Auld Lang Syne and Banalities

Once again, here I sit, at the cross-road between the has-been year and the wanabe year. How many times have I been here is somewhere between 67 and 66 years; depending on how the arithmetic is calculated.

What is relevant is the state-of-mind that age brings with it. I have learnt as I have aged, is that life, things, circumstances all have changed in meaning and seriousness. Nothing seems to be the same or even equal to what was apportioned to anything life that had meaning or significance. Life has become an apparition, a translucent fog of memories and understandings. Experience, on the other hand, tells me that I need every ounce of all said memories to help me navigate and make decisions on yet to be presented circumstances and situations.

In retrospect, 2022 was a funny peculiar year to say the least. Covid started off strong with visible signs of take-no-prisoners to total-surrender. And surrender it did. Going from mask-wearing and hand-sanitizing and distancing to nothing; absolutely nothing. In one foul swoop, life returned to normal; except in the country of origin where control of the little-bastard has been illusive and continues to run amok amongst a population that is losing touch with the realities of life under a small virus i.e., death is final.

The peculiarity did not end there. The Queen pulled her last breath. The newly elected United Kingdom Prime Minister lasted all of 40 plus days. The replacement Prime Minister was so off-center that he was quite normal and acceptable to the gob-smacked masses, and the Royals put on a brave face of a singular ethos.

In South Africa, a disgruntled out-of-work Correctional Services Official decided to lay allegations against the sitting President thus letting loose the dogs of war which in this case, the news media, their outcasts, their budding brethren and all opposition parties who saw blood in the water.

Must admit that said Official managed to distract the Legal Bodies who were investigation his highly compromised actions by introducing a greater bait for the media and its cronies to chomp into. In the end, as it is in politics, circumstances either dissolve into the atmosphere or take on a predisposed character as dictated by the ruling party. As a highly regarded ex-politician, Tito Mboweni, is quoted as saying and I paraphrase: In politics, take nothing at face value!

What is even more peculiar is that a known ‘high’ agent of criminality is now playing public moral agent and creating waves where there should be none.

Fickle humanity to say the least.

Anyways, after some contemplation on a few peculiarities of 2022, and the realization that the end result is always the same, the Labrador principle; wag tail, be happy, have food, wag tail, be happy, bark, be happy, get attention, be happy, wag tail, not get attention, be happy, seems to be the way to go.

It will take some mental trainings to evolve to such levels of happiness where getting annoyed, losing one’s temper, wanting one’s way, is no longer a necessity for, by all analysis, it achieves nothing: And nothing would have changed in life.

Again, I am left with the question of what lies ahead in 2023? Does it matter? Does anyone else care what I think?

What is evident, is that what were considered youngsters are now the ‘ruling’ mob, and those my age, find themselves at a stage between old age and something that is considered old but not really. Mentally, the mind is still young and strong, but bodily, it is showing signs of wear-and-tear, punctuated by crack-rattle-and-pop, and paracetamol.

Arithmetic has also proved to be an ally of note, for most public statements and beliefs can be nullified by the application of simple arithmetic principles: 24 hours, 365 days, 8 billion people, many ideologies, many diversities. The permutations are endless, unlike what the media so proudly proclaims in their black-and-white agendas. Even the weather predictors are only as accurate as what one perceives them to be.

Having lived through a few decades of life, the realities are what one has come to rely on. Positivism, wokeness, liberalism, et al, are nothing more than hot air inside a balloon: sooner or later it disperses and the balloon drops.

All that remains is to pop some champagne, watch some fireworks, sing some ancient song and spend new years day recovering from the indulgences of the previous evening.

Ja well no fine!

Ends

Generational Downfall

Mark Twain said (sic) that History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes, and Mike and The Mechanics sang in ‘The Living Years’ that Every generation Blames the one before, and all of their frustrations, Come beating on your door.

And that, in a nutshell, says it all where generational conflict is concerned. Every generation expects more freedoms and choices: Enlightenment tends to do that. What it does not do is improve the complexity that is the human condition.

