Lipstick on a Pig

So the government has sweetened the Gauteng e-Toll deal. Cyril got the delicious job of being the front man for this ongoing trainsmash. (I get a feeling Zuma is going to throw more and more crap Cyril's way to see just how low he will sink to satisfy his political ambitions.)

Without going into pedantic detail here is my understanding of how it worked prior to Cyril's recent statement  ...

• You get billed somewhere around 60 cents for every kilometre of GFIP e-Toll road you travel. If you pay promptly you get a discount so that you pay somewhere around 30 cents per kilometre.

• In the brave new world of the new e-Toll dispensation you get charged 30 cents for every kilometre of GFIP e-Toll road you travel. If you don't pay promptly the rate is increased to 60 cents a kilometre.

• The maximum that a small segment of e-Toll road users will be charged is reduced from R450 per month to R225 per month.

• And if you don't pay promptly that maximum becomes ... you guessed it ... R450, the old maximum.

To the best of my understanding I can see no material difference between these two. They both seem to be structured like this: If you pay promtly you pay 30 cents per kilometre  and if you don't pay promptly you pay 60 cents per kilometre. Granted if you're a goody two shoes you get away with a lower monthly maximum.

I'm guessing that the management cost, that mysterious secret amount that the public shall not be told, remains a constant. If so, then the collection mechanism becomes even more inefficient as the management cost becomes a higher proportion of the total amount collected.

Then comes the bullying. If you don't pay then you will not be allowed to renew your vehicle license.

I sense that as the ANC trots deeper and deeper into the realms of the indefensible we will see more and more similar bullying tactics.

The whole GFIP e-Toll disaster reflects how the ANC has no concept or interest in the concept of governing for the good of the people. Government is supposed to be there for good of the people of the country, or in a reasonably adequate world they should be. The ANC is progressively less and less in government for the good of the people and the rate of gouging the citizens has accelerated under Jacob Zuma's watch.

Cloud Cuckoo Land

The expression "Cloud Cuckoo Land" refers to an unrealistically idealistic state where everything is perfect. ("You're living in cloud cuckoo land.") It hints that the person referred to is naïve, unaware of reality or deranged in holding such an optimistic belief. (Wikipedia)

This picture shows page 1 and page 3 of the Business Day of 27 May 2015. Yesterday.

The article on page 1 is not attributed to any opposition political party, greedy privileged white owned industrialist, biased foreign ratings agency, or any other counter revolutionary. No, it is the national, statutory statistics bureau. Surely their job is to dig out the numbers that support the "good story".

The article on page 3 is clearly a pronouncement by our less than esteemed corruptor in chief. There is no doubt in my mind, in spite of the good that has been done in the last 21 years, that South Africa is more than troubled. It is my view that South Africa was troubled under Mbeki. I get a sense that Zuma has taken South Africa past a tipping point. I feel that he has wrought tremendous destruction to vital state institutions. I feel he has wrought tremendous destruction to what was good and worthwhile in the ANC so that it is impossible for any strongly principled member to climb to a position of authority or power within the party.

The definition above says "It hints that the person referred to is naïve, unaware of reality or deranged in holding such an optimistic belief."

You decide which of these you think fits Jacob Zuma.

Disclaimer Proclaimer

I write about whatever I feel like in this blog. There is no theme that I am obliged to follow.

Much, if not all, of what I write is about things that I see and hear in the world around me together with the inside workings that make me who I am.

There is seldom, if ever, any serious, conscious science or research behind what I say. Rather I try and express the gestalt I get from the world around me.

I'd like to think that there could be something of value lurking somewhere in most of what I write. 

How Serious is the ANC About Government for the Good of the People?

This question surely underlies so many discussions and criticisms regarding the ANC's tenure as South Africa's ruling party and government.

Surely if the ANC was serious about government for the good of the people then a lot of things would be a lot better. For example, our education department would be serving our children by ensuring our tax money was put to good use and that good governance principles, checks and balances and accountability would permeate the department. Clearly this is not the case.

The protracted chaotic state of affairs in the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality is further evidence that the ANC is not really concerned with government for the good of the people. It is only now that the ANC looks to be at risk of losing the municipality to the DA in the forthcoming local government elections that the central ANC has intervened. It actually looks as though the ANC, in it's arrogance, wasn't even prepared to make any intervention in the light of the parlous state of the municipality. 

That is until the DA students union won the Fort Hare SRC election. After all that has gone wrong this finally seems to have caught the attention of the ANC NEC knobs.

They decided they needed to get seriously serious about doing something serious.

So what do they do? To show how seriously serious they are about sorting the serious problems down there.

They put in a part-time mayor.

With all the kak that is going on and how seriously bad they suddenly realise things are they put in a frigging part-time mayor to solve everything!

Danny Jordaan is president of SAFA. He assures us that his responsibilities at SAFA won't interfere with his ability to resolve the pressing issues in Nelson Mandela Bay. Maybe that helps us understand why SAFA is such a stuff up. Clearly Danny's view is that his responsibilities at SAFA are so lightweight that he can successfully moonlight as mayor of one of our biggest and most troubled municipalities.

