In ten days, I'll be off on my first and probably last trip to South Africa. For a number of months, I've been reading up on the nation, and come to realize that it's probably five years at best....away from some civil war or internal destruction period, and what exists today (and for the past couple of hundred years)....won't be around by 2025.
So, the chief topic of destruction? The number three political party in South Africa has a goal....to take without compensation....roughly 50-percent of the farm land. No one says this is really the end of the discussion, and some suggest that the full 100-percent land-grab will be the end-result.
A complicated story? Yes. So I'll tell in three basic ways:
1. Population growth. Back around four-hundred years ago when the Dutch started to arrive in the region of South Africa....roughly three times the size of California....they found mostly nothing. The population, with the original group of Dutch and the local tribes of the region....added up to 700,000. You can imagine the US region of California, Oregon, and Washington-state....with 700,000 (just a bit more than exist in Portland today).
Somewhere between 1840 and 1860....the population finally reached two-million. By 1900? They had finally reached five million people. By the 1970s? They were over 22-million. Today? 55.5-million.
The problem is that the current pace can be projected out, and you can figure by 2040 (just 20 years away)....it'll be near 75-million.
Industry growth, the job-market, fair wages? It can't match the population growth. It probably maxed out in the 1960s.
So the public sees virtually every angle of life to be highly unfair and life is about poverty. Any idiot can create a political party....talk about redistribution of something (doesn't even have to be limited to farms) to bring fairness and happiness.
2. The farm story. In this period of 1650 to 1700....the Dutch came and basically negotiated with local tribes over land. The Dutch offered land deals....cattle for property. The chiefs accepted and some hostile situations were avoided. But let's be honest....in this whole region of 700,000 people in the area the size of three Californias....there's just an awful lot of land and nothing of a threat.
The Dutch and later the English who came in....came to figure out....only around 15-percent of the land is usable as farms or ranch-land. That's it. In some cases, it's only useful if you irrigated the property.
The discovery of gold and diamonds (1860s to 1880s)? Well....this brought conflict, and eventually the Zulu War. The avoidance of all-out war with the tribes ended at this point.
The bulk of prime farmland? Owned by white Dutch/English folks. Some inherited their property.....over and over. Some bought their property. Fairness? The treaties signed by the tribal chiefs had some legit situation involved....none of this is remembered today, and probably half of the population is attached more to political parties, than to tribal units.
Today, the banks are attached to the farming sector and part of the success story of the past hundred years. When this land law is established....the banking sector will be standing there with numerous loans and unable to really assess success or failure.
3. Finally, the political game. Once the law is invented....who really gets the property? No one can really say. It might go to a local black guy who has some deep experience in farming. It might go to a political party guy with zero experience. It might go to someone who can't get bank backing on loans and the land lays there unproductive. No matter what happens....the politicians can claim success.
The fear of whites? Why stop at just farms? You could make a funny rule that all hospitals in the country must be black-owned and managed.....so overnight, you'd find a new owner who was just 'given' the property.
Yes, all of this leads to civil war and conflict. Tribal leaders? I suspect they will finally stand up and challenge political leaders, and the country will be sub-divided into twenty-odd countries. The Western Cape area might be able to survive as one single nation (but it has the least of farm lands).
So much confusion.....that locals might leave and try to immigrate into Europe? I would suggest to be one of the ten basic achievements of this chaos approaching.
I guess I'm getting a view of a land that was, and up until 2018.....was one of the more interesting countries in the world.
Saturday, 6 October 2018
A 'Jerry Springer' Show?
What are the chief ingredients of a Jerry Springer Show?
1. Lie-detector tests.
2. Accusations which seem marginally true.
3. Fakeness (one almost imagines that the six people lined up as the participants, are just hired for the role).
4. Whores. About seventy percent of the women tend to be trailer-park trash, skanky, or working on marriage number four.
5. Content inappropriate for children under twelve.
6. A verbal or physical fight.
7. By the end of the show, the odds of participants ever getting back on friendly terms are zero.
8. Body-builder guards are protecting Jerry or the participants.
9. There's always a history which requires five to eight minutes to tell the basic story.
10. In ten-percent of cases, there's a fake-woman or a transgender guy involved.
So you look over the Kavanaugh senate episode, and it's curious.....nine of the ten basic ingredients (no fake-woman/trans in this pony-show) are in this senate hearing.
Last week, I was reading some commentary by a conservative gal (she at least says this), and she said about an hour into the Professor Ford episode....she felt it was inappropriate for any kid under ten to hear the commentary....particularly in the middle of the day when kids might flip through channels.
I sat and pondered over this. Maybe the Senate ought to make up a new rule.....limit questions to only a 10 PM to 5 PM cycle, so kids wouldn't get all hyped up on booze and lust.
The chief question to ask here.....have we arrived at Jerry Spring-politics, and will this become the new norm? And do we really want that theatrical-style of politics? Personally, if they'd added some trans-guy-woman, it might have made this pretty interesting, and that Senator Graham guy would have had a lot of fun asking him/her a bunch of questions.
