Monday, October 31, 2005
One of the high points of my weekend started off as just taking Elisabeth for a drive but ended up as one of the most impressive restaurant experiences I've ever had in Cape Town.
Elisabeth and I were driving down Sea Point main road on an Ice-cream outing when we noticed that Saul's had opened a new sushi bar, the sign outside said something like "all the size and quality you've come to expect form Saul's". For those of you who don't know of Saul's, they claim to have the biggest and best burgers in Cape Town. I've only ever been there once, with my brother, but I remember that it was impressive. We decided to drive to the end of the road and then on the way back stop for a small sushi snack before Ice-cream. Unfortunately though the new place wasn't open yet as they are still waiting for the gambling licence, it's a las vegas themed sushi bar.
We ended up taking our excursion further up the road to an interesting little place we had spotted called 'Soju' advertising Korean sushi. This place is Da Bomb!!! We each ordered only one item off the sushi menu, because it was only supposed to be an impromptu sushi snack, the hosts still gave us the complementary miso soup. I remembered something from my time in Korea, every restaurant served a cooled tea at the table instead of water, and asked about it, we got that too. We were so impressed by the attitudes of the hosts, they were really happy that we were showing an interest, that we decided to actually stay for supper. Elisabeth has some more sushi and I had some Korean porky goodness that came with side dishes and everything. Afterwards we were given slices of watermelon as desert, also complimentary. This was the closest thing to the restaurants in Asia that I have ever experienced, it was great. It all only cost R160, which is very little when you consider it was starters and main and desert. And the hosts were like supper impressed when I thanked them in Korean. That place rocks, I will be going there again.
IN THE NEWS
Government is trying to legalise spying on private telephone and email conversations. I don't know how much this will really affect me, but it sure as hell flies against our constitutional right to privacy. This is one of the most important rights we have, when they start taking that away from us what will be next?
Archeologist finds lost European Pyramids. This in itself is no great news story, but what interests me is that a quick thinking local businessman has bought the land where they suspect that the still buried entrance to the pyramid will be. That's a lesson, always be on the look out for opportunity.
So are the days of Zuma's life! This is another boring story about the JZ saga, the only reason I post it here is to point out some irony. Asked in parliament what his stance on JZ disturbing the peace and inciting violence was, Thabo said:
"In any instance where the law might be broken, I am sure that the police would take the necessary action to deal with that."
Hey Thabo, isn't that what we're trying to do against ol' JZ for corruption? Police intervention seems to have helped so far, yeah right!
Students have independently launched a satellite into orbit. They may not have been the first non-governmental satellite owners, but I think it's pretty impressive.
Star Trek Actor Gay. When I first read this headline I assumed it was just confirming everything we already knew about Will Wheaton, but I was wrong. George Tekai, Cpt Sulu, has come out of the closet. Finally we know why he never made it with Uhura. All day he must have been thinking: "Damn you Spock, curse your emotionless vulcan genes, my love will never be returned!" Anyway, good for him for finally being brave enough, can you imagine if he'd come out in the 70's? As a Gay, Sci-Fi Geek he would have endured double beatings! Will, now that George has started the trend, don't you think you should do the manly thing?
In honour of George I'm linking you back to the looter guy pic where he stared in Star Trek. Poor George, it was his head they chopped off.
SPEAKING OF LOOTER GUY
And remember That I've just posted fridays pic too, scroll down to check it out.
Yes folks, it's Halloween today. The staff in the lunch room went to extra effort today and converted it into a haunted house complete with costumes and decorations. The food was themed to tie in too, I had the "bat wing casserole". It was yummy. I think I'll buy some sweets on the way home to hand out incase any kids come trick or treating.
Friday, October 28, 2005
As some of you may or may not know my present handset has proved to be too delicate for my "overenthusiastic" use. At the moment I'm sitting with a useless piece of junk that only works like 40% of the time, if I'm lucky. The thing that really upsets me though is that currently I can get a standard weekend contract with two new phones and a PSP, but I'm not eligible for an upgrade until march. By which time they probably wont be offering PSPs for free with cell phones. Anyway I'm still hopping.
IN THE NEWS:
'Parking Piracy' at Fountain Square. If you've paid for parking at the Fountain Square in the last six months you've been ripped of, here's the gist of it. The guy who operates the parking lot at the fountain square, Jerome Naidoo, does not actually have any right to do so. He has no lease from the council and is basically stealing your money. So go on, tell the Nigerian 'fee collector' that you're not paying, tell me what he has to say.
There is no link for this story because I've only got it in print, but you can read it on the front page of this week's Tattler.
Zuma is having problems funding his court costs. Well maybe he should have thought of that before squandering the millions he's stolen from the South African people. May be that's the problem, if he suddenly comes up with R12m to pay court costs people may ask too many questions about where the money came from. I can't believe it's actually the poorest of the poor supporting this evil bastard. Hold on.... I think that's the SAPS VIP protection unit at the door!
Prince Harry the subject of unwanted sexual attention. The good ol' price was ordered to drop trow while in a parade so that the officer in charge could see if he had his girlfriends name tattooed on his butt. Here's a quote from the article:
"You should have seen Harry's face. We all fell about laughing. Harry blushed, then he also laughed."
It reminds me a line in William Shatner's "common people":
Laugh along with the common people, Laugh along even though they're laughing at you
Ok so it was Pulp.
The petrol price seems to be coming down by 32c per litre. What, are we not expected to notice that they've pushed it up like a buck fifty in a year? Oil prices are relatively stable now and the rand is better than it was before. What is keeping the prices so high? Is it a coincidence that the drop is so close to the amount charged for the RAF? Has the DME been reading my blog? Sadly probably not on both counts.
Well it's the weekend, I have no plans, but I'm very sure I'm going to be busy the whole time! Good luck to Moonflake for your trip and your short period in NY. You'll be there for Halloween, capitalise!
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Hey all, It's been a slow week, I've had access to all sorts of sites here because for some reason the firewall is down and I've spent most of my free time checking out things like the Straight Dope instead of posting to the blog. Access to TSD has inspired me to again take up the challenge and revive the SchpatDope. Watch this space.
I've actually enjoyed this whole tagging thing, I've found out some interesting things about my friends, all of which endear them more to me. I like TotalWaste's idea of doing this semi-regularly, because since I've done my list I've thought of a hundred other things to say, but I think six months or so should pass first.
