Zuma and the un-African dog owners, on a more serious note.

Image from City Press.

It is sometimes unfortunate where what could be construed as a proper message gets destroyed by someone who a) is likely trying to whip up a bit of hype (which makes me ponder how election campaigns in 2014 are going to work out) and b) knows how the media (the world media, to be fair) clings to what makes a pretty headline. For example: "Pet dogs not for blacks - Zuma".

While we, including myself, spent the day ridiculing the president's remarks (and his spokesman's absurd statement of explanation), there are huge messages that were mixed up in the fray. Two of them stand out for me.

Firstly, while many people were quick to jump on quotes in Zuma's story such as "Even if you apply any kind of lotion and straighten your hair you will never be white," and spokesman Mac Maharaj's "the essential message from the President was the need to decolonise the African mind post-liberation," there is a very real phenomenon in South Africa, and the world, of the hangover from bastard regimes such as apartheid. Contrary to unpopular belief, elections in 1994 didn't solve the problems that beset South Africa after a fat dose of colonialism and 40-odd years of not only lawful segregation, but a institutionalised dehumanisation. White privilege (or douchebaggery, as some indirectly refer to it) is a very real thing, and its place in the head of most people - on both ends of the privilege - is common. While I am in no way an anthropologist, and am wary of suggesting solutions to anyone, a mere walk around South Africa, or a glance at many newspapers, will offer multiple examples of the effects of racism of  which many people on the good end are not aware. When Maharaj wrote about "decolonis(ing) the African mind", he was quoting Nigerian author Chinweizu who authored The West and the Rest of Us, a book arguing against western models of governance and living (and denoting exploitation of Africa and Africans, amongst others) in places that were not western. Zuma clumsily (I use the word in its loosest sense) alluded to this concept in terms of culture: ie, playing into models which suit westernism (or in South Africa's case, white-ism, where there is, of course, significant overlap) at the expense of one's own culture. Somehow he bastardised it into a conversation about what is African vs un-African (a bizarre and incredibly distasteful concept - more on this later), how people treating their pets determines their culture (and indirectly the value of that culture), and some ridiculous and non-existent commonality of African culture (FYI: there are more than a billion people on the continent).

Zuma (and Maharaj) haemorrhaging this topic during his speech on Thursday shouldn't invalidate it as a real issue. Whether you are prepared to accept that there is still a significant hangover from apartheid or not (and sometimes government makes it incredibly hard to do so) a large portion of its effects is intangible. It is not just the crappy infrastructure in the Eastern Cape, or the endless pit into which we throw our youth during what other countries consider school age. It is mightily present in the day-to-day interactions among races (and cultures and sub-cultures and genders and so on) all over the place. White privilege (and the benefits therein), and conversely black (in the Biko sense) disadvantage (and the inherent hindrance), exists. In some ways this extrapolates into a social system whereby the beneficiaries of apartheid are not forced into confronting their own conditioning, and, in a nutshell, the lack of privilege experienced by those on the receiving end is complicit in this; ie the "colonisation of the mind".

Discussion over this concept, of which I really don't feel entitled to take part, shouldn't be canned because of the wackery enunciated by the president on Thursday.

Secondly, I worry there is going to be some mini culture war in the general election in 2014. A raft of by-elections since local elections in 2011 has indicated the ANC could hurt the next time the nation goes to the polls. Not terribly I would suppose, but that two-thirds majority is definitely on the line. I clumsily tried to denote my concerns about this on one or other social network earlier, but I then came across a superb blog post by @siyandawrites on Twitter, who explained this concept far better than I could ever have. (The emphasis is mine)


Zuma used the one word that I am physically incapable of ignoring. In his defence of his anti-pet-dog sentiments, he uttered the word, “un-African.”

Nothing infuriates me more than the use of that word. It drives me particularly insane when its speaker is very obviously using it as a means of shaming Africans out of their right to self-determination.

It makes me even angrier because it is almost always used to persecute the African middle-class. Very rarely are the poor in Africa accused of behaving in an un-African manner. It’s almost as if some people believe that the African, like some sort of religious servant, must stay in his most deprived form in order to retain dignity in his identity. Which is a notion that I regard ridiculous at its best and at its worst, utterly dangerous to the African psyche.

