The Republican party is not dead; long live the filibuster

Sorry I can't remember where I got this image from. If it is yours let me know and I will change it. 

Majority leader Harry Reid has been castigated over the last few days after what was supposed to be a filibuster-busting vote to reform the way the Senate works. It didn't pan out that way, to the ire of many,  particularly MSNBC primetime pundit Ed Schultz who blasted Reid on The Ed Show as being wary of the Senate passing gun control legislation with some vulnerable Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2014. 

While I think Schultz's concern is slightly misguided, his core principle is correct. While everyone has treated the 2012 election as the death of the Republican Party, there is a very real chance that in two years' time the House of Representatives and the Senate could be controlled by Republicans. 

Mark Begich in Alaska, Kay Hagan in North Carolina, Tim Johnson in South Dakota, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Pryor in Arkansas and Max Baucus from Montana are all Democrats defending seats in conservative states (although to be fair Baucus' Senate partner from Montana, Jon Tester, won re-election last November). Adding to Democrat woes are the retirements of long-time senators Jay Rockerfeller in West Virginia and Tom Harkin of Iowa. In West Virginia (which can and does elect Democrats) the challenger Rockerfeller was going to face was Republican Shelley Moore Capito, who is now most certainly the front-runner for that seat. While Harkin was correctly regarded a liberal during his terms, it is worth pointing out that Iowa's other Senator, Chuck Grassley, is most certainly not. There is absolutely nothing to justify speculation that Harkin may be replaced by anyone like him. And although Minnesota is beginning to slide firmly into the blue column, Senator Al Franken won his election in 2008 by only 312 votes (in an election in which 2.8-million were cast). 

By my count that is 8 Democrats Senate seats at risk, plus Franken. And the Democrat pickup opportunities are slender, with hopes being pinned on Georgia (due to Saxby Chambliss' retirement and possible strong Democrat contender in Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed), Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and Susan Collins in Maine; however, all of these are reliant on a serious right-wing Tea Party-backed candidate being so unelectable that people are driven to Democrats (see Todd Akin). None of these three are probable. 

When it comes to the House of Representatives, Republicans are unlikely to lose this until 2020 when re-districting takes place after the census. In this last election Democrats won 1.2-percentage points more of the vote than Republicans but still see a deficit of 33 seats. Some estimates claim Democrats may need to win by as much as seven points to retake the House. 

From my point of view, it looks as if Reid is mindful of the fact that Democrats could be on the receiving end of a bad midterm election in 2014 (cast your mid back to the Democrat disaster that was 2010). This Senate reform undertaken on Thursday shouldn't even really be filed under anything resembling "filibuster reform" because it hardly did any of that. 

The rules around filibustering were preserved mostly by what is being referred to as the "old guard" - and it's noticeable that the two senators spearheading this cause were freshmen (Jeff Merkely from Oregon and Tom Udall from New Mexico). The old folks are far more keen to preserve Senate traditions - Reid even added on Thursday, "With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn't and shouldn't be like the House," - and it is tradition that is really being preserved here. It isn't difficult to extrapolate that Republicans feel the same about the filibuster, and are unlikely to mess much with it should they take control in the next Congress. Had Democrats busted tradition this time around, there would have been ample reason for Republicans to do the same at the beginning of the 114th, should they win control of the Senate. 

The Republican Party is not dead. And neither is the filibuster. 

This nonsense talk of secession

Image courtesy of The Atlantic. 

You may have seen talk of citizens in one or more US states moving to have their state secede from the union now that the awful Muslo-Commie, Indo-Kenyan Barack Obama won re-election last week. 

Well don't take it seriously. Constitutionally, it can't happen. And last time states successfully seceded they were beaten and re-attached in the Civil War - you can see a nice sum up of it in an upcoming film.

But let's just say a state like Texas - which is the state current news reports are mentioning even though this nonsense is taking place in forty states since Tuesday last week - decides to secede. 

