Back to the future too

Friends and sympathisers of this blog fondly will remember the previous “Back to the Future” article posted last year October in line with the “future” date of the 1980’s cult classic.

As a post-script to that article, the Cubs eventually won the World Series for the first time in over 100 years and not to mention that Biff Tanner, in a nightmare alternative timeline, becomes mayor and the nation’s favourite citizen.

It will be interesting to check this blog five years from now to see the effects of Biff Tanner’s real usurpation of power: the White House in 2016.  That is, of course, if blogging still exists.

Turning our backs to the future

Regular readers of this website, who I count as myself and possibly an automatic Spyware monitor, might be surprised to discover that this post has gone back in time by 10 years.

No, this is not some DeLorean driving back in time but this slightly conservative blog is leaning back to its liberal roots of student idealism and revolutionary ideas. We are sitting here on 22 October 2015, the “day after tomorrow”, but not much has changed in the past decade in South Africa, a country which is in a state of static flux and mediocre progression… and its students are fed up.

The ANC government’s decision to increase tertiary education fees essentially has made the dream of escaping poverty unreachable for many South Africans who cannot even pass the first hurdle of registration fees which are three times higher than a minimum monthly salary. At the same time, the government spends its limited resources by propping up the tribal loyalties of the ruling elite to entrench its power. Of course, attacking this culture of corruption is clichéd and doesn’t need to be explained further. However, to the “born free” generation, words such as Nkandla, service delivery and slow-BEE transformation have become symbols of dashed hopes.

Nothing is free and neither should tuition fees be either, but every South African that has the will but not the financial means to develop his or her skills should be given a fighting chance. Can the universities not expand on their student loan systems where students can pay back their tuition once they are employed or pay back by social service? By increasing the fees as a solution for a dire funds deficit, these students cannot even start on the employment map and they just will be transferred as another cost to government’s other social security budgets.

It is economics 101: a flourishing economy must have a sustainable middle-class and an equitable distribution of wealth that broadens the tax base. By increasing tertiary fees, another generation in South Africa is being excluded from joining the skilled job market, and so confining their families to an unbreakable cycle of poverty. Needless to say, South Africa’s skills shortage has to be addressed immediately as the only long term solution to re-generate employment and alleviate its shameful unemployment rate.

This is the half-baked future of a South Africa dreamed about 20 years ago. It is a country where the white minority graspingly holds on to its share of the pie, and the ruling ANC is most concerned with how to split the pie with its cohorts but few are worried about how to keep the oven burning so more pies can be baked to feed those who are hungry. The irony is that the ANC, which by its nature and constitution is the freedom fighter of South Africa’s history, is now seen as the establishment and a hindrance as they sit in their ivory towers in Tshwane. In being so obsessed with addressing its past, South Africa is forgetting about its future. Education should be a national security interest, and if it means that belts have to be tightened in foreign affairs, military spending or for one of Zuma’s wives then so be it.

Zuma’s tenure has been defined by directionless movement without a clear plan on how to address the country’s long term issues. The ANC has not provided a clear map of the country’s future, and to quote a relevant movie of the day, where we are going there may be no Rhodes, or no Wits and UCT either!

Scarlet Johannson and canned tuna

 

 

I remember attending a conference some years ago before the BDS non-sense caught wind. The lecturer advocated the boycotting of West Bank goods on the basis that it was morally wrong to buy products from an occupied territory. I recall standing up in the Q&A session and drawing a parable to the speaker:

 

“It is like he is going shopping in the aisles and only buys dolphin friendly tuna. That’s all good for the dolphins, but what about the tuna!?”

 

It is all very well having conscious consumerism but if BDS supporters are really interested in human rights, why not boycott China for its occupation of Tibet or “cashmere” woollen pullovers that come from disputed territories in the Indian sub-continent.  This is double standards to say the least!

 

What takes the cake though is an announcement this week that France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, led a flotilla of 100 French companies rushing to do business with Iran like a prisoner waiting for his 5 minute window for conjugal rights. With the sanctions being lifted during this 6 month easing, European businesses are rushing to Iran to make sure that any future sanctions with the theocratic regime will be irreversible. This comes after US/EU foreign ministers were caught geffufling with Iran’s foreign minister in Switzerland in November last year and agreed to try “dating for 6 months to, you know, see where it goes”.