I can’t believe it is five-to-2013 and we’re still hell-bent on keeping African culture in 1605. How is it that African leaders are still allowed to equate walking your dog to lightening your skin?

[some text omitted]

So what is this about?

This is about using shame to police a part of the South African population that the ANC is quickly losing touch with—the African middle-class. By ridiculing them for choosing to lead a lifestyle outside of the confines of the poverty and often-oppressive 18th century principles that he defines to be ‘African’, the ANC president may be aiming to shame them back to the party that all the ‘die-hard Africans’ cling to like a life-raft in ice-water.


And there you have it. Culture war is likely an over-statement (I live in America, for goodness sake), but Zuma's speech today indicates there will be some of this sort of electioneering leading up to 2014.

And both of these points were lost in the great noise from this morning.

How Simon saved R1.2 million in 5 minutes

On Monday the National Youth Development Agency released a statement in response to a Sunday City Press report detailing the specifics of just what was spent on its World Festival of Youth and Students; a breakdown of the R106 million spent on the bash. And just so you’re aware, the funding for this nonsense came through the National Lotteries Board (R40 million) and the Presidency (R29 million).

I may not be an expert on balloons (which for which festival organisers paid R100,000), entertainment (R5.3 million) or confetti (R60,000 – for, erm, paper), but I did see that the NYDA spent R5.6 million chartering a plane to fly the 227 delegates from Havana direct to Johannesburg as no commercial airlines operate that route. And I do know travel.

The thought that all delegates should be flown direct annoys me, purely because it is, without a doubt, the most expensive way to fly in economy class. It is complete snobbery to assume that flying 1-stop is anything more than slightly inconvenient. To assume a divine right to be able to fly anywhere without stopping is rude to those of us who don’t have access to millions to just jump on an expensive route. Just think about how is reduces your options and therefore competition when flying direct: usually it limits you to two airlines; the one in the country from which you are flying and the one from the country to which you are travelling. Think of how many people fly the Arab airlines (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar) to the UK, or fly via Hong Kong or Singapore to get to Australia. These are cheaper alternatives to flying with SAA, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic or Qantas. So one-stop is a very acceptable manner in which to travel long-distance, and a lot of people do it. Mostly to save money.

Not so the National Youth Development Agency who, as I said, threw R5.6 million at a chartered aircraft. So I did a little digging. Five airlines, from what I can tell, have flights, or aircraft through alliances, which operate between Havana and Johannesburg. These are Virgin Atlantic, Iberia, TAAG, Air France and Air Canada.

As the World Festival was held from 13-21 December 2010, I did a search for a two-week stay in South Africa, departing Cuba for around that time in 2011, bearing in mind that this is peak holiday season in South Africa; the time of year when airlines charge the most for travel.

The only conceivable way one could have used more money to get delegates from Havana to South Africa is to have used TAAG, the Angolan national airline. Fares to Luanda (the website wouldn’t connect me from Havana all the way to Johannesburg) were US$4149. At 227 tickets that’s R7,450,030.

However, Iberia, Spain’s national airline, services that route for a fare of US$2,399, meaning the entire fare for all delegates would have totalled R4,307,892, a saving of around R1.2 million. A full percentage point of the total expense of the festival. Around R4,500 of each ticket is tax, meaning that the average fare is around R16,000. And if one approached an airline asking for 227 tickets, there is a chance that fare could be negotiable. By chartering a plane this opportunity was lost.

So a few quick airline searches resulted in a saving of R1.2 million.

Now, who knows how much balloons cost?

An interesting... disingenous statement

Here is a quote from SA Today, Helen Zille's weekly newsletter. (Cannot find the text online but will post link when I can - it usually goes onto politicsweb)

A colleague in the National Assembly, Donald Lee, reminded me of an exchange with Manuel on the issue of quotas back in 2005. Manuel wrote:

“You argue that [quotas are] racism and the equivalent of apartheid. I think that you are so wrong.”

So, six years ago Manuel endorsed racial head-counting as a legitimate practice, now he says it is akin to apartheid.

This is disingenuous. The picture Helen Zille is trying to paint here is that Manuel is a racist and that it is merely convenient that he is pushing the "coloured agenda" in the Western Cape near election time and this quote is supposed to prove that he had some major race-profiling "agenda" when he said this. Whether this is true is not what I am arguing here.