Think about how tits-up it would go:

The federal government would have a problem with secession. It would likely shut down all of Texas' federal facilities. So goodbye interstate highways. It would also likely slap all kinds of trade sanctions in Texas so goodbye businesses. No one is going anywhere or earning any money. The Texan dollar would be valued akin to the Iranian rial. 

And while Governor Rick Perry lambasts the federal government and all its tax-and-spend policies, Texas still rakes in a fat portion of federal greenery. Goodbye to that.

Texas also wouldn't have an army - no one could get on the blower to the National Guard if the federal government decides it will take Texas back forcefully. If the USA didn't want the state back Mexico would likely pick it up, merely by marching in. 

Secession would suck for everyone, especially those who attempt to secede, which is why anyone with half a brain won't go for it. 

*Note: To be clear I was using Texas merely as an example.

EDIT: (Wednesday 14 November 14:45PM CT): It was pointed out to me that the petition in Texas for secession had 70,000 votes. Which sounds like a lot until you click there are 25-million people in the state.

US troops must remain in Afghanistan

I watched an episode of The Practice many years ago where a lawyer argued that the United States army was obliged to finish its mission in any particular country it decided to wage war in, for the same reason that a doctor faces tricky legal territory if he or she stops at the scene of an accident. 

In both instances, the illusion of taking care of the problem implicitly indicates that no one else needs to come in and take charge. In other words, if you do decide to involve yourself in something, make sure you finish the job. 

This philosophy is very apt for the debate raging across US media at the moment about pulling American troops out of Afghanistan. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether the Yanks should or shouldn't have gone in (I personally believe this war was far more justifiable than war in Iraq, but both would have been best avoided), but the fact is that US troops are there. This mission is soon to enter its eleventh year. There isn't any going backwards. Currently Afghanistan is somewhat unstable, with a government that is still battling/negotiating with the Taliban with a leader who doesn't exert effective authority (for more reasons that just his own weaknesses). 

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has many faults (his lackadaisical attitude towards corruption and absolute hatred of women's rights being examples) including a lack of control over what is going on in his own country. The presence of the American army is assisting him in keeping violence to the level at which it currently finds itself (which is lower that it could be, believe it or not). 

Recent events, the Afghan public's violent reaction to US troops burning copies of the Quran, and an expected violent reaction to a rogue US soldier systematically putting bullets into 16 civilians, have seen calls increase for the US to get out of Afghanistan. But while this is tempting, the US is responsible for the mission it decided to undertake in Afghanistan, and cannot just pack up and go. While it is terrible that the military is in more danger should it remain in the country, Afghan civilians are even more at risk from militants within the country should the soldiers (who are not shooting the people they are supposed to be defending) depart. 

The US is under obligation to remain in Afghanistan until the country has been stabilised. Interior movements and the (outside) possibility of help from other countries will have been dampened by the entry of the USA and allies. 

While hauling the troops home would suit the foreign military, it would not suit Afghans. 

The US began this war and is obliged to leave a peaceful country when it departs. Packing up and leaving now would plunge Afghanistan into something worse than anarchy. 

News roundup 7 March

Spain may close its embassy in Syria and fly its ambassador home, according to foreign minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo on Tuesday. Whether the Spanish government can afford the flights from Damascus to Madrid should be established by the finance ministry within the coming days, once it obtains permission from German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Two journalists at the British newspaper The Sun have apparently attempted suicide as the pressure of a wholly legal investigation into dodgy dealings at the paper increases. Luckily the investigation isn’t taking place dictated by The Sun’s ethical standards, or we’d already know what was in their garbage, how they looked with out a shirt on while on the beach, would see their name in capital letters on the page next to a naked woman with huge tits, would be declared guilty while an investigation was going on, would have “friends” declaring that they always were a bit dodgy, and would have an encampment of photographers outside their houses.  Sometimes the shoe doesn’t fit on the other foot.

