedly convened a pre-protest protest to protest against any protest against Minister Mokonyane. One never knows who the ANC Women’s League is going to throw their weight behind (no pun intended) as their decisions over the last few years have left many wondering exactly who this league actually represents.
The ANC Women’s League have become the R. Kelly of politics.
Just when you really started getting into them and appreciating what they are all about, they go and pee on someone and make you question their agenda.

So while the ruling party had it’s spin doctors working harder than the aspirant black tea-girl at a DA caucus meeting, trying to explain Minister Nomvula Mokonyane’s statements as harmless, the rest of the educated populace knew that the damage had already been done. Young girls in the country with the highest rape statistics had just heard a political leader endorse the use of her buttocks to defend a man she had no marital relationship with. Scarier still is that every time our leaders say daft things and come under ridicule and criticism, their default setting is to use culture as a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card.
Suddenly it became a cultural idiom that the rest of us non-Sepedi speaking people just never understood.

If you’re going to defend a fellow comrade, why not defend him with your words.
If you’re forced to defend him with a bodily part, maybe choose one other than your buttocks.
If by some miraculous alignment of the cosmos you simply have to defend your comrade with your buttocks, do you really want that comrade to be Jacob Zuma?
We know his track record when it comes to buttocks.

Friday, August 8, 2014


Is Criticism Of Israel The New 'K' Word?

As soon as one hears the words "Acting in self defence", we immediately think about Israel and the protection of it's citizens and ensuring their safety. There is without question a very real fear amongst Israeli's that their safety is under threat by Hamas in Palestine and every Middle Eastern country outside it's borders. While much has been made about ex-Iranian leader Ahmadinejad's proclaiming that Israel should be wiped off the map, very little is said about the numerous Israeli politicians and leaders having a desire to "send Gaza back to the middle ages" (Israeli Interior Minister, Eli Yishai) or in the words of Gilad Sharon, son of former leader Ariel Sharon, "“We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza…. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima...."

So it was with interest that I read the many articles posted on numerous websites, editorials and blogs about the genocide taking place in Palestine, and yes I use that word 'genocide' deliberately. When one proclaims to be acting in self-defence, the very first rule is 'reasonable force'. Every humanitarian organization monitoring the situation in Gaza has unequivocally stated that the civilian death toll is unacceptable and Israels bombing of UN schools is a violation of international law.

It's in the reporting of the genocide that I find the arguments for and against Israels aggression most intriguing. Israeli apologists would have you believe that any statement critical of Israel is anti-Semitic. The fact is that there are very many Jews throughout the world who are themselves critical of Israels current bombardment of Palestine. There are very many who would have you believe that exposing Israeli war crimes is an attack on Judaism. There are those who would have you believe that Israels right to self-defense is an all-encompassing right that nullifies the rights of innocent civilians, women and children in Palestine. More worrisome are those who would have you believe that any criticism of Israel is akin to using the 'K' word in public. It's become almost taboo to talk about.

A recent article published by the Afro-Middle East Centre titled "Gaza's Challenges For Journalism" by Jane Duncan was most enlightening.

I post the article in it's entirety for fear of taking excerpts and distorting it's context.

The Israeli attacks on Gaza over the past month has focused attention globally on how Gaza was covered by the media, how much bias there might be in various reports, and whether the objectives of journalism were served by the manner of coverage. Jane Duncan examines the challenges facing journalists in the case of Gaza, and suggest that there are various tasks that journalists must undertake that go beyond the notion of 'balance'

In the past few weeks, the South African media have been dominated by the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza and South Africans have had to rely largely on foreign coverage of this issue to understand it.

The mainstream US media continued parroting the Israeli line that the country was acting in self defence, or insisting on its right to be ‘free from tunnels and rockets’, in Secretary of State John Kerry’s words, but Israel is clearly meting out collective punishment to Palestinians. At a deeper level, though, Israel’s motivation might well be to scupper Palestinian unity (albeit strained) after years of bitter conflict between Hamas and Fatah, and the killing of three Israeli teenagers provided a pretext to do just that. A united Palestine would be deeply threatening to Israeli interests.

What are the tasks of journalism in South Africa in reporting on Gaza? Mainstream journalism is not as embedded in the governmental power structure as it is in the USA, giving it a greater degree of autonomy to tell important but difficult stories.