The exchange with Donald Lee that Zille mentioned above was actually about SPORT (You can read the full exchange here) and "quotas" therein. One of the examples Lee uses in his criticism is "And yet today – in a new South Africa – we find ourselves facing the exact same situation, players like Kevin Pieterson [sic], along with many others, feel that they too cannot reach their full potential and have moved elsewhere".

I digress, but yep, Donald Lee reckoned that the "quotas" in sport meant no opportunities for white people. Yep - only seven of the current South African team are white folks.

Taking a quote outrageously out of context, which was made in response to Lee incorrectly saying that white South Africans have no chances in sport (citing parallels with Basil D'Oliveria nogal) is not fair.

Now understand something, I am not telling you whether or not this racist legislation was signed or not signed by Manyi or Manuel or whoever - or who is being hypocritical or incorrect or whether Manuel is indeed just saying that for the electoral benefit of coloureds in the WC or whatever. But, in line with what I have written previously, I think that communication from the DA is (becoming) acidic and horrible. To take something Manuel said 6 years ago about a different matter - yes, "quotas" in sport and spreading coloured and Indian people around the country are two very different matters - is unfair.

It is the equivalent of Zille saying six years ago that she hired someone to help paint her house and that proves she is anti-workers rights and it is why she stands by the DA's stance on labour broking.

Not cool, DA.

An interesting... DA e-aggression

(Image pinched from The Daily Maverick)

This morning my inbox spat out a press release from the DA’s Lindiwe Mazibuko. I usually read DA communication at arms’ length, scared that it’s usual super-aggressive tone will snap at my eyes. Instead, Ms. Mazibuko’s lengthy campaign document was easy to read, and didn’t make me feel like I was being shat on.

I’m certainly not saying that there is a right or wrong way to do it, merely what I prefer dealing with. For example, here are some quotes from Helen Zille’s weekly newsletter:

7 Feb: “Being an “all-weather friend” to authoritarian rulers is clearly more important to the ANC than promoting economic growth.”

10 Jan: “The ANC will ensure that SADC continues to protect former "freedom fighters" who have morphed into despots.”

10 Jan: “Perhaps the biggest flaw of all is Zuma’s continued delusion that the state can play a leading role in planning, managing and leading sustainable economic growth and job creation.”

These are just three examples. And I am not debating whether Mrs. Zille is right or wrong in the points she is making. What I do think is that the way she writes is not conducive to changing people’s minds. If someone shouts at you or speaks to you like you are stupid, you are unlikely to listen to the points they are making. Mrs. Zille’s tone is very aggressive.

Gareth van Onselen is the DA’s executive director of communication (head of communications for the DA?) and this is a comment he left on The Daily Maverick recently in response to a column by Sipho Hlongwane:

Hlongwane, who strikes me as distinctly mediocre, suggests it was a good thing that Mbeki avoided accounting for his various Aids madnesses; that he did well to give Coetzee a good 'tuning'. It's the analysis of someone who doesn't know the facts and thus, suggests Mbeki was doing the right thing by avoiding being held to account. But perhaps that is exactly what Hlongwane thinks - transparency is a bad idea and anyone who avoids it, 'deserves a generous helping of grog'. Certainly I don't remember him speaking out against Mbeki at the time. How idiotic.

Once again, I am not here to debate what he says. But I do notice his tone. And it isn’t pleasant. He was possibly commenting in his personal capacity, but to expect viewers to think this has noting to do with the DA when he’s debating in a public arena is silly.

This is what made Lindiwe Mazibuko’s press release so different. Read it. She writes beautifully and explains the DA’s municipal records – persuading people rather than telling them they are stupid for voting for anyone else. (While you may never find that written down in DA communication, tone-wise it does allude to it.) Am I seeing something that isn’t there? Possibly. But communication specialists should make me avoid doing so, surely?

While both Mrs Zille and Ms Mazibuko both present arguments, I find Ms Mazibuko’s far easier to engage with. She points out where the ANC has fallen down and in comparison shows where and how the DA has done better. Take this, for example – a snippet from the release:

In its 2006 manifesto, the ANC said:

"By 2010, when South Africa hosts the Soccer World Cup, all households will have access to clean running water and decent sanitation."