Talking about what friends have divulged on their lists, and in light of what Moonflake said I saw an interesting Oprah show last night. Yes occasionally I'll watch the Oprah show if the topic interests me. Anyway the show was about how the clothes you wear can really affect the way you look. Duh right? Well it was more in-depth. There is this pair of British women, Trinny and Susannah, who write books and host a tv show on practical style a fashion. They showed how clothes can be really unflattering and that by simply following some simple guidelines women were able to enhance their figures. One of the things I thought was really neat was that they showed themselves dressed in unflattering clothing while trying for a popular look (white shirt blue jeans) and just by changing the style and shade of jeans improved the overall effect. You won't catch those Queer-Eye dudes using themselves as test subjects! Another interesting thing was that all the outfits they recommended (they rounded up fashion victims in malls and gave them clothing makeovers) were timeless, i.e. not super fashionable and would look as stylish today as they did twenty years ago. But the most interesting thing, and the tie in to Moonie's list, is that 85% of women are wearing the wrong size bra!!!! That's alarming and the bust makeovers were by far the most astounding. I took mental notes on bra fitment tips and techniques so if any of you ladies out there need any advice, who you gonna call? I'm serious here btw, I'm not being lecherous I do actually have your
IN THE NEWS
Paris Hilton is in trouble again. Apparently her boyfriend’s ex-fiancé is suing her for liable and slander. My question who cares? Unless they both end up naked and wrestling in some tasty lubricating substance, and only if the other girl is hot (because Paris isn't), why are people so interested in her life. This is a woman who advises girls to act stupid because it's easier than actually having to understand what people are trying to explain to you. Gee, you unwittingly star in one pornography movie and the world loves you?
Rio is banning postcards depicting bikini wearing lovelies on their beaches. The town fathers believe that these sort of postcards are sending the wrong message to tourists and that people are coming to Rio for the sexual tourism. They don't seem to understand that having a bunch of cheap hookers hanging around the city is probably doing a lot more to promote that idea than any postcard. Also someone should explain to them that people buying these post cards are already in Rio.
Two idiots plan to sail around the world. Ok I paraphrased that head line, but I can't think of any other way to describe this pair. Reid Stowe and Alejandro Molina have decided to circumnavigate the globe in a 21 meter schooner. This in itself is no big deal but the fact that they plan on it taking 1000 days is another matter, they also are not going to make landfall at any point and won't dock with other boats for re-supply or any other reasons.
At first I thought that these guys were a "couple" in the sexual sense but the fact that they are both heterosexual makes it even more perplexing because they are voluntarily giving up sex for almost three years. When asked about why there were no female members on the crew Stowe commented: "There were some women who wanted to go, but not the right ones." He didn't elaborate. As another example of their insanity, as if you needed it, here is a short quote from the article:
"Eating sprouts could cure you of everything," he said, unveiling six small plastic boxes from which he intends to reap a year-round harvest of healthy seedlings.
On the upside apparently NASA has caught wind of their folly and decided to use them for experimentation on the psychological effects of living for long periods in isolated close proximity. Good luck boys!
HERE'S LOOTIN' AT YOU KID
Wow, a much longer blog post than I expected. I suppose stuff is happening around me! Anyway apparently I have a duel to fight now, it's either kill or be killed in that imaginary world.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
I have been appointed as Fire Marshal for my floor. Basically this means that when there is a fire drill I get to wear a day-glo orange vest, a day-glo yellow helmet and use a walkie-talkie and loudhailer while ensuring that everybody on my flood evacuates the building. I thought it was a cool idea and even when I mentioned that it meant I'd be in the best position for looting so did my boss. By the way, I'd only really do any looting if there actually was a fire that was about to destroy everything anyway. And in case you're wondering, I will have more respect with day-glo clothing and a loudhailer, people will respect mah authritah!
And speaking of looting:
It's been a slow news week, but here are a few stories that have caught my interest:
Secret codes in printers can allow tracking
IOL today reports that manufactures of colour laser printers have colluded with the US Government in order identify individual printers in the same way that imperfections in old style typewriters can be used to track those. Apparently really small dots are used to code make, model, serial number and time of printing every time a print is made. Manufacturers are not denying this, just giving the normal "no comment". Obviously civil rights groups and conspiracy theorists are up in arms.
Mob beats alleged thief to death
What from the headline appears to be a total barbaric killing of an innocent, actually turns out to be the total barbaric killing of a guilty person. While I believe the guilty should be punished, mob violence scares me, just imagine people getting out of a taxi just joining in the "fatal beating" without knowing all the details, if it doesn't scare you let me know. As an aside, I hate this new politically correct speak that uses words like alleged and suspected even when it's absolutely obvious what the person did, look out for it, you'll know it when you see it.
Man held after failing illegal alien 'test'
Yet another reason I don't trust the police. What happens if Detective Sergeant Pogenpoel decided that my accent sounds too British, does the same thing happen to me? It sounds a lot like these cops have a side business and arrest people at random hopping to elicit a bribe, those that refuse to pay are simply released later after being roughed up a bit. If you missed the reference to not trusting the police it's all about the "offending drivers" round-up they did in restaurants a few months ago. Actually, come to think of it, weren't most of the people rounded up illegal?
I've recently been tagged by a bleeme (that's blog meeme) and although I don't usually respond to these kind of things I will to this one. TotalWaste didn't really explain the rules, but from checking out the chain I think I've worked it out, here they are: Link to the person who tagged you; compile 20 random facts about yourself that people may be interested to know; tag as many people as it took you in minutes to compile the list; link to those people thus ensuring the chain!
1. I hate it when people use “Quantum Leap” to mean a big change, I know the common usage is now prevalent, but a quantum is small damn it!.
2. This morning I bought a whole fillet of Norwegian salmon and repackaged it into smaller portions, my hands still smell like fish
3. I gave my first girlfriend a bracelet that I bought from some kid who "sold jewellery", it was real cheap and in retrospect I've always thought that he had stolen it. Hey I was like 12!
4. When writing something I often change the word I was intending to use because I don't know how to spell it.
5. My first cat's name was 'Pepper" and my first dog's name was 'Sam'.
6. I'm still sometimes have an irrational fear of the dark, this also happens sometimes when I'm not sure what is behind me.
7. I wish I had some kind of artistic ability.
8. I'm glad I have the leet power to organise the shit out of stuff, sometimes I even impress myself with this.
9. I wish I had worked harder at Varsity, I believe that I could have had just as much fun without sacrificing my studies as much.
10. I work better under a deadline.
11. I need to lose weight, I know it, I accept it, I want to do it, I just can't bring myself to eating small quantities of crap food.
12. I have goals, they involve me being financially well off, I'm not ashamed about this.
13. Sometime I have major urges to "do the wrong thing", like throwing something voluble out of a window to see what will happen.
14. I like helping others, but sometimes resent the interruptions.
15. I once stole an apple from the fresh produce market, my mother made me take it back and apologise
16. I love Star Trek, but I don't consider myself a "Trekkie"
17. I don't play favourites, I don't have favourite music, songs, artists, books, movies, tv shows. I have ones I hate, dislike, don't care about, like, like alot ands love.
18. I feel that a lot of the time people don't understand me. Not in an existential angsty kind of way, but when I explain stuff they don't know what I mean. If I do stuff sometimes they don't understand why.
19. I don't really remember much unless I'm triggered by something. I can't think of any embarrassing moments (except running naked through a holiday resort at 3am a night shouting at the top of my voice) and I always forget to do things unless reminded.
20. I lied, I've filled out the bleeme, but I'm not passing it on! It ends here!
That's all for today
Friday, October 21, 2005
First of all my apologies to H*, one or two of my points are have come across with way more venom than I intended. Admittedly I'd just driven to PE and back in a 72 hour period with only 8 hours of sleep in the middle. I know this is no excuse, so I'm still apologising. I am still looking forward to your responses to my points though.
