Other than the spelling mistakes in my previous blog (Highjacking) which in review annoy and entertain me (I think they were justified). I have been working on the following poem. It is sort of the third version of it since I wrote it.

Bath

Twice in two days

I have drawn baths.

Immersing myself

in the loud silence

only my heartbeat

plays its song.

It is proof to me

I am living.

My heart strikes

and hits and beats

its flesh and blood

as I beat the

waves of my mind.

When life seems trivial

I advise:

draw a bath

immerse yourself

hear your heart beat

confirm you're alive.

“It takes a lot out of you, you know? It's taken a lot out of me, man.”

They are sitting on damp bricks, staring at a gibbous moon. And they are comfortable.

“Violence is strange man, I didn't get it for a very long time, now it dawns on me, and I feel the sun burning the ideas of violence into me. It hurts and I want it to stop, but I also want to know, simply to know and to understand and then maybe it won't burn so much. I don't know man.”

Old friends can talk at each other. I don't know if 'I' am saying these words, or if you and I are old friends talking about 'my' psychological disposition. But the conversation is meaningful, and we're sharing a bottle of good, red wine. It's not a Merlot though. A Merlot would be too sedate. It's probably Pinotage, that's South African. Sweet and bitter at the same time with dangerous undertones that make you want to drink more of it. Yes, a Pinotage. I've just had a swig from the bottle. So may you.

“I couldn't bear the idea of her getting hurt, of something going wrong and something happening to her, equally I had to think of ways to outwit these skelms, these fuckwits trying to attack us, and, you know what, I thought about attacking them, I saw myself punching the guy disarming him, pointing the gun at him and telling him to run away. I saw myself kicking him, ducking and punching him again and again so that he would never do this to someone else. Ever! And I don't only want to cry for myself I want to cry for what I might have done to him were I that much less controlled. Were I closer to the verge of losing it and not caring. I would have hurt him and I would have enjoyed the pain that I felt in my fists for days afterwards.”

Friends know when the other is crying, has cried, sometimes needs to or doesn't want to cry. Maybe I fit into all of these categories, who knows?

“Where does empathy begin and end? What differentiates it from sympathy? Can I empathise with the criminals who threatened to shoot me? Not really. Do I feel sympathy that they maybe be in irrevocably horrific situations from which they don't know how to extricate themselves? Yes. I see the whole seen played out for me in a million different quantum possibilities. Me dying, Amy dying, me killing them, them taking the car, it never happening in the first place. Quantum visions 1 through X. Do I forgive them? I don't know. I get the feeling you often have to love someone to forgive them and I don't know if I can love these men. Maybe a part of me does. The part of me that sympathises. Another part of me empathises with desperateness, that dark space where each of us has been desperate for someone or something, a touch, food, water, a drug maybe, something tangible that we don't have but want or need. There's so much involved, so much that could have happened, could have gone wrong. We dealt with it in a very intelligent and amicable way. Most of all at the moment I forgive myself for being in a situation where Amy was exposed to that, where I was exposed to that. I have the love for that. I take responsibility for being in that situation, at that time, for looking and not looking, for shaking (literally shaking) in the moment, for thinking violence, for lying to the criminals, for working out in my head that I had the remote in my pocket and not handing over the car immediately thinking that I could outwit them. I take responsibility for all of this. I take responsibility for the risk to which I exposed Amy and I. I take this responsibility and I forgive myself.”

Friends listen to the rambling. The bricks are still wet beneath us. The sliver of moon is so bright that we can see the rest of the moon behind it, it looks hidden and shadowed. Umbra. I've always liked the shape and the sound of that word. Umbra. And beneath it our conversation could not be adumbrated by the umbra of the moon. We laugh at my silly word plays. We know that I do that. We have some more wine. You understand more of me maybe. Maybe not. Shadowed.

This evening, my girlfriend and I survived a highjacking. Seriously. It happened about 2 ½ hours ago at the time of writing this. I need to get to sleep and tire myself out, so I thought :”Yes, I'll write this up for my blog.”

I was in my mother's car, on account of the fact that I was going to be driving it up to Grahamstown tomorrow. I had just picked her, Amy, up at her house so that we could spend a 'last romantic evening' together before I left for two weeks.

Anyway, I had reversed into the driveway and closed the garage gate. Suddenly I see man in the last light of the gate (under a metre left before it closes). I initially thought I was seeing a trick in the shadows and I wondered why a person would be standing there (internal monologue – why is my neighbour trying to come and see me now and like this). That took about a quarter of a second and I realised this guy was probably trying to highjack me. I was right.

He and his accomplice, came in. The gate had stopped when he stood in front of it. One of them was carrrying a gun, a pistol, or firearm (truth be told I don't recall whether it was the first guy or the second). They told me to get out of the car. Amy was still in the car not realising what was happening until a few moments later when I had my hands up in the air for no reason and there was the strange man standing in front of me.

I had dropped the keys in the car with my wallet which had been on my lap. Both were on the floor. They told me to pick up the keys. The took them from me (although I convinced them to allow me to take my drivers license from my wallet and simultaneously stole my credit card out) and tried to open the gate with the gate remote attached to my mum's keys. As fortune (or providence, or randomness, or God) would have it, because I was driving my mum's car the remote for her home in Rondebosch obviously would not work on my digs garage. The highjackers were freaked out about this, I had gone momentarily blank and tried to open it with said incorrect remote. They then tried to kick the motor, push the gate, etc to get it open. There was nowhere near enough space to get the car out you see.

They then threatened me with the gun. Amy told me afterwards that she was really worried I would try to pull some heroic action. Justifiably really, as I told my parents and Seraj afterwards I had to restrain myself from attacking them. The reason I didn't was because of the possible risk to Amy. I couldn't put her in danger if anything went wrong (the downside of Kung-Fu I suppose is that one gets more confident in one's ability to attack opponents – they were both smaller than me, and quite obviously nervous and scared themselves ironically).

They also thought, hearing me speak, that I was a foreigner. I played on that and lied to them about not living where I was and just staying there. They then went out behind the gate. The 'accomplice' guy had received a call on his cell phone and I could hear a car down the ways. I assumed that they were going to try to get away as this was not going as planned. They walked to the other side of the gate back into the road. I had realised by this point that the real gate remote was in my pocket (where it would be because I had taken it off of my car keys). I closed the gate while they were outside.