Now the ANC says the target is no longer 2010, but 2014, and the Cooperative Governance report shows why. In Tshwane, for instance, one in five residents still do not even have access to the most basic level of sanitation.

In Cape Town, on the other hand, 94% of residents have access to basic sanitation.

Personally, I think that if the DA are to make massive inroads into government like they aim to, it will be due to communication like Ms. Mazibuko’s that gets them there. People care about what she has written about and she doesn’t alienate people who aren’t DA-voters. She has shown what he DA has done well without hysterical angry-white-people-tone. She has shown DA solutions and advancements, a stark differentiation to the yapping opposition political fox terrier which the DA is often accused of. She hasn’t used terms like”deluded”, “crony”, “blind” or “idiotic”. She’s presented facts in a very personable way.

And it's is far harder to argue with facts than it is to resent and ignore a crap tone.

An interesting... government of not just darkies

Yesterday, Dr Blade Nzimande declared the government one of darkies during the debate over last week’s State of the Nation address. News24 reports him saying:

“If the matric results are bad, this is taken as proof that this government of darkies is incapable. If the matric pass rate goes up it means the results have been manipulated by these darkies.”

I suppose we have got to ask ourselves what Dr Nzimande means here. Can only a black person be a darkie? If so, then Dr Nzimande has forgotten that this is not a government of darkies, as two pretty pale members of his own party (the South African Communist Party (SACP)), Rob Davies and Jeremy Cronin, occupy cabinet portfolios. Davies is Minister of Trade and Industry and Cronin is Deputy Minister of Transport.

I am also not sure who is dark enough to be declared a darkie. Would Minister of Economic Development, Ebrahim Patel? Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan? Minister of Agriculture, Tina Joematt-Piettersson, and her deputy, the FF+’s Piet Mulder? Minister of Communications, Roy Padayachie? Minister in the Presidency, Trevor Manuel? Minister of Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk?

The government is not one of darkies. From what I see above it has a pretty decent representation of South Africa. And what really irritates me is Dr Nzimande’s inference that only darkies play any part in government.

What Dr Nzimande is doing is reinforcing the ideas of people like Steve Hofmeyr, that modern-day South Africa is for black people only. That there is a cultural genocide going on. That white, coloured and Indian folks have been relegated to second-class citizens. That Wimbledon/Perth/Canada refugee status is the way to go. What utter crap.

The ANC, which the SACP party aligns itself to (without standing in any election itself) has always been a party that is open to all in South Africa. Being a freedom movement throughout the days of apartheid, it lends itself to support from the black majority of South Africa, but has never exclusively catered to this group of people. Dr Nzimande’s utterances – although he says government and not ANC (in many people's eyes these are the same thing) – seem to allude to the opposite.

The ANC has never declared South Africa only for black people. The ANC has never solely included black people in government in every election it has won. The idea that only black people have a role in leading South Africa is against the philosophies of the ruling party, and these ideals are being muddied with the aforementioned quote.

That someone of the intelligence of Dr Nzimande could go around peddling these ideas, indirectly – admittedly – is irresponsible. There are many people in government helping push South Africa forward who aren’t darkies alongside many who are. How dare you attempt to ignore them?

An interesting... differentiation, repeated a thousand times over

Mukoma Wa Ngugi, a Kenyan writer who posted in the Comment is Free section of the Guardian today that he’s noticed that white people in America treat black Africans differently to how they treat black Americans. He’s managed to write a whole column on something I feel doesn’t really exist in the USA any more than it does around the rest of the world.

As we grow up to be racist – and by that I mean differentiating by race, not necessarily hating on people – and we do, particularly in places like South Africa, we forget that race is not the only factor we have when it comes to hating people. Look at the Irish – they only have white people there so instead of race conflicts, they fought over Christianity. The Sunni Muslims and Shi’ite Muslims played out a similar scenario. Cantonese-speaking Chinese think they are a level up from Mandarin-speakers while in India, a land where most people are Hindu and Indian, there are class criteria which exclude.

Even here in South Africa, a chit-chat here and there will make one realise that not all black folks are the same – good god, nine of the official languages are taken up by them! The other two are split amongst white folks, who have also gone through some troubles together – an English-speaking South African should never respond to “It’s been 16 years. Blacks should just get over apartheid” with “They probably will when you get over the Anglo-Boer war”.