It all starts with parenting. It is one important skill in the human learning arsenal that does not have a definite set of manuals or instructions on how to raise a human child. What exists are tomes of opinions and personal experiences that, when all is said and done, are all very personal and myopic.

Every parent believes that they have the answers to the above-mentioned prickly pear. Every parent believes that they know their child and thus in a great position to educate and provide said child with life skills that will stand it in good stead going forward in life. Every parent also believes that they do not need advice or counseling where the upbringing of their precious child is concerned.

And thus starts a whole downward chain reaction of misaligned children, brats, opinionated kids and apprehensive parents: this is not how I brought my child up; I don’t know where she gets that from; Where did I go wrong…?

In general, there are 7 defined generations, and each had (have) their own specific styles of dealing with life (aspioneer.com):

1: The greatest generation        1901   – 1927 (saved the world)

2: The silent generation            1928   – 1945 (worked, did not take risks)

3: The baby boomers                1946   – 1964 (a very productive generation)

4: Generations X                      1965   – 1980 (Work-life balance)

5: Millennials                           1981   – 1995 (Self-conscience, Healthy)

6: Generation Z                        1996   – 2010 (Technoholics)

7: Generation Alpha                 2011   – 2025 (Kids growing older younger)

The interesting anomaly is that each generation learnt little from the previous generation’s mistakes as it relates to the human condition, they mostly just assimilated them into their life repertoire: Thus, the baby-boomers passed their ‘me’ tendencies onto their progeny who in turn amplified those tendencies onto their progenies.

To the generational basket one must add the Personality Dark Triad of personality types: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy. These personalities are deemed to be inherent in some people of whom mostly do not have a sense of empathy and morality. This malevolence logarithmic adds to the generational problem.

Sociopathy, a derivative of the Dark Personality Triad, is highly esteemed since the Baby Boomers with the accent of Me’ism, Entitlement and an overbearing win-at-all-costs mentality. One more often than not, finds these individuals in positions of power: corporate management, leadership, authority, politics…

The old adage of ‘Children must be seen and nor heard’ is of no value in modern society where all children are winners, are easily offended and know what life is all about. Are way wise beyond their age due to the accessibility to the www world, dominate conversations, mishaps are never their fault and are deemed cute beyond reasonableness by their parents (and anyone else be damned if they don’t value said child’s opinions and beliefs.)

Where too from here? Difficult to ascertain due to the global human diversity both culturally and geographical location: what is good from a western perspective is may not be deemed acceptable in other areas of the world.

Democracy in itself tends to augment generational problems. Rights, which tend to be turned into entitlements, makes generational disagreements a reality rather than diffusing them.

Wokeness produces the same results. They focus so much on creating a more genteel world that they forget about their own frailties and those of the people around them.

Politics, by their very nature, proclaim open-mindedness and tolerance. A theory that worsens differences rather than unifying them. And by accepting minority belief structures, the majority feel aggrieved and generally lash out aggressively.

Personally, I do not believe that the generation gap will ever be solved; much like the gender gap.

All that remains is to wave-and-smile. The rest is pure conversation.

Ends

Climate Crisis, Bah Humbug and Complicity

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr

The above is the only way to describe the present-day war raging between those who believe in Climate Crisis justified by science, and those who oppose the Climate Crisis hype also defensible by science.

Those who oppose the whole Climate Crisis brawl are in the minority as the news media have now also joined the ranks of those proclaiming climate crisis a human disaster: The methods employed by the media are mostly based on ‘by association’ reportages.

*It must be noted that the Climate Crisis spin-doctors have modified the moniker often in the hope of attracting more adherents to the cause.

A recent report drafted by a scientific group, predicates that there is no statistical data that proves or highlights the fact that there is a climate emergency taking place.

Most climate crisis computer models to which predictions are based, are based on northern hemisphere models: the southern hemisphere models are based on extrapolations of the northern hemisphere representations. And then there are the eastern and western hemispheres eventualities that add to the headache. And not forgetting that climate, unlike the weather, is vastly more complex than is proclaimed or admitted i.e. The volume of the atmosphere is around 4,200,000,000 cubic kilometers which is way larger than what mere mortals can satisfactorily comprehend!?