I called Amy and we ran inside and I locked us into the house. I then hit the panic button for the alarm to go off. ADT called, I told them we'd just been the victims of an attempted highjacking. They were there withing minutes. Out neighbour, Buzz Beck (that is his name and he was wonderful) came over and phoned the police from his place, I didn't have any credit on my phone nor was I realistically in the state of mind to begin organising things. The police were there promptly. There was a whole horde of them in the house and at the back on walki-talkies buzzing here and there. Some ladies came through to take our statements (An office Klaassens if I recall correctly). Detective Inspector Jensel came and told me to park the car somewhere so that we could try to get fingerprints. Moreover, Amy had baked me brownies for my trip. Again somewhat ironically, she remembered them trying to open the tin to see what was in it, so our closest link to 'justice' is possibly contained in the potential of fingerprints on a brownie tin!

Amy's parents were wonderful, they came through really quickly. Annette almost immediately made us tea when we were being interviewed by the police. I called Seraj and he came through. I didn't really want to call anyone else to 'the scene'. I kept on calling the guys who did the crime 'gentlemen' when I was recounting it to the police, I also kept on correcting myself and I wanted to call the fuckwits, but called them 'the men'. A councilor who came to our house called them 'animals'. I don't know what I think about that.

After everyone left Seraj said he'd brought a bottle of wine (good red wine, he wouldn't have it any other way). He brought it in case we 'wanted to take the edge off'. Gotta love Seraj. My folks were suitably worried. I spent the whole time being worried about Amy and just wanting to hug her to prove that we were fine, that we were alive and together. They had taken her purse, her cell phone, my wallet, my Seiko Watch (my beautiful Seiko Kinetic, lamentation!). Again, as fortune (whatever) would have it, I had left my cell phone at home randomly before I went and picked Amy up, which meant that they couldn't get that.

The whole time I just wanted to touch her, same reasons as above. Her dad was pre-occupied with canceling her credit card and bank card. They left and Seraj and I organised my stuff for me to make moves to my parents' place, where I could park the car so that the police could test for fingerprints tomorrow.

I spoke more to my mum, dad and Steve on the phone. My uncled Brian also called. We all said love you. On the phone later, as Amy and I were talking (she was given a new number by Alan I think, already!) I said 'love you'. It is the moments like these that show us how previous the things we have are. I am not going to analyse it too much.

I don't really want to stay at that house anymore. I love the place, but it makes it more difficult to want to be there, to enjoy being there. Ah well...

Anyway, I love you all, if you're reading this, then in all likelihood you are precious to me. You are in my thoughts and I am sorry if I didn't call. It was stressful and I barely dealt with restraining my anger and yelling a 'FUUUUCCCCKKK' while the police were there, let alone calling people.

Night, night, I think I am going to try to sleep. I don't know if it'll work. We'll have to see. I've taken rescue remedy. Maybe it'll work. Although I don't particularly feel like being rescued right now, I feel it would have been better not to require rescue in the first place.

Incidentally, I apologise for how rambling this is, I apologised to the police for the same reason. I am still somewhat shaken up. This is meant to be 'therapeutic'. Ho hum... Therapy. Yes.

I started reading Albert Camus' The Outsider (L'Etranger) last night. It was incredibly beautiful when I started it, but I was simply too tired to read it (although intending to have an early night I ended up going to sleep probably around 1:30am).

Anyway, I was reading it this morning, but I realised I had to go off and run errands. So I took it with me to Cavendish. I started some of my errands, stopped for coffee at Vida and then I promptly finished the book. I couldn't help myself – it accelerated into absolute (yes this is a funny term to apply to the book) brilliance.

Having finished the story and having read the afterword by Camus I was stunned. I simply sat lopsided in my stool for about five minutes. Realised someone had noticed me and I got up. I was quite unfocused. I wondered around Cavendish in a jubilant daze, struck with both the horror and the glory of the book. It was an astonishing read, so valid. I immediately understood why he had received the Nobel at such a young age (as far as I know (and I haven't researched this properly) he was one of the youngest authors to receive the Nobel for Literature).

I don't think that everyone will have as vivid or as tumultuous a response to this book as I did (although many people claim it as one of their favourites I have been told). It is a remarkable book and deserves to be read, it could easily be read in an afternoon. I will read it again. Undoubtedly. I have this craving to read more of his work. I went into Exclusives and bought the plague, but I am going to force myself not to read it because I want to derive as much enjoyment from the reading of it, separate from The Outsider as I did from The Outsider.

I am not going to go into why I loved it so much, I will simply sponsor it as an incredible work of art and hope that my support of it will get you to read it. I know that many will dislike it, even be disgusted by it (not that there is much aesthetically wrong with it as far as I can tell), Afterwards, we can discuss it, think about it, chat, whatever. Just give it a read, it's only 118 pages.

This may sound strange, but I have been trying to write less recently. But, this has been in an attempt to edit more, to observe my own writing and to engage with it (nevertheless, I have written a fair amount, but I am giving you one random sonnet(ish) I wrote and a few other poems. Enjoy. Oh yes, the other impediment to my writing has been the leaching of the soul that results from having to mark exams. It does you know, leach your soul I mean.

Gone the fires: A Sonnet

Lament for those left uncalled alone

And me who loved irrational and bold

who cared for you, who's body was your own:

possession discarded, left forlorn and cold.

Madness of it, the righteous indignance

of youthful joys, ripping fruit flesh sexy

love our rippling flesh, every fragrance

of sex, our own mind-fucked apoplexy.

I would not call it flames, or fire or burning

but it's course was hot passing through my veins.

And found a way to staunch my body's yearning

by burning out your face, your words, your names.

Strident, you left, departure uninvolved

Still I remain, a part of you unsolved.

dogs of war 01-16.06.06

the dogs of war

are weakened

without food

I see

they skulk

Langa's streets

the other orphans

of this filial-

feral affair

Wake 01-22.06.06 (when you read this pronounce the one X as you would for 'Xhosa')

Coming in

at the back

she was thin.

Her sons: Xolisa (Peace)

Thando (Beloved)

are dead.

As so many are

the unwitting victims,

unwitting of their victims

as so many are.

Bowed praying mantis

over their graves

she was so thin.

A carcass cooks,

in funeral fire smoke

she is thin, still.

And the re-working of another poem:

Turned Hands

With upturned hands

you demand and you

plead with me.

Turn your hands down

wrists connected.

Although you've moved

freely, you're imprisoned

completely,

Your hands turned down

would display it.

I wonder. I wonder long and stringently on the role that the United States paints for itself in terms of world politics, trade and overall attempts at control. After wondering, I generally end up worrying. That seems to be the sequence of events.