So while Mukoma Wa Ngugi may feel that white Americans do indeed prefer foreign black folks to homegrown ones (and I doubt he has ever visited Arizona), I argue that it is a trait which is hardly exclusive to America. There is no one single degree of any group you could point out, as we tend to think.

And this begs the question: are differentiation and prejudice the same thing?

No, they are not. While these two concepts often walk hand in hand, and the former is necessary for the latter, it is incorrect to assume that because one acknowledges that one is not the same as someone else, that hating them is the next logical step. It is tempting, I suppose, because it is easy. But it is an intentional decision, not part of the deal.

History may not be so kind to my interpretation, but I find there are more people willing to break the divides down nowadays than there ever have before. So to ascribe something to America in blanket fashion is to propagate something westwards that applies everywhere. And to allude to the fact that this is exclusive to the USA is not just a lie, it is easy to jump on to. I certainly don’t deny the existence of racism in the States. What I do deny is the fact that it is more prevalent there than anywhere else.

An interesting... Cricket World Cup Squad

As expected, there is all kinds of debate about our World Cup squad – where is Albie Morkel? South Africa only has one all-rounder? We’re taking Faf du Plessis? Robin Peterson? Where is David Miller? MARK BLOODY BOUCHER! And so on and so forth.

Let’s clear something up: only having one all-rounder is not a problem. The Aussies have been trying to squash an all-rounder in their squad since Keith Miller graced their line-up in the fifties and only finally cracked it with Shane Watson in the last 18 months. Think about it – can you remember any decent Australian all-rounders between Miller and Watson? Yet they’ve been a successful team without one – and this is because they have chosen specialists. While we, in the late nineties and early noughties, picked Nicky Boje because he could bat (and I think this may also be one of the reasons we have persisted with Peterson and Ontong, to an extent), Australia picked spinners who could actually turn the ball. I know, you think they had the superstardom of Shane Warne, but they also had Bradd Hogg, Stuart Macgill, Colin Miller. South Africa has now moved toward not picking people due to what they can do outside their speciality. Steyn, Morkel and Tsotsobe, a potent quickie attack, are not selected because any of them can wield the willow. Our squad, outside Kallis and Peterson, are mostly specialists and I think the selectors have done well to remember that this is what cricketers should be measured by. No one remembers Don Bradman’s bowling average.

Cricinfo is ablaze with comments about Albie Morkel being left out of our World Cup squad, particularly as it is being held in the country where he has performed well for his IPL franchise, the Chennai Superkings. I personally have no issue with leaving Albie behind because I honestly feel that South Africa has never learned how to use him. We’ve always expected him to just walk in during a power-play and thwack the ball around the place. I can’t, and I could be wrong, remember when we treated him like a proper batsman. And it is not like he’s alone in this – Justin Kemp, the man who was supposed to solve our post-Klusener blues was dealt with in the same manner. We forget that some blokes can hit from ball one, but that any batter is going to do better when he’s had time to settle in. Morkel can slap 40 from 20 balls, but can you imagine if we let him face 100 of them? This innings of Kemp may remind you: We were sucking at 71-5 when Kemp came in at number 7. Finally he had time to play himself in and guess what? Bangity-bang, he clobbered 100 in 89 balls. It took Indian bowlers to give Kemp the opportunity, but Morkel hasn’t had his yet. I am sorry he is not going because he is talented, but he is a talent we haven’t worked out how to use, outside of throwing him into the fray whenever we want a power-play.

David Miller, one of the cleanest strikers of a cricket ball in the South African game, is in such miserable form that it’s no surprise that he’s not on the flight with the rest of the squad. He hasn;t really been around enough for us to know he will turn the corner like we can with Smith who is also in crap form but has a career for us to judge him on. I also think Miller has been treated a bit like Albie Morkel which certainly isn’t going to help... It seems as though Faf du Plessis has been drafted in to replace him and to be honest I think this is a good call but the selectors, even if he hadn’t scored that composed half-century in the fourth ODI against India (on debut nogal). He has probably been the most solid performer in domestic limited overs cricket in the last two years, churning out a pile of runs. In 91 innings he’s klunked over 3000 runs at an average of 43 and a strike rate of 90. He may not have the hitting power of Miller but runs leak from his bat like a virgin having his/her nipples squeezed.