The climate crisis debate has been around since (at least) the 1970’s and already then, it was proclaimed that climate change was 50 thousand years in the making and that it was going to happen irrespective of what interventions humans tried.

The one topic that is not being tackled with any conviction is the employment issue: What to do with the workers of the world once the traditional ‘carbon’ jobs are done away with? Every topic is about sustainability, saving the earth and the ice-shelves.

*A (coal) Power Station employs around 3000 workers whereas a solar farm employs a team of 10 workers (average) once the construction phase is completed.

Presently, Governments have instituted some form of Climate/Carbon Tax to offset the costs of fighting the Climate Crisis; as if money is going to staff off the eventuality.

Still humanity continues on its path of technological development, information cataloguing and digital self-improvement. Those who feel mortality knocking will be vitriolic in their condemnation of a dreaded human-caused tomorrow. Those without jobs continue on their quest for food, shelter and some form of human vulgarities: and climate crisis be damned. Those with means; do they really care about tomorrow or are they just making the right noises for it is what is demanded by the woke-culture?

Maybe if humans stopped pushing back the sea, the predicted Armageddon of rising waters would not be that significant!?

Enter stage right, the complex subject of what to do with all the non-recyclable materials used in the manufacture of ‘sustainable’ implements.

Ends

Me, Myself and I

A few months ago, I restarted my blogging endevours in an attempt to voice my counter-opinions on various subjects pertaining to life, the media and other subjects deemed holy by the ‘woke’ mindset.

Politics is an easy subject as said practitioners of the art open themselves up for criticism, ridicule and praise. Their job description means that they must speak for a living. They must also make discissions that very few in society are willing to make. This opens them up for criticism even further for ‘one can’t please everyone.’

*As much as individuals want their voices heard and their needs taken care off, it is impossible to enact as ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.’ It is a given that, more often than not, condemned decisions work themselves out pretty well; just not when we want them to happen.

Then of course there are the opposition parties that, in their quest for power and supremacy, will stir up public emotions in an attempt to outs the ruling party. They hide behind well-meaning wordage thus gathering those predisposed to their ideals. Right or wrong, this is how politics functions.

Another subject I found fascinating is the one of Law Enforcement. Note Law Enforcement! Not please let’s be nice and cordial but Enforcement: When a Police Officer asks one to carry out a certain action, the word ‘please’ is used in the request sentence. This terminology is not a request but and instruction veiled in niceties. Refuse at your own peril is the caveat.

In most law-and-order TV series, the producers will show cops using force, bully tactics, aggression, intimidation and moral indignation in their fight against criminality. Tactics that were frowned upon at the conclusion of the second great war.

The other accepted form of Law Enforcement is the advent of ‘victim advocacy.’ This is where victims are presumed to be honorable, and without guilt. The accused is then treated with all the bile and nastiness that the investigating officers can muster. The fact that the ‘accused’ life is damaged beyond repair does not come into the picture for ‘We are only doing our jobs!’ A good example of the above idiosyncrasies is Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.

The one sad highlight of the above situation stems from the fact that the public in general are happy that it is ok for the police to incarcerate people irrespective of them being guilty or not. It is as if the removal of the perceived evil threat is calming and reassuring: life can thus return to normal!?

The news media are a sacrosanct lot who believe that they are the ‘lord saviour’ of humankind: They alone hold the power to question public figures without fear or favour; And they alone hold the moral high-ground against a deteriorating society.

Interestingly, their failings stem from the fact that they are organized, managed and run by fickle humans; the very essence of humanity that they claim to be guarding against. The other fact is that they are a business thus bottom-line driven: the more sensational the story, the more it sells.

To assume that the news media are honourable in intent is looking for trouble, and diminishing our rationale abilities. Allowing them freedom to mold our minds by veiled suggestion is tantamount to mental suicide.