Nevertheless, there is a temptation to rely on foreign news agencies for their copy, increased by the massive resource constraints in many newsrooms. Reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict often unleashes massive emotional responses from South Africans. Journalists working on this beat may also be tempted to produce sanitised copy, adhering to the basic tenets of ‘objective’ journalism to avoid becoming embroiled in energy-consuming controversies.

This form of journalism is, however, a cop-out, and ultimately a route away from good journalism, rather than a route towards it. ‘Objective’ journalism requires journalists to practise a number of strategic rituals, including seeking balance by quoting the spokespeople in a conflict, even if the spokespeople themselves have not been eyewitnesses to the events they are asked to speak about. Ostensibly, a journalist’s task has been discharged once the story has been ‘balanced’ in this way.

This ritual can lead to journalists not wanting to take sides on matters of considerable public importance when they really need to. ‘Balance’ means that they don’t have to go out on a limb and assess who is right and who is wrong, or whether the viewpoints being presented are just or unjust. This is not to suggest that both sides should not be quoted, but that the enquiry should not end once they are. ‘Balance’ should not be used as an excuse to avoid investigation, and even independent thinking.

Take the Israel Defense Force claim that it bombed a UN school housing refugees from the conflict, because the rockets had been fired ‘from the vicinity of the school’. This explanation should raise red flags for any enquiring journalist, yet there is little evidence of the foreign media having probed this claim; the story had been balanced, and hence concluded.

Hamas’s members are not angels; some have committed despicable acts. But significant struggles are rarely free from contradictions. Yet, in spite of its messiness, at a fundamental level, there is a right and a wrong in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unquestionably, Israel is using force that is disproportionate to the level of threat it faces. It operates in a global climate of near impunity, disrespecting international law, and getting away with it because it has powerful friends.

The modern state of Israel was founded on the dispossession and displacement of Palestinians. Even after the creation of the Palestinian Authority, Israel continued to expand its settlements and deprived the Palestinian territory of substantial autonomy by controlling many basic functions that a sovereign state would otherwise control. In Gaza, conditions have been aggravated by the blockade since 2006. Israel’s expansionist policies have fuelled deep resentment, and no lasting peace can come out of a fundamentally unjust situation.

These conditions have turned Palestinian life into a living hell. It is in this context that the Palestinian resistance movement has been launching rockets into Israel. An often-heard argument is that Israel has a right to self defence, but somehow the same right doesn’t apply to Palestinians.

Under international law, occupied populations have a right to resist, including militarily, providing that this resistance does not target civilians. In this regard, much has been made of the fact that Palestinian rockets have been targeted at civilians, but the vast majority of those killed by Israeli strikes have been civilians, which makes them guilty of the very crime they accuse Hamas of.

Israel supporters will no doubt cry ‘bias’ if journalists make these points, but the situation is inherently unbalanced. If journalists point this out, they are not being biased; rather, they are being balanced in a much more meaningful sense.

Journalism should be defined by values, rather than by strategic rituals; otherwise it risks becoming an unthinking, unreflective practice. These values should include a commitment to truth telling, particularly in situations where powerful actors want to hide the truth to maintain their grip on power. If journalists fail to recognise the fundamental rights and wrongs in a situation, they abdicate their democratic responsibilities to society. The journalism of objectivity and balance should not trump the journalism of justice and truth.
Journalism will also be a lifeless activity without a commitment to democracy and social justice. This means prioritising the stories of people who are silenced or marginalised by mainstream discourses, as they often tell us a great deal about how social power really functions.

The public sphere tends to be an elite space, which means that, all too often, media discourses come to us already inherently unbalanced. The Israeli state has tremendous traction in the mainstream foreign media, which places an obligation on journalists to seek out the voices of those displaced and disadvantaged by its policies, and social media make this much more possible than it was six years ago, when Gaza flared up.

There are those who are queasy about condemning Israel’s actions too loudly, given the historical context in which the country was established. As pro-Israeli Jews turn into oppressors themselves, they destroy the moral authority of this argument and fuel the very danger that they claim to want to protect against, namely anti-Semitism. Journalists, and all of civil society, must condemn anti-Semitism – which is antithetical to basic democratic values – as and when it occurs.

