 |
| Mugabe the Villian! |
With the latest local government (municipal) elections (LGE2011), less women have been voted into local government as city or town councillors (38%) than in 2006 (40%). According to News24, in an article called “Disappointment at election gender figures,” the Ministry for Women, Children and People with Disabilities, said yesterday that it is “disappointed at the decline in the percentage of women as councillors in the country from 40% in 2006 to 38% after the 2011 local government elections.” Women's Minister Lulu Xingwana also said: “We are developing the necessary legislation which should compel all political parties to adhere to the principle of gender equality. The Gender Equality Bill will be submitted to Cabinet by March 2012 and it will also extend to the issue of employment and appointment of women to senior positions in both the public and private sector.”
I have a real problem with laws created for a certain subsection of society, as if existing laws are not adequate. All of society must live according to the same laws. Crimes committed must be punished by the same laws, for instance. Now, these special interest groups want to create laws for a certain subsection of society to elevate them into positions simply because they are part of that subsection, in this case women, all under the guise of equality.
The problem with quotas, and elevating one group over others, is that in the end it simply does not work. It simply cannot deliver the end result! The end result is good service and good governance.
... in South Africa ...
ORIGINAL VERSION: 
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
SABC1, 2 and 3 show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. The world is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Good Morning with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Demonstrations are held in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.'
TV commentators explain that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and there are calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the Government drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government and handed to relatives of the grasshopper.
The grasshopper instigates a lawsuit against the ant, and the case is tried under the watchful eyes of the trade unions.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighbourhood.
MORAL OF THIS STORY:
Be VERY careful how you vote in 2011!!
The U.N. resolution says that “[i]ndigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” You can read the report at CNSNEWS.
Of course, in his support of this U.seless N.ations resolution, Obama apologized once again, like he has to so many people, for “the sad and painful chapters in our shared history--a history too often marred by broken promises and grave injustices against the First Americans.”
Of course, it is not just the “colonialists” that “took” land from the indigenous tribes. What about indigenous tribes that took land from other indigenous tribes? Which one of the tribes will eventually have the “true” rights to the land.
Here are some thoughts:
How far back does this reversal of land ownership go? 100 years? 200 Years? 2000 years? All the way back to Adam? Will the land be returned to the “original” owners in the condition that they “lost” it, or in the new improved and advanced condition? If the land is given back to people as far back as n years, maybe they must only be allowed to use the land as they would have used it n years ago. And, maybe they should not be allowed to live on that land as moderns, but as they would have n years ago. Isn’t this what land-ownership-reversal is all about? Should the time and living conditions also be reversed, or in this reversal, should the “original” new owners benefit from all the advances made on the land? Should they really benefit from the advances? Is there any guarantee that they would have advanced the land to its current condition, had they kept and lived on the land without the Europeans’ technology and advancements?
Sometimes, there are more consequences than expected when clever ideas are thought of, such as this one. Will someone end up losing their land, because someone else makes a decision that will affect him?
Anyhow, these were just some thoughts on the subject.
Read More......
The South African government is busy looking at the Secrecy Protection of Information Bill. I wrote about this in my post called "South Africa soon to experience its own Body Snatchers." In this post I wrote:
"The problem with any government, is that as soon as the government starts intervening in the area of the free flow of information (FFOI), it is usually (read: almost always) because the current government (political party in charge) does not like what is being said about them. When it comes to the ANC, that is exactly the case. The ANC does not have the social make-up or maturity to handle criticism well. [...]South Africa is currently at a cross-roads in more ways than one, and the issue of the freedom of the press and of the Free Flow of Information (FFoI) is but one of them. However, for the South African democracy this issue rates as one of the most important, if not the most important issue.
"A government that does not like, and cannot handle, criticism, soon turns into a totalitarianism."
 |
| John W. Whitehead |
"Yet even in our present police state, with our lives and bureaucratic structure now oriented around a fear of the next terrorist attack, the underlying principle remains the same as it was over 50 years ago--namely, can we hold onto our basic freedoms and avoid succumbing to the soul-sucking dredge of conformity that threatens our very humanity?Read More......