There are two inviolable truths where the news media is concerned: Their rights is assured under most constitutions, and most editors (in-chief) are not honourable people: a story must have barbs, emotive material and by-association expressions. And not forgetting the liberal use of exaggerated-speak.

My conclusion to the news media conundrum is to accept very little they publish as the truth, to read more than one published story on the subject in question, to question, to verify, to validate…, and to divide everything they claim by six.

Modern day funerals are jestful in content. Not only are funerals expensive, the preparations exorbitant and the religious intent is always to convert the visiting cohorts of ‘non-believers’ to the ways of the ‘real’ truth.

And then there are the eulogies. Pieces of verbosities (some written) that expound the recently passed as heroes, as unilaterally unblemished persons who could do no wrong, lived for their family, were persons of character, morally strong and are now in ‘heaven.’ My investigations into this phenomenon revealed that these practices are there to alleviate grieving and to lighten the load on those left behind. Interesting how ‘works of the flesh’ are used to assuage the bereaved.

What about the world of activism? Here is a world where minorities want the majorities to view the world in their way as they alone have the answers to fixing the ills ravishing humanity.

Name a subject and there will be activists fighting for its rights and fixing what is perceived to be broken. They of course feed into the frenzy usually driven by the news media.

If one disseminates all that activists claim, very little of substance remains. But being aggressive about a subject means that they will get publicity; lots of it. The use of absolute-speak serves them well. Lace anything with a little drama, a pinch of bile and a sprinkle of doomsday and viola, one has a best seller.

The modern word ‘sustainability’ is their go-to word. Everything must be sustainable. History unfortunately is a harsh task-master where humans and their fixations are concerned: years ago, electricity, in all its guises and machinations was the way to go. Coal and Oil were seen as sustainable and the way to a prosperous future. In the modern world, wind, water (not so much,) and sunshine are hailed as the second coming of a deity. Unfortunately, as in the past, very little thought has been given to the collateral damage of these technologies. All that matters is the now!

Unionists are also activists. Labour activist at that. They use emotive-speak to garner votes from their constituents and absolute-speak when fighting the good fight on behalf of their members.

Listening to activists sprout their wares is a fascinating pastime but it is also annoying. All in all, the art of activism is that simple and that complex all rolled into one. 

Not much is left to say on matters that have interested me. One thing is for sure: Humans are a fascinating lot. It is their idiosyncrasies and rationalizations that make them a formidable force of nature and anything that stand in their way must just get out of the way or be damned.

In another few billion years (circa) the sun will decimate the world as we know it. Until then, smile and wave!

Ends

The Queen is dead. Long live the King!

And so, another public figure, a royal one at that, is relegated to the pages of history. Seven decades of rule should generate enough words to fill many books, magazines, documentaries and newspapers; and keep journalists employed feeding our voyeuristic hunger.

Having never been a fan of any monarchy, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II made an impact from the point of view that she was human, empathic, flawed and majestic. She generally managed to tread lightly but with conviction where the royal rules of conduct and those of the modern world intersected.

Her family endured many upheavals, scandals and bitter marriages. I suspect that some daughters-in-law pushed her buttons often. As for sons, grandsons and great grandsons, history will either judge them kindly or harshly; but hopefully, frankly.

Parts of the world will give her a moment of silence and watch every broadcast that the news media constructs in the hope of keeping the masses entertained and glued to their TV sets: between the 10 days of mourning, the funeral and the coronation, there is enough data to keep the news channels busy for quite a while.

 Given the Diana and Phillip funerals, I’m sure that her funeral will be beyond grand. How many heads-of-state will be attending stands to be seen? Will the King Charles III follow the funeral entourage on foot or be carried in a horse-drawn carriage? Will the King’s coronation take place pre or post the royal funeral? Is a period of mourning still applicable in modern life?

The irony of life is reflected in the ascension of a female Prime Minister and the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Listening to the French President give a eulogy in accented English, presented the other irony.

King Charles III when a Prince (the activist Prince,) was a ferocious patron of many controversial ideologies which he passed on as being actual and factual. His mother used tack and firmness when dealing with controversial subjects. Stark differences!