The aforementioned three pacemen, Steyn, Morkel and Tsotsobe pretty much have their places guaranteed. Johan Botha will (very correctly, in my opinion) be the premier spinner and the fifth bowler will probably be one of Parnell or Imran Tahir, the foreigner we have decided to pretend is South African. On Indian pitches, playing two spinners is probably the way to go so Tahir should see some game time. If this tactic fails we always have Kallis who can churn out ten overs of accurate seam-up bowling. While Botha will aim to block up an end as he does so successfully (his economy rate is 4.65, the second lowest in the squad after Tsotsobe), Tahir will attack with his leggies.

I think that the only real regret we may have is leaving Mark Boucher out of the squad. The experiment with AB de Villiers keeping has worked to a large degree and I don’t even think it is Boucher’s (superb) wicket keeping we will miss that much, it is purely his performance under pressure. He has more BMT in him than anyone else playing cricket (ok, since Steve Waugh retired). However, it’s a tactical decision and we do have some experienced heads going anyway – Smith, Kallis, de Villiers, Steyn – only a few with World Cup experience though.

Either way – we had no World Cup experience in 1992 and made it to the semis.

We’ve managed to lose key World Cup matches in every screwed up or dumb manner possible. In four consecutive World Cups we lost because of the rain rule in ’92, we left out Allan Donald against the West Indies in ’96, a tie in ’99 and because we didn’t read the Duckworth-Lewis rules in ’03. There cannot be another stupid way to knock ourselves out of a World Cup – certainly not that we haven’t tried yet.

So hopefully we make it through this World Cup without anything daft happening – our own fault or not. A batting order that reads Smith, Amla, Kallis, de Villiers, Duminy and one of van Wyk, du Plessis or Ingram will be full of runs. Pace is well-catered for – coming from Tsotsobe, Steyn, Morkel and probably Kallis. Spin is in the capable hands of Johan Botha and Imran Tahir. While our batting may have looked slightly suspect against India in the recent series, I wouldn’t take its performance as gospel – Smith and AB are too talented not to come good, Kallis was missing and the Amla run-machine and Duminy played some great knocks. And the pitches in India as are flat as a Free State farm – so it’s good that our bowling attack seems in decent nick.

This may be the least settled squad we’ve had in the five World Cups we have attended, but I think that we certainly stand a decent chance of doing well, although India and Sri Lanka must be the favourites, followed by England (and no, no one is wishing cramp on Andrew Strauss).

An interesting... part of Herchelle Gibbs' book

The title of this post says "interesting" but probably should say "shocking". I am currently on page 107 of Herschelle Gibbs' To the Point and have just read the section about match-fixing. We all pretty much know the story - Hansie Cronje, South Africa's captain at the time offered a few players, one of which was Gibbs, money to perform badly in the last match of a series against India - a series South Africa had already lost. Gibbs originally agreed to it but then decided not to and smashed 74 off 53 balls, an innings I clearly remember watching. I would put it up there with some of his top one-day innings.

However, check out this extract: "During a tour to India in 1996, we were due to play a benefit game for one of the Indian players [who I assume to be Mohinder Amarnath] - it would be the last game of the tour. The night before the game, Hansie got the whole team together and dropped a real bombshell. 'I know a guy,' he said, 'who is willing to give us US$250 000 if we lose this game.'

Gibbs goes on to say that 6 of the team were out injured, Jonty wasn't playing and Gary Kirsten was the wicket keeper and SA were probably on a hiding to nothing anyway. And then this: "Of course the team decided against taking the bribe, but, even so it hadn't been an immediate and strong reaction to an activity totally abhorrent to the notion of sport. Instead, we talked the offer over. Pat Symcox - always an oke willing to look at all sides of the equation - thought it was worth some consideration. He wasn't the only one."

What? What is the other side to the equation? The side that says anything other than "we shouldn't throw a cricket match". or "we're representing our country, should we do it with pride or not?"

Gibbs does mention one person who was totally against taking the bribe, Andrew Hudson. He also admits that he, himself, along with Symcox considered it. Hansie obviously brought it to the table. The mentions of these names make it seem like 7 other players may have considered it (who were Gary Kirsten, Daryll Cullinan, Derek Crookes, Nicky Boje, Brian McMillan, Fanie de Villiers and Paul Adams).

