ANC: Five Focus Areas

This morning I was listening to 702 on my way in to work. The ANC spokesperson, Jesse Duarte, was given an opportunity to pitch for the ANC.

She said the ANC has five priority focus areas: health, rural development, crime and I forget the others.

She said it is time to deliver.

Suddenly things made sense ... non-performance is OK up to now because only now is it time deliver. Thanks Jesse for helping me understand that.

W-e-l-l, I thought, they have delivered on one.

And then I found myself wondering ... maybe she meant fighting crime ...

NPA Will Not Prosecute Zuma

Cry, the beloved country.

JZ and His Day in Court - Reprise

Firstly, apologies for the absence. Life and stuff happens.

This post harks back to my original JZ and His Day in Court.

I read this IOL article and felt it is important to echo it here ...

Just who is stalling the Zuma trial?

Karyn Maughan
3 February 2009

ANC President Jacob Zuma's lawyers have proposed August 12 as the date for his latest - and potentially last - court bid to quash the fraud and corruption case against him, a key part of which will be his often repeated complaint that his trial has been characterised by "unreasonable delays" by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

The NPA, however, claims the accusations are nonsense and Zuma is responsible.

So who really is to blame?

The State's fault

The Battle over the Warrants

It took three years for the NPA to win the right to use evidence gathered in its 2005 raids on Zuma and his attorneys, but Zuma's team insists its battle over the legality of the Scorpions' warrants was a matter of principle that had to be fought.

Zuma has repeatedly rubbished suggestions that he was using the warrant dispute to delay his trial. He told supporters outside Pietermaritzburg High Court last year: "I want to make it clear that I am not delaying the start of the trial. When I told the NPA that I was ready to appear in court, the NPA was not ready.

"Instead of taking me to court, they started raiding my homes and offices. I am now being accused of applying delaying tactics when I am exercising my right."

He also questioned why the NPA was "suddenly complaining about delays, while it had investigated me for more than seven years".

In 2006 Judge Herbert Msimang struck the case against Zuma from the roll, finding that the NPA had charged Zuma too soon and failed to "factor the inherent delays into their headstrong decision to prosecute".

Msimang suggested the state had hurtled into prosecuting a highly complex case with little or no regard for its ability to succeed, resulting in the case "limping from one disaster to another".

Msimang's words, though largely overtaken by events, have become a mantra for Zuma's supporters, including Judge Willem Heath - a key legal strategist for Zuma.
In a newspaper article, he argued that the application in Zuma's first legal wrangle with the NPA - to overturn the August 2005 warrants - was "pertinently brought to protect the right to attorney-client privilege".

During Zuma's unsuccessful bid to have the Scorpions' warrants invalidated, it emerged that neither Zuma nor his lawyers had ever identified any of the documents seized as subject to attorney-client privilege.

Zuma's advocate, Kemp J Kemp SC, told the Constitutional Court Zuma's bid to challenge the warrants was about fighting the constitutional violations he had suffered.

Kemp said Zuma's legal team was concerned that, should the State's "unlawful" raids not be reined in by the court, his attorney and defence witnesses would also be vulnerable to search-and-seizure operations.

Kemp denied Zuma's purpose in suing the State amounted to a delaying tactic. "If we had wanted to do that, we would not have brought this application. We would have sprung this on them on the first day of trial. Do you have any idea what delays that would have caused, especially if we had won the point and the State had to go on appeal?" he said.

The Mauritian Documents Dispute

Zuma's legal team maintained its "matter of principle" argument during its failed attempt to stop the NPA from even requesting the originals of documents used to convict Shaik from Mauritian authorities. The 13 documents include the 2000 diary of former Thint CEO Alain Thetard, which detailed a meeting between him, Zuma and Shaik at which a R500 000-a-year bribe for Zuma was allegedly discussed.

Kemp told the Constitutional Court that Zuma wanted the right to cross-examine witnesses connected to the documents - including lead prosecutor Billy Downer. Zuma would only be able to do so if the state was forced to use copies of the documents they sought from Mauritius, rather than their originals.

According to Kemp:

"We contend that the copies were brought here in an improper way, that the NDPP (National Directorate of Public Prosecutions) got its hands on them in an impermissible manner. We have a fair idea of what went on, but we can't present that to the court. If the State does not call witnesses, we cannot cross-examine them."

While Downer has come under repeated attack from Zuma and his corruption co-accused, French arms company Thint, over the allegedly "unlawful" way he obtained copies of the documents, these accusations have found no favour with the courts.

But who is to blame?

Zuma's legal team is preparing to appeal against the Mauritian Supreme Court's ruling that he was not entitled to get involved in Thint's court bid to stop the documents from being handed over to the state.