For example, the buildup to the suicides in Gitmo are indicative of much of the rot that is extant in the US. The process that developed towards this point was deeply problematic. From the first, many people have been imprisoned in Gitmo simply on suspicion of being terrorists, or of having been involved in groups that were against the US. Cases which have attempted to move towards the US Supreme Court have been “thwarted by claims of National Security” (NYTimes, 12.06.06). Moreover, new laws, which some argue should be applied retroactively, may deprive individuals' rights to challenge their imprisonment. Hmm... Land of the Free... Hmm...Combine this with force-feeding programs to combat the hunger strikes, the use of restraint chairs, etc and the record becomes on which is easier to challenge.

What worries me even more is when I read the Washington Post and get told of 110 Million who have joined the “Ranks of the Free” in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ok, yes some people are now free to die at the whim of US generals, to starve to death and to suffer the death of their kinsmen because the US decided that it was 'threatened'. What does this mean? Well, it means that the US felt that Al-Qaeda (that panacea-like defence claim) or 'Terrorist Islamists' (ooh another original one) have impacted on their way of life, on their liberties. Anyway, I am moving away from my initial point - in order to join the ranks of the free (to die of unknown causes maybe) you will be reconstructed in the image of the American 'democratic' state. Joy!

Combine this with the probable, if not inevitable overturning of Roe v. Wade, and with the possible dissolution of the statutes which separate Church from State in the US and we have a path for righteousness which may just indicate for us what a lot of this is about. The US believes intrinsically that its way of life is The Best, not only that, but it is The Right one. In addition, as a result of this, it can do whatever it wants to defend this righteous cause. Great.

Some recent stats on life in the third world: since the Gleneagles G8 conference at least 11 Million children of poor families have died. Many of these countries are ranked amongst 'The Free', but what's the issue? Well the US isn't that interested in dying kids of they aren't located in the US of A or unless their country has access to oil (movements by Goldman-Sachs and others notwithstanding). A response to this could be that world aid is meant to 'increase'. Valid point, but lets look at how we measure that: some $35 Billion of Nigeria's debt has been 'forgiven' and the debt of Saddam Hussein's 'illegitimate' government in Iraq has also been forgiven (OxFam 2006). Now, maybe I am a bit of a cynic when it comes to this, but there is one stark similarity between these two countries: Oil Deposits. Joy! Let's forgive debt, get rid of old governments and then we'll be able to satisfy our oil-consuming frenzy.

Ok. Then there's the AIDS issue. The UNAIDS program had a project called 3 by 5. This was meant to obtain access to ARVs for 3 million of the World's HIV positive and AIDS suffering individuals by September 2005. As a planet we hit the 1 million mark. Although 33% is judged as a fail at most educational institutions, this was still lauded as an 'improvement' (which it was by the way, I don't begrudge that). BUT so much of the progress is blunted by AIDS denialism (for which our own President, Mr Mbeki, is renowned) which seems to be gaining a foothold in the US, combined with which we have the Reagen Gag Rule, and further rules from PEPFAR which stipulate what can and can't be done with aid money (you aren't allowed to talk about abortion). Moreover, condom use is often downplayed. Abstention is the way forward (learn your ABCs). Once more, I don't mean to discredit the effectiveness of Abstention as a way not to contract HIV/AIDS, but the problem with this is that most people will simply ignore you. Most people want to have sex and they believe that they as an individual are not at risk. One of the best policy options which has been advocated by other (slightly more liberal groups I may add) is that individuals should use condoms for at least the first three months of a relationship (after which you can find out whether someone is HIV+ or not) and from then on maybe stop using them. People could conceivably do this. But would the US allow this to be adopted? Nope. Na huh. Sowwy.

Now, the reason I write this is because I am frustrated. I get annoyed because a number of people are Anti-American. I don't put myself in that camp. I want to go and study in the US, I think that in general the US has done a number of incredible and important things. However, I believe that a lot of their current policy is misguided and jeopardises the possibility of peace in any global sense, or of moving towards a world where we as individuals can narrow the gap of income inequality worldwide, and diminish the levels of poverty. I believe in Making Poverty History (but maybe not in the same way as Sir Bob). I agree that, in most senses, freedom and liberty are important, but killing thousands of innocent people in other countries to 'free' them without the assent of the UN? Less sure about that one. Thankfully for me at least, the poll ratings of Mr Bush are down. Much is being speculated about whether the Democrats will be able to Win Back Congress (Clines, NYTimes, 07.06.06). I hope that they do. Oh yes, I realise that I haven't commented that much on world trade. I don't believe that I have to except for the fact that the US (and the EU) need to come to the party there, otherwise all is lost (sorry Coldplay).

So let's keep thinking. Let's keep reading and trying to talk about whether there are going to be movements forward in the US to a state that more adequately reflects the will of a people. With 71 journalists dead in the war in Iraq, thousands of innocents dead in a few months time the US would have been involved in a war in Iraq almost as long as they were involved in WWII. Good to know. Sad to point out. I hope that things move away from the conservatism which seems to have pervaded US policy in recent years. They need to calm their xenophobia (Rivlin, 2006 and Rich, 2006, both NY Times). They need to think about alternative solutions to HIV/AIDS. They need to think of less self-interested ways that they can go about genuinely campaigning for the interests of the world's poor. America is still a powerhouse. They have the machinery to make the world move. I just hope that their momentum gets redirected and that they move in a direction that may better for the overall populace of the planet, rather than a select few in the USA. Hope, pray, think and speak. Maybe we'll get something done.

Once again we have come to a situation where people seem to self-select into groups labeling themselves the 'right' and the 'left'. I find this far from original. Nevertheless, I think that the topic at hand is an important one, one which can affect numerous of us in our everyday lives both in with respect to our constitutional right to free speech, as well as our wish to freely associate with individuals.

Anyway, the current topic is whether internet neutrality should be put into statute in the United States. Now, in the 'rest of the world' we don't have much say about this because we are, quite obviously and patently, outside of the US. Nevertheless, my belief is that the decisions taken there will affect how we interact on the internet and the extent to which we will use the internet freely and sociably.

My worry predominantly goes towards the fact that as an internet user my use predominantly revolves around access to sites in the United States and in many cases hosted by state-side servers. If there were no legislation going through and the dual highway off access (ironically, I think, as sponsored by Google (the supposed champion of 'free speech' and other morally appealing virtues) and several others) goes through then those companies with more money would be able to pay in order to increase their bandwidth and the accessibility of their sites. What this translates to is a gradation of access – you pay more, then people can access you more easily.