1. Lie-detector tests.
2. Accusations which seem marginally true.
3. Fakeness (one almost imagines that the six people lined up as the participants, are just hired for the role).
4. Whores. About seventy percent of the women tend to be trailer-park trash, skanky, or working on marriage number four.
5. Content inappropriate for children under twelve.
6. A verbal or physical fight.
7. By the end of the show, the odds of participants ever getting back on friendly terms are zero.
8. Body-builder guards are protecting Jerry or the participants.
9. There's always a history which requires five to eight minutes to tell the basic story.
10. In ten-percent of cases, there's a fake-woman or a transgender guy involved.
So you look over the Kavanaugh senate episode, and it's curious.....nine of the ten basic ingredients (no fake-woman/trans in this pony-show) are in this senate hearing.
Last week, I was reading some commentary by a conservative gal (she at least says this), and she said about an hour into the Professor Ford episode....she felt it was inappropriate for any kid under ten to hear the commentary....particularly in the middle of the day when kids might flip through channels.
I sat and pondered over this. Maybe the Senate ought to make up a new rule.....limit questions to only a 10 PM to 5 PM cycle, so kids wouldn't get all hyped up on booze and lust.
The chief question to ask here.....have we arrived at Jerry Spring-politics, and will this become the new norm? And do we really want that theatrical-style of politics? Personally, if they'd added some trans-guy-woman, it might have made this pretty interesting, and that Senator Graham guy would have had a lot of fun asking him/her a bunch of questions.
Friday, 5 October 2018
Witch Stuff
Because Senator Graham (Rep-SC) brought up witchcraft trials and 'tests' (how to handle Judge Kavanaugh)....I went back today and spent an hour over one of the 500-odd topics which I've often had an interest in witches.
Being from Alabama, we never really had any local witches, and most of my introduction was limited to books such as The Crucible and some historical piece which the local school had bought for their library but I noted since 1959 (when it was put into the school library and the first check-out card was placed into it)....it'd only been checked out three times by the time I'd read it in 1972. I was probably the only kid in that school that checked out every single non-fiction book they had.
To know that you are in the presence of a witch? Well....there are seven basic ways:
1. You get the witch to give you some urine (don't ask), and you mix this with rye....making it into some kind of bread. Then you find some dog (can't be a human), and if the dog eats the cake....a true witch will have severe pains. I admit it's pretty crazy but this whole witchcraft thing of the 1690s took off and guys just invented stuff like this out of thin air.
2. The Lords Prayer. Basically, if you could recite the whole prayer, you were safe.
3. You measure up some gal, and gather all the Bibles in the community to equal her height.....stacking them on a scale. You put the witch on the other side of the scale. If the gal is heavier than the Bibles....she's a witch. You tended to find that fat chunky women usually lost out on this test.
4. Women that hung around cats....especially black cats....were readily identified as witches.
5. You look over the accused gal for scares or birthmarks. Now the fact that everyone in some family might have scares, or birthmarks? Well.....that did present a problem.
6. The tear test. Basically, if you could provide tears, on request.....you were clear of being a witch.
7. The scratch test. Basically, you'd scratch some witch enough.....that she'd cast a spell. Usually, in this episode.....you ended up with forty-odd scratches, which the locals would all deem it sufficient that you didn't apparently have any spell-casting ability.
The odd case with the Kavanaugh episode....is that none of the Democrats seem willing to say how he could be innocent, and thus he can never prove or disprove the 'witch' business.
Being from Alabama, we never really had any local witches, and most of my introduction was limited to books such as The Crucible and some historical piece which the local school had bought for their library but I noted since 1959 (when it was put into the school library and the first check-out card was placed into it)....it'd only been checked out three times by the time I'd read it in 1972. I was probably the only kid in that school that checked out every single non-fiction book they had.
To know that you are in the presence of a witch? Well....there are seven basic ways:
1. You get the witch to give you some urine (don't ask), and you mix this with rye....making it into some kind of bread. Then you find some dog (can't be a human), and if the dog eats the cake....a true witch will have severe pains. I admit it's pretty crazy but this whole witchcraft thing of the 1690s took off and guys just invented stuff like this out of thin air.
2. The Lords Prayer. Basically, if you could recite the whole prayer, you were safe.
3. You measure up some gal, and gather all the Bibles in the community to equal her height.....stacking them on a scale. You put the witch on the other side of the scale. If the gal is heavier than the Bibles....she's a witch. You tended to find that fat chunky women usually lost out on this test.
4. Women that hung around cats....especially black cats....were readily identified as witches.
5. You look over the accused gal for scares or birthmarks. Now the fact that everyone in some family might have scares, or birthmarks? Well.....that did present a problem.
6. The tear test. Basically, if you could provide tears, on request.....you were clear of being a witch.
7. The scratch test. Basically, you'd scratch some witch enough.....that she'd cast a spell. Usually, in this episode.....you ended up with forty-odd scratches, which the locals would all deem it sufficient that you didn't apparently have any spell-casting ability.
The odd case with the Kavanaugh episode....is that none of the Democrats seem willing to say how he could be innocent, and thus he can never prove or disprove the 'witch' business.