I would have thought that if the new mayor of the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality was serious about his responsibility to resolve the pressing issues he would be expecting twelve to sixteen hour days dedicated to Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality for a protracted period of time.

Naaaaah, says Danny. Naaaaah, says the ANC.

Good governance for the good of the people?

Naaaaah, says the ANC.

Feather Angle

I have a track record of being something of a maverick in my views. I am very much a "who says ...?" kind of person. I have long advocated that beginner paddlers should start paddling with unfeathered paddles. My view has been pooh-pooh'ed by many of the local mouths including those in the canoeing industry - with only one exception who was prepared to listen to the logic - kudos Stan.

I started paddling when paddles were feathered at 90 degrees. That was it. I felt that feather angles required too much 'wrist language' to consistently get the proper blade angle in the water, especially in rough water paddling. In those days many of us made our own paddles. So I started experimenting with feather angles, starting with my wild water racing paddle. I ended up with using around a 45 degree feather angle. Really radical for those days but I wasn't ready to challenge the root orthodoxy of feathered paddles.

Life happened and I hardly paddled for years. I came back to paddling considerably older with older joints and a mind more willing challenge orthodoxy. I bought a new paddle with the then accepted feather of around 70 degrees. I chafed at the need to make the big feather flick turn and I started experimenting with feather angles again. This time I was prepared to push the experimentation further and I had become a keen observer of paddling technique. And so I started paddling with no feather. Around ten years later and I am still paddling with unfeathered paddles. And the mouths have a lot to say. Only none of them have been able to give a persuasive reason for forcing beginners to paddle with feathered paddles.

So why do they persist and why do emotions rise when the orthodoxy is questioned or challenged?

Read this article for some thoughts on why people persist with often patently dumb things.

So today, with some slack time on my hands at work, I was trolling the web, idly following a paddling train of thought and looking at the track records of paddlers when I branched into wing paddles and came upon this article by Greg Barton. For those of you don't know Greg Barton is a multiple Olympic and world championship kayak sprint gold medalist and owner of Epic Kayaks one of the world's major paddle manufacturers.

Here is a direct quote from Greg's article:

To feather or not to feather? There are many people with strong feelings on both sides of this subject. The following are reasons why you may want to consider using an unfeathered paddle.

   For beginners, it is easier to learn with an unfeathered paddle.

   Unfeathered paddles do not require wrist rotation and put less strain on the wrist.

   Unfeathered paddles do not "dive" or "fly up" in the wind.

   While an unfeathered paddle is initially easier to use, most people can quickly adapt to a feathered paddle.

He must be a pretty smart guy as he is saying exactly what I have been saying for years.

So, if you're using feathered paddles, especially if you're a recreational, novice or intermediate paddler, it's probably a good idea to get an adjuster for your paddle shaft and start playing with your feather angle. And for anyone introducing a newcomer to paddling please make sure they start with an unfeathered paddle.

Democratic Tyranny

The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised.
~ John C. Calhoun ~

Linux Community vs. Canonical

In polite terms there is an intense discussion going on between many people in the wider Linux community and Canonical and hence Ubuntu.

On the one hand many members of the community are claiming that Canonical is acting against the ethos of the FOSS community while Canonical claims to be making vital progress in ensuring widespread acceptance and thus continued viability of Linux.

I have long maintained that for any FOSS 'product' to be viable in the general market there has to be a sustainable underlying business model.

I admire hugely the volunteerism that is the lifeblood of the FOSS movement. Personal satisfaction in doing good and innovative work doesn't pay the rent, buy food or send kids to school. Every volunteer gets to a point, no matter how passionate and dedicated they are to whatever FOSS activity they are involved in, where they have to make some kind of living. If that living is not directly related their FOSS activity they have to deal with a conflict of interest.

The surest way to resolve that conflict of interest is to create a sustainable business around the FOSS activity. Which is exactly what Mark Shuttleworth has been doing with Canonical.

I think one of the major factors in the conflict with Canonical is a misplaced puritanical culture that wants to keep FOSS as some kind of underground movement where it is evil to make a living from FOSS activities. Does Linus live on thin air? Certainly not. He would not be able to continue his role without revenue streams. I can guarantee you that his income is mostly if not totally related to FOSS activities. Does that make him evil and unacceptable to the FOSS community?

Another factor is potentially ego or pride because a particular FOSS piece is not used in Ubuntu, for example GNOME. I think that some people who are heavily invested in GNOME find it hard to accept that GNOME is not used. Don't attack Canonical; look at the pros and cons of GNOME vs. UNITY especially in consideration of the market where Ubuntu is gaining acceptance. Canonical made a business decision and like any business have to live with the consequences of the decision. Considering the growing penetration of Ubuntu the decision can't be all bad.

My bottom line point is that Canonical looks like being sucessful at the absolutley essential challenge of building a sustainable business model that does not compromise the principles of FOSS. Kudos to them.