The Israeli state is on a road to nowhere, and the status quo is unsustainable in the long term. Global mass action, including through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, is an important force for change in the region. This is where global public opinion becomes important, as do media framings of these events, which can make or break global movements.

Journalists should not be put off by false arguments. One of the more prominent is that critics pick on Israel, while staying silent about conflicts in Syria and Iraq, because they are anti-Semitic. These arguments are based on the fallacy of relative privation, or ‘whataboutery’, which asserts that Israel’s problems should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world, especially the Muslim world.

This line of argument should be recognised for what it is: as an attempt to deflect criticisms of one of the most longstanding regional conflicts in the world, and one that is eminently capable of being resolved if its primary financiers committed themselves to doing so in a just manner. Furthermore, ‘whataboutery’ proponents should also be put the test, to see if they themselves act on their criticisms and mobilise against the very injustices they decry. In any event, many of Israel’s critics do criticise other unjust regimes.

Journalists should also encourage South Africans to take positions on the conflict on the basis of what is right and wrong, rather than on more dubious bases, such as racial or religious solidarity. They are in a unique position to promote forward-looking debates on the conflict and on other countries’ roles in its resolution, given South Africa’s own experience of oppression, followed by transition (however incomplete).

Hamas has also demonstrated openness to political solutions, a fact which is often lost in the western-mediated framing of the movement. In this regard, it is clear that the two-state solution is not viable, given Israel’s de facto control over the Palestinian territories. Yet the South African government continues to cling to the two-state solution; therefore, engaging with this debate is important for foreign policy reasons.

Support is growing internationally for a one-state solution, which could involve a binational state or a secular, unitary state. A binational solution would appear to the more realistic option, but will entrench Palestinian and Israeli identities as separate, increasing the likelihood of sub-national conflict in the future. This solution will also undermine Palestinians refugees’ inalienable right of return to the territories that they had been displaced from.

A secular, unitary state, similar to the one that South Africa adopted, is likely to be resisted by many supporters of Israel, who see it as the destruction of Israel by other means. Unfortunately, the word ‘destruction’ conjures up images of a violent path to building the nation, which ignores the fact that what is being proposed is a democratic path.

It must not be assumed that Palestinian and Israeli identities are so fixed that they are incapable of progressive transformation towards a more shared identity. Democratic theories of nation formation, including African theories, demonstrate that this is very possible. In any event, a state where Jews are persecuted will not be a democratic secular state, but an authoritarian nationalist one.

South African journalism is dominated by the professional model with its strategic rituals of objectivity and balance. But there are welcome signs of a greater diversity of journalistic practices, including civic journalism and advocacy journalism. These alternative models do not betray basic journalistic tenets; on the contrary, they enrich journalism.

Assessments of the state of South African journalism are often filled with doom and gloom, especially given recent threats to media freedom and the evisceration of many newsrooms. But this should not detract from the fact that the sector is also filled with great promise, and a real potential to contribute to positive changes to some of the world’s most intractable problems.

Friday, July 4, 2014


The Street Store: Charity Unplugged

In December 2013, the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF UK) released their latest world survey on giving, volunteering and helping strangers. The 'World Giving Index 2013' ranked South Africa 69 out of 135 countries surveyed. The full report published here  found that South Africans are more likely to give of their time than they are of their money.

So why is it that we hold on tighter to our money than we do to our time, and of what benefit is this to charities who are in much need of both?
Well the simple answer is that as a nation, the infestation of corruption that has filtered into every aspect of our lives starting from our political leadership at the top down to our civil servants and ordinary citizens at the bottom has placed huge negative connotations on anything that relates to money and our dispensing of it. According to the Washington Post, only one-third of all monies donated to charities actually ends up with the poor, the homeless and the destitute. That's their best case scenario.
The bulk of the money, or at the very least 70% of it, goes toward running the charity (think admin, rentals, salaries, advertising etc). Put in Rands and Cents terms, that equates to just 30 cents of every Rand actually ending up with the people who need it most!
That right there is the problem I have with donating money to charities.

