What It Means

As I said yesterday, the African National Congress party (ANC) held its leadership elections yesterday, the chief candidates being former socialist / trade unionist Cyril Ramaphosa and ex-wife of current SAPres, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, rabid African Nationalist and so on (whom I predicted would win in a walk, she being the worst possible choice for ANC leader, and this being Africa).

In keeping with most of my political predictions (i.e. total crap), I was wrong about this one, and Ramaphosa won, albeit by only 179 votes out of many thousands cast. His victory was greeted with sighs of relief by the SA business community and most financial institutions (e.g. Moody’s, who are considering upgrading Seffrica’s rating from Not-Quite-Venezuela to Better-Than-Zimbabwe). Even the trade unions seem to be okay with the result, Ramaphosa being one of their erstwhile heroes.

However.

This is South Africa, so things are seldom that simple. You see, one of the ANC’s platform planks is that lovely euphemism, “expropriation” — which, in this case, means “taking land away from Whites to give to Blacks”. A large number of ANC supporters and officials support this policy, and many are complaining that Ramaphosa will ally himself with the “big business interests” (Whites) and not carry out the expropriations. White land- and business owners are hoping he’ll end, or at least severely curb the policy — and given the implications, he should.

But the ANC also has to make sure that they maintain their hold on power, and in the next general election in 2019, they’ll have to fend off a party of rabid assholes called the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) who, according to their electoral rhetoric would not only take Whites’ property away, but their lives as well if resistance were offered. Needless to say, this policy would sit quite well with their philosophical comrades inside the ANC, who have been quite content to ignore (and even tacitly approve of) the ongoing slaughter of White farmers in rural areas.

So when the time comes to take the place of current SAPres Jacob Zuma, Comrade Cyril is going to have to walk that little tightrope very carefully: accommodate the business community and bring investment back into South Africa, and try not to alienate the land-thieves inside the ANC.

And by the way, that’s only one of the problems facing Ramaphosa. Another one is that Zuma might not want to go quietly into that long (albeit well-financed, bribe-fed) dark night of retirement — in fact, he’s kinda acting that way right now. (In the rest of Africa, Zuma would simply be assassinated, but this is the kinder, gentler South Africa now.)

The next few months are going to be interesting, in an African kind of way.

Oh, and one last thing. I’ve said several unpleasant things about Dlamini-Zuma, the loser in the current leadership contest. But credit where credit is due: despite the slenderness of her defeat, she’s not behaving like certain (all?) Democrats we know, and is not going to the courts to challenge the results of the election. Granted, the courts have repeatedly signaled that the ANC has to fix its own problems, but still. Party unity seems to be of paramount concern for the ANC, and it should be: the last general election gave them a very slender margin of victory (from memory, 54%). Anything less than 50% would force them to create a coalition government with one or more of the smaller political parties in South Africa — and man, an alliance with some of those (e.g. the rabid EFF above) would mean economic disaster for the country. To some, economic disaster in this still-capitalist country would be a feature, not a bug (as it is with their philosophical allies Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, Maduro in Venezuela, and Bernie Sanders in the U.S.). But I’m pretty sure the ANC does not want to see “Venezuela” happen south of the Limpopo River, and that may be the only thing that saves the country.

My cynicism in matters African, however, tells me that I’m an idiot for thinking that way.

Airline Bullshit

When I first saw British Airways’ little pre-flight safety announcement, I was amused: a bunch of well-known Brit actors and comedians demonstrating safety procedures, all under the guise of being auditioned for the job of making the announcements.

Then I stopped laughing, because what this really was was a commercial for some poxy charity drive (video autoplay alert), whereby passengers empty their pockets of loose change, said proceeds going to feed the Pore & Starvin Chilluns of the world.

Now I have lots of sympathy for said Chilluns, because I am not without a soul. I have no sympathy for the so-called “charities” who collect this aid money because they are a bunch of thieving bastards who siphon off percentages of the funds before passing the moolah on to agencies who purport to help the P&S Chilluns, but whose efforts really perpetuate the conditions of poverty by making these people dependent on continuous aid.

I have even less sympathy — actually, tolerance — for organizations like British Airways who facilitate this bullshit. Why?

Because I’m sick to death of paying extra money (over and above the already-inflated airline ticket fees) for stuff that we used to get for free: things such as “extra baggage” fees (for a second suitcase) and seat selection fees (!!!) just because when you go online to check in for your flight, you either put up with the seat you were originally given, or, if you want to change your seat, you have to pay a fucking “change fee” when the change comes entirely cost-free to the airline. (I’m not even going to talk about how “better” seats also command a “seating premium fee” and how you’re bombarded with the ceaseless suggestions to upgrade to a marginally-better “class” of seat for only $320 (!!!!!).)