The scorecard for the game is here.

According to the book, only one player was categorically against throwing a match for US$250 000?

It was the end of a tour, a game that didn't matter - merely a benefit game. But when is it ok to do something like that? To consider chucking a game that means nothing - in fact because of the celebratory nature of the fixture, it would have been better for India to win.

But if that's ok then are small amounts of corruption ok? The type that no one knows about which doesn't influence anything big? The ZAR/US$ exchange rate on 13 December (the day before the match) was R4.73=1US$, which means that US$250 000 was a nice R1 182 500 package.

What about the match we lost to Holland at the end of the England tour in 1994? That didn't matter much. And yes, the elephant in the room is Pakistan losing to Bangladesh in a match that didn't matter in the 1999 World Cup. These thoughts do come up when these revelations are outed.

Hansie did it. We know this.

Herchelle thought about it and got into huge shit and apologised. I was chuffed when he came back after his 6-month ban. He admitted what he did and made reparations. I hated him at the time but forgave him when he quite obviously felt horrific about the whole scenario. I'm still up and down about it at times, to be dead honest (as this paragraph makes out).

But to find out that Vinnige Fanie and Pat Symcox, South African heroes, those players who were so full of gees that we could win from anywhere, that they considered throwing a game? Even considered! Well that saddens me.

I feel disrespected as a South African whose emotions were dictated by the fortunes of the South African cricket team. I watched us play every time I could, from matches against India and Australia, to exhibition games, to fixtures against Kenya, Canada and the Netherlands.

Gibbs does mention in the chapter that Boucher and Kallis were also approached by Hansie Cronje and that they both rejected his proposal. It doesn't say whether they deliberated like Symmo and the match squad in 1996, but I am going to assume they didn't (please god).



But even considering throwing a match, no matter how important...

...well, it hurts guys.

An interesting... flowered irritation

Since Kevin Pietersen came to try and get some form back by playing for The Dolphins, the UK and other international cricket writers keep on saying he went back to SA to play for Natal. Even this morning, 2 months after it happened, Mark Nicholas (who is one of the top commentators in the world) said Natal.

The province is called KwaZulu-Natal.

This is not some contentious name like Tshwane or Mike Sutcliffe's plethora of road name variations. KwaZulu-Natal has been called so since 1994. That's a cool 16 years that cricket commentators have had to get used to it.

I am not talking about your local British person who has never been here. I am talking about professional journalists who have followed the English team here on more than one occasion and been to the province.

If it's too long for their poor keyboards then abbreviate it to KZN like most of us do.

Outside that, I'm so excited to watch Rhodesia make a return to Test cricket with a banging fixture in Salisbury against Ceylon.

An interesting... SABC fairytale

Set in the future...

Once upon a time King Jacob had a rather large headache. "Stop consuming the SABC" said Dr Motsoaledi, the royal doctor, "for this is what causes your head to be sore". So King Jacob phoned his friend, Sir Robert Gumede, and asked him to buy the SABC and take it off of his hands. Gumede agreed and purchased it for R120 which, all things considered, was its value to the public.

However, this angered many people and pleased other people.

Prince Zwelenzima Vavi said publically that he was against this happening and he cold have used it to employ another 3 million people by raising TV licence fees, but no one heard his message because of the Protection on Information declaration which banned all of his press releases because they made King Jacob and his friends so uncomfortable.

Princess Helen of Cape Town said she was glad it was privatised but that Gumede was a shit option when it should obviously have been sold to Rupert Murdoch.

Prince Dr Piet Mulder said that he wanted his own public broadcaster but needed his own public in his own country first.

Prince Mike Sutcliffe said that before the SABC was sold he wanted it to be called the Mzilikazi Umqaqazikababaxelitshalala Kahle Umbuzi Mahatmaguevara TV Station of the Republic of South Africa. Prince Zweli Mkhize agreed absolutely.

Minion Herschelle Gibbs said it was sweETV. But he didn't watch it because they took the porn off. Poor oke.

Imperialist Geoffrey Boycott said it was overvalued and wasn't worth a stick of rhubarb.

The Daily Mail got its facts in a twist and reported that Jacob Zuma actually killed Robert Gumede with his machine gun. No worries. They published a two-line apology the next day on page 47, just after the recipes.