Scientists have a new explanation for how the Titanic may have sunk back nearly 100 years ago. Although we all know that the unsinkable vessel hit an iceberg and then sank, braniacs believe the moon was responsible for an increase in iceberg obstacles on that particular sea highway. Coincidentally, our sources inform us that the man in the moon will also be responsible for coughing up the R300-billion for Transnet infrastructure upgrades announced by President Jacob Zuma in February.

Three of the four American Republican presidential candidates competed to be the most forceful aggressor on Iran, and its suspected nuclear weapons facilities. To be clear, there is as much proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme as there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That’s zero. Zilch. Nil. Our sources within the Republican Party claim that Mitt Romney wants to attack Iran because its trees are a similar height to Israel’s and he wants to protect Prime Minister Beebee Netanyahu’s timber industry. Rick Santorum advises a pre-emptive strike before Iranians possibly become illegal immigrants, and Newt Gingrich would attack Iran until it began limping, then Syria until its economy got sick, and then something young and hot like South Sudan or East Timor.

The USA will take action against India at the World Trade Organization over a ban of poultry and egg imports which India claims are necessary to prevent avian flu. US trade representative Ron Kirk said, “The United States is the world's leader in agricultural safety and we are confident that the WTO will confirm that India's ban is unjustified.” Our sources tell us that the Indian government is already in touch with Oprah Winfrey. 

Is Romney's result really that bad?

Image kindly pinched from HollywoodReporter.com

I watch a lot of sensationalist news. I figure that by watching Fox and MSNBC, I will average out the hysteria into a basic understanding of what is going on in the world. But sometimes the hysterics cannot be accurately blended into fact, and I feel like the great loser in this melee of somewhat-facts over the last week has been Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. 

"Analysts" of all types unanimously agreed that it was vital for Mitt Romney to win his home state of Michigan in Tuesday's primary. At face value this seems legitimate: one would expect candidates to take their own state, particularly one where their father was an incredibly popular governor. However, what threatened to sink Romney was not so much the fact the people don't like him. Romney penned a highly controversial piece in the New York Times called "Let Detroit go Bankrupt", which criticised what President Barack Obama planned to do (and ultimately did), which was bail out the auto industry, much of which is based in Detroit, Michigan.

Now, the auto industry is to Detroit what Table Mountain is to Cape Town - people get highly protective over it. Romney surely knew when he wrote that column for the New York Times that he was going to piss some people off. In fact, that's half the reason some people write columns. And such a divisive issue was bound to come up when he ran for president this time around. Of course Michiganders are going to have split opinion when it comes to the auto bailout; simple logic would dictate that some folks would be against it. In fact, it was nice to finally see Romney take a principled stand and stick with it.

What this means is that Romney was quite entitled to not win Michigan, in spite of his roots there, because he picked a side in a massively controversial battle. People were quite entitled to disagree with his view on the bail out. Surely the political system is better when people are voting over issues and records than the bloke that comes from a certain place and adores the height of the trees?

What also surprised me greatly was that not one media outlet I read, and I read many, discussed how Romney's opposition to the bailout may play in other states. Instead, we were treated to constant repetition of just how ghastly it would be if Mitt failed to win Michigan. Now, in many southern states, a portion of whom go to the polls on Super Tuesday (on 6 March) are far more concerned with fiscal conservatism. While arguing against the bailout may hurt in Michigan, it is unlikely to do so in Oklahoma, Tennessee or Georgia, all of whom will vote soon. And, let's be honest, if Romney starts winning in the south then this race will be over swiftly.

Something else the media climbed all over was Romney's speech to the Detroit Economics Club on Friday last week at the Ford Field, home of the Detroit Lions American football team. Romney has been invited by the club to deliver a speech about his economic plan for the US, and naturally, attendance to an address by a  presidential nominee was higher than normal. The DEC (note, NOT Mit Romney) changed the venue to the Ford Field and set up a stage and chairs in a small portion of the field. There was never any intention to fill the stadium. But multiple media outlets reported how Mitt Romney failed to fill a stadium. One would think that the nominee would have invited more than 1,200-odd people in a 60,000-seater stadium if he was attempting to do something grand, right?

