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... 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.

The [insert whatever you blame] made me do it

IOL reports that the USA's list of least-loved brands contains McDonalds which critics pan as a "poster child for unhealthy food in America".

I am so bored of this.

Ever since the public and officials decided that it was McDonalds making them fat and not their own greedy selves, fast-food joints have added salads and mielies and vegetables and loads of low-calorie crap onto their menus at very similar prices.

I was just in the States and frequented McDonalds, Wendy's, Taco Bell, Arbees and KFC - ALL of which offer healthier meals than their staple burgers, fried chicken, cheesy beef sandwiches and mayonnaisey Mexican food.

While I sat in them, I watched what people ordered. Believe it or not it seemed that 90% of customers ordered the aforementioned burgers, fried chicken, cheesy beef sandwiches and mayonnaisey Mexican food.

Indeed: people still chose to eat all this terrible unhealthy deliciousness when the healthy stuff was available, advertised and comparable in price. Customers walked into McDonalds and were confronted with choices. They chose. McDonalds did not force them to choose burgers or chicken nuggets. McDonalds offered them salad and mielies instead of chips.

So stop hating on a burger joint when people exercise their own ability to choose to stuff their own faces with burgers.

They day Jean Grey telekeniseses your car to McDonalds and Charles Xavier mind controls you into buying a Big Mac, then I'll retract this.

Until then, stop hating McDonalds. What you are really after is removing people's power to eat what hey want.

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... odd statement from David Cameron

Regarding the hiked-up university tuition fees in the UK which sparked serious protests in Londo yesterday, David Cameron said: "Raising tuition fees will do two things. It will make sure our universities are well funded and we won't go on increasing so fast the fees for overseas students … We have done the difficult thing. We have put up contributions for British students. Yes, foreign students will still pay a significant amount of money, but we should now be able to keep that growth under control."

Let me highlight the important bit here: we won't go on increasing so fast the fees for overseas students

Hi David. Do you know one of the main reasons why the Liberal Democrat hype before the election dampened into the squib which was their portion of the vote? It was their pro-immigration stance that did it.

The people that voted for you? Well they disagree with your lapdog about that particular topic.

And you're from a pretty proud and nationalistic country.

So what did you actually mean? That the British people should pay more to attend British universities but the foreign students won't?

In fairness, Cameron was answering a question directed to him while he is on his trip to China, and the question cold very well have been "Are fees for foreign students also going to increase?" for all I know.

But the Prime Minister should know how that quote might sound to some people.

An interesting...myth buster (long-ass post)

This article was published in Time magazine and managed to annoy me to a fairly large degree. It's by a gay man writing about how and why his relationship ended, and blaming the fact that he is gay, and the structure of gay relationships, as opposed to him taking any responsiblity for how or why his coupledom was removed.

The basic conclusion here is that there are a different set of rules for a relationship in which there are two men, as opposed to a man and a woman. He makes the point that without defined (possibly gender) roles, there is no future possible. Let's take a run through the article with some quotes and I'll show you why he's talking out of his rear end.

I went home with Michael the night we met, and figuratively speaking, I didn't leave again for those 7 1⁄2 years.

It's very important to include this statement to reinforce the fact that gays are all about sex and just bone all the time without giving credence to anything emotional. You know, like how black people steal and Afrikaners are all racists.It's an opening to immediately differentiate the writer from what the reader may be used to.

Things drifted for a while. There was some icky couples counseling ("Try a blindfold") and therapeutic spending on vacations, clothes, furniture. We were lost. The night Michael wouldn't stay up to watch The Office finale with me, I knew I had to move out. Yes, he was tired, but if he couldn't give me the length of a sitcom--Jim and Pam are going to kiss!--then we were really done.

The point is reinforced: you know that gays only care about interior decoration, fashion and showbusiness. Don't you? Same way Americans only care about war and French people stink of garlic. One again, it is the writer forcing upon the reader that he is GAY GAY GAY.