Now some replies:
Dude, double negatives are confusing me, I'm still really tired!
Before I respond to your criticism of my post, I would like to clarify that the post on my blog, to which d@vid has linked, is completely unrelated to this discussion. It was inspired by an argument with considerably less sane and educated people than any of you, which should be obvious from the kind of behaviour that it makes fun of. I don't have to explain this, but I would like to, out of politeness. And no, none of this has been a "social experiment"; I do not play stupid mind games with people.
Never actually thought that for a second, It is a pretty funny coincidence though.
You want me to explicitly state which statement of Moonflake's is demonstrably false? OK, here we go:
"You break an arm, a leg, and your face is scarred for life." (...)
"Does the Road Accident Fund pay out? NO."
I believe that this statement would be interpreted by any English-speaking person as implying that the RAF does not pay out for the medical costs associated with broken limbs or facial scarring, especially since the separate issue of paying out for emotional damage suffered is addressed in the next point.
This would naturally be alarming to just about anyone if it were true, but it is not - it isn't even what is claimed in the writeup supporting the petition. This is, however, presented as a supporting fact, not an opinion. Is that clear enough for everyone?
Ok, that's great, if people actually tell others which part of their discussion they are disagreeing with then it becomes much easier to understand where they are coming from and argue the actual points. The problem here is that what moonflake said might be true depending on the way the law is interpreted. (I'm not going into it too much here, but laws are a set of rules that are interpreted by the courts to determine the meaning.) Here is what the Johannesburg Attorneys Association have to say on the matter.
"Section 21 of the Bill removes the common law right to claim for anything that the Road Accident Fund does not pay out, and Section 17 provides that the Road Accident Fund will only be liable to compensate for "a serious injury". What is a serious injury you ask? A serious injury is defined as being, in the draft of 31 August 2005, assessed "... on a prescribed method adopted after consultation with medical service providers". These medical practitioners will have to be accredited with the Road Accident Fund "... in the prescribed manner".
Sources close to the Law Society advise that almost every injury that you sustain in an accident, short of those that essentially ruin the rest of your life, will be excluded and you can rest assured that you will be receiving no compensation if "all" you suffer, as a result of an accident, is a few broken arms and legs and a couple of months only of hospitalization and no work. "
So basically these guys think that Moonflake is right. Because these guys represent more than 3000 Lawyers in Jo'burg, I think they are more qualified than any of us here to interpret the bill.
Me: When you state your opinion in a public forum, people are going to disagree with you.
You: Well no, they might also agree with her.
See, what you are doing here is bizarrely misinterpreting my statement. Perhaps I should again be more explicit. I meant to say "If you state your opinion in a public forum, it is to be expected that some people will disagree with you and say so", not "Clearly everybody is going to disagree with you because you are evidently wrong", as you seem to believe.
Fair enough, sorry.
You: You see what you are doing here is implying that she is wrong, but because you do not actually reference her position you give her no option to defend her it.
I apologise profusely; I thought it was obvious from the prior comments which statement I found objectionable. I have just clarified what it was.
Also Fair enough apology accepted.
You: So you've already attacked Moonflake's integrity and credibility, now you use a classic "Guilt by Association" fallacy to say "Moonflake sucks, therefore her opinion is wrong! Nice going.
Ah, thank you for putting words in my mouth again. I was criticising the way Moonflake responds to dissenting opinions, on the basis of the exchanges of comments that I have read in her blog. This is an entirely separate issue to the facts surrounding the RAF, and the part where I say "Ha! I don't approve of the way you argue with people, therefore your opinion is wrong!" exists entirely in your mind. You know, it is possible to address multiple offshoots of a discussion in a single comment, without blending all of them into a single unified statement of "You suck!" or "You are totally right about everything!"
Ok, I'm sorry if I read this incorrectly but when you say something like "usually, it seems, right after someone has brought forward an argument you can't adequately answer" you directly imply that Moonflake can not adequately answer the arguments currently put to her, to me that means you think she is wrong.
I disagree with many of Moonflake's opinions. I also agree with some of them. I don't think that I have been any more rude while disagreeing than she has been in the past.
Fair enough, I'm sorry I might have overreacted but when you say things like "Some people, when presented with evidence that they have stated something as fact which is not actually true, try to rectify the error, so that they do not wilfully perpetuate misinformation." and "The point is to determine what is true and what isn't - for some people, at least." the emotionally charged phrase "some people" implies that those would be the actions of a good/honest/decent person, i.e. what you would do. When you are expressly pointing out things that you feel Moonflake has not done you are therefore implying that she does not fall into the abovementioned category. Again just to be completely clear up until this point Moonflake has not been presented with any evidence that what she has stated is incorrect, only the opinion that someone feels that she is incorrect.
I'm not going to defend H*'s original post here, since he is perfectly capable of doing that if he wants to, except to say that your entire counter-argument also seems to rest on accusing him of opinions that he has never expressed - namely, passing some kind of nebulous value judgement on the wealthy.
No need for you to defend H*'s post, he's a big boy and I know that he can defend himself unless I've brought forward an argument he can't adequately answer! (I just couldn't resist the baiting, but I am only teasing. I realise that just because he doesn't answer me doesn't mean that I'm automatically right. I'd really like to hear his feelings on my points though.)
But to answer your point: You say my entire counter argument rests on accusing him of unexpressed opinions about the deservedness of the wealthy. In fact only three, out of seventeen, of my points answer issues of wealth. The first time I use an example to show that everyone does not contribute to the fund equally. In the second point I try to explain that under our common law people are entitled to compensation for loss, no matter how big that loss is, nobody deserves to be compensated more than anyone else, some people are simply entitled to more compensation than others. And finally the third time I point out that the fact that the limit for claims is set way above the average income does not make it a good thing.
You have convoluted two very different issues: "Is it good for people to be reimbursed for their full loss of income, and emotional damages suffered, as a result of their involvement in road accidents?", and "Should it be the government's responsibility to reimburse these amounts?", which is more to the point.
I don't feel I've convoluted these issues. They are two separate issues. It IS the governments responsibility to protect the citizens. As part of that protection they have instituted laws to stop protect people from harm, these laws cover topics such as sale of drugs/alcohol/tobacco, use of firearms and insurance of road users. Should the government do this? Well that's something you can debate with John Stuart Mill. The fact is that the government has taken on this responsibility and they should do it properly, but that's a new issue. My feelings about what should be paid for have already been stated. The issue is however that while the government has accepted responsibility for the public they are now trying to get out of paying what they are entitled to receive.
I'll end with a thought experiment: A man causes a road accident by colliding with another vehicle. Two streets down, another man causes the exact same kind of accident by colliding with another vehicle. The first man collides with a department store clerk driving a beaten up old golf. The second man collides with the CEO of a multinational company driving a brand new BMW.
Again I'll answer each of your questions separately
Is the second man's crime more severe?
No, and unless he was actually breaking the law at the time he has in fact committed no crime and will not be liable for prosecution. For simplicity lets just say that this is the case in the above scenario, no laws were broken.