Now, hypothetically, this could create certain benefits to us as consumers because we would be able to download information quicker, we'd have faster streams of video, audio, etc to our home pcs using basic infrastructures such as broad band. That is all good. What is not at all good is the fact that we would be, once more, at the mercy of those who have more money. Notwithstanding that most of us use Google anyway, and already using that system there are cases that those who pay more will pop up higher on the search list, there is still the possibility of you as an individual choosing to click through the pages in order to find a specific site.

If the pay-for-your-bandwidth situation comes about though then those of us who don't pay, or who pay less for our internet and hosting, will end up being nigh on inaccessible to those people who may want to hear us.

My problem with this is many-fold. Firstly, in terms of equitable systems, this system (or the mechanism by which the system will come about) is inherently based on an infrastructure in which the person with more money 'wins' more space, download speeds, etc. This is not a good thing in world in which there is already dramatic inequality. If we saw this, then it would be a simple case of the rich buying up all the access and the poor not being able to buy enough. In a world where business is to a greater and greater extent internet-based this is just shocking! It cannot happen. Inequality will worsen and we in the third world with our horrendously low levels of relative capital will not be able to survive. The miracles of the internet age, a la Mark Shuttleworth will cease to exist. You will have to have money in order to make money. That just worsens an already poor situation.

In addition to this, there is the more heinous problem (if you are a libertarian) of the basic curtailment of free speech. It will not matter if you have the ability to speak freely if no one can hear you – what I mean here is that if you don't have the resources to buy bandwidth then people who may have heard what you had to say previously will not be able to do so. What will happen to NGOs and NPOs trying to get hits on their websites in order to increase donations to their causes? Will the pool of people patient enough simply dwindle into obscurity? Will their success be dependent on hand-outs from ISPs? In which case there could be typical preferential resourcing and allocations of funding such as there has been with PEPFAR after Bush reinstated Reagan's Gag Rule. Ah well... there goes the ability of the poor to speak out. Moreover, if I realise, as someone in control of a specific ISP, that the blog that someone has, or the site content that someone has constructed, is against what I think, or believe is valid, would I then not have the power to simply limit their bandwidth regardless? Would this then result in those companies that control the ISPs being able to profile and reject certain companies or individuals because of their politics, their religious beliefs, or their sexual orientation? Where would the ability to 'choose' be limited? Once more, free speech could be captured and tamed by the capitalist machine. This has happened time and again with the visual and printed media where only those whose views coincided with a specific opinion, or at least didn't deviate spectacularly from accepted doctrine would get published. The internet, on the other hand, has been a milieu through which the unpublished could self-publish (granted this has resulted in lots of bad 'art' going up on the internet, but hey it can't be all good all the time). In this world where people can actively participate in debate and express themselves freely, do we really believe that a government such as the US' should be able to determine not only the future of their own internet protocols, but to a large extent the models that may end up being accepted by the rest of the world? Would it be a just result to see an unregulated and laissez-faire situation coming about?

This is where the 'right'/'left' thing comes in. Generally, the right has more money than the left. Moreover, they are, more often than not, those who want to ensure that regulation of companies and corporates stays to a minimum in a 'laissez-faire' style economy. The problem with this is that it generally means laissezing the rich to faire what they want¹, such as if you have more money, you buy more bandwidth. If you have more bandwidth, all the more power to you, barrier to entry for competitors, level of competition in the market decreases, you gain more market power as others cannot compete with your investment, you gain pricing power and are a monopolist. It is the perfect situation for exploitative companies to say 'YAY!' a situation where government is not yet advanced enough to regulate us. That is unless the neutrality laws go through. The left are often obsessed with ideas such as freedom of speech (at least in some categorisations of the left I admit), of freedom of expression, etc. However, these could be lost as per the logic above.

Thus, once again, my personal opinion seems to be sitting on the 'left' with the regulators, the interventionists, the 'free speech protectors' and the anti-capitalist thugs. I reiterate that I believe that capitalism in itself is not a bad thing, it just needs to be watched, we are the custodians of capitalism and must ensure that it our systems protect not only the rights of those with money who want to make even more money, but those who want to move out of possible inferior situations into better situations. With an unregulated internet, this may be something of the past. So yes, I stand with those who want to 'protect the internet'. Read up, tell me what you think, I may be misinformed, who knows? What I do worry about though is apathy and people exploiting our inaction – once more we could be the victims of our own delayed conscious action.

Some sites FYI:

Against Net Neutrality

http://www.handsoff.org/

Pro Net Neutrality

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/05/free_speech_fre.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?m=20060

harmonics 12.05.06

glancing at the sky

i see a star damaged

by the light around me

hemmed in the controlled

dispersion of our

electric lives

and I am humming an

awkward tune turning it

into a whistle

tuning into and out of

what makes the star

real in this moment

that i am watching it

seeing it and enjoying it's

damaged harmony with mine

Moving photos 14.05.06

I have photos of you

put up on the walls of

my room, slowly their

prestick-strength has

failed them and they have

peeled off, a corner at

a time normally. But

there are two of you,

black and white,

bleached sand, the curve

towards a breast as you

lie there, and these

neither peeled nor

took their time, they

simply fell. I don't want

to put them back in their

customary places, we

are no longer suited

to them being there,

nor am I sure if they should

be up any longer, grey

beaches of times when

you weren't away and

neither of us waiting

for the other to change,

for the other to stay.

Awoken dream 19.05.06

I.

Trembling child of my thoughts

do not cower

you are neither hungry

nor thirsty

quivering

boy

why do you cry?

I see neither wounds

nor scars on your

pale body, you

seem

undamaged.

Yet there is a hand

and a pointing finger

that draws in

the sand of these

thoughts

these predicted

dreams

II.

these finger sketches

made in the sands

become golem-alive

the barefoot walking

water carrying mothers

of my mind's eye

hungry fingers scratching

in the sand meals they make

held earthenware strong

the strength of these clay fingers

is borne in their daily

water-bearing, water dreaming

III.

without water, arid in

the African sun, the potter-

creators are weak and dry:

their makings cracking in

the heat, breaking in the

drought of it and once more

fading, the earth swallows

them and what was once blood

nourishes the parched land

sweet land that birthed

these golem dreams that

showed me the water-clay

children, hungry as they

were, but brought back

and dreamed at me, brought

forth, tied to me, and I, having

collected their sun-scattered

remains, wonder whether

I could have held back

the heat that so culled them.

I regret that I did not intervene,

that I watched in silence,

and bore witness to their shattering,

their last out breath.

