Schpat sees the future

Hey folks, I had a very relaxing weekend, didn't do too much and got out more than once. It was great. I predidcted it, the WoW expansion has a new continent and new races, two for two! Now I'm conivinced that they'll open a South African server and that ADSL will be as cheap as chips by the year after next. Buy the way you can already get always-on net access for R370 per month (R270 telkom line rental and R100 isp from CyberSmart), admittedky it's only a 192 line, but work it out!

KOREAN GOODNESS

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.

HALLOWEEN

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.

cheers
schpat

Rumblings

The good news is that I survived that duel last night, the bad news is that I've got to fight it again soon. Why won't this guy give up?

CELLPHONE WOES

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.

LOOTER ROAD



WEEKEND

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!

Schpat out

Now with headings

GREETINGS

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.

TAGGING

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 breast best interest in mind.

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

IN SUMMARY

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.

schpat out.

A promotion, well more respect anyway

Dear Anonymous: Stop being such a troll wanker! I have no problem with your comment but if you're going to post a comment at least leave a name. I wish there was a way you could allow non-blogspot members to post but still require a nick. If you're actually just someone that forgot to type a name in then you are forgiven.

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!

Here goes:

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
cheers

Comments Suck

Why do comments suck, because I can't use the html tags for colour in the comments here on blogspot. I really didn't want to make another blog post about this, I was happy deal with it as part of the comments, but because of the above mentioned issue here are my responses to peoples comments. BTW keep em comming!

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:

Synk:

Dude, double negatives are confusing me, I'm still really tired!

Confluence:

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?

It isn't.

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