Not taking anything away from the really great work that charities do, and taking into account that the vast pool of funds they receive in donations does allow them to charter planes and ships laden with food, medical and other emergency supplies to relief and disaster zones, there is something to be said about seeing the smile upon the face of the person you've just helped out directly.
Gift Of The Givers is a fine example of a charity that has been built on a reputation of focusing on the needy and dismissing the greedy. They have been First Responders to natural disasters both in South Africa and across the world, and rival such giants in the field as the Red Cross and MSF (Medecins Sans Frontieres).

Many amongst us misconstrue the word 'Charity' and assume it to mean only 'the giving of money to the poor.'  There's a very good reason why the World Giving Index includes not only financial donations, but also donations of one's time as well as the act of helping a stranger. Some of the poorest countries in the world rank amongst the Top 50 nations on the index, justifiably so because their societies promote social donations of time and selfless help.

Those are the facts and they speak for themselves.
Naysayers would advocate restraint to any and all forms of monetary donations, citing dependency by those less fortunate on those doing the giving. I've read reports by credible journalists and NGO's who speak of the very culture of begging and how easily it can be manipulated by those out to feed their greed instead of a need.  The public ultimately becomes desensitized to the plight of the poor, the homeless and the destitute because there is the very real sense that our donations, although intended for a good cause, may simply be feeding a lifestyle of dependency on charity. The downside to this is that the woman at the robot desperate for a few rands to feed her family or pay her rent or do any one of a hundred things that her very survival depends upon, the very same things we would take for granted on any given day, is simply dismissed with a wave of our hands.

It was a breath of fresh air than to receive an invite to be part of an initiative that aimed to accomplish so many great things under one single humanitarian umbrella.
To be part of a cause that would clothe the homeless.
To restore the dignity and pride of those who have it stripped from them on a daily basis.
To actually see hopelessness and uncertainty be replaced by hope and gratitude on the smiling faces of the homeless.
To being an activator within my community, moving people toward active participation in a common cause.
To be able to achieve all of this without asking anybody to open their wallets, only their hearts and cupboards.

You may have heard of  The Street Store.
Their website found here  explains exactly why they have such a huge fan base. People finally have the opportunity to get involved without ever wondering if their donations enriched any lives. They get to see the answer on the faces of the homeless. This is what I loved most about this initiative. It's not about the money. It's about having people who have been overlooked by society and stripped of all dignity, feel like they are worthy once again. The simple act of  'shopping' for free clothing on the day and being spoken to like a person, being attended to like a gentleman or a lady, being served upon by others just for this one day which they may never experience again, is more uplifting and rewarding to them than all the coins we could fling out our windows as we drive casually by at the robot.

The initiative was a huge success in Cape Town, as it's been in other parts of the world. 19 July see's it finally arriving in Johannesburg, and the response so far has been nothing short of exhilarating!

I chatted to Sumaya Hendricks, the organizer of this event and this is what she had to say.
"There are various elements of the project which I find appealing. Although the 'coolness' of the idea is attractive and draws people to the initiative, there is something much deeper to it. The people who we are going to be helping might be someone we ignored at a robot or perhaps condescendingly looked at as we felt they could do more to help themselves. Yet, at the street store, we are going to give them our time, a smile and treat them with the kind of respect they deserve but don't often get. They will become people in our eyes when often we see and treat them otherwise. So they will be helping us as much as we will be helping them - we have become so immune to poverty and hopefully this will help us to connect to those in need and act as a springboard to do more in our communities."

Remember that word 'Ubuntu'?
I know what I will be doing this Mandela Day.
Do you?

"What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal."
Albert Pike (1809-1891)

Monday, June 23, 2014


EFF Barking Up The Right Tree

On 16th May 2014, South Africa’s 5th democratic parliament received the list of 400 designated members for the National Assembly as well as the list of members for the Provincial Legislatures. Having elected the steering committee and Captain for SS South Africa, the nation has effectively placed the charting of a new and hopefully prosperous course through daunting waters in the hands of these 400 individuals over the next 5 years.

With the ruling party comfortably in the majority with 249 of those 400 seats, the question is really “How effective will the opposition be in keeping checks and balances to the ANC’s rule?”
The official opposition garnered 89 seats, but having been the official opposition since the 1999 general elections, one begins to wonder if there is any bite left in the DA bark.
With the arrival of the new kids on the block in the form of the EFF, I suspect we will suddenly become more enthusiastic and intrigued by the goings-on within parliamentary walls. For the first time since 1994, discussions around the water-cooler at offices across the country centered around the swearing-in of  members into parliament. While the focus may have been around the EFF dress-code, it is undeniable that the EFF know the right buttons to push to get people talking and to have the nation once again taking an interest in our countries politics.