Image pinched from mlive.com.

Often, Romney doesn't help himself. He manages to walk around with both feet in his mouth a lot of the time, with increasing regularity. But he isn't helped by criticism that isn't, well, in-depth.

While much criticism is justified, it is surely worth looking at why Romney may have stuck with a point of view past the next primary. It is easy enough to point fingers and say you're criticising. It is something else entirely to actually be critical.

How did Gingrich win South Carolina?

Less than a week ago Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was way back in the polls in South Carolina. How did he turn his situation into a storming victory?

Image from thegrio.com

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich entered South Carolina having seen a virtually impossible increase in the polls in the last week. It wasn’t that long ago that Gingrich, according to some polling companies, was more than 20 points behind the nomination favourite Mitt Romney, yet he began Saturday’s primary as a frontrunner.

Republicans who are not Mitt Romney have enthusiastically maintained their “anyone-but-Romney” style of campaigning, but it was Gingrich’s performance in a CNN debate on Thursday 19 January that really pushed his advantage (and not for the first time). Earlier on Thursday, ABC published an interview with Gingrich’s second ex-wife in which she claimed that he asked her for an open relationship, so that he could shack up with the woman who is now his current wife, Callista. John King of CNN, who moderated the debate opened by asking Gingrich about the interview and Gingrich played a masterful hand in spinning it right around into a criticism of the media. Both right and left leaning political folks in the USA believe the main-stream media is prejudiced against them, and Gingrich’s lambasting of King, CNN and the media in general got the debate crowd onto its feet in a rousing spate of applause.

Gingrich also successfully fended attacks from former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (who was declared the winner of the Iowa caucuses after results were reviewed) while managing to land enough punches on Romney. Romney’s detractors have found ammunition lately as they have discovered he is very uncomfortable talking about how wealthy he is. Rick Santorum has managed to own the working man point of view, as one would expect from a man who represented Pennsylvania, and Gingrich and Ron Paul don’t visibly have anywhere near the $200 million-plus that Romney is supposed to be worth. This all began when opposition candidates began asking Romney about when he planned on publicising his tax returns, ironically, a tradition started by George Romney, his father. For a few days in a row, Romney has flubbed answers about releasing his taxes, which would open up questions about his income, and eventually he dropped “I am not going to apologise for being successful!” at Thursday night’s debate. A line which resonates among rich people, but may not have amongst all of South Carolina, which has an unemployment rate above the national average. In contrast, Gingrich is not as prone to unleashing a terrible soundbyte as the man from Massachusetts; during the campaign Romney said the near $400,000 he made from speaking “wasn’t much”, asked another candidate to make a $10,000 bet, said he liked firing people (while the USA battles unemployment) and so on.

Romney’s opponents have also used his career in the private sector, at Bain Capital, as a jobs-destroyer: notable in South Carolina as GS Industries, based in the state and bought by Bain Capital in 1993, ended up going bankrupt while Bain went off with a tidy profit. While this incident itself doesn’t really denote Romney’s attitude toward capitalism or business in general, it is an easy pounce for Gingrich, Santorum and Paul, and their super PACs (Super political action committees, organisations which support a certain candidate but face different electoral laws than the official campaigns).

Many people cited John McCain’s success in South Carolina in 2008 when he successfully won the nomination to face Barack Obama in the election, and assumed that McCain’s moderate conservative views may have meant success for Romney.  However, South Carolina is supremely proud of its US military heritage. McCain served and was a prisoner of war. Romney was not. In fact, Ron Paul is the only candidate left who has any military experience at all, so it is very possible he could have benefited from this.

Gingrich’s success in South Carolina proved two things: Romney is going to struggle in conservative states, and the televised debates are very important.

The next debate on Monday, in Florida, the most unpredictable state in the US, will be superb television. Mitt Romney has two days to make sure he’s on the right side of it.