If yes, why?
If not, why should he be liable for a monetary punishment hundreds of times higher than that of the first man?
While no crime has been committed loss has however been suffered. Let's separate this into three different categories: medical damages, vehicular damages and financial loss.
Medical: Again for simplicity I'm going to assume that the medical damage is the same and costs the same to fix, fair enough? No difference there.
Vehicular: Let's say both guys cars are written-off, should they both be replaced. Well yes, it doesn't matter that one guy caused R50 000 damage and the other R250 000, both owners are entitled to have their cars replaced. This is easy enough to understand and seems perfectly fair. I know that this damage is not covered by the RAF but it serves as an analogy for the next point.
Financial: Let's say that both injured drivers take a year to recover and during that time can not work. Are they both entitled to be compensated for the money they could have earned during that year. Neither party should have to suffer for an action that was not caused by them.
Is it ethical for the law to force the second man into indentured servitude for the rest of his life so that he can repay his vast debt to the CEO?
Well no, in such a case the courts would probably assess the wrongdoer's means and make him sell assets to cover the costs and if that didn't cover those costs then attach a portion of his salary every month. While the driver here is not going to be happy he is still able to live relatively well (because the courts will not cripple him), but the injured driver is going to suffer.
If not, should the responsibility for paying the debt fall to the government?
Should the debt be paid by the government, no!
If not, where should the money come from?
The insurance that every driver is forced to buy every time he fills his tank should cover him for the damages sustained to the person he has injured. This protects him and the injured party. He does not have to sell his house and the injured party should be compensated for his loss, it's part of the government looking after the citizens. Just remember that the law does not provide that the government pay for the loss, but that the RAF pay for the loss. The RAF is not the government, it is a compulsory insurance that is administered by the government, just like telkom was a communications company administered by the government and transnet was a railway company administered by the government. If the government were paying it would have to pay with tax revenue (this would not be fair), the RAF pays with insurance premiums collected when fuel is purchased. As an aside this one of the reasons farmers receive a subsidy on diesel, because their farm equipment is not run on the roads and is not covered by the RAF.
Confluence, I hope you read this last part of my post and comment on my answers maybe your responses will help me better understand your position.
Here's a looter guy for ya
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Well, here is it:
You seem to have horribly misrepresented the RAF amendments.
Ok I'll bite, lets see where?
Ok, so as far as I can tell you have a problem because you can't see anything on the site that supports the following sentence:
"Broken arms, legs and facial scarring will no longer be considered serious enough for the fund to pay out." from the original blog post.
Well because Moonie is a FRIEND of mine I'm going to assume that she actual has a reference for that statement and didn't just pull it out of her Haa-Haa! As far as I can tell that's the only thing you have a reference problem about, by the way, you weren't really all that clear about that.
From the StopTheBill site you link to:
Removes money for pain and suffering from almost all categories of injuries ... . Pain and suffering refers to emotional trauma suffered as the result of injury. The RAF will still pay out for the medical expenses required to treat the injury and will still pay out disability benefits.
OK great so nothings changed here right? Well not on the face of it, read on for more details.
Claiming for emotional stress is such a load of BS I'm happy to see it go.
Well glad you're altogether reasonable about this "debate". Yeah that's what you're doing, stating nothing but the facts, no unsubstantiated opinions here. I'm sure that if you were hit by a car and left paralysed you'd have absolutely no emotional distress right. You'd just go, "Oh thanks for paying my medical bills, and that disability allowance of R500 pm is really doing the trick for me. Oh never mind that I can't talk with out mechanical aid, and I shit my diapers all the time and need a nurse to change me and wipe my arse! Dignity, nah, that's overrated!"
Just to be fair I will explain that when I studied law you were not able to claim for emotional distress for a delictual offence anyway, because the cash value could not be determined. Admittedly that was eight or nine years ago and we do have a whole new constitution, so anyway. I always hated the idea of not being paid for emotional stress, I suppose it's because of a little emotion called compassion!
Limits loss of income to approximately R13 000 a month. Since everyone is paying similar amounts to the fund a limit like this seems completely sensible. A flat rate fund like the RAF can't possibly cover loss of income for arbitrary amounts and still remain within its budget.
Surprising little fact here, your above argument makes absolutely no sense what so ever! First of all the RAF is not a "flat rate fund", admittedly they get a certain fixed percentage of what gets spent on petrol, but if you use more petrol you contribute more to the fund. People do not pay similar rates to the fund. The rich capitalist pig, who by the way must be evil, that drives his German engineered luxury SUV 100km to work and back every day contributes a lot more to the fund than a beggar who uses public transport to get to his favourite spot every day, oh yeah I almost forgot: the poor beggar is obviously noble right?
Then consider the fact that the evil capitalist is probably supporting a wife and two point five children. When he is paralysed or killed what should they do? How will they pay for private school or late morning brunches with the other housewives. You see I feel that the people who have worked hard to get to where they are deserve not to have that taken away from them because of a hopped up taxi driver in an unroadworthy vehicle who doesn't even have a licence. Whether a claim is "arbitrary" or not is relative.
Removes your right to get your medical expenses back at the rates charged by private hospitals. No medical aid will pay out medical expenses at arbitrary rates. Even the most expensive Discovery plan will only cover you for 100-150% of the Medical Association rates - beyond that you're dipping into your medical savings account, i.e. your own pocket.
I'm afraid you seem to have totally missed the issue again, you must have been tired when lambasting poor Moonie otherwise you'd probably have picked this up. What a private medical aid will pay has absolutely nothing to do with how much the medical expenses have cost. If the fix you up charge was R400k then you are probably going to end up out of pocket. Why should the innocent victim have to bear these costs? The driver (the offending party) should have to pay them. If he can't afford these costs and has no insurance, this is what the RAF is for. It's a compulsory insurance against injuring someone. That's right, the insurance is not to cover your injury, it's to cover you injuring another party.
Also I'm glad you're happy with the level of service and expertise in public hospitals. Oh I didn't mention that you probably earn too much to qualify for public rates and will have to pay the full medical aid rates anyway. Oh, I suppose the doctors and hospitals are also fleecing you with those "arbitrary" costs. Like a said the question about whether or not a cost is arbitrary is dependant on the situation. You have claimed that these costs are inflated but you haven't given any evidence to support your claims.
Removes your right to recover your damages from the guilty party. This may seem odd at first, but the draft I found explained quite clearly why they feel this is necessary:
I'll answer these points individually
22.3 Leaving this common law right intact has the following disadvantages:
1. This right is of dubious value: it avails nothing if the wrongdoer is uninsured or has no means. The prudent road-user should therefore in any event have in place personal accident insurance to cover his own loss.
The RAF is a compulsory insurance paid by the road user, to protect the rights of other road users. It IS personal accident insurance that should pay for injuries that can not be recovered from the wrongdoer.
2. The right to sue (as victim) carries with it the risk of being sued (as wrongdoer). The prudent road-user should therefore in addition procure legal liability insurance as well, in order to protect his estate against a possibly crippling claim from a high-income person.