With 25 seats to show for their first standing in the general elections, we would be foolish to write them off as a one-hit wonder. I seriously doubt that the EFF will follow in the footsteps of Cope, who came onto the scene with a bang and self-imploded with a fizzle. The EFF have certainly taken very many lessons from other political parties before them who may have started with the best of intentions, but allowed in-fighting and ego’s to be their ultimate downfall.

With the growing number of disgruntled ANC members feeling frustrated at not having an avenue to channel their frustration, either because their loyalty won’t allow them to vote for another party or because they simply choose to abstain from voting, many will now watch with interest at the questions being posed by the EFF. For many within the ruling party and even some amongst the official opposition, the EFF has presented a mouthpiece where once silent dissent was the only option. I suspect that on a vast array of issues, party politics dictated that members remain silent even if they held opposing views. I have no doubt that on issues such as the Arms Deal, HIV Aids and Thabo Mbeki’s recall, many within the ANC held very strong views which they were afraid to voice for fear of victimization or simply being left out in the cold by the majority. The same can be said for the DA. Lindiwe Mazibuko’s exit and subsequent media statements speaks volumes about the dissatisfaction within the party. Again I have no doubt that there are very many issues which polarizes DA members, but ultimately they choose to tow the party line.
When you’re part of a political behemoth which the ANC undoubtedly is, it’s easy to have your voice drowned out. Sometimes it takes the little guy on the outside to make people sit up and listen. Almost a case of David and Goliath one could imagine.

While many readers may feel that the EFF are nothing more than racists with no political backbone and too much of personal agendas, one cannot shy away from the fact that very many of the questions they have posed speak directly to the heart of their constituency.
Issues surrounding poverty, job creation and nationalization. Issues surrounding misuse of state funds and corruption. These are issues which have a direct effect on the masses, and the EFF have been quite successful in tapping into exactly what the masses want to be tabled and addressed.  The privileged few, the middle class and the employed would find their utterances to be no more than an annoyance or counter-productive howling; a fly that needs to be swatted at with contempt and disgust. The reality is that the issues they speak about resonate with a much larger and more attentive group; the youth and the unemployed, the disenfranchised and those scraping the bottom of the economic trough. When society needs to galvanize opposition to government policies or simply show dissatisfaction in the form of marches and strikes, it’s not the privileged few nor the middle-class we see in the front lines. It’s those fighting for living wages, or any wage at all. It’s that very demographic that the EFF speaks to. That demographic is in the majority, whether we accept this as fact or not.

When was the last time you saw a blue-collar middle-income or upper class individual standing at the front of a march or leading a strike or doing anything that would qualify him or her as an activist fighting a cause or standing up against injustice or oppression?
Hitting ‘Like’ on a Facebook cause or commenting on an online article doesn’t count.
The EFF know this.
They also know who their target audience is, and that target audience is getting increasingly hungry and angry.
Hungry and angry.
That’s a combination you never want to see in large numbers.

While you may not agree with many or all of their policies, one would be naive to think that working together with the EFF to find common ground and workable solutions and resolutions is an exercise in futility.
Take the example of what is currently being experienced in much of Europe. By governments consistently believing that they knew better and could dictate what was best for the general public, dissent and dissatisfaction saw the rise in many Right-Wing parties.

One cannot proclaim to be democratic and then balk at the idea of democracy when it no longer serves your objectives. European parliaments now face the prospect of having Right-Wing parties with even stronger right-wing extremist views than they were once comfortable with, now counted amongst their members. While we watch with interest at the unfolding of parliamentary events on our doorstep, the world will be watching with baited breath at the unfolding of events across Europe.

The idea of an EFF ruling party may be too far in the distance to register on the radar just yet, but the questions they pose certainly will make the ruling party uncomfortable. That on it’s own will have achieved the very objective of an opposition party. It’s when parties who govern believe that they can do so unquestioned and with impunity that democracy morphes into anarchy.