What is the future of the British Royalty; only time will tell. I for one, believe that it will continue unabated. The fact that many international sporting events have been put on hold reflects the mindset of an enduring British Royalty.

“Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil, is rightwise King born of all England” T.H. White.

Ends

Emotive Crusaders

Any form of activism, Eco-terrorism, grandstanding and soap-boxing depends on emotive barbs to grab and hold an audience’s attention; hopefully driving them to action, and ultimately ‘changing’ the world.

Mostly, those using emotional expressions in their speeches and or writings, want something out of society and assume that they have the answers to “life, the Universe and everything” else (Douglas Adams.)

Popular emotive barbs revolve around women, children, animals and the poor. Of course, there are other words and phrases that emotive crusaders will use with wild abandon but frequently they are centered around the perceived vulnerable.

Politicians and media use generalized emotive wordings or phrases to make their messages sounds grander and serious: the people demand…, Spain burns…, Dolphins must scavenge for food…, Climate Crisis affects the poor and displaced…!

The wordage “Victim Advocate’ sounds spiffy and full of hope but it reduces the democratic tenet of “innocent until proven guilty” to the wrong annals of life. It usually means that the first person to make an accusation or (criminal) allegation becomes the victim thus needs to be treated as honest and desirous of immediate justice. More often than not the accused party is treated as a criminal (without much due process having taken place) thus having their life turned Topsy-turvy from which there is seldom no return to normal.

Gender activists rely on patriarchal sounding words when formulating their angst and to generate well-meaning thoughts that are difficult to rebut and counter without the need of raised-voices by those expressing opposing arguments.

Earth and Animal rights activists pen poignant arguments that should anyone dare counter said arguments, they will come across as wholesome and genuine citizen whose only concern is that of the earth and animals.

(Pres.) Barack Obama was a master at composing dialogue and writings that were full of expressive content that appealed to the masses; and it worked like a charm. There have been many clever orators who knew how to use the power of well worded phrasings and intonations to move the masses in the direction they desired. Those not endowed with such articulate speech relied on force and attrition; and it did not go well for them.

Any www search will uncover many more emotive words and phraseologies whose sole purpose is to win over votes, actions and support. Humans being endowed with agile minds will, as a matter of course, use such motions to feed their egos while sounding empathic and full of reverence for what they are proclaiming; most motor vehicle salespersons are specialists in the use of emotive barbs.

Marketing experts are past masters at the use of well-meaning barbs in the crafting of their chosen profession. Most will call it manipulation of the human will in the generation of sales, but such is the nature of the beast.

Even during interpersonal debate, people rely on exaggeration, unverified proofs, veiled emotional blackmail, and other means of mental and verbal subterfuge to ensure that their viewpoint is carried forward thus enforcing their life bias.

Personally, I can’t envision life without the emotive game-play that we humans are so fond of. At the same time, it is such game-play that makes solving the conundrum that is the human condition so difficult and impossible (that is why in the passages of legalese, it is easier to incarcerate than to solve the human quandary) to unravel.

There is irony in this opinion piece, for while trying to elicit some thought on the subject of emotional militants, the article appeals to the emotive side of human-thought to get a point across.

Forewarning: “Your intellect may be confused, but your emotions will never lie to you” – Roger Ebert

Ends

How to get Screwed on a Budget

“Please, sir, I want some more.” (Dickens)

It is said that the more things change, the more they tend to stay the same. Such is the feeling after the pious budget speech delivered with much smurkiness by the positively radiant South African Minister of Finances on Wednesday the 22 February 2012.

We, the people, have been told to work together towards building a better country. And with that emotive aphorism, all is well in the land of the living. Or so we are told.

We were even told that if we think that running a democracy is easy that we should go and work with ‘them’ for a while. If this is not a veiled threat of ‘we know what we are doing,’ then I don’t know what the meaning of a veiled threat is!?

What irks me the most is the constant fleecing of the motorist whenever funds are required to pay for financial blunders by those that have our best interests at heart? If this is having our best interests at heart, I would hate to see what it would mean to be on their bad side!?