These two statements have no bearing on each other. This first one is basically a threat. It's like saying "be careful what you wish for...". You see the thing is that under our legal system If you cause a loss the person who suffers the loss has a right to civil litigation in order to recover that loss. If you are a wrongdoers then you open yourself up to a delictual claim. As far as I'm concerned this seems perfectly fair and there is no reason to change it. This is how the law and our constitution already work, this law would probably be judged unconstitutional by the constitutional court.
The second point in the above statement you should cover yourself for any accidental circumstances that are out of your control. This is a good point, however many South Africans are really poor and are much more interested in placing food on their table than paying insurance premiums. That is why there is a compulsory insurance built into the price of petrol.
3. Legal liability insurance is expensive and not readily available for meaningful amounts, especially in the case of public transport.
Hence a compulsory insurance built into the price of petrol. This is what the RAF is intended to do. How is this an argument against what moonie is saying, the way I read it this supports her view.
4. Legal liability insurance is not available for unlimited amounts. Cover as high as R5 million remains virtually meaningless in the face of a claim for R20 million or multiples thereof.
This point is really only a repeat of the one above, only with some arbitrary figures tacked onto the end. Again this just supports the fact that there should be a well administered, compulsory government insurance for accidents on the road. This argument is actually a "straw man" type fallacy, basically they are saying that because R20 million rand (or multiples thereof) would not be covered by R5 million insurance, nothing should be covered. I feel that if the R20 million (or multiples thereof) are justified expenses they should be covered.
22.4 Government therefore believes that the population at large would be better served if the common law right in this respect be abrogated. A similar situation exists in respect of injuries and diseases contracted in the course of employment (Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993).
They are right here, a similar situation does exist with act 130 of 1993. This act provides that employees can not sue their employers for injury incurred during the normal course of their work because they are able to claim these amounts from the Workman's Compensation Fund. The WCF is again a compulsory insurance paid by the employer to ensure that the employee's rights are protected.
There are a couple of minor exceptions however, while the fund will compensate am employee for any accident that occurs during the normal course of their work, they are able to claim from the employer if the accident was caused by negligence on behalf of the employer. Here the employee's rights are being protected.
Essentially, if you want more cover than the RAF provides, get medical and life insurances. The alternative is for every driver to get legal liability insurance for huge amounts.
I agree, the government can't be trusted to administer this fund, I don't trust the government with my or my family’s well being, that's why I have insurance for these circumstances. (btw the R3 million personal injury insurance I have costs me R2 per month). The point however is that there is already compulsory insurance that I pay whenever I buy petrol, in fact I pay almost as much for this insurance every time I fill my tank as I do for a whole year of my personal insurance. Seeing that I fill my tank about four times a month I pay about R910 a year for this insurance, or about thirty eight times as much per year as I do for my personal insurance. In view of those figures the RAF should cover any injury I cause to an innocent, and conversely any injury caused by a wrongdoer (who pays the same levy for each litre of fuel) to me or my family, or anybody else for that matter.
Whether or not the RAF is mismanaged is a separate issue to whether or not the bill should be stopped. Let's try stay on topic. Also, it's obvious that good management is better than bad and that fraud and corruption should be rooted out. Stating this doesn't make you case any stronger.
Well, you see, I feel you are wrong here, these are not separate issues, the one is the cause of the other. The mismanagement of the RAF is the reason for the bill, fix the cause and not the symptom.
The RAF does currently have problems with large pay outs to foreigners, high income earners and people suing for emotional trauma.
Did these people suffer loss? Are they less deserving of full compensation because they were better off than the average? Be very careful, this argument looks a lot like it might be classism. The argument that people who used to earn more don't deserve to have their full loss covered because they were once well off is just absurd. Remember that the people who are better off have probably worked very hard to get there. The gist of our common law, and constitution, is that if a person has suffered a loss they should be able to seek restitution from the offending party. If the offending party is unable to restore the previous position then they have no further recourse and would suffer. To prevent this kind of thing happening the government implemented a compulsory insurance levy on the price of fuel, to protect the injured parties rights.
Non-governmental medical aid and insurance companies have structures in place for dealing with the very same issues the bill addresses. Why would the government not need to put similar restrictions in place?
Well the government has not had to put these kind of restrictions in place before. The RAF has been successfully maintained for years, before huge losses have forced it to try and restrict compensation. The fact that less than half the money actually gets paid out in claims says something about the problem. Also I don't know if you saw the price comparison above, but the RAF is getting a hell of a lot more than my private insurance company!
It's probably also worthwhile noting that the average citizen you refer to doesn't earn more than R13000 per month, won't have the option of attending a private hospital and can't afford to initiate litigation.
So what, is an injured poor person more deserving than an injured affluent person? Be careful here we are all equal under the law. In my view the poor person deserves service and expertise that is as good as those offered to the affluent person in a private hospital. The fact that they are both in the same predicament does not mean that they should be reduced to the lowest common denominator. Send them both to private hospitals, and pay for it. Like I said the RAF is getting much more than my personal injury insurance, if they were managed as well as this private company I don't see any reason that they wouldn't be able to afford it.
Also, another organisation called Legal Aid will initiate litigation on behalf of those that can not afford it. Your tacit argument is that some people can't afford to sue wrongdoers so nobody should even be allowed to, we should just totally remove that constitutional right! It sounds rather silly when you put it like that doesn't it?
The right we have is to equality before the law. This does not include the right to arbitrary litigation. Careful reasoning is what debate is about, if you're going to abandon it, why bother arguing at all?
Again these two statements don't actually have any bearing on one another. We are all equal under the law, it one of our rights, but by no means the only one! Careful reasoning is what debate is all about, but I fail to see where Moonie abandoned it. In fact up to this point her arguments have been a lot more cogent and based in fact than yours. I suppose it is only her opinion that mismanagement and corruption are the cause of the RAF's financial difficulties, but on the face of it the evidence seems to bear the conclusion out. If you have any other points where you disagree I suggest you actually point out the text that offends.
"If a statement is false, that's the worst thing you can say about it." - Paul Graham
Nice quote, not really applicable, but nice!
What does it matter? Well, some people attempt to base their opinions on facts. Some people, when presented with evidence that they have stated something as fact which is not actually true, try to rectify the error, so that they do not wilfully perpetuate misinformation.
You are right, basing an opinion in fact is a good thing, I don't see where moonie has failed here. Again, specifics people!
Wilfully perpetuate misinformation?? wow this is getting personal. You're actually calling Moonflake a liar. That's not very cool, especially when you haven't even told us what you claim she is lying about. So far here are the facts:
* The RAF has been working for years
* There are a bunch of corruption claims against the RAF
* A significant portion of the cash generated for the RAF goes to "administration" as opposed to paying for legitimate claims
* The RAF is claiming poverty and trying to minimise its responsibility by altering the cover provided.
Moonflake's opinion (freely stated as an opinion and supported by the above incontrovertible facts)
* The reason for the poor state of the RAF is due to the corruption and mismanagement mentioned above
As she will freely admit this is her opinion, YOU claim that she is stating it as a fact. This is a devious little trick because when you call her a liar you call here reliability into question, this sets up better attacks later.