"This question is at the heart of director Don Siegel's 1956 classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers, a film that not only captured the ideology and politics of its day but remains timely and relevant as it relates to the worries that plague us today.
The ANC is very secretive concerning a report on a newly proposed National Health Insurance (NHI). The report has not been made public yet. The question is, what is the big deal about the NHI? When the idea of the NHI came to light some years ago, there was a lot of speculation concerning how it will work. So far, it seems an additional R100bn will be needed annually in the national budget to run this monster. Will the NHI be added as an additional health tax to pay for the health care of the poor? Of course, the question that follows on this is, Who will benefit from the NHI? Is this going to be a case of the "rich" having to pay for something they will not be able to make use of? Of course, if the ANC wants the "rich" to pay for something they cannot benefit from, it can clearly be classified as stealing from the "rich" to give to the poor. This would be extortion if it becomes a reality. Health economist Alex van den Heever, revealed that the funding of the NHI would come from both those already belonging to medical aid schemes and those not. Van den Heever told the Hospital Association of SA's conference in Durban recently that members of medical schemes will pay 85% of their contribution to the NHI which would pay both public and private sector providers. Those without medical schemes will have to pay 5% of their income to the NHI. Now here is the kicker, if Van den Heever is right, medical schemes will not be able to cover benefits that are covered by the NHI! As a member of a medical scheme, would the 15% remaining of my usual contribution to my medical scheme, cover benefits that are worth being covered? Is the government orchestrated, socialistic NHI going to cover anything significant? If that is not the case, how will it impact the benefits I get from my medical scheme? Am I going to lose significant benefits because my 15% contribution to my medical scheme simply cannot pay for those benefits? Will the government health scheme really pick up the slack on those benefits, or are we going to sit with a huge gap in benefits that cannot be covered because the government has thought up another lame entitlement scheme that one group of people must pay for so that the other group could reap the benefits? Apart from benefits lost, what about all the jobs that will be lost because of this hare-brained idea? Medical schemes currently must make use of 100% of contributions for medical issues and salaries for staff. How will they accomplish this now with only 15% of those contributions? Sure, they will cover less benefits, but that means that less people can accomplish the job too. The problem with this government is that it has created an environment of entitlement in the masses. Whatever one group has, the other group is entitled to that. This is an unhealthy environment. This will recreate Zimbabwe right here in South Africa where one group can take from another group simply because they have this false "right" to it. How much of the NHI budget costs will pay for sicknesses and diseases that will come from behaviour that individuals have chosen? These would be health costs related to obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, STDs, HIV/AIDS, etc. Would it be right for one person to pay for another person's indiscretions? I think not! Personally, I do not think that the ANC has thought this through. Of course, that would be a whole new experience for this country! But, then again, tax those with money enough and they will take their money and expertise elsewhere! Also read:
Concern over govt health scheme
Rights, responsibilities and health care
The IEC released the lists of political parties and their candidates for the upcoming national/provincial elections on 22 April 2009. For these lists you can visit the Participating Parties & Candidates page of the IEC. From that page you can download the complete list of all parties and their candidates (.xls, .pdf), or you can download the lists of each party (ACDP list here). Having gone through the national and provincial lists of the ACDP, lists that were democratically determined within the party, it once again struck me how inefficient democracy is. Like someone once said, democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. And, haven't we seen that with the ANC rule thus far! The problem with democracy is that the majority of people vote for a party or its candidate on far less than the actual issues that matter. Most of the time it boils down to popularity contests. Now, going back to the party I support, ACDP, and their lists, I have to admit that there are people on those lists that I would not have had so high on those lists, if at all! Some of them reached the lists at those high points for two reasons: a) party members either had no idea who the candidate was or what the candidate was like or even what the candidate understood of the ACDP's own constitution and rules, and/or b) the candidate was very popular among the members. Now popularity among the members certainly does not preclude someone from being voted onto either of the two lists. However, if the candidate, IMHO, either