Restoration 21.05.06

All it took was

some words, the

way you shook

your hair and a

request

from that I took

restoration

and there I had been

cowering in the

fear that the rest

that any more would

simply be shadows

you present me with

hopefulness

Interest 21.05.06

To batter against

what were the barriers

I had set up

to know that I

had erected these

structures, but be

unaware of the methods

of their de(con)struction

my god you have stirred

me up and it feels

so good to once

more engage and

be wanton for the

damage that you could

inflict on me in

letting you in

in the possibility

of your vision

beneath my closed

eyelids, to be unheard

by you, but for you

to feel the bass of

my voice against the

closeness of your skin

that would content me

Five Men 23.05.06

I scream wracked the windows

of my home tonight

and I am past the point

of tentativeness

I ran out to the calls of

“They're down the canal”

and a woman screaming

“Get the bastards!”

I had not run that fast months

my damaged knee, but the pent

frustrations of hijackings

break-ins and the muggings

of ninety-one year old women

spurned me onwards, I ran with

two men, I the biggest of

us three and I caught up

to the 'bastards' who'd

attacked my neighbour lady

five men in the darkness of

rondebosch, canal water and leaves

I stood there as they

shouted at one another

running and confused at

people chasing them:

the reverse predation

and it was stranger still

when they ran at me and
I stood my ground.

One stopped, waved a knife

and ran away. Although

I was not fearful, stupid as

that may seem, it would

have been more foolish still to

die alone there, having outrun

my friends, but I knew

I knew and I knew, that

part of me had wanted

to attack him, to make

him feel attacked, to rip

at his knife-hand with my

hands to punch him with

my frustrated fists and to

kick at the lowness of it.

Earlier I had tried to recall

synonyms. They came to me

as I ran my chase:

Dialectical. Disputatious.

And they were so damn

appropriate the dialectics

of the material, the stolen

and the gone – the paradox

the rich fearing the strength

of poverty as young men

race our streets in their

casual attempts at 'work'

of laptops and old ladies'

purses, the radios and old

shoes in cars, the left, the

lost and the alone. Gone.

A Primary School Classroom in a Township 25.05.06

Far far from the grasp of gusty seas and cling-wrap

beaches these faces the stalks of brown seaweed in

an ocean of white paint and ink-stained desks, they

are the wind-blown pick-'n-pay packet children of

Cape Town's shores blown into the overheads and

highways caught up in the barbed-wire berths that

surround the schools in which they were once sweet

once young, momentarily youthful in the bright, sunlit

corners of these too dim rooms. The boy with the

ink on his pale hands left his mark in the sand near

the school's gate, he glanced across his shoulder at

the rust tin soccer games, the gravel clean and innocent

in the face of all the running, the games and the

flagrant inaction, the careless joys of education

primary and formative as it should be. Yet it could

be more: with the ideas of carpets beneath feet, the

concepts of books on shelves and pencils in hands

or chalkboards that would meet with chalk, rather

than the drum of dull voices and their echoes on

cemented floors, the emptiness of bookless shelves

and the orchestral silence of unwriting children.

I would not claim that their tongues are not golden,

nor that their eyes could not remember the greens

and blues of beached days, but the talking, the reading

and the idea of imagination seem sparse here, it is

difficult to consider them, to conceive of what once

would have been imagined, would have been naked,

burning and eaten up by tastes gone dull from disuse

for the paper-thin boys breaking into the waves of the

smaller girls look on in shocked hair ways, eyes wide

at umlungu, eyes brighter still at how we so become

idols, how we are the moment by moment recreated

histories playing out our drums on the skin of their

ancestors, and them the heirs to lost thrones and further

gone lineages of men, bought, sold, liberated and sold anew.

Ok, so one of the guys that I tutor for, Ron Irwin, asked me to help him write an article on Affirmative Action (as this is a passion of mine, in a strange way). One of the adjuncts was that Men's Health also asked him to write on the 5 Biggest Myths on Affirmative Action and on Black Workers. I got 5 for Affirmative Action, but I didn't get further than 3 for Black Workers. I read an article by Fryer and Loury last year and a lot of what I wrote was influenced by what they wrote and my own thinking subsequent to that. Enjoy!

5 Biggest Myths about Affirmative Action

1. Affirmative Action isn’t about quotas it’s about a ‘goal of government’.

Regardless of whether you buy into Affirmative Action or not, it is about actual specific numerical goals, both in terms of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and in terms of the transformation of specific companies. Believing that you don’t have to fulfil a specific numerical quota is naïve. Companies need to fulfil quotas in order to be BEE compliant and in order to be in line with the transformation outcomes delineated in the employment equity act. It isn’t going to be anything fuzzy such as a ‘goal’, it’s a cold hard number that needs to be met by every single company to transform the economy, the workplace and the class structure of South Africa.

2. Affirmative Action Will Help the poor of South Africa

Sadly, in most cases this is a mythical ideal. Those people who are going to benefit are the people who are well-connected and well-educated. What does that mean? It’s most likely the black sons and daughters of black businessmen and politicians who are going to benefit the most from affirmative action policies. The poor and underprivileged may be overlooked because of the dramatic problems in the education system that are still prevalent throughout South Africa: the lack of throughput from Matric to technical tertiary education degrees such as Engineering, Maths and other applied sciences.

3. Race-neutral policies are more ethical and effective than race-specific ones

Again this is a myth based on a myopic view of ethics. In terms of equitable approaches to employment in the ideal world people would come from exactly the same backgrounds and be able to attend homogenous schools that rewarded hard work and intellectual pursuits. This isn’t the case. Sadly, in South Africa with a dramatic history of inequality in basic education levels and inequality in incomes (which means that if you are white your parents could pay for you to go to an even better school if they wanted), these inequalities in investment in infrastructure and institutions in specific areas are going to be felt for generations to come. In order to deal with them one of the only ways to intervene is to have ‘race-sighted’ rather than ‘race-blind’ policies. Moreover, race specific policies are one of the only ways to compensate and cater for the unethical historical treatment of specific race groups. In addition to this, Affirmative Action does not say that white people should not be employed, or that they are not allowed in specific jobs, what it says is that companies need to go about using their budgets to recruit qualified black individuals. This neither unethical nor ineffective, it is a dramatic attempt to reform the institutions in our society such that they become conducive to multiracial circumstances – an ethical and efficient outcome.