 

So let’s get this right. A company with an atrocious human rights record, actively pursues nuclear weapons (and reneging on its agreement with the US/EU not to do so), threatens to destroy other countries and is unashamedly a supporter of groups listed as terrorist organisations receives a golden hug from the P5+1 leaders. These same leaders are contemplating, or at least rattling their tails, to impose boycotts on Israel if it continues to expand naturally into Palestinian territories. To put it simply, a bubble-making factory in the middle of a highway to the dead sea is single-handily the biggest threat to world peace. This is what the BDS movement, and its cohorts like Oxfam, are leading the world to believe.

 

The settlements are controversial - granted. It is not called a “disputed land” for nothing. Of course the continuing developments of settlements impedes on the sustainability of a possible viable Palestinian state. Does this mean that there should be a world-wide witch-hunt for Scarlets who endorse a brand that happens to have one of its many factories in an industrial zone in Area C (Israeli controlled area of the West Bank)? Must the entire world’s focus turn to this endearing lady and a tiny production line for all the wrong reasons? While all this time, world leaders are turning the other cheek to soon-to-be conflicts that require serious sanctions. No doubt Kameini, al-Assar and friends are laughing all the way to the (thawing) bank.

 

The Arabs came with armies to defeat Israel and lost. Terrorist gangs came with suicide bombers and rockets but this was contained. Now the only avenue left is the morally hazardous deligitimisation campaign which does not bring engagement to the peace-table. Rather, it adds another reason to delay proper peace negotiations and difficult concessions on both sides.

 

For now, the BDS movement will fail so long as it is run by B-grade or “has been” singers who can only get attention through posing naked awkwardly, adopting cats or fashionably representing a group of people who don’t even like their music. In the other corner, there is Israel with invaluable technology, Scarlet Johannson, Natalie Portman and, most remarkably, miracles of its own survival.

 

It remains a great hope and fear that world leaders do not succumb to this third avenue of demonisation of a conflict which already has too many hands and vested interests in its stew. And if they do boycott Israel, as it inevitably seems so, let’s hope that these countries will have bigger fish to fry and also go after the real threats to the world’s safety by upping the BDS against Iran and Syria.

Primary colours

 

Pundits were wrapping their brains with what the announcement of Mamphela Ramphele as the official presidential candidate of the Democratic Alliance could mean for the political landscape of South Africa. The move, bold and daring, would change the political narrative of South Africa away from racial tensions to something else. Unfortunately for these pundits, these existential questions on the future of South Africa did not have to be answered because the marriage was called off before the engagement party was even over.

 

The “game-changing” moment in South Africa’s post-apartheid journey quickly has become the most embarrassing moment for the DA caught on camera. Ramphele’s surprise announcement of joining the DA removed racial barriers and gave the DA a fighting chance to fight the ANC with a whole new set of rules. It was a milestone of showing the empowerment of black consciousness that would usher in a black-against-black leadership race that potentially could focus on real issues in the country such as the economy.

 

More than that, the move could have shown the political maturity of South Africa’s political spectrum by moving from a 1994 scenario of having a circus of candidates based on ethnicity and fancy names, such as the KISS and SOCCER parties, to a consolidated two or three party system much like in the United States and the United Kingdom. And it was moving that way: Helen Zille and the DA were swallowing up all centre right parties and other parties were consolidating under different colours…no not black and white…but primary colours. The ANC would place itself under the yellow banner of being left of centre, the DA would be the economically conservative blue party and the yet to be tested EFF would be the radical left party in a shade of revolutionary red.

 

That would be the evolution of politics. A progression away from racial colours towards segregation lines based on economic policies.

 

However, the ANC and unions were quick to paint Ramphele and Zilles’ move as nothing more than a rented-face. Perhaps they are right, and maybe South Africa is not yet ready for real change in black empowered. No sooner had Ramphele joined, she was already packing the bags and leaving. With the 2014 election around the corner, the country is back to a melting-pot of parties, an Italian senate bonanza and an ANC with a monopolising hand. Maybe this is the way the country is supposed to be: a multi-party milieu of conflicting views which are truely proportionate and representative of the population.

 

*Maybe I was wrong about all of this and the merger was all a ploy to draw the lines of politics along gender lines with two women up against one big black guy (#contraversialstatements).

Disarming America's obsession with guns

Yesterday, President Obama addressed the nation on the outcome of VP Biden's task group to enforce immediate and common-sense measures to limit gun-related massacres following the elementary school shooting at Sandy Hook, which was only a month ago. 