Previous-prince Benni McCarthy asked if there would be food available at the launch of the new station. Khulubuse Zuma said he wasn't coming if there wasn't.

Royal Pastor Ray Macauley invited Gumede to host the new station in the east wing of his mansion. He also got Tom Cruise to fly out and bless it. Silly man, it's so easy to confuse Rhema and Scientology.

Princess Diane Kohler-Barnard said " this is a fucking storming success and about fucking time the national fucking broadcaster was put in new fucking hands".

Princess Lindiwe Sisulu refused to confirm if the sale had happened.

Princess Gwen Ramokgopa said that it didn't matter because no one in her constituency could afford TVs anymore because they were spending cash on generators and having their garbage removed by private companies.

The Mail and Guardian's editor, Heathen Nic Dawes, is still in a coma. We wish him a speedy recovery.

An interesting... thug

Link to news24 article on Bakkies Botha's interview with a magazine.

We're such a big bunch of douchebags because we haven't forgiven Bakkies even though he has asked us numerous times. This is what he said in one of them Christian magazines (that people don't buy from Woolworths): "God is merciful and we need to ask his forgiveness only once. Unfortunately some people don’t accept it that way and they expect you to repeatedly ask forgiveness."

Of course God forgave him. It was God's mistake, remember? Letting him listen to the flesh. God is lucky that Bakkies forgave him, actually.

Luckily though, the Holy Spirit convinced Bakkies how wrong he was: "The Holy Spirit convinced me how wrong it was and I was literally sick with disappointment in myself." So is Bakkies so much of a brick-head that he can't work that out for himself? Did no one ever teach him that headbutting people was wrong?

I wonder if that respectable man and great sporting ambassador for this country, Victor Matfield, has ever had a word with him, and if it just doesn't penetrate that violent skull of Botha's.

At least Bakkies picks on people his own size, like the All Black scrummy, Jimmy Cowan, and Gio Aplon.

Bakkies also claims he was shattered by the incident. Does he get shattered every single time he's gone out to beat someone? If so, the man must be on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication.

He also says that "God is merciful and we need to ask his forgiveness only once". Well, once per occasion, Bakkies. If you had to ask him more than once it would take your entire suspension just to apologise to him, and less time to reflect on why you behave like such a thug on the rugby field.

As far as I know, God only forgives those who repent. Bakkies, if you keep beating, headbutting and throwing people around, then you are repenting with about the same strike rate that a prozzie manages to protect her virginity.

You're such a good player. Stop fucking around.

An interesting... SAA drops its Cape Town to Durban route

Image from flysaa.com

SAA has anounced that it will no longer be operating its Durban-Cape Town route anymore and will use Mango, its low-cost carrier, to service it instead.

Twitter has already gone mad about it today, as has the comment section beneath the article I linked to above. People find it odd (some find it offensive) that the national carrier won't be flying between the 2nd richest city in the country (Durban) and the third richest (Cape Town) anymore, but there is a case to be made for SAA making this decision.

Firstly, as stated in the article, most of the traffic between the two cities is holiday traffic. Something one will notice, on occassion, is that many holiday destination to holiday destination flight routes fail. If there is not enough business traffic to maintain the commercial viability of a flight route then it has to be pulled. Does anyone remember the failed venture of having flights between Cape Town and Miami? No business travel = fail. Business travel is undeniably important, particularly for a full-service airline (as opposed to low-cost - SAA and BA are full-service airlines, Kulula, 1Time and Mango are low-cost airlines) and it's why JNB-CPT and JNB-DUR are two of the busiest flight routes in the world.

Secondly, we often complain about the excessive wastage of money spent by parastatals. This was a difficult decision made by SAA to concentrate on its more-money-making routes throughout Africa. For the first time I can think of off the top of my head, taxpayers are complaining about a parastatal wasting LESS of their money. We can't just have a flight route because we sommer want one. If, according to the capitalist principles espoused by the readers of the site I linked to above, there is a viable business route between Cape Town and Durban, someone will step in and fill it.

Thirdly, there are four other airlines from which to choose, and if you are a businessman who MUST sit in the snooty part of an aeroplane, then fly British Airways. It's really not that much harder to type in ba.com rather than flysaa.com and it's a tiny bit more expensive, but you're expensing it anyway.