Under Mauritian law, requests for legal assistance from other nations may be denied if the evidence they relate to is to be used as part of a so-called "political trial".

Despite Zuma's claims that the documents were being sought as part of a politically motivated bid to thwart his presidential ambitions, Mauritian Supreme Court Judge Rehana Mungly-Gulbul said he would not be allowed to intervene in the NPA's application.

While Zuma claimed he was the victim of a plot orchestrated by then president Thabo Mbeki and axed NPA head Vusi Pikoli, Mungly-Gulbul said Zuma had not shown "good cause" as to why he should be allowed to intervene.

"Whatever bona fide belief Zuma may hold, to the effect that he is being persecuted and his trial is politically motivated, may be raised before the proper forum, which, in this case, is the trial court in South Africa," she said.

The NPA has confirmed Zuma's legal team would seek to challenge the ruling later this month.

The state's obligation

Zuma's legal team took the NPA to task for failing to invite him to make representations about the charges against him, arguing the state was legally obliged to do so and Zuma had been forced to turn to the courts to uphold his constitutional rights.

Their argument persuaded Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Chris Nicholson to declare Zuma's prosecution invalid and effectively quash the case against him.

The Supreme Court of Appeal was unconvinced and overturned that decision. Zuma and his lawyers have indicated they will seek leave to appeal against the Appeal Court decision. They are expected to file their appeal application at the Constitutional Court today.

Jacob Zuma's fault

The battle over the warrants and Mauritian documents dispute

The State elected not to challenge Msimang's decision to strike off its case against Zuma, reasoning that to do so would serve no real purpose because the judgment did not prevent the NPA from charging Zuma again once its investigation was complete, not because the NPA agreed with Msimang's findings.

During an argument before Msimang in 2006, counsel for the State, Wim Trengove SC, stressed the State had applied for a postponement of Zuma's trial because it was locked in disputes over the Scorpions' warrants and Mauritian documents.

Trengove said this had prevented the State from being able to properly prepare its case for six months, resulting in the KPMG forensic audit into Zuma's financial affairs only being completed a year after the August 2005 raids.

Trengove further sought to persuade Msimang that the State's requested postponement would not cause an "unreasonable delay" in Zuma's trial.

While Msimang slammed the State for its lack of readiness to prosecute, sources sympathetic to the State maintain that the NPA would have been ready to put Zuma on trial, had the August 2005 raids not been challenged in court. They maintain that Zuma and Thint's opposition to the NPA's request for the Mauritian documents delayed and continues to delay the State from obtaining evidence, diverting "time and resources from completing the investigation".

Since the Constitutional Court ruled that the Scorpions' August 2005 warrants were valid - and ruled that the State was entitled to request the Mauritian documents - the NPA claims it has done everything in its power to get the Zuma case court-ready. The NPA is, however, still to obtain the Mauritian documents because of Zuma and Thint's pending legal bids to stop them from being handed over.

The State's obligation

The NPA has spent the past three years fighting accusations that the State was responsible for delaying Zuma's trial.

And, in the past six months, they have found tacit support for their claims that Zuma was the author of his own trial delays from the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Handing down judgment in Zuma's failed warrants appeal, Constitutional Court Chief Justice Pius Langa stated in July 2008 that courts should discourage litigation before trial that seems to delay the commencement of trials.

Appeal Court Deputy Judge President Louis Harms was less diplomatic last month when he addressed Zuma's representations dispute with the NPA: "It is necessary to stress that the NDPP never refused to afford Mr Zuma a hearing. Mr Zuma knew from June 2005 that he was the subject of an investigation. He was soon thereafter served with 'interim' indictments. He had been told … that he could make representations.

"He did nothing of the sort. Instead, he resisted all attempts by the NPA to further their investigation."

Zuma's legal team has missed its January 26 deadline to hand over representations, but has told the NPA it will do so on February 9. Should their representations not persuade the NPA to drop the case, Zuma's legal team may seek to challenge that decision in court. And the State will have another legal hoop to jump through to get Zuma into the dock.

Paddle Size - A misleading Question?

Some time back there was a 'discussion' on the SAKayak group on how to choose paddle size.

I though the 'topic' was somewhat misleading and contributed the following item, which I have dusted off.

Although I believe this article includes some very important understandings I have tried to keep it fairly simple and it is not intended to be definitive.


The first thing to realize is that the issue is not simply about paddle size.

Wing paddles are called wing paddles because they share a very significant property with aeroplane wings; they both generate lift. In the case of an airplane wing it is aerodynamic lift and in the case of the paddle it is hydrodynamic lift.