4. It should be about equal opportunities

Well, yes it should be. The problem however, as related above, is the fact that opportunities are seldom equal. In fact in most circumstances we see many situations in which the whites in this country because of the institutions that are available to them in still predominantly white areas, are at a distinct advantage in the ‘opportunities’ game. No one can honestly say that a child going to Sinethemba Secondary School (???) is given the same ‘opportunities’ as a child going to Rondebosch Boys High School. What does this mean? In many situations as a white individual in South Africa you have been given a multitude of opportunities that will increase the use of you as an individual relative to many of the black individuals in the country who are still victims of the multiple inferior institutions with which they interact on a daily basis. Government is trying to change things, but it takes time, and not just time but money and the expertise of individuals who are committed to change the system. The idea that you should then be given an ‘equal opportunity’ in terms of job availability is nigh on ludicrous, you are an overwhelmingly good candidate because of the number of opportunities that have been fed to you throughout your life, don’t claim that simply because there are suddenly Affirmative Action policies in this one area of your life that you are suddenly downtrodden and part of the exploited proletariat.

5. Affirmative Action always affects ‘me’

The short answer is ‘no’. Grow up. Every single job wasn’t a job reserved for you. Every single interview wasn’t an interview which was meant to result in a job for you. There are a number of jobs out there and the fact is that if you are a highly skilled individual you should get one regardless. Affirmative action is about getting people who haven’t been involved to be a part of the picture, and not only are they changing the look of the company photo, but hopefully they are changing the way the company itself is run; for the better. That job you didn’t get? Maybe you didn’t suit the profile. Maybe you weren’t qualified, experienced, confident, well-trained, or [fill this space] enough – all of these are reasons you would have thought that you didn’t get the job previously before affirmative action came about. These things still apply now, if not even more so than they ever did before. The reason being that previously, you or your buddy may have gotten the simply because you were white, maybe you weren’t qualified enough, but you still got the job. The tables have been turned. Go and get an honours degree, an MBA, or get involved in a project, some volunteer work, show that you are a worthwhile candidate. If you are you will be hired.

In terms of myths about black workers…

1. They aren’t as qualified

Wrong answer. They may not have been as qualified on average immediately after Apartheid, but right now there are more and more black graduates entering into the job market. Moreover, if they have been trained recently with more rigorous methods, the possibility is that they may even be trained better than you. What that means is that not only are they a black candidate, but they are a black candidate with a good qualification.

2. They don’t work as hard

Hate to say it, but wrong again. In order for a black individual to retain a high-end job they are most likely going to have to work as hard as anyone else. In fact, they are quite likely going to have to work harder than that for the simple reason that they may be in slightly over their heads. Don’t con yourself into thinking that you have a monopoly on the ability to work hard if you came out of white middle class suburbia.

3. They get paid too much

No, they don’t. This is basic economics. Currently, they are possibly being paid more than their white counterparts because of there being a high demand combined with a low supply of black professional workers. Low supply and high demand result in a high price. A high price in this instance is simply a higher wage to retain the services of a specific product – the product being the services of a black professional in a specific field. They are not being paid ‘too much’ they are being paid the price that the market has determined for them (the market incidentally which lib-dems such as most whites favour so hotly). If by ‘too much’ you mean more than you, then yes that may be true, but think of it in economic terms and it’s simply the result of basic market dynamics. Incidentally, what makes affirmative action even more important in this circumstance is that as it progresses these payment differentials will decrease because the necessity for them will have drastically diminished – the supply of qualifies black individuals will have increased lowering the price at which the market clears...

I was asked the following 3 questions - they are in bold. I responded as I did below. You can comment to me what you think.

(a) How do we inspire less selfishness? Tough question. Meditate? Pray? Construct morality on social contract theory? Construct institutions that incentivise selflessness - i.e. use selfishness to defeat itself? What do you guys think would make a practical difference?

Ok, I don’t think that we can really inspire less selfishness, except in terms of regulation of corporates to ensure that they don’t exploit labour, or to ensure that they do not exploit natural resources. The key here is an efficient and effective regulatory body which can actually adequately monitor what corporates are doing and hold them responsible for their behaviour. Personally, I don’t think we’ll be able to change individual behaviour, I think that the only way to adequately reinforce behaviour that is somewhat altruistic is to have government become more efficient, publicly so in fact, so that people can see where their tax money is going. On this, it is entirely feasible for us to pay even higher taxes than we are in South Africa, assuming that we can begin to see better outcomes. Obviously graft and corruption are enemies of this outcome, but we can but hope that government becomes more efficient and that they find ways to eliminate graft thus ensuring that we see where the money that we as taxpayers pay goes somewhere – Social Grants, Public Hospitals, Infrastructure, whatever. (the new public works programs if they are re-vamped (which they are meant to be) should do some good here).

(b) How do we protect against selfishness? Tough question. Confer legal rights on people? Overthrow capitalism in a glorious communist revolution?

Personally, I believe that a version of regulated or ‘responsible’ capitalism is the only way that we can eventually see a positive future for SA. This is contingent on several factors. The first is that a revolution of any sort is costly and time-consuming and therefore is unlikely to be considered useful. Secondly, capitalism is the game that is played by almost all countries and one of the only ways that we can ensure some kind of improved aggregate lifestyle for South Africans (and Africans in general) is if we learn to play this game better than it is played by members of the first world. We need to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of institutions, we need policies to be implemented with measurable goals and with individuals and member of government accountable for what they do. This does not require a change in government, nor does it even require a strong opposition, it simply requires responsible governance by the party in power. Something of which I believe they are capable, especially in the context of the massive improvements that have resulted from their rule in the past five years (I don’t count the first 5 as they were basically emergency management subsequent to the nightmare that constituted Apartheid Economics). Moreover, socially democratic models are quite likely to work in the long run, Thabo Mbeki is a big fan of people like Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, or of socially democratic models such as Sweden.

Commensurate with this is a necessity for an increase in the skills of the average individual. This then requires an improved education system, and a system which in turn reflects the changes that need to occur in the economy. Hence campaigns for increased math and science education, for higher quality teachers, etc are all within the ambit of this eventual policy goal. This means though that the ANC as a party are going to have to reverse some of their decreased spending on education, even though SA has high education spending as a percentage of GDP internationally, a lot of the money goes unspent, moreover when it is interacted with the equitable share system the provincial and national goals need to be aligned in order to have proper educational outcomes. Interesting things to note are simply things such as the success of the primary school feeding program in Mpumulanga, which will hopefully result in higher marks and increased attention for later education and remedy the nightmare that has been that province’s education outcomes in recent history (in the 2002 School Register of Needs survey, Mpumulanga was often left out because the schools had such poor data, and inadequate data provision).