And as predicted, the e-tolling system is going ahead. The difference is that the motorist will now not only be paying the tolling taxes as one drives through the numerous tolling gantires but also paying for the tolling deficit through the fuel levy. Is this what is meant by being cautiously optimistic?

On the plus side, the platitudes for the wonderful buoyant budget-speech have been flowing freely by all financiers, bankers, political parties and most news agencies. I, for one, can’t wait for the post-mortem.

At least we the people are assured that the sun will continue to shine and the moon to wax and wane.

Comment: if Governments have to power to print money when required (and they do,) why is the concept of taxation still in existence?

What is Gender Based Violence

In South Africa, the phrasing Gender Based Violence (GBV) was devised to be  a neutral sounding slogan, to include anyone who was molested, assaulted, raped, etc, irrespective of gender, sex or social standing.

Later the phrasing ‘Violence against Women and children’ was added to make the whole line more inclusive and more pointed.

Like all noble intentions the whole GBV (and Children) tenet has not gone according to plan.

Firstly, through numerous media reportages, gender activism and social awareness programs, the concept has now become solely about Women and Children. Men seldom feature (if at all) in the statistics and anti-rape activism.

Secondly, when the Government stands up and proclaims doom-and-gloom to anyone caught committing heinous acts of GBV, the implication is anti-male. Some Politicians have gone so far as to claim that the whole GBV (read Female Based Violence) as a pandemic?

Gleamed data shows that the issue is very skewed. Female activism and the News Media have also done nothing to correct the inaccuracies of the disseminated figures.

The World Health Organization uses National figures based on per hundred thousand people to try and place all countries on an equal footing. Using said equation, the female to male assaults (all inclusive) in South Africa equates to around 3 females and 44 males per 100 000.

Some statistics out of the USA claim that male rape accounts for around 40% of the population. Not equal to females but still substantial to demand Police Enforcement attention: something that seldom occurs.

Even TV crime programs like Law and Order: Special Crimes Unit et al, focus a huge percentage of their broadcast time on stories that represent males as evil and full of criminal intent. If a programme happens to depicts a woman as being evil, a story line is developed where a reason for said actions are substantiated thus pardonable.

Said story lines are mostly based on what society perceives the truth to be and that females can do no wrong.

In the 60s England, a brutal crime was committed that had the Constabulary foiled. As it turns out, the reason that the Police were stumped was because they were hunting a male predator. It had-to-be because a ‘caregiver’ could inconceivably commit such a heinous crime.

They were wrong. So wrong in fact that the Judiciary had to revise their judicial system to accommodate the fact the not only males were capable of gruesome crimes.

History testifies that females are just as capable of committing brutal crimes irrespective of circumstances: whole tomes of war crimes were committed by females.

Yet here we are, trying to debunk the whole one-sided social perception that males are evil, cannot be raped or subject to spousal abuse.

Will the perception ever change?

We humans keep on trying to right human wrongs, to fix gender inequalities, and to evolve into better human beings, except that human-nature has a nasty habit of stepping up to the lectern and proclaiming otherwise.

Pity but such is life!

We want peace but we are Conflict!

My response to that headline is: ja right!

First, it’s not in our nature and secondly, it is not in our nature: Humans are competitive and territorial and highly sensitive to perceived slurs, allegations and personal beliefs. And therein lays the rub of it.

How can we interact peacefully when our differences are causing havoc; even the so-called pacifists among us are not averse to the use of violence if it serves a purpose!?

Whenever two or more people get-together to interact, politics enters the fray; it is something for which we as humans cannot help ourselves. We will either try to dominate the proceedings, or make jokes or play the statesman to try and elicit favour from those around us by clever manipulation of the gathering. The interactive permutations are too numerous to mention.

Further to the above, we have a self-indulgent belief that because we see a certain situation to be just so, that others also see the same situation in exactly the same way as we do.

The seemingly gracious pursuit of religion has also not managed to put a spoke in the destructive nature of the human psyche.