Iraq-troops-withdrawal-gate

On Friday President Barack Obama announced that all US troops in Iraq would be withdrawn by the end of the year. As the Americans like to say, "home for the holidays". The end of 2011 was an "aspirational" deadline set by the Bush administration (which, if you remember, started the nonsensical war while hunting for non-existent weapons of mass destruction) in 2008 - Obama only took office at the beginning of 2009.

Obama has been accused once every 13 seconds (according to stats I projected from people whining on the plethora of news channels in the US) of this being a political decision rather than one which is militarily justified. Basically, Obama is ending the war to increase his popularity rather than because it is a justified decision. You know, because there is an election coming up.

Well, "analysts" are forgetting that there is actually quite a lot of time before the next election. It is only in November next year - that's over a year since Obama made the withdrawal announcement (which was 21 October 2011). These experts who are screaming that it is only in Obama's interest, and not in the national interest are missing a fairly sizeable point.

Firstly, it is worth remembering that the Obama has far more access to information and background than any mainstream and a lot of localised media. Basically, his decision is based on far more facts to which anyone sitting outside Baghdad, and many sitting within it, has access. While the senior commander in charge of the mission, General Lloyd J. Austin III (a rather large dissenter of the withdrawal),  would also have access to large amounts of information as well, by virtue of leading a mission, there is a bucket-load of diplomatic data which he, most likely, has not seen.

There would be huge risks in withdrawing troops to boost his poll ratings if the situation in Iraq goes tits-up. If the rate of violence in Baghdad begins to spike again (recent events have gone against more medium-term gains in stemming violence) or if US national security (which is what they call foreign policy a lot of the time here) is compromised in any way. In fact, if troops are withdrawn from one of the countries in which the US is responsible for security, and then something happens on US soil, Obama is finished. The US takes national security incredibly seriously - as would a nation who has faced attacks like 9-11 and chats about domestic safety with BFF Israel. If Obama makes a decision which weakens the US' defence of its borders, he will be collecting unemployment from November next year. No question.

And I highly doubt the president is only thinking up to this year's holidays. It is unlikely that anyone in Obama's administration, and yes, that includes defence secretary Leon Panetta, would allow the president to do so, in spite of Panetta's recommendation to maintain 3,000-4,000 troops in Iraq. Governments around the world think further than two months - everyone older than five years thinks further than two months. While I can't conclusively prove to you that Obama is thinking past Christmas, he is surrounded by seasoned politicians - think Joe Biden, Panetta and Hillary Clinton - who would mop up any basic mistakes like that. 

The other aspect of this whole deal that Obama is taking in the neck deals with the fact that the president was happy to allow a few thousand troops to remain but decided not to because the Iraqi government would not give them immunity. The Bachmanns and other political figures have claimed that Obama couldn't get them immunity because he was "not committed". I'd love to see them argue for keeping the armed forces, probably the most respected grouping of people in the US after the National Rifle Association, without diplomatic and legal protection. In this sense, if anyone is trying to score political points, it is those public figures lashing Obama's decision.

Herman Cain. What matters and what doesn't?

Republican presidential candidate, Herman Cain, has taken quite a lot of flak since he started his surge to the upper results of the polls in the last month. This is partly because he is the frontrunner and is therefore dangerous, but also because he is a moron. Let's go over some modern Cain details:

1) 999. Of all the things I am sick of hearing, it's 999. All the time, Cain's solution to any problem is 999. Unemployment? 999. National deficit? 999. Fix the economy? 99 sodding 9. This is Cain's proposal to have a 9% payment tax, 9% corporate tax and 9% sales tax countrywide. His argument is that this is a simple system that Americans can understand. Well, it's also a dumb system with no proof whatsoever that it will work, but it is SIMPLE therefore it is GOOD. Hear that, America? You're too stupid to work out what a 15% payroll tax is, so we'll make it 9%. Companies, fire all your finance people because we're wiping the tax system. Anyone who can multiply a number by nine and divide by 100 can be an accountant. Oh also, poor people, you'll be paying that same percentage of your income as those who earn bucketloads. And you'll be hit with a 9% sales tax too. People who are actual economists and can explain numbers, instead of just shouting the same one repeatedly, expect Cain's plan (and I use the word in the loosest of terms) to force lower income earners to put more of their income towards the national kitty due to the sales tax than they do right now. It also doesn't take state taxes into account.