(c) And, very importantly, how can we reconcile any answers to (a) and (b) above with the idea of freedom? If you agree that human freedom is a value worth pursuing (which I certainly hope you do), how can we balance the need for limiting selfishness with the value of liberty to do what we want?

To a large extent I think that liberty is over-rated (Yes, that was meant to incense you Al). Although the previous statement was somewhat inflammatory, I do believe it to a large extent. I think that because of the indoctrination that we have received in terms of ‘personal liberties’ in western societies, people have an incorrect belief that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. I may be sounding all 1984 here, but there are many instances in which personal beliefs and personal liberties are not necessarily for the best of society as a whole or society on aggregate. Yes, I like the fact that I have freedom of movement, of expression, etc, but I don’t really believe that they are intrinsic rights that are necessary in order for everyone to live happy lives. I think that our ideas of freedom often constrain us to believe in a system that has to promote these ideals when they are not necessarily for the best, I would gladly sacrifice my freedom to move out of South Africa if I believed it would help solve South Africa’s poverty (granted this is a long shot, but an interesting point nonetheless, it is meant to be purely illustrative). The problem I think is that people make the argument that ‘life is only worth living if you have freedoms A through Z’, I think that if we all had Freedoms ‘A through X’ but not Y and Z, we could have a more successful society. Nevertheless, this does not mean that I believe that government should limit freedoms. The honest truth is that the limitation of individual freedoms has almost inevitably been correlated with countries which have subsequently failed, this would then mean that if South Africa started doing such it could be indicative of the proverbial end-days for our country. The above argument was meant purely as a philosophical understanding of what I believe is relevant – I think that if everyone could be fed, had a job, access to amenities, etc I would limit myself in many ways to see that occur. I would prefer not to have to do so though.

All of the above being said, it is very difficult to come up with ‘practical’ solutions that don’t limit the freedoms of business or of individuals. Corporations have a large amount of protection, as does labour. I believe that both of them could do with less protection. The right wing will scream at the violation of corporations and the left wing will scream at the violation of labourers – each of them contributes to the problem and they both need to make concessions in order to improve eventual outcomes for the country. Labour laws could be made more liberal and reduce the costs for hiring and firing individuals, equally corporate taxes could be higher, or at least the coporate sector could be duty-bound to do more for the country, for example the service could be requested to do work for government pro bono, or maybe they could be awarded government contracts contingent on their following certain practices (this or at least a version thereof is in place in certain instances).

I believe that people are very scared to give up what they have. Many of the white people in South Africa are still unprepared to pay the ethical price for Apartheid. My personal belief is that if you are a white individual in South Africa over the age of 5 you have immorally and unethically benefited from Apartheid in one way or another: either you received better schooling, or your parents had a better job, or you made money which was tantamount to being made at the blood cost of others. The White population of this country does not wish to take responsibility for this, we worry about our property rights (the property of which was often gained at dramatic cost to others of different races), or our ‘personal freedoms’ to which we are so philosophically attached. I believe that this often contributes to many white people acting against government when they could be acting in accordance with what government is trying to achieve. I reiterate that I am not trying to split this into an ‘us’ and ‘them’ scenario, but simply that white people overvalue what they have and undervalue what they owe. People too easily forget.

Is there no possible solution in striving for 'ethical capitalism'? Is there no point in fighting to 'make trade fair'? ('Ethical' and 'Fair' adopting primarily the assumption that unbounded selfishness is shit, as evidenced, for example, by the moral claims underlying Patrick's email: e.g. wasting natural resources is bad; selling tobacco to children is bad; firing atomic bombs at civilians is bad; rights for workers is good; voting to release Mandela was good; etc).

As I stated above, I believe that ethical capitalism or responsible capitalism is the system which is most likely to succeed. However, it will entail a large amount of sacrifice on an individual level, in terms of income, tax, personal benefits, the education of one’s children, and possibly several other levels. The stark reality is that many of us had extraordinary educations at private institutions, for us to have a morally and ethically responsible government may require of us a situation in which we send our children to schools that could be dramatically inferior to those that we attended. There will be a certain loss of the very high quality of services that we experienced because many of those services had been reinforced almost at the direct cost of services to the historically disadvantaged in our country.

In terms of making trade fair, this is a worthy goal in and of itself. The problem is normally that European and US representatives don’t want to come to the party. As was seen this week when the deadlines for the EU (specifically France) were to be met for the Doha trade round, the EU pushed them off. If the pattern continues unabated then the Doha round may end up as a complete failure as more protectionists gain power in the US and the EU respectively. It will not be happy. Making trade fair is a worthy goal, but with the number of times that the developing world has been burnt by promises by the developed world, the developing world need to see some indication of authenticity by the developed world before it will warrant any action by them to reduce their trade barriers, their tariffs, NTBs, etc.

In addition, the process of ‘making trade fair’ requires an equalization of political power which is external to such things as who has veto power on the UN, or who can buy off whom in the WTO. This kind of equalization of power requires even more of both sides of the developing/developed world because it requires them to take cognizance of their own political weaknesses and to deal with them without becoming melodramatic.

A comment on the selfishness issue: I don’t believe that this flows from Monotheistic religions, it most likely flows from a enlargement of personal preservation and personal genetic preservation. Hence, I want to make more money to ensure that my genetic offspring are more likely to produce offspring. The more money and power I have, the more likely this is to occur and the more offspring me and mine are more likely to have. It just so happens that the largest hegemon at the current moment in time is predominantly constructed of people who profess to be Christian. I believe that in many situations people will revert to genetic imperatives, even though they may believe or have faith in others. I agree that it seems strange for monotheistic religions which often promote unselfishness and love to be present in the face of so much selfishness. I think it is just genetic nature. Obviously there are possibilities for us to override genetics, but I think in many cases people simply revert.

Ok, so that wasn’t entirely coherent, but it’s a start. I think I get across some of what I am thinking about. Tell me what you are thinking, contemplating, etc.

Si

P.S. If you haven’t listened to it yet, there is an interesting interview with the guy who wrote the article on The Economist Website. http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6766071

So a few perspectives that may be of interest in the mountains of economics reading that I have done.