When you state your opinion in a public forum, people are going to disagree with you.
Well no, they might also agree with her. You see what you are doing here is implying that she is wrong, but because you do not actually reference her position you give her no option to defend her it.
If you "aren't interested in having a debate", then why respond? By doing so, you are perforce "having a debate".
How so exactly is "I don't want to have a debate" actually having a debate.? All moonflake is doing is being POLITE by responding. People deserve responses no matter how rude they are or how bad their arguments actually are. By stating that she realises that a respondent’s opinion differs from hers and that while the respondent is entitled to their opinion she is not changing hers she is not in fact participating in a debate.
You play the "I don't want to have a debate" card to attempt to have the last word in a discussion (usually, it seems, right after someone has brought forward an argument you can't adequately answer), so that you can "win" by default.
The point isn't to "win" by screaming the most loudly, or being the last man standing, or having the majority agree with you. The point is to determine what is true and what isn't - for some people, at least.
Preceding these two paragraphs was the set-up, here is the "play at the plate". So you've already attacked Moonflake's integrity and credibility, now you use a classic "Guilt by Association" fallacy to say "Moonflake sucks, therefore her opinion is wrong! Nice going.
<><><>AND AGAIN H*<><><>
Your claim that you have simply stated your opinion is untrue. You have also attempted to justify your opinion with statements that are false.
Again more specifics are required here. You've said it, so why not actually point out the offending prose?
Further, you have used this justification to encourage others to sign a petition.
What justification??? Moonflake stated her opinion and informed her readers of the action she took. She also urged those that felt the same to do likewise. If you do not feel likewise then don’t sign the petition.
I commented only so that your readers might be aware of this and have the option of making a more informed decision.
Well actually your comment was full of your opinions:
* "Claiming for emotional stress is such a load of BS I'm happy to see it go."
* "A flat rate fund like the RAF can't possibly cover loss of income for arbitrary amounts and still remain within its budget."
* "No medical aid will pay out medical expenses at arbitrary rates."
* "The prudent road-user should therefore in any event have in place personal accident insurance to cover his own loss."
* "Legal liability insurance is expensive and not readily available for meaningful amounts, especially in the case of public transport."
* "Essentially, if you want more cover than the RAF provides, get medical and life insurances."
* "The alternative is for every driver to get legal liability insurance for huge amounts."
These were all points of opinion, a mysterious "the draft I found" was your only reference, even then your points didn't really seem like quotes from the draft bill, more like opinions about the bill, if I'm wrong about this I'm sorry.
Implying that your commenters are nuts doesn't make anything they write less true or less valid.
No, their invalid points do a good enough job of that already. Remember that moonflake may have implied that some of the commentators are nuts, but in her defence they did rather rudely call her a bald faced liar, pointing out that they might be a few cards short of a deck is a totally natural response, in my opinion.
Monday, October 17, 2005
"These vans have specialised equipment which enables us to track down TVs and our inspectors have a right to go into these homes and ask for licences. People need to remember that the vehicles do exist and are obviously not conspicuous."
What a joke. Can you imagine a truck that drives around your neighbourhood with electronic equipment that can tell if you have a TV? First of all your television is a passive receiver, that means that it doesn't give off any kind of signal that could be traced. The only two ways that I can think of for a van to "detect" if you have a TV are radiation and sound. Some people claim that a the Cathode Ray Tube used in your average television give off radiation, the Inspector Vans may be scanning for this but that makes you wonder about the real health risks of watching the boob-tube. Also it means that people with plasma and LCD screens, not to mention the various types of projectors are getting away scott free! The TV Inspector Vans might however be using very powerful spying equipment to listen into our homes and check if there are sounds of a television, but this raises all sorts of questions on privacy and our rights. In short the whole "we know who you are, so you'd better own up" is a tactic intended to scare stupid people.
Talking about a waste of money: why the fuck does the South African Department of Road (or whatever they're called) have to adversative on TV? What do we have a choice to use another set of roads? Why didn't anyone tell me about the alternative private road to Jo'burg that was well maintained and didn't have a construction site every 100km. If you haven’t seen the ad yet look out for it: it has a guy hitchhiking from Jo'burg to Cape Town and getting a lift in the smallest car ever mass produced. hilarity ensues. When he eventually gets to Cape Town he turns around and starts hitching back again. It's supposed to be because he loves driving on South Africa's roads!! WTF????
Speaking about stupid governments: Zimbabwe detained the US ambassador because he wondered off the trail at the Botanical Gardens. Apparently he was found walking on a hill that overlooked uncle bob's house. Shots had previously been fired at the prez's house from this hill and so now it's a no go area. Never mind that the house is 2km away or that the ambassador was obviously unarmed, he was detained anyway. Check out the story to see such great quotes as:
"The ambassador must consider himself very lucky that he is dealing with a professional army that the Zimbabwe National Army is, elsewhere, and definitely in America, he would have been a dead man. His adventure is really dangerous."
"The incident on Monday had been part of a US plan to effect "regime change" in Zimbabwe."
Oh and speaking of paranoia: or is that propaganda? Our esteemed leader (sarcasm drips) Thabo Mbeki has accused an unnamed foreign donor of paying South African non-governmental organisations to attack the ruling African National Congress before the 2004 elections. Sound familiar? Well just replace "unnamed foreign donor" with "Tony Blair" and "South African non-governmental organisations" with "the MDC" and you'll spot where you recognise it from. Is this a sign of a global conspiracy against the great African nations who have thrown off the yokes of oppression forced upon them by their former colonial masters? No, it's just a tried a tested political strategy that enthrals the masses and muddies the waters of the actual issues like the Jacob Zuma trial or the Tony Yengeni corruption and drunk driving stories. Remember nothing unites the masses like a common enemy.
Further in the article Thabo goes on to ask: "Is there an African civil society?" I think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial thought-processing appendage.
While we're on the subject of morons: actually I've got nothing that even compares to the sheer stupidity of the previous story, so I'll just post you a looter guy pic. "they were up to no good, and started making trouble in my neighbourhood."
In less serious news Ananova reports that a hypnotist has been robbing banks in Moldova. Bank tellers are not allowed to make eye contact with customers for fear of being put into a trance. The hypnotist makes them give him money and then gets away after ensuring that the victims forget everything about the encounter. Man that's my kinda guy, exploiting his powers, not for good, but for awesome! It's like if you were able to become invisible, wouldn't you go hang around in the girls change rooms?
Thursday, October 13, 2005
For the ultimate in irony check out this story. This is happening because of new farm invasions on already state owned farms. Well Bob, what you've got to understand is that when you tell people they can just take whatever they want, you'd better make sure you don't have anything that they want! oh, the irony!!
I was checking out a forum for my new camera and came accross someone who was at Kirstenbosch and had taken some pictures of what they claimed to be Colonel Bird's bath. Being my friendly self I corrected that that it was actually Lady Anne Barnard's bath and that it was called the Bird Bath because of the shape. That's the way that I remeber it. And I used to go there like twice a month with my Gran. Anyway this woman was adament so I did some checking and lo and behold she could actually be right. There is some confusion as to who's bath it is and why it is called the "Bird Bath" This is the best discussion I can find on the topic from this site.