And a big thank you to Donald Fucking Trump and his Administration for allowing the airlines to hide their thievery (annoying autoplay alert). You bastards.

So here’s a little thought for British Airways and all the other little flyboys like American, United, Delta and whoever: fuck you. If you want me to donate money to your charities, you can start by leaving me more money to donate, and get rid of your fucking highway robbery fees. Otherwise, I’ll stick with the shitty seat you give me (last time: 42D, the very last row in the plane), and you can get stuffed. You and your fucking charity partners.


Afterthought: I know, why do I fly? Because driving across the Atlantic Ocean is problematic. Domestically, I drive wherever I can instead of flying because I hate the fucking airlines. Likewise the poxy TSA and their security theater because [20,000-word anti-TSA rant deleted].

A Day That Will Live, Etc.

Seeing as we’re at December 7, perhaps we should do a little historical review:

I guess we’re all buddy-buddy with the Japanese now; but just as a reminder to the NorKs, let’s review what happened to the people who caused the above explosion not too long afterwards:

General advice: When it comes to the USA, don’t ever mistake “gentleness” for “weakness”… you bastards.

Fuck The Cloud

…and by that, I mean this entire notion that we can store our stuff remotely as opposed to locally on our own storage devices, and that we can blithely entrust our writings and thoughts to the whim of others like the monstrous entities known as Google, Twitter or Facebook.

All this came from reading this article, and I’ve tried so hard to ignore the reaction it caused in me; but nearly a week has passed, and I’m still enraged. Let me count the ways.

[E]ven your private documents can be censored online. This morning, a ton of users reported being locked out of completely innocuous Google Docs for “inappropriate content.”
Google’s abuse policy prohibits the posting of serious threats, needlessly graphic or violent content, hate speech, harassment, confidential information, pornography, and anything illegal including child exploitation and copyrighted content.
Today, however, multiple users believe that the content they were locked out of did not contain prohibited material. National Geographic reporter Rachael Bale, who was locked out of a draft of a story about wildlife crime, claims that nothing in her document violated Google’s policies.

Which is why I don’t store a single fucking thing at Google Docs or anywhere else in “The Cloud”, because on my storage device, I and I alone decide what is and isn’t “inappropriate content”, i.e. “serious threats, needlessly graphic or violent content, hate speech, harassment, confidential information, pornography, and anything illegal.”

Bloody hell; under those constraints, where would they put my comment that I’d like to tie Ted Kennedy to a chair and beat him to death with a lead pipe? (Uttered, by the way, while he was still alive and therefore not only “hate speech” — which it most certainly was — but it could even have been construed as a “death threat” — I fucking wish.)

What also gets me is the unctuously-correct statement by the author of this same article, to whit:

Nobody should be writing hate speech or death threats in their Google docs — or anywhere.

Fuck you, you simpering asswipe. I’d like to point out that one man’s “hate speech” is another man’s truth — which is why our First Amendment leaves out all judgments in its protection of that freedom — and my suggestion of this treatment of various politicians and/or technology executives could be construed as a “death threat” whereas it is, so far, just wishful thinking on my part.

Here’s my take on all of this. If I were a corporate executive and one of my subordinates even suggested using Goggle Dox, Twatter or Fuckfacebook [sp?] to store and/or communicate our company documents, I’d fire him on the spot — because I think it is the absolute height of corporate irresponsibility to delegate those capabilities to any outside entity, let alone to these techno-bastards.

All that said: I’m perfectly aware that the service these tools provide is in essence on their private property and that they’re therefore entitled to set their own terms and conditions of its use. But that’s not how they sell it, of course. They pose as public offerings: “Just post or keep your stuff with us: it’s secure, convenient, no-hassle and — best of all — it’s free!

Well, there’s really no such thing as “free”, is there? There are always terms and conditions — and more fool the people who buy into this crap.

Fuck The Cloud, and the cloud-givers.

And by the way, seeing as this post contains “hate speech” and potential “death threats”, I might as well go the Full Monty with this sketch by Agostino Caracci:

Art, or pornography? (And just so we’re all clear on the topic; according to legend, Bacchus [sic] is supposed to have raped Ariane. Doubleplusungood crimethink pornography.)

More Feinsteinism

Reader Mike G. decides to elevate my blood pressure by sending me a link to this piece of filth:

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a number of her colleagues today introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, a bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are [the usual set of fucking GFW tools — Kim]

They never give up, so nor should we. Please write to your senators and representatives, just to remind them that we don’t support this bullshit. (I know, they probably already know that, but it never hurts to provide pointed commentary.)

Please use calm and reasoned language instead of what you’d really like to write. I just did, so you can too.

How do I really feel about it?