It is probably more appropriate to relate wing paddles with propellers - a propeller is a lifting device used to propel a craft.

Let’s look at the following (not a complete description of fluid dynamics or lifting bodies/devices):

Lift is generated when a lifting device (foil – as in aerofoil or hydrofoil) moves (in the correct direction and with the correct angle of attack) through a fluid. In this context air and water are both considered to be fluids.
The amount of lift depends on things like the shape of the foil, the angle at which the foil moves through the medium (angle of attack), the speed of the foil through the medium and the density of the medium.
Drag is part of the price you pay in generating lift.
Load is a measure of the benefit you get from the lift generated by the foil.

Different foils have different shapes (aspect ratio, upper camber, lower camber, chord, etc.) which produce optimum lift at different speeds in fluids of different densities and angles of attack.

Additionally the lift to drag ratio will vary depending on the shape of the foil, density of the medium, speed and angle of attack. The higher the lift to drag ratio the more efficient the foil is; the lower the lift to drag ration the less efficient the foil is.

Relating the above three factors to a propeller:
- Lift is used to propel the craft.
- Drag is energy lost when the propeller moves through the medium.
- Load is the resistance of the craft to being propelled through the medium.

Specifically relating this to paddling, i.e. propelling a kayak forward using a wing paddle:

- Lift is generated as the paddle moves through the water (in the right direction, at the right angle of attack and at the right speed.)
This lift is used primarily to create a firm point for the paddler to pull against and does not necessarily pull the boat through the water. It is possible for a wing paddle to move forward slightly in the course of a stroke.
It is essential to realize that if the paddle does not move through the water in such a way that it generates lift it behaves essentially the same way as ‘conventional’ non-wing paddles behave.
This underlines the single greatest difference between a conventional, non-lifting paddle and a lift generating wing paddle. A conventional paddle creates a large amount of drag and turbulence, dissipating significant amounts of energy, as it slips through the water towards the paddler. The paddle drag is greater than the boat drag and so the boat moves forward, while the ‘caught’ wing paddle provides a firm point for the paddler to pull on causing far less turbulence in the water dissipating relatively little energy.

- Drag is energy consumed as the paddle blade moves through the water and does not contribute to propelling the boat.

- Load is the power the paddler exerts on the paddle to pull the boat through the water.

Now that we have described the basic principles relating to wing paddles let’s talk a little about wing paddles.

Assuming a static, rigid connection between the paddle and the kayak the amount and the rate at which the kayak will move forward is determined by the positive difference between the lift generated by the paddle and resistance of the kayak to moving through the water.

In reality the paddler pulls on the paddle, which is (should be) generating lift and projects the kayak forward. This causes the kayak to move forward more than if there was a static, rigid connection between the paddle and the kayak.

There is a 'sweet spot' which allows the paddler to propel the kayak forward optimally. This involves the paddle generating the optimum lift with the least possible drag to enable the paddler to be biomechanically efficient.

So which is the right size paddle for you? Maybe that is not the right or complete question.

Maybe a smaller paddle allows you to perform better because:
- It allows you to be more biomechanically efficient; or
- It may have a more efficient shape than the bigger paddle; or
- You use it less inefficiently than you do a bigger paddle; or
- Of some other reason.

Take a moment o think about the paddles we use and what or who they were designed for.

First and foremost paddles like Lettmann, Braca, Jantex, etc., are designed primarily for elite international paddlers.
- How many sub-elite level paddlers are paddling paddles intended for elite, world-class athletes?
- How many of the people paddling these blades have comparable physical attributes, conditioning or technique?

Just consider that the Brácsa IV is designed for elite, world-class women, e.g. Katalin Kovacs, and elite, world-class lightweight men, e.g. Hungarian juniors. These are athletes who have long since broken 2 minutes for 500 metres. How many run of the mill paddlers using Brácsa IVs can do this?

So my view is that everyone should be looking at one or more (probably all) of the following:
- Their technique.
- The shape and size of the paddles they currently use.
- Their egos.

Great input from Richard Tempest and to hear some specific science around wing paddles.

What Bob Waters missed is that the paddle never starts from a static position. It is always in some kind of movement through the water.

There are three phases of the paddle stroke where the paddle is immersed to varying degrees in water: Catch, Power and Exit.

The paddle motion through the water is different in each of these phases.

Although we talk about these as separate phases there are no sharp delineations between each of these.

Most people who have at least some understanding of hydrodynamics see only one leading edge to a wing paddle, i.e. the edge with the curved lip.