Your Peninsula tour will also surely include the Kirstenbosch Botanical Garden, known for its superb scenery, as well as being the best place to get an idea of the richness of the Cape Floral Kingdom. In the garden is the spring of the Liesbeek River. In this spring, too, lady Anne Barnard is said to bathed nude while on a picnic. For this reason, the bird-shaped sunken pool at the spring is sometimes called Lady Anne Barnard's Bath. However, she may have bathed in the spring before the pool was built. It is also called the Bird Bath, and some say that it is not because it is shaped like a bird, or because it is for the benefit of birds, but because it is supposed to have been built by one Colonel Bird, in 1811. (The pool, however, is built of Batavian bricks. Batavia was a Dutch colony in the East Indies. Would Colonel Bird have still been importing bricks from there, five years into the second British occupation of the Cape?) Again, Lady Anne haunts the castle, so why not here?
Again I distinctly remeber that it was Lady Anne Barnard's Bath. Somewhere along the line the "offical" story has changed, the Kirstenbosch web site makes no mention of Lady Anne what so ever. I'm actually quite interesed in this and I'd like to know why it was changed.
Looter guy pic of the day
I'm atuclly really looking forward to RPG tonight and I'm really disapointed that we didn't play on tuesday. Hold'em was really cool, but just to be clear I sent Yanke home to do his assignment because I was worried about it, and not because I wanted to play poker. If I could change something about my time at Varsity I would have arsed around less and put more effort into my studies, not studied to the exclusion of all else mind you but concentrated more and maybe cut my degree time down by a year.
here is an interesting story, the next space tourist is a self confessed Gundam otaku. It reminds me of the line in "Common People":
Nobody likes a tourist, especially when they think it's all such a laugh!
In this case though the people don't hate the rich kid for mocking them, but just because being rich lets him go into space dressed as his favorite cartoon character. Man I hate him too!
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Had a disappointing friday evening because I found out that the stupid people at Benkei are dumbasses of the highest order. They said that all you can eat was on saturday night (i've got it written down here at work by the way) and the on friday when I phone for a booking they tell my, no it's on friday nights. Anyway, all I can eat raw fish with rice has been postponed until next month.
ok so the link to Arends Hoogte was broken. I'm sure you guys can figure it out, it's not higher grade or anything.
Warning 1: really long post from here, I won't get upset if you don't read it. Further reading is optional.
Warning 2: Hidden within the following (long) text is insight from schpat.
This morning on my way to work I got the elevators in my block and noticed a young kid (turns out he was 14) standing in the stairwell. Now because I recognise him (vaguely seen him around the block) and he doesn't look at all happy I ask: "hey how are you doing?" He says "not that good" and the whole thing starts there. Turns out he had a fight with his mom and after his mom dropped him at school that she has dropped him at school he has gotten the keys to his friends flat and is hiding out there for the day. I go: oh shit, i'm not really the guy to handle this but decide that since no one else is there I have to step up.
Any way so I let the guy into his friends flat and sit down and have a chat. At this point he has said he had had a "physical" fight with his mom and he is quite obviously very upset. Anyway I couldn't just leave him there I had to do something. So I try to find out more about the whole situation. His dad is in prison, his step dad works on oil rigs or something and is only home four months of the year and his mother is picking on him. It turns out that he has fought with his mom before and he ran away from home, but that was a year before. So no real pattern of abuse there. So I try to find out what he and his mom were fighting about. Apparently it was all because she was being unreasonable and asking him to do a lot of stuff around the house but never asking his sister (who by the way is 10). Ahh memories flood back, and I realise I really don't wish I was a kid again.
I decide to kinda gain his trust, and see if I can find out more about his relationship with his mom. I chat to him about school, what subjects he's taking, what he's doing in them and what sport's he plays. I also talk about his hobbies. Ends up he loves computers and spends a bunch of time in Java internet Cafe. He asks me what I'm into and I tell him that if he knows Java he probably knows about Wizards and that's what I'm into. Turns out he's also into that kind of stuff. He has a Warhammer army, plays magic and Yu-gi-oh and knows my brother. I go hmm, his folks seem to look after him pretty well. Also turns out he like golf, has his own set of clubs and plays Ice-Hockey.
At this point I'm going: Your parents obviously look after you pretty well, kid. It doesn't sound like you are beaten or abused and I have no problem delivering you back to your mother. I tell the kid as much but wording it better of course. The kid is not keen on this idea, he just wants to stay at his friend’s house today and play PS2 and relax.
I tell him we should call his friends mom then and let her know he was there. He's not keen on this, his friend is not really allowed to have people over during the week and he doesn't want him to get into trouble. So I go, ok let's take you to school, I'm sure the Guidance Counsellor will be able to help you out. He says he's spoke to the Guidance Counsellor before, but she doesn't really care, also the Counsellor can only see people after school so he would have to go to class and the reason he didn't go to school is that he's been crying and doesn't want anyone to see. This bit really tears me apart, I feel for this kid.
The kid tells me that I must be late for work and that I should just leave and forget about him, he'll be fine! I tell him that I can't do that and we have a (pretty one sided) conversation about responsibility. I explain that it sounds like his mother loves him but that she is frustrated. I also explain that his mother probably doesn't like the situation either and probably feels just as helpless. I explain that being an adult means that I have a responsibility to make sure that he is ok and I can't leave him at his friend’s place for the day.
Eventually I get him to call his grandmother, at first he can't remember her number but then after some convincing he got it. I talk to his gran, he talks to his gran and then I talk to his gran again. We decide that I should bring him over. The kid finds out that his grandad is home and now he knows he is probably in a lot of trouble. He now knows that his mom is going to find out and he is scared. He pleads with me to leave him where he is. When I explain that I can't he tells me he wants to run away, he says he has money. I try to convince him that that's the best option and that his mom might be angry but that's what she is supposed to do, it's only because she's trying to look after him. He's not happy.
I end up assuming a mild-stern voice and "telling" him that what was going to happen was I was going downstairs to my car, driving to Mcdonnalds to get a shake, and then taking him to his grandmothers, oh and by the way would he like a shake too. Answer: yes! Look at the silly monkey, if Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit!
I dropped him off and spoke to his gran and everything seems to be alright, I'll find out from him next time I see him.
That was a draining morning, I got to work 3 hours late! What's more it's a classic cry for help. This poor kid who doesn't really have a father and his single mom is too busy with the 8 month old baby to spend much time with him is feeling unloved and abandoned. His reaction is extremely childish, which is not surprising seeing as he is a child, but is altogether his parents fault. He seems to be doing well at school and but is causing problems in class because he is ahead of the rest of the class, that's why he is on trouble at school a lot, he is a cleaver sensitive kid who is having these issues because his parents don't pay him enough attention. And people look at me funny when I say I'm not having kids! This is exactly why.
ok I've ranted enough, get back to work
Friday, October 07, 2005
After lunch I got to meet Buster. Buster is a honey badger that was found after extensive flooding in Hiedelburg towards the end of December last year, at the time it was about 7 days old and almost hairless. The people who found him thought he was a puppy and took him to the SPCA. He has ended up at the Arends Hoogte rehabilitation centre where our company has adopted him to tie in with our badger free honey program. About six months later they were able to finally sex buster and discovered the "he" was actually a she!