Firstly, Englebert (2000) isolated a ‘legitimacy’ index that contained variables of democratization, graft, corruption, etc in order to ascertain whether that was an adequate explanation of something called ‘The African Dummy’ by Barro (1994) (The Africa Dummy is a variable occasionally thrown in to cross-country regressions because of just being an African Country, it is generally significant and has a large magnitude of impact, i.e. it’s bad to be in Africa). Similarly, Ndulu and O’Connell (1999) have done similar work on governance structure, institutions, etc in order to ascertain whether they are at the centre of Africa’s poor performance economically rather than just politically, although there paper has some problems in it, it makes an interesting contribution by an implementation of something called ‘The Lipset Hypothesis’ which basically says that those countries with better initial pre-democracy institutions will do better than the others. This is better for SA, but sucks for much of the rest of Africa.

Ok enough of that, but something which may prove interesting is that Bhorat and Oosthuizen (forthcoming) show that the SA government gives more support for the poor and unemployed than is supposedly given by COSATU. This is a really interesting result mainly because COSATU continually defends itself by saying that it protects the poor and the unemployed by protecting the individual in those households who is employed. Government’s protection of these is categorized by their offering of the Child Support Grant and the Old Age Pension, which disproportionately support the two lowest income groups in South Africa (i.e. those with incomes of 0-400 and 401-800 rand per month). Incidentally, if we combine these two groups into a group of 0-800 rand per month, this single group holds over 75% of South Africa’s unemployed. This is an intuitive result as it is most often the poor and uneducated who do not have the resources to obtain an education or find the money to even obtain a job (finding work incurs costs), moreover with recent studies into ‘network theory’ of job searches these people can’t get jobs because they don’t have friends who have jobs. Self-reinforcing cycles of siffness.

Nevertheless, on Matthew’s points on Robert Guest and subsequent Economist views on Africa, and South Africa specifically. Guest is not at all positive about South Africa in The Shackled Continent, moreover, if the current editorial team maintain his ideological standpoint then I cannot believe that they will represent South African policies in what would be considered a positive light. Notwithstanding that, the survey is more positive than the previous one as Matthew says (had to read it previously) although we should not let that lull us into believing or agreeing with everything that is presented by The Economist or by the Financial Times. I would also contest Matthew’s statement that The Economist is at all centrist, yes they did not support Berlusconi’s outright capitalism, but in terms of Italian politics he was considered right wing, and being slightly left of the right wing does not suddenly make a publication centrist. However, if we agree that the so-called centre is moving more ‘right’ then Matthew’s considerations may have more credence (I know that this was researched in a recent study, I can’t remember the names of the authors). Nevertheless, I do agree that such a publications focus on issues such as graft and corruption do not necessarily coincide with a specific political agenda. What also reinforces what the articles were saying is Mbeki’s recent commentary to reinforce the arguments of both papers on the role of cronyism in South Africa. It is a massive problem. In my mind though, we need to consider this in the context of the positive which Stuart brought up. Additionally, if we look at how the government is doing in beginning to cause accelerated growth (although that is admittedly debatable – that the govt policy is causing it that is), that there are numerous increases in poor peoples’ access to amenities, that there are supposedly decreases in both poverty and inequality (SA going down in the world rankings of ‘most unequal countries’) then we must see that there are good results from the current government. The obvious question that covers most peoples lips is whether there is a sufficiently strong trickle down effect for the benefits of economic growth to be felt by the unemployed, those that Bhorat and Oosthuizen (forthcoming) and Bhorat and Leibbrandt (2001) investigate as being the most vulnerable. I hesitate to posit an answer to that question.

One area though that I think could have done with more observation is that of primary and secondary education, the availability of teachers and whether the new OBE based education system will supply tertiary institutions with sufficiently skilled individuals for the rigours of that training. We all know that SA faces a skills deficit, the question is then whether the primary/secondary responses to the tertiary needs are properly met.

So that was my initial 2 cents. If it makes any interesting points let me know.

Si

It's actually Sunday morning now. I like Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings. I am listening to the band 'Something for Kate'. They're a kind of chilled rock band, the song 'Hide' is a fun one, one of the lyrics goes 'You only hide because you know I'll find you'. I wonder about it, about having someone who would hide from me so that I could find them. Notwithstanding all that, life is good (s'good). Lecturing has improved, even subsequent to a clash with the convenor of the course (shock-horror). These things happen, I am not too worried though.

I saw an enjoyable movie on Friday night: 'Shopgirl' with Clare Danes. The idea behind it is about confusion over love and being in love with people who confess not to be in love with you, it's also about being on anti-depressives (not that that's a common deus ex machina in movies these days hey?). Nevertheless, it's a cool film. Jason Schwartzman's character is suitably fumbling and unaware of his surroundings, especially after his 'I heart Huckabees' performance, this adds to his character as an actor. I have really come to like his acting.

Otherwise, I had dinner this evening with Seraj, Tess, Becks and Lyndal. Fun. Good curry. Talked a bit of politics. Darfur - keeping people informed of genocide sucks sometimes - they don't seem to know what's going on and then you say "Yes, aid workers and refugees have been systematically murdered." Conversation enhancer of note. I was going to bring up Iran and the problems of nuclear empowerment, but I was unsure as to how that would go down after our discussion over whether humans are inherently selfish (at least self-interested) and whether this can be overcome by social pressures and social patterns of behaviour - espeically in the context of SA and our poverty, unemployment, etc. This is also all subsequent to a large internet debate on these things (in fact the I'll put my 'responses' up here, enjoy).

Anyway, the day moves more into Sunday. Rain is falling and Cape Town is getting colder. I have uploaded some photos of a beautiful woman I took photos of on Thursday evening - Monica. Was doing it randomly for some Rag people. Yup, weird. Check my facebook for them.

I should sign off, I feel like reading, the cold is getting tighter around me. Night night friends.

I had always thought that I would be a good teacher, that I am a good teacher. I have been challenging this recently. Wow! It has been difficult teaching 1200 students, good difficult though. I am learning about my own capabilities. I teach 4 classes a day – the expectation being that on average 300 students will come to each lecture. The variety of the students is fascinating, frustrating and daunting. I have to cover 6 chapters in 4 weeks worth of lectures (15 lectures), this means that I have less than three lectures per chapter. The students don't seem to grasp the gravity of this, at least those who don't understand what is going on. We operate under the assumption that they understand their first year work, as well as the work that they have covered in previous sections, but I keep on coming across gaps in their knowledge that I must bridge in order for them to understand what I am lecturing on, else they will fail. That is not necessarily a bad thing for some of them. It becomes worrying, more and more so. I want them all to pass, but I know that many of them won't. I have to do my best to ensure that they do, but I am fearful of their inability to deal with the pressure. My expectations have been sullied. I know that I can teach well, that I do teach well, but I had not catered to the preferences that are so variable among such a large group of individuals. It is daunting. I deal with it.