The Times - ‘Judges are not above the law’
I guess that means that only cabinet ministers and favoured party aparatchiks are above the law.
I guess that means that only cabinet ministers and favoured party aparatchiks are above the law.
10 June 2009
6 May 2009
Do Journalists Dream of Electric English?
(OK, I'm talking to/about journalists in a country where, despite having 14 official languages, English remains the de facto language of social and commercial intercourse.)
This article in the Weekend Post (presumably the Official Newspaper of South Bumfuck, Eastern Cape Province, since nobody's ever heard of it before) yaks on:
Forgive me for asking, but don't journalists study English at uni at all? Do they not understand the simple difference between "sequestrate" and "sequester"? That the one is a legal term meaning "we're taking your stuff away", whilst the latter means "we're stashing this stuff out of the way".
Now I'm wondering who is attaching all the property of the Spekboom tree species. Does it even have any property? (Even the imaginary kind?)
Is this the quality of journalistic writing? Of editorial competence? Aagh well.... the Kakistopoly at work again!
This article in the Weekend Post (presumably the Official Newspaper of South Bumfuck, Eastern Cape Province, since nobody's ever heard of it before) yaks on:
Spekboom is renowned for its ability to sequestrate carbon, a key function in the battle against climate change.
Forgive me for asking, but don't journalists study English at uni at all? Do they not understand the simple difference between "sequestrate" and "sequester"? That the one is a legal term meaning "we're taking your stuff away", whilst the latter means "we're stashing this stuff out of the way".
Now I'm wondering who is attaching all the property of the Spekboom tree species. Does it even have any property? (Even the imaginary kind?)
Is this the quality of journalistic writing? Of editorial competence? Aagh well.... the Kakistopoly at work again!
28 April 2009
The Bibbey's Hoek Heliport Saga
The story so far...
A local farm got sold to some rich bugger who believes himself personally entitled to limitless squandering of the Earth's resources, who seems to regard his time so much more valuable than the rest of humanity's, that he uses his helicopter to commute back and forth between his house in town and The Farm. A distance that takes under 30 minutes to drive, even sticking to the speed limits (which almost nobody does.)
Many local residents object to being flown over on a regular (or should I say irregular but frequent -- several times a week, at any rate) basis. Rich Guy has gone ahead and built himself a hangar for his little ego wank, signalling a Fuck You permanence to the existence of his Personal Airfield.
Eventually I wrote a letter to the Civil Aviation Authority querying the status of this airfield and asking what regulations cover the operation of informal airfields. I got brushed off with a reply amounting to "Read the regulations on our website." No help at all. At least it established that nobody in the area has applied for a permit to operate an airfield. And they suggested that the Local Authority (the Muni) would be a better avenue for getting the airfield shut down.
Some while later I tried writing to the Municipality about the same business. After some to and fro on this, their reply amounted to "Sorry; Out of our jurisdiction. Try the CAA."
What's the hassle?
Several people think I'm just being cranky; that this guy flying in and out on his little chopper bicycle is not such a Big Deal1. I think it sets a precedent. Let's say we tolerate this. After all, it's not even that close to my property2. What happens when the guy next door sees all this and thinks, "That's pretty cool! I believe I'll also commute by helicopter." Where does it end? Where and when does somebody draw a line and say, "Here's where your impact on the other people around you has to be considered."
I choose to draw the line here and now.
I wrote again to the CAA and (surprise, surprise!) received a reply within a day from the gentleman I had emailed, saying that he's in the wrong department to take this up with, but that he'd forwarded my letter to the correct person who would contact me "soon".
Still waiting, a month and more later. I wrote to him again:
His immediate reply:
Well, at least there's one person on the ball at Civil Aviation. I'd like to thank him very much for taking care to respond so promptly and helpfully! Let's hope I hear from Mr Chiwandire, who I forwarded my complaint to. I'm not terribly optimistic, given that several of the CAA's role-based email addresses don't work (e.g. commisioner@caa.co.za) and based on the organisation's track-record to date. I guess the next step will be to phone the Commissioner directly. In fairness, though, let's give them a couple of weeks.
[1] Alright, maybe a little cranky.
[2] About 2.5km.
A local farm got sold to some rich bugger who believes himself personally entitled to limitless squandering of the Earth's resources, who seems to regard his time so much more valuable than the rest of humanity's, that he uses his helicopter to commute back and forth between his house in town and The Farm. A distance that takes under 30 minutes to drive, even sticking to the speed limits (which almost nobody does.)