2) "When they ask me who's the president of Uzbeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I'm gonna say "You know, I don't know. Do you know? And then I'm gonna say, "how does that create one job?" - Cain.

Yep, this is Cain's attitude to foreign policy. Well, screw the name of the country (which the reporter actually used in the question which led to this answer. If you're a Cain fan reading this it's Uzbekistan). It's always nice when a man vying for the presidency of the world's most powerful nation couldn't give a wank what the name of your country is. While Cain fobs Uzbekistan off as not important enough to matter, he'd do well to, you know, acknowledge the presence of US bases there (and in neighbouring Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan). Can you guess which country they border? Afghanistan. Can you guess where arms were delivered before Kabul (the capital of Afghanistan, by the way) was "liberated"? UZBEKISTAN. I think it's inconsequential that Cain doesn't know the president's name. Neither do I. And I'll bet you no one in the current US government other than Hillary Clinton knows either. Incidentally it's Islam Karimov. I get that jobs are probably the hottest electoral issue, but surely it can't come at the expense of every single other thing?

3) "It was a joke". This has twice been Cain's reponse to the media or a rival picking up on some ignoramous thing the candidate has said. It's his sole defence. In 2008 Cain wrote a column for Economic Freedom Coalition, in which he suggested Tiger Woods would be an excellent Republican presidential candidate come 2016 when Obama had finished two terms. This was when Tiger was still a darling of the world, before we found out he had a woman in every city and was about to destroy his marriage and reputation, so we can't really fault Cain for that. However, what we can fault Cain for is pretending it was all a joke. Which is complete crap. Read it yourself and point out the jokes. How dumb does the man think Americans are? (I suppose we covered that under 999). His other "joke" was this: "We’ll have a real fence. Twenty feet high, with barbed wire, electrified, with a sign on the other side saying, ‘it will kill you'". He followed it up with these comments, "What's insensitive is when they come to the United States, across our border and kill our citizens, and kill our border patrol people. That's insensitive, and I'm not worried about being insensitive to tell people to stop sneaking into America." In South Africa we have a word for this. It's called xenophobia. And that it not even remotely the same as actual immigration policy. Of course it would be unreasonable to allow people over the border willy-nilly, but to stoke xenephobic fires by implying that Mexicans come "across our border and kill our citizens" has a huge social impact. Nasty social impact. Oh, I forget. He was just joking.

While I would be supporting Mr Obama again in the next election, I hope intellectual Ron Paul hammers Cain tonight. It really shouldn't be that hard.

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.

Hi America, calm the fuck down.

Christina Aguilera is taking a beat-down in the press because she cocked up the national anthem before the Superbowl. The traitorous heathen sang "O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming" when she should have sung: "What so proudly we watched at the twilight's last gleaming?"

Well guess who hates America. And with that surname she sure as hell isn't being invited to any dinner parties in Arizona, particularly after besmirching the international adulation that The Star Spangled Banner attracts at this, the eyrie of American Football.

Well, America, Christina Aguilera actually is American - born in New York and grew up in Pennsylvania. I am fairly certain that she knows the national anthem and has sung it more than once. The Star Spangled Banner is all in English - the language that all nationals and some immigrants can speak - and has been the anthem since before Methuselah hit puberty. And the national pride seeping out of America's every pore means that most babies can sing the anthem before they can identify their parents. Although Aguilera's parents were (legal) immigrants, she was born American, is American, has been educated American... in fact she's probably had American rammed down her (very talented) throat since she was born. The US is such a deeply proud nation that I find it a hard concept to imagine that anyone who has vocal cords cannot belt out the song at will.