If nothing else, the EFF will certainly be barking up the right tree’s and for that reason alone, I for one am glad that we have them in parliament. I may not want them to rule, but I definitely want them making things uncomfortable for those within parliament who don’t like being questioned.

It’s time the ANC realized that parliaments doors are no longer a buffer between their arrogance and the citizens of this country.

Thursday, May 29, 2014


On Being A Patriotic Yet Critical South African

My article as it appeared on News24, May 28, 2014

We have just witnessed another successful and peaceful election in our young democracy, and as South African’s living in an African continent so rife with political change marred by violence and death, we really do have much to celebrate.

While we may be collectively disgruntled by issues of crime, poverty, corruption and a host of social negatives, we should balance our critical outlook of our country with the many positives which justify our flying the patriotic flag well and truly high.

As a student of everything political and economic, I was fascinated to learn that we were one of the very few nations able to weather the storm of the recent economic collapse experienced by countries perceived to have been better equipped with far greater resources, wealth and experience. The economic downturn may have affected everybody, but the leadership we had in our then Finance Minister, Pravin Gordhan, was of a high enough caliber as to steer a course away from collapse toward economic stability. Allow the gravity of this accomplishment to sink in and applaud it for what it is, for this was no simple task.
For all the things our government got wrong, this was one feat they got right.

When Eliot Rodger opened fire at the University Of California killing 6 students and injuring 13, it brought back memories of the Columbine High School shooting in America in 1999. Since then there have been at least 31 shootings at schools across America, each involving fatalities. In stark contrast to America’s gun laws and the powerful NRA (National Rifle Association) gun lobby, South Africa has for the most part been able to stem the tide of rampant gun ownership. While the argument can certainly be made for the number of illegal guns in circulation and the percentage of crimes committed by firearms, we need to applaud the authorities and government for the firearms policy which attempts to regulate gun ownership. Many gun owners may feel that the systems and checks in place to attain a gain license are nothing more than another tax on citizens. The reality is that gun ownership in South Africa is nowhere near as easy a process as it is in America, where all one requires is a Social Security card and the filling in of a document. The rest is pretty much an over-the-counter purchase.
For all the things our government got wrong, this was another feat they got right.

In a recent panel discussion I was invited to on CII radio, I made mention of the fact that South African’s can be proud of our entrepreneurial spirit and the driving force behind each one of us that makes us want to overcome and succeed. We’ve shown this fighting spirit on the sporting field, in the political arena, across the business spectrum and in innovation. We’ve taken on the best in the world and come out on top on the cricket pitch, on the rugby field, in the swimming pool and in various other sporting codes. We gave the world the CAT scan, open heart surgery, barbed wire, the Kreepy Crawly and Pratley Putty amongst other innovations. We’ve shown that we are able to find solutions when presented with questions and obstacles.
While the world spends at least $1.7 Trillion annually on it’s military, we should not forget that South Africa is the only nation to have ever given up it’s nuclear weapons program voluntarily. We raise our voices each year when presented with alarming facts on what the rest of the world is doing with their nuclear weapons; the destructive power nation’s are trying to achieve in their ability to wipe countries and people off the planet. We should take the time to applaud our own country for it’s stance on nuclear weapons.
While being critical of others, this is a shining example of why we should be patriotic.

The next time we complain about the price of petrol and how we’re getting screwed over by our government or the Ministry Of Energy, perhaps we should take a critical look at how exactly our fuel price at the pumps compares to the rest of the world. You may be surprised to learn that a recent study of 160 developed nations in the world placed South Africa at, wait for it, number 80 on the list of least to most expensive. Have a look at the global index here and you may want to rethink that move to Australia, New Zealand or the UK.

So how do we fare as a nation on the social arena, more specifically with regards to marriages and divorce?
As a barometer of how a countries citizens are engaging each other on a happiness index, and how well our social and moral fabric has integrated into our homes, many regard divorce rates as a good indicator. Since general contentment and happiness outdoors leads to general contentment and happiness indoors, or at least it should, the marriage and divorce arena is a great litmus test. With the release of the latest stats on this topic from StatsSA, a few interesting details stood out. The highest number of divorces were recorded in the 30-40 age group, with 49% of plaintiffs being women. Huge increases in divorce rates were shown in both the Indian and Coloured communities, with an average increase across all colour lines of 23%.