He then has a whole speel about how his life is better because he is now single and the sex is better (ja because that's not a vengeful thing to do, is it?), he went back to gym. Oh, and his evenings contained "moderate drug use" because in case you forgot, he is gay, and a nice cliched gay myth hasn't been in this paragraph yet. Ok, we've finally ascertained that this man is NOT straight and now the article can go on.

Finally I started reading the academic research on relationships, which is abundant and, surprisingly, often rigorous. I wondered whether Michael and I could have done more to save our union. What impact had our homosexuality had on the longevity, arc and dissolution of our relationship? Had we given up on each other because we were men or because we were gay? Or neither? Friends offered clichés: Some people just aren't meant for each other. But our straight friends usually stayed married. Why not us?

Yeh that's it. Some straight people that he knows stayed together but him and his boyfriend broke up. Conclusive evidence in my book. This is also where he begins to ask whether he was personally responsible, or whether it was his gay handicap that prevented him from being together with someone else. Where did he start researching? Dr. David Reuben's Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex. A good modern insight into contemporary sexuality as it was published 41 years ago. Yep, the writer consulted a book published in 1969. You know, back when homosexuality was thought of as a disease. Summed up, this twat's conclusion is that gays cannot have a proper relationship because they are always on the lookout for the next penis. This was in the era where STDs hadn't been discovered yet so excuse my scepticism when it comes to sexual expertise during the hippie era. All of a sardine, after quoting the book,the writer says:

I know now that the book was blithe and stupid, but I think many people, gay and straight, assume gay men are worse at maintaining relationships than straight people are. I needed experts, answers. I was also curious if I should be so upset about my breakup. As a society, we treat single people over 30 with condescension or pity, but maybe the problem was that I had hurtled into a serious relationship too young. I know that in my 20s I had wanted to impress my family and my heterosexual friends with my stability. Maybe I should have waited.

This is where he offers a real morsel of how he's starting to think it's a gay thing: his fwiendy-wiendies didn't think gays could be stable and THAT'S what drove him into a relationship too early. Peer pressure, can't you see? Not love or attraction or chemistry or anything that could apply to heterosexuals too (because they never ever rush into relationships in their 20s which they regret later on). Everyone who gets into relationships too early thinks "maybe I should have waited" but in his case it was because he was gay, not just a person who did something they regret... like everyone else.

Research on gay relationships is young. The first study to observe how gays and lesbians interact with their partners during conversations (monitoring facial expressions, vocal tones, emotional displays and physical reactions like changes in heart rate) wasn't published until 2003, even though such studies have long been a staple of hetero-couple research.

He then goes on to quote that very first study. Not anything that extended from it, but the very first one ever which compared 40 straight couples and 40 gay couples, the conclusion of which said that gays were bad at repairing things that went wrong in relationships and this is where homosexual relationship counsellors should focus.

The therapist Michael and I hired did not encourage us to repair. She didn't have to. Our relationship had become so etiolated and dull that we didn't even have proper fights. We carried an aura of passivity, and the therapist wanted to see passion.

He goes on to say that gay people get off on emotions and tension and straight people don't. So the problem was that this therapist treated them like straight people not that the relationship was already doomed by then. Or dull. Or just a normal relationsip that ended because the twosome grew apart.

For gays, it is apathy that murders relationships, not tension. Straight people more often prefer a lento placidity.

No margins are given here as results of this small study. How many of the 80 couples exhibited this? Was it 22 vs 23? 12 vs 36?

It just sounds like such a generalised statement lifted off a study I don't feel is big enough. Surely all relationships have their own ebb and flow?

Now we get into complete and utter bullshit:

No one is sure why gay men are worse at making up after fights, but I have a theory: it's less important for their sex lives. Probably because they don't have women to restrain their evolutionarily male sexual appetites, gay men are more likely than straight and lesbian couples to agree to nonmonogamy, which decreases the stakes for not repairing.