So cocking up a line that sounds the same doesn't mean that Aguilera failed to prepare for the most-watched show on American television. Had she been off-key, then yes, accusations about not taking the occasion seriously enough and under-preparing would have been just. Had she worn the national colours of Cuba, then yes you could accuse her of being all sorts of things. If she was a black folk and a political leader then you could accuse her of destroying the country.

But sometimes people make a mistake when they are singing for the largest crowd in front of which they will ever perform (in this case 111 million people).

And sometimes they just sommer make a mistake for no reason - just ask your average white South African to sing Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika, if you don't know what I mean.

In case you're interested, here is how the USA National Anthem should sound (song starts at about 1.20):

An interesting... self-declared importance

Representative Robert Brady (D, Pennsylvania)

It is often easy to forget that politicians are actually people. Although they may be on TV a lot, they are actually made up of the same substances as the rest of us. They may dine on fine food washed down with fine wines that our tax pays for, but they shit it out like we do. Bar a few people in government, not one of them is more important than you or me.

Now, in the wake of the Arizona shooting, panic-stricken people are knee-jerkngly creating laws which are supposed to avoid the same lunatic running around with a gun: says CNN: "Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania, said he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official."

I think it is easy as an elected official for someone to feel like they are one step above everyone else, that they are a "chosen one" and are far more important to the world than us mere mortals. That they are irreplaceable. But no, they are none of these things - particularly a man who is anonymous to just about anyone outside the borders of Pennsylvania.

Why is that law not being extended to cover all people? From what I interpret from Representative Brady's quote is that it is ok to incite violence or use language or symbols that could be percieved as threatening towards people that are NOT members of Congress or federal officials.

If anyone is looking for indications that politicians feel a rung above the rest of us plebs then this proposed law is probably it. It is easy to forget that 6 other people died in the Tucson shooting, but Rep. Brady is out to protect the - alive - elected officials only.

That being said, this shooting was terrible. And while everyone is shitting all over Sarah Palin for her image of the USA with targets on it (which she denies are cross-hairs but they quite obviously are), I really don't think that people will find proof that she encouraged this sort of behaviour intentionally. Yes, a lot of political communication is irresponsible, even in South Africa - look at just about anything Julius Malema says, or how Helen Zille aims massively loaded political terms like "Marxism" at the ANC.

Arizona is rife with hysterical political media, and while there may be a lackadaisical approach to understanding what the impact of this communication might be, I highly doubt it inspired this chap (Jared Loughner) to go out and try and kill his Democrat representative - unless he was a complete fucking lunatic.

And if he was a complete fucking lunatic then he probably didn't need anyone egging him on, and perhaps he wouldn't have been able to kill 6 people if he didn't have an automatic rifle, nor the Walmart-availability of ammunition. If he had mental problems and this wasn't found out then there is a far more serious flaw in the prevention of crime than there is in political communication.

Oh, hang on... in fact Loughner was removed from the college he attended and told he could only re-enroll if he got "a mental health clearance indicating, in the opinion of a mental health professional, his presence at the college does not present a danger to himself or others,"

So it was known that Loughner was a loony. It was known that he had access to a weapon. It is well-known that ammunition in the USA is as available as milk.

But according to Representative Brady, it is only the lawmakers who should be protected from him.

An interesting... lesson for foreigners

My boyfriend is from the USA, and I take every opportunity to teach him and his kinfolk about South Africa, leaving verbose comments beneath is status. I had an ally teacher today in Kimstories, and this is how the conversation went.

BF's status was:

Don't know why people were scared to come to Johannesburg for the World Cup #wc2010. Wal Mart is SO much scarier!!!!

And so the comments beneath, for the benefit of globalisation and learning were as follows:

Simon: There's no elephants in the USA - how can it be scary? There are loads in Jozi. That's why I use Fourways Mall. You can park your elephant for free for 2 hours.

Kimstories: only if it has a dual saddle Simon

Simon: Hahahaha Kim are you joking? Who the hell still uses a single saddle? Durban's not THAT far behind Joburg, surely? By the way I owe you a mail. The post wagon is leaving on Saturday. It should be in Durban by Tuesday.