Many local residents object to being flown over on a regular (or should I say irregular but frequent -- several times a week, at any rate) basis. Rich Guy has gone ahead and built himself a hangar for his little ego wank, signalling a Fuck You permanence to the existence of his Personal Airfield.
Eventually I wrote a letter to the Civil Aviation Authority querying the status of this airfield and asking what regulations cover the operation of informal airfields. I got brushed off with a reply amounting to "Read the regulations on our website." No help at all. At least it established that nobody in the area has applied for a permit to operate an airfield. And they suggested that the Local Authority (the Muni) would be a better avenue for getting the airfield shut down.
Some while later I tried writing to the Municipality about the same business. After some to and fro on this, their reply amounted to "Sorry; Out of our jurisdiction. Try the CAA."
What's the hassle?
Several people think I'm just being cranky; that this guy flying in and out on his little chopper bicycle is not such a Big Deal1. I think it sets a precedent. Let's say we tolerate this. After all, it's not even that close to my property2. What happens when the guy next door sees all this and thinks, "That's pretty cool! I believe I'll also commute by helicopter." Where does it end? Where and when does somebody draw a line and say, "Here's where your impact on the other people around you has to be considered."
I choose to draw the line here and now.
I wrote again to the CAA and (surprise, surprise!) received a reply within a day from the gentleman I had emailed, saying that he's in the wrong department to take this up with, but that he'd forwarded my letter to the correct person who would contact me "soon".
Still waiting, a month and more later. I wrote to him again:
A month has now gone past since I first wrote to you concerning the
regular operation of a local farm field as a helicopter landing-field,
and your extremely prompt reply. As yet, however, I have received no
response from Mr Ramolefi in regard to this or the question regarding
noise emissions from helicopter.
Please let me know who I can escalate this query to.
I will also note that the farm-field mentioned in my first
correspondence is STILL being used with regularity for helicopter
operations, and the operator now seems to take a malicious delight in
flying directly over our community, going out of his way to annoy
residents by flying a path well outside of what he truly needs to
follow. Regardless, all helicopter operations in this area must stop
and stop immediately!
His immediate reply:
As I am not directly involved with Flight Operations, I would recommend that if you need to escalate this matter, you may direct it to the following:
Mr. Patrick Chiwandire (Senior Manager: Flight Operations)
Mr. Anton Richman (General Manager: Air Safety Operations)
I hope you will get a response from these two managers.
Well, at least there's one person on the ball at Civil Aviation. I'd like to thank him very much for taking care to respond so promptly and helpfully! Let's hope I hear from Mr Chiwandire, who I forwarded my complaint to. I'm not terribly optimistic, given that several of the CAA's role-based email addresses don't work (e.g. commisioner@caa.co.za) and based on the organisation's track-record to date. I guess the next step will be to phone the Commissioner directly. In fairness, though, let's give them a couple of weeks.
[1] Alright, maybe a little cranky.
[2] About 2.5km.
2 July 2007
Eskom Customer Service
Here's the content of my most recent email to Eskom (the national mostly-monopoly electricity supplier in SA) in the wake of a 48-hour clusterfuck power-outage. Four times, their halfwit technicians closed the trouble-ticket, claiming that "power was restored". Four times they were wrong.
The final straw was when I phoned at 2:30 in the morning (Hey! I was awake; there was still no power; I figured I'd see whether we could get the incompetent technician out here in the middle of the night in the rain.) and they (1st attempt) put the phone down on me, (2nd attempt) tried putting me on hold forever until I gave up and when finally (3rd attempt) answered the phone were clearly uninterested in actually doing anything that might disrupt their beauty-sleep.
Only one guy, Marius, was brilliant:
What kind of trouble-ticket system allows a technician to close the ticket without closing the loop by checking with the customer?
My whingeing about the matter (the unresolved ticket referred to in my email to Ms Andrew) has now been bounced to Nico van der Merwe, Eskom's Man In George; a man in uniquely the wrong place to do anything about anything. Its been almost a week and I still haven't heard from him.
Watch This Space.
The final straw was when I phoned at 2:30 in the morning (Hey! I was awake; there was still no power; I figured I'd see whether we could get the incompetent technician out here in the middle of the night in the rain.) and they (1st attempt) put the phone down on me, (2nd attempt) tried putting me on hold forever until I gave up and when finally (3rd attempt) answered the phone were clearly uninterested in actually doing anything that might disrupt their beauty-sleep.
Only one guy, Marius, was brilliant:
Dear Ms Andrew,
During a 48-hour power failure last week, I had a most dismal, disgusting, atrocious customer service experience at the hands of Eskom, its systems and representatives, resulting in no less than FIVE tickets -- four to resolve the actual technical problem (the fact that it took that many attempts shrieks to me of incompetence) and one other, still unresolved to my satisfaction.