So, gays fight differently to straight people because to feel better they can just run out of the door and bang someone else. The assumption here that gay men do not give a flying toss about how their partner feels? The assumption that the relationship doesn't matter because we won't run out of people to shag? And on that note, straight people never go looking for others to bone? To say that gay men put so much emphasis on getting a leg over with no regard for emotions and feelings is condescending, incorrect, and a somewhat bitter statement.

Finally, I think gay and lesbian couples may prefer more heart-racing during conflict because of what happens to gays and lesbians as kids. Although the world is changing--more than 3,700 schools now have student clubs that welcome gays--many gay kids still grow up believing that what they want is disgusting. They repress for years, and when they finally do have relationships, they need them to carry sufficient drama into those emotional spaces that were empty for so long. Gays need their relationships to scorch.

By virtue of being gay in a straight world, it is possible that tension could result in later feelings toward and away from certain aspects of life, like relationships. I find it difficult to believe that this transcends the sexual preference barrier though. Surely kids (and adults, I suppose) who grow up under any kind of uncomfortable circmstance could have this kind of influence affect them? I find it difficult to believe that gay men may react differently in later life if they faced serious prejudice and consternation when they were younger. The same way a child with an abusive father may act differently to someone who didn't have that kind of characteristic in his or her life. I hardly believe this is exclusive to homosexuals as a group and is far more applicable on a specific personal basis.

Penutimate paragraph: Today Michael and I are friends. On Christmas Eve, we gathered a group, and I made an enthusiastic attempt at the traditional Italian seven-fishes feast. I'm in better shape now than I was in high school, which fits with psychologist Bella DePaulo's finding (in her fascinating 2006 book on single life, Singled Out) that the period around divorce is associated with improvements in health. Divorced men are also, not surprisingly, happier than men stuck in bad marriages.

Once again, not one thing he mentions here applies exclusively to gays. Once again, I think that the writer and Michael broke up becaue of normal relationship reasons and not because they were gay. The reactions to the break up from the writer are certainly bog-standard for people in general.

And yet if ours had been a straight marriage, I have little doubt we would still be together. We had financial security and supportive families. We almost certainly would have had children. This isn't regret--fighting my homosexuality would be like shouting against the rain. But while the researchers are certainly right that straight couples have something to learn from gay couples, I think the inverse is true as well.

Financial security and supportive families does not a happy marriage make. There are so many aspects to marriage and coupledom - finances and family being two of them - and they don't all have to go wrong for problems to develop. Loads of couples with fiscal security and familes that love them dearly break up. And it's not the pure fact of being gay that drove them to do it. There are a host of reasons that it could have been, and to tie it up in homosexuality is insulting, condescending, and, dare I say it, bitter.

But it's much easier to blame it on something like that, hey?

An interesting... cabinet

In the spirit of Gwen Ramokgopa being elevated to the second most important health position in South Africa after confirming (by trial and error) that she is the world's worst mayor, I have decided to create my own cabinet.

President: Me
It's my cabinet. So in the game I am the president.

Vice president: Mike
I want a two-income family.

Minister of Sport: Herschelle Gibbs
I would like to pick someone with an honourable past. Someone whose reputation was never questioned, who never took illegal substances, who could always be relied on by his country...

Minister of Security: Lolly Jackson
Such a controversial figure who managed to remain out of harm's way all these years.

Sorry, what? Oh.

Minister of Communications: Floyd Shivambu
Outside spelling, reason and the ability to argue a point, this man was born to write press releases. Number 2 in the Communications Ministry will be whoever is in charge of marketing at Cell C.

Minister of Health: Gwen Ramokgopa
I have decided to promote her. So many people died during the Mbeki years and I feel like I wouldn't be able to match his efforts unless I also put a real nincompoop in charge.