Kimstories: In Durban our elephants are smaller so we do the single saddle thing. I know - its so embaressing! I iwll look out for the post wagon - i think it will be behind the milk delivery cows

Simon: I tried sending a letter with the milk delivery last week but they get a bit gumpy (it's not really their responsibility, I suppose) so I went with the July post wagon. I am so excited. You know that big-ass building in Joburg where them silver things come out the sky to? They carry post too, but it's expensive.

Kimstories: the milk delivery doesn't come from jhb to durban - they tried that once and now the zuzlus think maas is on purpose

Simon: The post wagon was delayed last month because the zebra that pulls it got sick. It was so hectic. We couldn't send out our financial papyrus. The Durban hunter-gatherers owe us three fish and two cows in interest.

Kimstories: you guys charge some scary interest rates. i have been asked to negotiate a sugar cane settlement (and thats not a place people live)

Simon: Last time we went down to the sugar cane fields the elephants wouldn't go into it because of the cane rats. Why do we use animals who are scared of rodents as transport?

Kimstories: don't blame the rats for the elephant neuroses
the elephants are such girls

And this is why the Yanks think we have ellies running down the streets of Joburg. Don't be surprised when the next tourist asks you where the parking lot for them is.

We suck at talking to each other

Last night I was sitting with two Yanks and two Brits chatting about South Africa. One of the things that came up was the process of getting married in Zulu culture, specifically, the practice of lobola. One of the Yanks (Called Yank 1 fro now on) worked with/knew a Zulu woman who was about to get married and had told her that cattle were being passed around (apoplogies, I don't know the ins and outs of the process) for the purpose of her being married to some oke who she had been in a relationship with for a long time.


Yank 1 - who is very pleasant and NOT AT ALL the type of typical Sarah Palin charicature you may fall back on - then said that when she had spoken to the wife-to-be, and while doing so, asked the prospective marryer how much she herself (Yank1) would be worth, and whether it would be more than a chicken. Cue laughter from the other people at the table. Yank 1 then mentioned that the Zulu woman hadn't taken what she said in jest.


My reply was that I could see the Zulu woman's point of view. Someone foreign, white American nogal, was taking the piss out of a very important ritual for Zulu people. Yank 1 certainly did NOT mean anything malicious by it, nor was she trying to make a point. It was just something she had said as a joke. The Zulu woman evidently didn't see it as such, and it showed.


Yank 1 couldn't quite understand this. In fairness, I don't think many people who aren't Zulu (or have similar rituals) would.


I also think that Yank 1 doesn't know what it is like to have been on the receiving end of prejudice. I think it is key. Being prejudiced against makes one defensive.


What may have been meant in jest, was received as some kind of light form of imperialism.
What was intended as a joke was taken as a patronising observation.
What was probably intended as something jovial, was taken as a slight.


Being gay gives me a tiny insight into what it is like being on the receiving end of preconceived ideas, and I have become incredibly defensive before when I percieve a comment to be a slight on me or my peoples - anything that could be interpreted as your way is good and mine is bad or stupid or lame or evil or whatever.


And this reaction is not confined to Zulus and gays. Try Christians, Muslims, farmers, Afrikaners, handicapped folks, people with AIDS, traditional leaders, coloured folks, Durbanites, Jews, French people, New Zealanders, anyone who has ever supported the Lions, Scottish and Welsh people... the list goes on.


(Pretty much everyone except white athiests. They're a weird exception.)


So do I think Yank1 was wrong? No. I am saying that as a white American, she may not know how she is being perceived when jokingly comparing the ancient (black - it is a notable point) process of lobola against being bought for a chicken. And perhaps if the Zulu woman had explained why she felt like she did about it, things would be clearer.


In fact, if everyone spent more time thinking AND explaining, we'd be in a healthier place.


It reinforces the notion I have that we suck at talking to each other. People are never going to understand unless you tell them things. If you just expect them to know things, you're living in La La Land.