When you look closely at the movement of the paddle during a technically correct stroke you will realize that during the ‘Catch’ phase the tip of the blade is the leading edge of what is in effect an extremely low aspect ratio foil. The lift that is generated in this ‘Catch’ phase is what is experienced as a strong or weak catch depending on the blade shape and the technique of the paddler.

During the ‘Power’ phase when the paddler pulls on the paddle, it starts to move out to the side. As this happens the blade transitions so that the leading edge is no longer the tip but is now the edge with the lip.

Anyone who says that the paddle does not generate lift during the power phase should try this little experiment:
- Stand in water with your paddle.
- Place the paddle in the water ahead of you at exactly the same angle it would be in a paddle stroke.
- Hold the paddle still to ensure no lift is generated.
- Pull the paddle back in an absolutely straight line. The paddle will slip through the water towards you with only a little bit of resistance. Try to imagine how it would feel if you were paddling like that.
- Now put the paddle back in the water in front of you at the same angle it would be in a paddle stroke.
- Pull back on the paddle and move it sideways through the water using the curled lip edge as the leading edge.

If I have explained this well enough and you have followed my instructions properly you will find that it is difficult or even impossible to pull the paddle back towards yourself.

Why?

Because it generates lift as soon as it starts to move to the side. Doesn’t that feel more like what you get from your paddle while in the boat?

Remember that in a complete stroke the paddle is already generating lift because of the catch.
You might want to simulate the catch and power phase while standing in the water. This takes a bit more concentration.

The ‘Exit’ phase is all about getting the paddle out of the water as quickly as possible once the power phase is complete.

If you do not get the paddle out of the water quickly enough you will tend to yaw the kayak excessively and pull it deeper into the water, both increasing your drag and tending to pull you over creating instability.


Please realize that this is still a pretty simplistic discussion of only some of the factors involved in a paddle stroke, e.g. not a word has been said about the direction of the lift force vectors, paddler weight transitions, etc., never mind Imre Kemescey’s power circles.

Proverbs 29:18

In the King James Version of the Bible this reads as:

Where there is no vision, the people perish.

As I think back on how the South African political landscape seems to be changes in the last few years this quote seems to be eminently applicable.

I am not able to discern a mobilizing vision, from the ruling ANC, for South Africa.

I believe this absence of vision lies at the roots of the current troubles within the ANC – Much as numerous ANC spokespeople have assured us that there are no divisions within the ANC.

A unifying, energizing vision where everyone benefits is more likely to have people supporting each other, while the absence of such a vision leads people to isolate themselves, people entrench themselves in factions and positions and mistrust and fear grow.

A unifying vision allows people to align themselves and gives a common language and frame of reference.

Left to themselves things tend towards chaos. A unifying vision helps people to focus themselves on things that promote order while the lack of such a vision accelerates the slide into chaos.

Is it impossible for a country to have such a unifying vision? I think not. If we look into the past we can see that there have been people with powerful, energising visions for this country.

The struggle against apartheid was driven by a vision for a country that was free of the tyranny of racial prejudice. That vision drove many people to make immense sacrifices and caught the imagination of the world.

A different vision was the petrol that powered the transitional negotiations and caused South Africa to be viewed in awe at the peaceful transition from the apartheid regime into a democratic nation.

There was a time for each of those visions. There were people with courage to fight for those visions. Each time there was a critical mass of people who captivated and energized by those visions.

South Africa was catapulted into a new era because of those and other visions.

Their time has come and gone and the time for new visions is long overdue. Immense positive momentum and goodwill, both in South Africa and internationally, have been squandered. Many lives have been lost. Immense amounts of money have gone to waste.

And now South Africa is victim of the sick power squabbles of the ANC.

So what are some of the things that could make up this vision?

Here are some of my candidates:

Have the most transparent government in the world, including providing public access to all government finances where anyone who is prepared to make the effort can see where every cent of public money goes.
Have the lowest HIV/AIDS incidence in Africa.
Have the lowest TB incidence in Africa.
Have the highest literacy rate in Africa.
Have the lowest unemployment rate in Africa.
Have the highest ratio of scientists and engineers in the Southern Hemisphere.
Be in the lowest 10% of Internet costs.
Have the most independent judiciary in the world.
Have the cleanest air and water in Africa.
Be consistently ranked as one of the 10 best tourist countries in the world.
Have the simplest, most equitable and transparent tax system in the world.

There are many candidates. The thing is for the leadership of this country to state them clearly and unequivocally and repeatedly commit themselves and measure themselves and report back on their progress, their success and their failures, and engage the whole country in pursuing them relentlessly.

This is clearly vastly different to the increasing attitude of denialism and opacity that is building momentum in our country.

The ANC is, and will be, the ruling party in South Africa for the foreseeable future.