How does this compare to the rest of the world?
Out of 92 countries polled, South Africa was 64 on the list. While we may not be doing as well as Brazil or even China, we’re certainly not as bad as the US, UK, New Zealand or Australia.
Have a look at the list of divorce rates per population here
An interesting factor in divorce trends worldwide is the socio-economic element. With the ever increasing need of double-income households, both men and women or both spouses for LGBT relationships are playing an active role in the work environment. For many couples, this has seen an interesting dynamic where the female or ‘wife’ in the relationship is bringing home the lions share of household income. Stress and Finance has always featured highly in matters of divorce, now more than ever.
A common approach by psychologists and marriage counselors is to focus on the positives and show couples the many elements within their union that they should be grateful for. The belief that a current situation will get better is the beginning of the journey toward contentment.
One of the many things we have every right to be content about is the beauty of the country we call home, and the amazing people we share it with.

In the final analysis, let us never forget that South Africa gave the world it’s greatest icon in Nelson Mandela and presented every budding democracy a blueprint for the finest constitution ever penned.

While there are a great many things to be critical of as South Africans, there are an equally great many things to be proud and patriotic about.

Viva South Africa Viva!

Britain Under Attack!

My article that appeared in News24, May 03, 2014.

This week saw British folk in uproar as their values and culture came under attack, not by an invading army or marauding pirates, not even by suicide bombers or nuclear threats.

The enemy as you may already have feared, is the humble kebab!

So serious is the threat that patriotic British defenders of culture and all things wet and gloomy have garnered over 40000 petitions on their website . As the website name suggests, these brave and clearly hungry for ham Soldiers Of Sandwiches will stop at nothing to defend the honour and pride of the humble pork. The fact that the enemy in this war, the Subway sandwich franchise, has 200 ham-free stores in predominantly Muslim regions out of their total 1500 stores nationwide seems worthy of a Fatwa against Subway.

Why should decent hard-working ham-loving British men, women and children be deprived of their ham sandwich simply because the demographic of the neighbourhood they live in prefers their meat halaal? What is wrong with food giants who spend millions on research and development and product marketting that they have missed completely the barbarity of the halaal slaughtering process? Are local companies like Woolworths and Checkers and Pick n’ Pay hoodwinked into believing that the rigorous process all meat has to go through before being  declared halaal is actually very stringent in standards and quality? Do they not realise the sham that is actually totally barbaric? Surely someone should point out to them that other types of meat which doesnt include animal slaughter (presumably the type where chicken and beef are planted as seeds, watered and harvested in a humane manner) would serve the consumer and their armchair-humanitarian beliefs better.

As a consumer, driving through a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood such as Laudium, or Azaadville, or Roshnee, I should totally expect to find stores catering to pork and ham lovers. After all, everybody knows that business folk are a rather stupid bunch who never do basic concepts like Feasibility Studies or Demographic Research. Thats the very reason why the number 1 Kelvinator freezer store is in Alaska. Eskimo’s desire a good freezer as much as your average muslim family desire a good pork roast on a Sunday.
With all the worthy causes to be fighting and championing throughout the world… poverty, sickness, wars and famine, do these British folk honestly believe that driving a further 10 miles to a store that does serve ham is so great an effort that it requires national and international protest? Really people?

I will defend the right of any man, woman or child to enjoy his or her ham sandwich.
If the store of his choice does not serve ham for whatever reason, I wil defend his right to drive to a store which does.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014


Deny And Discredit: A Slippery Slope For The ANC

My opinion piece published on News24
April16, 2014

In the time it takes most political parties to entrench their policies and programs into a nations operating system, the ANC has managed to go from being the 'Default Browser' to a virus-infected users cesspool.
Not so long ago, we were dancing in the streets and celebrating a party that belonged to all; a party we were proud to call our own; a party who's leaders led by example and inspired young and old to work together toward the brighter future we were promised. I remember where I was the day I stood in line to cast my first vote in our new democracy. Filled with hope and brimming with pride, the energy of the thousands of voters waiting in line was electric. Victory for the ANC at the ballot was palpable. The only question was how great the winning margin would be.

Fast-forward 20 years and suddenly the very party we once embraced as our own, has degenerated into a pariah we now distance ourselves from.