Minister of Ruling until Jesus Comes: Ray Macauley
Seriaas - the amount of money he makes for his church? Imagine what he could make for government. I mean the people.

Minister of Women, Children and the Handicapped: Josef Fritzl
He knows how to keep them happy and reproductive - even with each other. And it wouldn't matter if they are handicapped because they live in a basement.

Minister of Agriculture: Leon Schuster
I know Afrikaners love Leon Schuster. And they love farming. So this appointment is for them.

Minister of Inter-cultural Relations: Sarah Palin
I wanted someone with a real open mind. You know, the type who really just get other people and don't fall back on knee-jerk prejudices. And she's smokin'. This is such a big portfolio though that I decided to hire the entire management of the BMF to work with her. And SASCO. Hahaha ok I'm done now.

Minister of gays Moving Images: Barry Ronge
We do require someone to push the agenda of gays movies, organise great gay movie parties, invite other gays celebrities and get them to strip to music teach us about this popular subculture art while we drink champers eat popcorn.

Minister of Foreign Affairs: Khanyi Mbau
It's a play on words people.

Anyone else you think we should add?

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... willy nilly flight schedule

Jacob Zuma, in Cairo for a high-level state visit, has publically announced that infrastructure has contributed to holding back development of trade in Africa. He specifically mentioned air travel and the lack of direct flight routes within our continent being a concern:

"If you wanted to reach some countries on the continent, you'd have to go to Europe first, then sleep on the way, wake up in the morning, wait until sunset and then fly back to Africa. That must come to an end." (quote pinched from Fin24's report (and to be fair, he also said a load of other stuff too)).

In doing so, Zuma has made it clear that he has no idea how airlines or air travel works. Firstly (small point), he is in Cairo, from which there is a direct and daily Egypt Air flight to Johannesburg. Ahem, it's our own SAA that doesn't fly to Cairo.

Secondly, airlines run on tiny margins, so routes that don't make money are cut, and cut swiftly. If there is no direct flight between Gabarone and Ouagadougou, it is because the route is not commercially viable. Once cannot expect an airline to make a loss just so we can fly direct everywhere.

One of the reasons Zuma lists transfers in Europe (for some reason not mentioning the Middle East) is because there is commerical traffic between African cities and European ones. There is enough to justfy a route between Lagos and London with British Airways, for example. There is also enough to sustain a route between Durban and Dubai (on Emirates). Frankfurt and Addis Ababa (Lufthansa). Madrid and Casablanca (Iberia). Paris and Algiers (Air France). And so these are the large flight centres we use if SAA or one of the big other African airlines can't deliver us there.

All of these major European and Middle Eastern airlines fly to other African destinations, so the Emirates flight from Durban can link us up with Khartoum. I don't see enough traffic between the Banana Boys and one of the world's worst summer holiday destinations to make that a viable route, but as both sustain enough traffic to make a route to Dubai viable, it works.

If Zuma wants these direct routes he should start by making our perenial somehow-loss-making-even-though-it-has-amazing-and-busy-routes parastatal to start hooking up with African centres.

There is no SAA flight route between Johannesburg and Cairo (although there is codeshare with Egypt Air), or Joburg and Kigali, Abuja, Abidjan, Tripoli, Algiers or anywhere in Morocco. Why do you think this is, Mr Zuma?

SAA only serves about 40 destinations (excluding Star Alliance partners). Kenya Airways (with Sky Team alliances) and Ethiopia Airlines serve about 50 destinations.

Now, compare that with British Airways which serves 370, Lufthansa which operates routes incorporating 202 cities on its own. Emirates flies to over 100. Is it any surprise that decent flight connections to African destinations sometimes involve leaving the continent? Can I hear a resounding NO?

Mr Zuma, if you want direct flight routes around Africa, develop the trade. Set the gound work. Build the relationships. Due to profitability opportunity and gaps in the market, the airlines will follow you.

Do not expect them to lead the way.