Since Sandy Hook, 900 Americans have been killed at the point of a gun. Such a tragedy and a sad statistic perhaps may have prompted many congressmen, gun-enthusiasts and particularly the NRA to reflect on the culture of gun obsession in America. Instead, they have used the shooting as a rally cry for morel lethal weapons in schools, more assault rifles and more "constitutional" protection in a country saturated with arms ownership. 

Advocates of less gun control have many justifications. Essentially though, they argue that citizens have an entrenched right in the Second Amendment to protect themselves and their properties from criminals, the threat of government tyranny and to carry on the fine Davey Crockett tradition of pioneering the outdoors.

Let's get this straight, and drop the dogma that the Constitution was drafted by enlightened prophets. The Second Amendment, the bastion of all gun laws in the Union, was drafted at a time of the feared British colonial army, infant settlements next to suspicious natives, a time when Republicanism was a revolutionary idea to the absolute monarchist norm and of course, when all men were born with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (except the blacks and the red Indians of course). This carried through to the pioneering days and cowboy culture of the 19th century up until modern times.

Today though, the arguments in gun politics are set in a two hundred year old advanced democracy and in a world where the only British invasion on US soil was by a bunch of Liverpudlians in the 1960's wanting to "hold your hand". There is no threat of tyrannical (or even federal) governments taking away private land. 

Okay, so then the premise is that more good citizens with guns will stop the bad guys with guns and prevent another Sunday Hook or violent crime? Having come from the most dangerous continent in the world, I can say that more guns in society does not make it safer. Mozambique has the AK-47 on its national flag, and yet is still one of the world's most under-developed countries, with millions of amputees, orphans and hijacked cars from across the border. Guns in the hands of authorities and licensed citizens involved in security reduces crime. Arming up citizens in a free-for-all only exacerbates violence. 

What I will give to the gun lobbyists is that there is something more sinister in American society, beyond armed weapons, which leads to a Columbine and Virginia Tech. It is something more deep-rooted within American culture than the Second Amendment. This is the idea that every American deserves his or her 15 minutes of fame. A society that revers entrepreneurs, boldness and recognition also has a darker undercurrent that makes people obsessed with being noticed. 

What fuels Adam Lanza or James Holmes' fantasies is their twisted belief that they are dark knights, sidelined by the American dream but hungry for their share of the spotlight. The thought of the media flashing their names gives them the sense of notoriety that they sought or the poetic commentary to their suicides.  Psychotic delusions coupled with access to an assault rifle  provide a legal cocktail.

America's founding fathers had muskets instead of semi-automatic M-16s and Paul Revere instead of Twitter and CNN's breaking news. America's obsession with guns and fame must be addressed. There is no reason why any person besides licensed security personnel should have automatic rounds or machine guns. Similarly, American media should think twice before naming deranged killers, making them infamous and thereby incentivising would-be killers to seek the lure of their 15 minutes of carnage. 

If John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were around today, would they accept the literalist view of the Second Amendment? Even worse, would they condone the infatuation of using violence to seek fame?

 

Zionism is dead, long live Zionism

Friends of Politics 2.0 would have noticed a long hiatus of posts but the upcoming Israeli elections is a perfect time to dig my teeth into politics and controversial stances.

Israeli elections will be held on 22 January 2013. The countries' political landscape and politicians' fortunes are as temperamental as a stock market. In some elections the candidates win the popular vote but cannot get a co-coalition, some are elected and then indicted, while some are down and out one year only to become prime minister in the next one. With the incumbent Benjamin Netanyahu leading the race at the moment, it looks like the next Knesset will be with him at the lead, flanked by a myriad of parties and deal making.

Two recent minor events prompted me to write about Israeli politics. On Friday night, I sat next to a girl from Yavne - Israeli by all means, with her own opinions which ironically are the same as all other Tel Aviv metropolitans I come across. The other event was merely watching a speech on YouTube by new comer and teenage heart-throb Yair Lapid.

In my casual chat with the girl from Yavne, we got on to the topic of public buses on Shabbat. Being a Jewish State, I argued that all government-run agencies should remain closed on the Jewish Sabbath. She advocated that it should be a matter of choice for the individual. Lapid's comments, far more eloquent than my Friday night banter, revolved around Haredi Jews "winning" the cultural war within Israel and urging a crowd of Haredi technicon students to contribute to shaping Israeli society in all forms and means. 

Two conversations, pulling on one comment string. What is Israel today? 