Is there anyone, or any group of people, in the ANC with the foresight and courage to fight for a selfless vision for South Africa?

Wireless in a (Wireless) Wired World

It seemed so simple. I wasn't in Beijing and we live in a connected world so I thought hanging out in a campsite in the bushveld with my 3G phone and laptop would be just fine. I knew I would have electricity and coverage. I was going to follow Olympic events and keep this blog up to date on our paddler's progress on the porch of my tent while black eagles hunted dassies and mongooses nibbled my toes.

What more would I need?

It turns out that I needed two pieces of wire that I managed to leave at home. One piece of wire has a special plug that fits into my phone and plugs into my laptop and the other has a phone charger on one end.

So there I was two pieces of wire less than I needed to be and I had to try and follow things second and third hand.

I will have to do some catching up in the next week or so.

A quick review of our paddler's performances.

Master Cele - Seen in the bigger picture and the background of this Cinderella of Cinderella sports in South Africa I think he did great. I hope he is able to continue building for London. I hope he gets more exposure and continues to be a role model. I hope he gets decent funding.

Cyp Ngidi and Cameron McIntosh - Everything I said about and for Master applies to Cyp. And mega kudos for what Cameron has achieved in helping Cyp and Master to the world stage where they are receiving deserved respect. All strength to AmaDonsaDonsa.

Shaun Rubinstein - I was absolutely convinced he would make both his finals and maybe finish as high as fifth in at least one. It was a shock to me when he didn't make any finals. I look forward to speaking with him and gettin some first hand impressions.

I wish there was still a 10 000M race at Worlds and Olympics. If there was I think Shaun would own it.

I would like to see him take a bit of a break and then do the work to get his World Marathon Champ title back.

Jen Hodson - She made the final as expected. I really thought she was our best paddling medal hope. It was a really close race, 3.3 seconds between first and last positions. When Katalin Kovacs doesn't medal you know the race was tough. Judging by the splits she went out really hard and maybe pushed too hard too early and started dying in the second half.

I think Jen has had a great career. There was a vacuum for while after Ruth Nortje went to the USA until Jen came through and flew the flag for women's sprinting in South Africa. Now the South African women show more strength and depth than the men do.

Does Jen have another Olympics in her? I don't know. (Before anyone puts age restrictions on how long anyone can paddle at the top level think about Birgit Fischer and Josefa Idem.) Whatever she decides she will always be one of the greats of South African womens' paddling.

K4 - Michele Eray, Carol Joyce, Nicki Mocke and Jen Hodson - They raced pretty much exactly as I expected them to. I don't know how much longer this group will stay together. They are still improving and we don't know what their limit is.

K2 - Michele Eray and Bridgitte Hartley - I think this is an awesomely promising combination. They are brand new as a combination and if they stay together I see big things.

In Cameron's Words

The C2 slalom combination of Cyprian Ngidi and Cameron McIntosh didn't make the final of their event. I didn't expect them to as I saw their participation as development. I really hope that by 2012 we will have gone beyond 'development'.

I have no doubt that participation in the Olympics for Master, Cyprian and Cameron was an experience of a lifetime with high hopes, trepidation, excitement, disappointment and much more.

Cameron's word express this fantastically ...



There are three races that stand out in my memory.

The 1st one was in 1998 when I won SA Champs for the 1st time on the Bushman's river. It was a huge mental boost for me especially because it was such a close tussle between myself and Guy Collyer.

The second was my K1 race at Africa Champs in January when I had one of my best runs but got beaten by Benjamin Boukpeti from Togo who went on to win yesterday’s Bronze.

And then today will be a day I will remember for the rest of my life.

It was bizarre to think that after 13 years of trying here Cyp and I were lining up for the Olympic Games.

The sacrifices that have gone into this just seemed to pale away as we went up the conveyor belt and all of a sudden were surrounded by 12 000 screaming spectators and TV Camera’s all over the place. I was quite calm in the circumstances and fortunately time ticked by quickly and we got the signal to go.

We just didn’t hit the lines and click in our 1st run. There were so many mistakes and we reached the finish thinking that was not what we were capable of. So it was just going to come down to a good second run...

Now Cyp and I changed positions in February this year with me going to the back and him moving to the front. It took us 2 weeks before we could remotely paddle in a straight line on flat water!

In the 2nd run it just clicked. We hit each line perfectly and got to the end knowing that was the best run we had ever had. In gate 13 we made a small mistake and missed the gate by a fraction but it still doesn’t take this fact away: Our 2nd run time would easily have put us into the semi-final. That fact gives me greater satisfaction than I have had in 20 years of paddling.

Bring on 2012