In between Taoism, Hinduism, Islamism, Buddhism, 7^th Day Adventism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Judaism, Hare Krishna, Atheism, Rastafarianism, Deism, Secularism, Gnosticism, and Paganism to mention a few, there are the run-away cults, the liberal sects, the conservative religious groups, TV Evangelism, and Satanism amongst others, who, like their big brothers, are all also claiming to having the key to ‘life, the universe and everything else.’

Then there are the rationalised personal belief structures (that may also meld with political notions.) Beliefs such as liberalism, save-the-world, altruism, radicalism, socialism, racism, nationalism, utopianism, anarchism, feminism, pacifism, global-warming activism, vegetarianism, etc, all serve but one purpose: to give our personal existence a form of meaning and substance.

And not forgetting the vast array of political view-points. Viewpoints that we will defend unto death; for seldom will we change our minds just because someone has shown-up our political belief structures to be what they are: gumph, glut and monologous noise.

Take Democracy as a political ideal that was kind-of developed to try and bridge the gap between all of our belief structures and reality by employing compromise as the gateway to harmonious human relationships: a likely feature that calls for us to debate our differences, then to work out a workable win-win situation that pacifies all of our wants-and-needs. Unfortunately, human compromise does nothing for the underlying festering resentment that comes with such noble actions.

The term democracy is not a simple one at that either. There is democracy with left leanings; there is democracy with right leanings, there is left democracy with positive attributes and vice versa; there is constitutional democracy; there is traditional democracy with representative ethos; there is secular democracy; there is pseudo-democracy; and so on. Of course, like all of the preceding belief structures, democracy also has its fringe and opposing creeds e.g. autocracy, monocracy, despotism, communism, etc.

Likewise for the political construct re: human rights, that in essence suffers from the same malady as the abovementioned political models i.e. seemingly just and noble on the surface but litigious and destructive and mostly self-serving deep down.

And then there are the vast financial ideologies and theories that drive our lives in one way or another. Although the major financial force is capitalism, the variations to that precept are just as numerous and varied as those of religion and secular philosophies. Capitalism has also spawned various run-away financial models that in some way have been adopted by fringe political groups, monarchies, principalities and totalitarian states.

What about the differing sexual proclivities, mental ailments, psycho-disorders, socio-maladies, castes, etc?

Neil Gaiman said it all when he wrote: “It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”

Knowledge, education, upbringing, culture, ego, acumen, new-age nymphomania, financial status, idealist perceptions, rationalized insights and empathy all contribute to the growing problem that is the human animal. And at 7 Billion of us with the growth prospects of 9 Billion souls by the year 2025 (est.), the challenges and dissention facing us will only escalate.

Then again, nothing a good solar-flare could not fix in a flash!

How to get Screwed on a Budget

“Please, sir, I want some more.” (Dickens)

It is said that the more things change, the more they tend to stay the same. Such is the feeling after the pious budget speech delivered with much smurkiness by the positively radiant South African Minister of Finances on Wednesday the 22 February 2012.

We, the people, have been told to work together towards building a better country. And with that emotive aphorism, all is well in the land of the living. Or so we are told.

We were even told that if we think that running a democracy is easy that we should go and work with ‘them’ for a while. If this is not a veiled threat of ‘we know what we are doing,’ then I don’t know what the meaning of a veiled threat is!?

What irks me the most is the constant fleecing of the motorist whenever funds are required to pay for financial blunders by those that have our best interests at heart? If this is having our best interests at heart, I would hate to see what it would mean to be on their bad side!?

And as predicted, the e-tolling system is going ahead. The difference is that the motorist will now not only be paying the tolling taxes as one drives through the numerous tolling gantries but also paying for the tolling deficit through the fuel levy. Is this what is meant by being cautiously optimistic?

On the plus side, the platitudes for the wonderful buoyant budget-speech have been flowing freely by all financiers, bankers, political parties and most news agencies. I, for one, can’t wait for the post-mortem.

At least we the people are assured that the sun will continue to shine and the moon to wax and wane.

Comment: if Governments have to power to print money when required (and they do,) why is the concept of taxation still in existence?