Labour Zionism, the basis of the State of Israel and a socialist-secular-European idea, is over. The concept of a kibbutz is slowly being phased out by more free-market lifestyles. The majority of Israelis, although aspiring to become another European Mediterranean hub, are largely from Arab lands. And a secular harmonious society underestimated the tribalism that lingers from Diaspora days.

If Zionism, or at least the traditional version of Zionism is hallowing out, then again, what is Israel? 

The future of what is Zionism, is reflected through its elections. Since Menachem Begin was elected in 1977, there has been a successive right-wing shift in Israel's leadership, barring brief the intervals of Rabin, Peres and Barak. 

Similarly, the 2013 elections will see the right keep its hold, with the Labour still at sixes and sevens on how best to turn the tides left.

Netanyahu will win because the new face of Zionism today is in the heart of the settlements, the growing religious demography and a populous skeptical of dropping swords for olive branches. An apathetic middle class Tel Avivian in many ways is no match to the devoutness and commitment showed in the centre of the country.

The majority of Israel's population does not match the new emerging face of Zionism, and there lies the asymmetry between its elected leaders and the populous. However, just as the Haredi Israelis should take heed of Lapid's advice to take on more social responsibility as their status and numbers in society grow, so too should secular Israelis realise that Israel without Judaism is nothing. Getting on a private bus is a private matter on Shabbat, but when the State operates a public service on Shabbat, what does that say about the State?

These are issues that are being debated by the different parties right now. As trivial as it may seem, the election ultimately will define the very character of what Israel is, or at least should be. 

  

Iowa: Time to rock out with your caucus out!

One aspect of American politics I do not understand is the primaries and intra-party elections prior to the presidential election. In particular, I do not understand why Iowa has the title of being the graveyard of political ambitions by holding the esteemed round one in the presidential race. CNN tried to explain it to me why Iowa always goes first - but it still does not make sense. Not that I have anything against Iowans - in fact, Des Moines is on my bucket list (purely because of its name and nothing else). 

Moving from the geographical aspects of the Republican campaign to the actual candidates lined up, it is despairing to see how battle-tired the American people are and how uninspiring their leaders on both sides  look.  The Republican candidacy has been tainted by Charlatans and controversial characters that try to emulate but somehow lack the charismatic roles of Reagan or even Obama (yes, Obama). Two potentials stand-out though - Romney and Santorum. While Mitt may have been down the pecking order in the 2008 campaign, he is the only one bar Santorum who has not been riddled by scandals, outlandish comments and other politically suicidal moves that other Republicans have made in the past year. 

I do not know much about Santorum, but from the little that I have seen, I am reasonably impressed. Although Santorum is a little too ideological in some respects, he and Romney seem the most reasonable and trustworthy out of the whole bunch. Both he and Romney seem like decent hard-working guys that the American public is yearning for as their leaders. They are not uber-macho men like Perry or riding on the coat-tails of Reaganomics (which worked in the 80's and not now). 

I would be happy to see a Romney Santorum ticket in this year's elections. 

Moving to a bluer shade - Obama is in trouble in the months ahead. He set the bar so high in his 2008 campaign that he was bound to fail in delivering his promises. His re-election campaign will ride on the laurels of inspiring his waves of formerly loyal 2008 voters but his pizzazz will not get him through alone this time. He needs a game changer if he wants to keep the White House. That game changer is Hillary. Already posed to move out of politics to positions like "President of the World Bank", Barak should re-assess his key piece in the Democrat arsenal. Hillary, liked or not, is respected by both aisles and has the credibility to carry Obama on her back to reach a second term. Without her, Obama will lack that anchor which is crucial in the mid-western states.  Of course, Joe Biden does have the experience, but he is rather stale in wooing potential voters.

Americans are tired of wild card candidates. The Tea Party and Occupy movements, as popular as they both may be, are too far right and left of the political spectrum for actual progress in America. The nation needs pragmatic and experienced leaders. This does not mean grey-haired passed-their-sell-by date Washington politicians. Rather, the presidential ticket needs a little grey hair, innovation and flexibility.  Although not the most inspiring bunch, a show-down between Obama/Clinton and Romney/Santorum will be a respectable fight for the 2012 elections. 

Then again, understanding US politics and who will run is as complicated as understanding why little Iowa, a state where hogs outnumber people 5 to 1, is the opening act for what will be a great show. Rock on, Iowa!