is not real politician material (debatable classification), or that candidate never bothered to even get to know the constitution and/or the rules of the ACDP, how will he bother with the bigger things of running the government? Of course, this problem is not easily solved, and to date, there aren't any other political system that can bring better equity than democracy! Somehow, there should be checks and balances (C&B) built into the process of building these lists, and I know there are a measure of such C&B built into the process at the ACDP. Looking at the lists, however, I am not sure that those C&B are enough! Discovering what those C&B should be is not an easy task. Still, the lists that come out of such a process is hardly ever satisfactory. Yet, the lists are there and we have to make do with them. The problem with democracy, is that it is enshrined in "rights" and entitlement language. Democracy, because it has brought a lot of freedom, has created a culture of people that think that everything they want, is their right to have. They also think they can say and do what they want. Freedom of speech apparently means that there are no limitations to what can be said, and there are no consequences to what was said. That is mere brutishness and shows how far our democratic culture has fallen from simple civility. If members of our culture could only realise that it is a privilege to live in the democratic countries we live in, then perhaps our civilization could be saved. However, with the "rights" and entitlement culture, we are doomed to destroy ourselves. If enough people start claiming their "rights," anarchy will ensue. That can only lead to the destruction of our democratic culture. If only the South African Bill of Rights could be paired with a Bill of Responsibilities that countered each right with a responsibility (that actually carried some type of incentive), we could perhaps have a better society. Will we ever have such a Bill of Responsibilities? Probably not! Not while we have governments run by selfish people. Well, that won't change since we are a fallen race. A race steeped in sin! Selfishness comes oh so naturally! Maybe then, when parties release their lists, those lists will contain the names of the right people. Oh well, it is nice to dream!
U.K. schools continue its downward trend in teaching immoral content to its children. In its latest shocker, it seems that in one district parents may face court action for removing their children from school because this school district is intent on brainwashing its children into accepting the gay/lesbian lifestyle as an acceptable lifestyle. “Parents face possible court action for withdrawing their children from lessons on gay and lesbian history. “More than 30 pupils were pulled out of a week of teaching at a primary school which included books about homosexual partnerships. “The controversial content was worked into the curriculum at George Tomlinson School in Waltham Forest, East London. “The council has declared that children who missed the lessons will be viewed as truants. “The ruling means some families could breach rules that children should not be absent for more than 19 days a year.” Read more about this case at the Daily Mail. HT: Ingrid Schlueter
The U.N. wants to tell you what to do with your children. Will you allow that? You better find out where your government stands on this issue!
Read this commentary.
Read More......
“Imagine that you have lung cancer. It has been in remission, but tests show the cancer has returned and is likely to be terminal. Still, there is some hope. Chemotherapy could extend your life, if not save it. You ask to begin treatment. But you soon receive more devastating news. A letter from the government informs you that the cost of chemotherapy is deemed an unjustified expense for the limited extra time it would provide. However, the government is not without compassion. You are informed that whenever you are ready, it will gladly pay for your assisted suicide.
“Think that's an alarmist scenario to scare you away from supporting "death with dignity"? Wrong. That is exactly what happened last year to two cancer patients in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal.”
Continue reading 'Right to die' can become a 'duty to die' by Wesley J. Smith.
Read More......
When a culture no longer has an objective standard like the Bible, and no authority like Jesus Christ to teach them what is right, it will eventually lead to each man unto himself, or in modern parlance, claiming one's "rights."
Dr. Al Mohler writes:"Fast-forward to 2008 and rights talk is, if anything, even more ingrained in the American character. Battles over competing and conflicting assertions of rights now emerge over some of the hottest and most contentious issues of the day. When we have run out of other arguments, all we have left is to assert that what we demand is, after all, only our right.
Continue reading here...
"Is there an end-game to all this? Well, in one sense we can see evidence of the end game in a recent article published in Great Britain. Writing in The Guardian [London], Simon Jenkins argues that the right to end one's life on one's own terms is basic to humanity, and that only 'religious primitivism' stands in the way of cultural acceptance and legal approval for assisted suicide."
 |
Subscribe to my blogs |
Posts
All Comments