In the course of events, I had __numerous__ promises from people that they would get back to me to let me know what was happening.
Didn't happen!
With ONE bright exception: Marius (surname unknown). Not only did he take the actions he promised, not only did he ACTUALLY GET BACK TO ME as promised, __in addition__, he followed-up 24-hours later to check with me whether the problem had, indeed, been resolved. This is going above and beyond expectation!
This is the true meaning of Customer Service, and should serve as a shining example to ALL Eskom's otherwise-completely-useless customer-"service" agents. It is really very simple stuff: do what you promise to do! Nothing more. Nothing less. Marius was the ONLY person I dealt with who took that simple principle to heart and acted on it.
Please let's have Marius running Eskom's entire Customer Service operation! It would seem that nobody else has a clue how to do so effectively.
My whingeing about the matter (the unresolved ticket referred to in my email to Ms Andrew) has now been bounced to Nico van der Merwe, Eskom's Man In George; a man in uniquely the wrong place to do anything about anything. Its been almost a week and I still haven't heard from him.
Watch This Space.
30 June 2007
The True Cost of the Strike
So the strike is over.
The Trade Unions, under the erstwhile leadership of Cosatu, managed to gain salary increases of 7.5% -- up 1.5 points from the 6% the government originally offered.
Let's assume you earned R10000/month before the strike. (I'm going to neglect all the taxes and additional "benefits" that might go with the package. "Benefits" don't put extra cash in your pocket!) Originally your increase would have brought your salary to R10600/month; after a month on strike, you're going to get R10750/month. Yay! You're R150/month better off from the strike.
Now: a month on strike has cost you R10000, since, as far as I know, "No Work, No Pay" applies.
It's going to take you 66.66 months to make back the cost of the strike. Five years, 8 months to get back the money you have already spent on striking!
Of course the strike wasn't really about anything else, now was it. Nothing at all to do with a bit power-arm-wrestling within the tripartite alliance. Strictly about the money.
Let me state for the record that, along with most reasonable South Africans, I strongly support teachers, nurses and police getting paid better, especially in light of the shoddy deal they have been dealt over the past several years. They really deserve to have their salaries at least keep pace with the official inflation rate, and the government's offers of 6%, and now 7.5% are an insult.
But Cosatu's leadership have now blatantly tipped their hand, and shown us all whose interests they really have at heart! I think they've lost some serious cred from this farce-of-a-strike.
The Trade Unions, under the erstwhile leadership of Cosatu, managed to gain salary increases of 7.5% -- up 1.5 points from the 6% the government originally offered.
Let's assume you earned R10000/month before the strike. (I'm going to neglect all the taxes and additional "benefits" that might go with the package. "Benefits" don't put extra cash in your pocket!) Originally your increase would have brought your salary to R10600/month; after a month on strike, you're going to get R10750/month. Yay! You're R150/month better off from the strike.
Now: a month on strike has cost you R10000, since, as far as I know, "No Work, No Pay" applies.
It's going to take you 66.66 months to make back the cost of the strike. Five years, 8 months to get back the money you have already spent on striking!
Of course the strike wasn't really about anything else, now was it. Nothing at all to do with a bit power-arm-wrestling within the tripartite alliance. Strictly about the money.
Let me state for the record that, along with most reasonable South Africans, I strongly support teachers, nurses and police getting paid better, especially in light of the shoddy deal they have been dealt over the past several years. They really deserve to have their salaries at least keep pace with the official inflation rate, and the government's offers of 6%, and now 7.5% are an insult.
But Cosatu's leadership have now blatantly tipped their hand, and shown us all whose interests they really have at heart! I think they've lost some serious cred from this farce-of-a-strike.
17 June 2007
Open Letter to Patricia de Lille
Dear Ms de Lille,
Up to now you have impressed me as being more clear-headed and honest than almost all other politicians in our country. Up to now you seem to have avoided the kind of 50's-era, Stalinist, top-down, control-freak thinking displayed by so many of your colleagues in parliament -- on all sides of the floor. This sort of muddle-headedness stems from a profound misunderstanding of this "Internet" thing, and leads to some very funny stuff, like idiot American senators who think the 'net is like a bunch of pipes. It's not.