In truth the rot may have first been exposed during the Mbeki era with the AIDS debacle and the arms deal saga. The warning lights were slowly lighting up, and the nation was starting to sit up and take notice.
Cue the Zuma administration and suddenly it seemed like corruption, nepotism and every other ugly known to politics was in free-fall. Nobody within the Zuma administration was willing to stand up strongly or loudly enough to stop the rot, and when we looked toward the leader himself we found a President so wrapped in securing his party foothold that he forgot the people he served. It suddenly seemed as though the needs of the people became secondary and the desire to cement ranks within the ANC became of utmost importance. Claims of tribalism and factionalism had overpowered discussion on service delivery and job creation. The only jobs being created were for the politically connected few within the walls of parliament. The only services being delivered were the tenders to friends and cronies. Rome for all intents and purposes was burning while inside it's political chambers, orgies of debauchery and opulence were the order of the day.
While the citizens searched for leadership and guidance, the leaders were getting drunk on the public's taxes and patting themselves on the back. When the voices of dissent from the public grew too loud, the leaders would come out and scold the people as though they were little children not worthy of sitting at the adults table.

Leaders like Gwede Mantashe, Cyril Ramaphosa, Fikile Mbalula and Jackson Mthembu have recently come out in scathing attack at anyone who disagrees with the ANC.
No longer are we allowed to simply voice opinion and have it digested for morsels of truth. The danger of having dissent or dialogue by a countries citizens being shut down by a ruling party is that without even noticing, the line between democracy and dictatorship is very quickly crossed. In a true democracy, government would and should engage the people to resolve disputes and conflict. Government must never forget that it is ultimately the people who have voted them in power. It is when government assumes they hold the whip to flog the nation, instead of being the servants of the people, that the foundations of democracy begin to unravel. As citizens we have every right to show dissatisfaction in our government. For the ruling party or any of it's supporters to suggest otherwise is to denounce the very thing ANC stalwarts like Oliver Thambo, Govan Mbeki, Nelson Mandela and others fought for.

It is the duty of every citizen to defend the constitution and denounce wholesale corruption instituted by the state. For the ANC to attempt to discredit independent bodies like the Public Protectors office and oversight committees who are critical of their actions and policies, one has to wonder what their definition of a Public Protector or oversight committee really is. Would they prefer a Public Protector who does everything but protect the interest of the public? Would the ANC prefer oversight committees whose sole purpose is to overlook any ANC wrongdoing? Would Gwede Mantashe, Jackson Mthembu, Fikile Mbalula, Blade Nzimande and others prefer a robust media that reports on any and all shortcomings and misdemeanors of all political parties, except the ANC?
How arrogant must the leadership be if they expect the public to simply swallow without question the fodder they're being fed?

For Blade Nzimande to say Jacob Zuma built Nkandla with his own money is an insult to our intelligence.  Really Blade? Just 4 years ago our president was singing poverty. Are we expected to believe that President Jacob Zuma's salary of R2.7million per annum was so well invested as to reap a 5000% return in 4 short years? Really Blade? Zuma's investors could teach the worlds most successful investor, Warren Buffet, a thing or two! I wonder why they never applied the same investment principles to Aurora mines, Eskom, SABC and a whole string of other failures the state had it's finger in?
Are we supposed to believe Gwede Mantashe when he says that economic growth has declined in the Western Cape, against all credible reports and statistics? I've never been a supporter of the DA but even one as critical of the party as I knows that the Western Cape is the best run province in the country. Even one as critical as I cannot accept Gwede's views on the Western Cape.
Are we supposed to accept Fikile Mbalula's views that the public are not allowed to show dissent at their president by booing him? Really Fikile? History has shown that booing is probably the mildest form of showing dissatisfaction against leadership. We come from a political history of brick-throwing, necklacing and molotov-cocktails. I would think booing is probably the most respectful show of dissatisfaction, considering our past.

While all political parties may be guilty to some degree of denialism and discrediting those who highlight shortcomings within parties, it is precisely because the ANC is currently the ruling party that the spotlight will be placed squarely on them.
If the leadership within the ruling party cannot understand and accept that it is the sign of a healthy democracy for citizens to criticize their leaders, than I am afraid the political school they have graduated from is in worse condition than our current education system.

The Kaloo report Ripped by @mirfaan © 2010