I must say this is one of the coolest things I've ever done at work. The Afrikaans name for honey badger is "ratel" and you can definitely see the resemblance between the beast and the armoured vehicle when she was running around the auditorium. Although she apparently can display a really violent temperament she was really cute and cuddly today and just wanted to check everything out and generally be fondled by the audience. Afterwards five people got their pictures taken with her. It was really great. Buy badger friendly honey!!! Beware of retailers that do not protect these animals, they are almost endangered.
Some commentary on news:
A zulu news reader for the SABC has died of breast cancer. That's very sad you say but why are you commenting? Well here's the reason: the press release was from the ANC. To quote:
"The ANC will always remember Sokhulu from the time when she was a teacher at a school in Umlazi, where she distinguished herself as a dedicated daughter of the soil," the party said in a statement.
I thought we were supposed to have an independent media? This "The Party" shit smacks of communism. Next thing you know I'm going to have to run my blog postings past the political officer to make sure nothing puts "Mother Azania" in a bad light. I suppose while they control the stupid masses by keeping them stupid this kind of crap will continue to happen.
In other news: Stupid fucker Donovan Moodley, who cold bloodedly kidnapped and murdered a university student wants a reduced sentence because he is a first time offender. When I read this my mouth just dropped open for like 20 min. What a stupid fucker!
Here is a little quote from the fuck wad:
"The forensic evidence that the court took as fact is based on our current understanding of the evidence explained. History has proven over and over again how these facts are changed. In the absence of an eyewitness to disprove my admission, my version should be valued correctly"
In other words: "meh meh meh ... I'm a dirty, cold blooded killing tramp". Facts don't change you wanker, facts are facts, speculation changes based on new evidence (or facts if you will). Also the you don't have an eye witness to prove that I wasn't lying thing doesn't hold because forensics have proven you where. And oh, by the way, eye witnesses are notorious for being wrong while forensic evidence pretty much quite far advanced, oh yes you also admitted to kidnapping, extortion and taking a poor innocent young woman into the veld, ordering her to strip naked and shooting her. And you want a lighter sentence??!!?? In my view your deserve nothing less than being tied down naked while starving honey badger gnaw on your nuts! The only reason I'm not actually making a plan to have this done to you is that I think it would be cruel to the animals.
Here is yout looter guy pic
And hello to my South American readers.
That is all, have a nice weekend!
Thursday, October 06, 2005
I have had a reply from the lovely Carolise and even though she is now instantly repulsed at the idea of being introduced to zombies, unfortunately she's situated in the dusty north (also known as Centurion). Sorry Seeping Neck wound!
If you've seen the pictures of the guy looting beer in New Orleans you'll appreciate the ones that have been photo shoped to make them even funnier. I'm going to include one in each of my posts for a while now. They're calling him "beer looter guy".
I also just wanted to point out the irony in this story. go read it and have a laugh.
Also my new camera should be arriving on Friday. woot.
Also Hold'em was really fun and much quicker than five card draw, more games equal more enjoyment.
Monday, October 03, 2005
When I arrived at work this morning I was really pleasantly surprised to find that the charming young ladies who had had their pictures taken with us last friday had sent them to me. My inbox was full of zombies with pretty girls! What could be better? Here are the photo's for your perusal. The lovely ladies are (from left to right): Sheila, Estelle, Marlize, Anja and Natalie. In the second picture is Sheila and the wonderful Carolise who took the trouble to send the pictures to us.
I think if this trip to Canal Walk as zombies has taught me only one thing it's that zombies have no problems meeting women. I mean I've been to Canal Walk hundreds of times, but this is the first time I've been approached by beautiful women to have my picture taken with them. It wasn't just at Canal Walk either, afterwards at the One Ring another girl was all interested in "touching my wounds" but because I'm already involved in a very loving relationship zen and I introduced her to another of our life-challenged friends. Speaking of which, Carolise: You look like a nice girl, if you or any of your friends are available I'd like to introduce you to one of my friends, the one with the seeping neck-wound right behind Sheila in the first picture. He's intelligent, creative and has a great sense of humour, also the make-up washes off and he ends up looking relatively normal. Go ahead ask around, he's a nice guy, I promise. You've got my email address, or just leave a comment here.
I really hope she leaves a comment. All jokes aside, the fact that you and your friends wanted to have your pictures taken with us meant that we'd done a good job and that makes us happy. Also I'm not really joking about introducing you guys to my friend!
Onto some news:
Well the government has pressurised banks to give home loans to low income earners that ordinarily would not qualify for these loans. Well surprise surprise these low income earners have defaulted on their loans and the banks are loosing money. Now the banks have asked the government to pay for the loans but because they have refused the banks plan on introducing a levy on all bond holders to cover the loss. Just because it's not being charged by the government doesn't mean it's not a wealth tax!
Let me fill you in on a few points here.
1. The banks are in the business of making money
2. The banks will jump at any opportunity to give a loan because it means that they will make money. To illustrate my point I'll mention the pre-approved credit card offers I've been getting lately. If I accept these offers and spend money they will charge me interest and make money themselves.
3. The banks screen clients and assess the risk before offering them credit. Bad risks mean bad debts and lost money. This makes their profitability go down.
4. If the low income earners were good credit risks they would get loans, because the banks want to make money.
5. It's not the banks fault that low income earners are generally not good credit risks. For that matter it's not my (or any other good credit risk's) fault either. Neither we nor the banks should have to supplement the bad credit risks.
6. It's actually your fault, address the problems with our economy and maybe these things will get sorted out! Maybe low income earners will have more credit worthiness.
7. You guys suck, I can't think of an intelligent decision you've made all year!
I hope they get my note. The last thing I'd like to say about this is to reply to something that banks said. They said:
"All home owners might see it as another tax on them, but should rather look at it as a contribution to making the property market work properly. It's in the consumers' best interest."
The property market is working jut fine, it's a free market! The home loan industry is floundering because the banks caved to government pressure. If this isn't a wealth tax what is it? What are we communists, oh yeah I forgot!
after that rant I thought you might like to hear a rant on a different topic:
Multichoice has decided to introduce a new DSTV decoder that is also a Personal Video Recorder (PVR). They are saying how wonderful the box is but nowhere do they mention or compare their box to the market leader TiVo. After reading up on both options I've decided that the Multichoice PVR is probably as good as TiVo with one notable exception: it does not keep a log of viewing patterns and apply AI to automatically record stuff that you may be interested in. Ok so it's only a small thing, but it is the one pieces of functionality that is really different from a standard VCR. I always knew multichoice would bring something like this out, but I'm disappointed that it does not have this functionality. Maybe in the upgrade.
Anyway that's it for today. Blogger seems to be down, so I don't know when I'll post this.