1. The Network Routes Around Censorship
Not even the most repressive regimes in the world have managed to stop critical commentators blogging about them. If you were to succeed in getting this dung-headed notion of licensing bloggers legislated, I guarantee you that it would take about ten minutes for dozens of anonymising proxy services to spring into being, enabling people to continue blogging, unlicensed, saying exactly what they please. At least one of them will be implemented by me.
PS: At least one of my blogs is blocked by the Great Firewall of China, for no fathomable reason. It contains nothing offensive, sexual or revolutionary. Perhaps they fear its advocacy of self-reliance? Do you think that no Chinese people read it? I assure you that some do, despite the obstacles placed in their way by their government.
2. Slander and Defame with Impunity?
I think not! What on Earth makes you think that the existing laws of the land have been suspended for the 'net?
If I, or anyone, slanders some other person, or defames their good reputation without facts in evidence, then I am liable to the exact same laws protecting them, without regard for the medium I use to publish in.
Or perhaps you don't care for some opinions that might get written. Opinions that might be written in strong language or may perhaps rip mercilessly into the cherished hobby-horses of politicians with too much time on their hands. I believe that Article 16 of our Bill of Rights protects such expression, so you might have quite an uphill battle on this one...
3. Online Sexual Predators: Facts Not In Evidence
You sound like a thousand other self-serving hacks when you play the "Save the Young Children from Paedophiles" card. Not a tone of voice we're used to hearing from you, and it serves you ill.
Scientific study shows, in fact, that children are not at any particular risk from sexual predators during online interactions. Some of the findings are:
In Conclusion
Ms de Lille, please find another cause. This one will have us all laughing out loud at its pathetic me-too futility. The Internet is possibly the very best thing for helping us build our nascent democracy, for giving voice to the masses. Let us rather together find ways to get 'net access to those who lack it, so that their voices can also be heard, rather than trying to stand, Nero-like on the beach, trying to stop a tsunami.
Peace and light,
Mike
Up to now you have impressed me as being more clear-headed and honest than almost all other politicians in our country. Up to now you seem to have avoided the kind of 50's-era, Stalinist, top-down, control-freak thinking displayed by so many of your colleagues in parliament -- on all sides of the floor. This sort of muddle-headedness stems from a profound misunderstanding of this "Internet" thing, and leads to some very funny stuff, like idiot American senators who think the 'net is like a bunch of pipes. It's not.
1. The Network Routes Around Censorship
Not even the most repressive regimes in the world have managed to stop critical commentators blogging about them. If you were to succeed in getting this dung-headed notion of licensing bloggers legislated, I guarantee you that it would take about ten minutes for dozens of anonymising proxy services to spring into being, enabling people to continue blogging, unlicensed, saying exactly what they please. At least one of them will be implemented by me.
PS: At least one of my blogs is blocked by the Great Firewall of China, for no fathomable reason. It contains nothing offensive, sexual or revolutionary. Perhaps they fear its advocacy of self-reliance? Do you think that no Chinese people read it? I assure you that some do, despite the obstacles placed in their way by their government.
2. Slander and Defame with Impunity?
I think not! What on Earth makes you think that the existing laws of the land have been suspended for the 'net?
If I, or anyone, slanders some other person, or defames their good reputation without facts in evidence, then I am liable to the exact same laws protecting them, without regard for the medium I use to publish in.
Or perhaps you don't care for some opinions that might get written. Opinions that might be written in strong language or may perhaps rip mercilessly into the cherished hobby-horses of politicians with too much time on their hands. I believe that Article 16 of our Bill of Rights protects such expression, so you might have quite an uphill battle on this one...
3. Online Sexual Predators: Facts Not In Evidence
You sound like a thousand other self-serving hacks when you play the "Save the Young Children from Paedophiles" card. Not a tone of voice we're used to hearing from you, and it serves you ill.
Scientific study shows, in fact, that children are not at any particular risk from sexual predators during online interactions. Some of the findings are:
- Only 7% of those teens interviewed were ever approached by anyone with a sexual intent and nearly all of them simply ignored the person and blocked him from their page.
- Two-thirds of the parents were sure that there were many sexual predators on MySpace, while only one-third of the teenagers shared this concern.
- When asked about media coverage, 66% of the parents felt that it was either understated or close to the truth.
- Conversely, 58% of the teens felt it was vastly overblown.
In Conclusion
Ms de Lille, please find another cause. This one will have us all laughing out loud at its pathetic me-too futility. The Internet is possibly the very best thing for helping us build our nascent democracy, for giving voice to the masses. Let us rather together find ways to get 'net access to those who lack it, so that their voices can also be heard, rather than trying to stand, Nero-like on the beach, trying to stop a tsunami.
Peace and light,
Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)