The Kavanaugh 'Circus'
In summary, it was a series of bluffs....some designed at a one-star level....some at a five-star level, and it appears....they all failed.
The idea early in this strategy by the Democrats was simply to impress enough negativity upon Kavanaugh enough that he'd back out. For a normal guy, I think the Ford letter business would have done that. So Kavanaugh called the bluff, and forced her to show up and provide testimony. She had several counter-bluffs ready to go (the lie detector test, the second person backing up the story, etc). Well....he counter-bluffed.
Somewhere in the middle of this mess....Senator Graham woke up and probably delivered the greatest responses of his career. Some CNN folks were able to put a dozen hours a day into a negative-Kavanaugh message. And then pieces of the Ford story started to fall apart.
The three basic problems here? (1) No witnesses to support Ford's story. (2) The high school year book which shows an entire group of people in the early 1980s who partied, and consumed booze. (3) A recovered memory, which sometimes had information and sometimes had zero information. On the last issue, you kinda wonder if there alcohol blackouts involved.
So Kavanaugh will likely get the votes. But the bigger question....did this damage the Republicans in the election? No....I think it actually damaged two to four Democratic Senators more, and their likely chances of winning might be diminished by five-percent. In the thirty states that Trump won? This strategy probably did a fair amount of damage to the Democrat's brand.
And the thing you have to worry about....two older Democratic justices in the court and if either were to pass on....over the next year or two. With a GOP count of 60-plus Senators....Trump might be able to stack one more conservative judge on the court and set up a pattern for twenty-plus years. That's serious damage to the Democratic brand.
The idea early in this strategy by the Democrats was simply to impress enough negativity upon Kavanaugh enough that he'd back out. For a normal guy, I think the Ford letter business would have done that. So Kavanaugh called the bluff, and forced her to show up and provide testimony. She had several counter-bluffs ready to go (the lie detector test, the second person backing up the story, etc). Well....he counter-bluffed.
Somewhere in the middle of this mess....Senator Graham woke up and probably delivered the greatest responses of his career. Some CNN folks were able to put a dozen hours a day into a negative-Kavanaugh message. And then pieces of the Ford story started to fall apart.
The three basic problems here? (1) No witnesses to support Ford's story. (2) The high school year book which shows an entire group of people in the early 1980s who partied, and consumed booze. (3) A recovered memory, which sometimes had information and sometimes had zero information. On the last issue, you kinda wonder if there alcohol blackouts involved.
So Kavanaugh will likely get the votes. But the bigger question....did this damage the Republicans in the election? No....I think it actually damaged two to four Democratic Senators more, and their likely chances of winning might be diminished by five-percent. In the thirty states that Trump won? This strategy probably did a fair amount of damage to the Democrat's brand.
And the thing you have to worry about....two older Democratic justices in the court and if either were to pass on....over the next year or two. With a GOP count of 60-plus Senators....Trump might be able to stack one more conservative judge on the court and set up a pattern for twenty-plus years. That's serious damage to the Democratic brand.
Thursday, 4 October 2018
The Five Million Story
I noticed a financial story today, which centered around the TV financial 'host'....Suze Orman. She basically came out and said you if intend to retire early in life (suggesting around age 50), then you need five-million dollars in the portfolio to make this happen.
I sat and pondered upon the idea, and her estimation.
I made a decision around seven years ago to retire completely at age 55. No, I don't have five million, or even one million. What I basically had was a military pension (probably worth 1,600 a month) and a GS-IRA type account which I get around 1,400 a month. Toss in the fact that I don't have a mortgage (my wife has the family house), and I really never got much into debt over my entire life. I won't say I lived in a modest way, but I didn't really go out to waste money either.
No, I didn't ever buy a $30,000 car.....ever.
No, I have never owned a $60k RV....ever.
No, I never bought a $9k quad-bike.....ever.
I disagree with Suze on this number of 5-million. In general, as long as you don't have a mortgage hanging over you at retirement, with no real debt (especially credit cards), and you have some monthly amount of 1,500 to 2,000.....you can retire at age 50. The problem though...is this stupid mortgage deal, and the condition of your house.
I worked with a guy at the Pentagon who came to face a problem with his roof. By the time that the carpenter did the estimate of damage....this guy was looking at a $30k renovation project. This was also the year that his wife's car had transmission problems, and he had to buy a new car. His plan to retire at age 58? Gone. He had to add a minimum of two more years onto his master-plan for retirement.
I worked with a NCO in the 1990s who had around $150k in debt (both he and wife had incomes). He laid it out.....various cost factors....one daughter had drained $70k over four years at some university, and he had one more kid to put through college. He figured just in interest per year....they had $15,000 going out.
Maybe Suze is correct on the 5-million, if you have debt of any size. But I just have a problem with this idea of a massive amount of money required to retire upon.
I sat and pondered upon the idea, and her estimation.
I made a decision around seven years ago to retire completely at age 55. No, I don't have five million, or even one million. What I basically had was a military pension (probably worth 1,600 a month) and a GS-IRA type account which I get around 1,400 a month. Toss in the fact that I don't have a mortgage (my wife has the family house), and I really never got much into debt over my entire life. I won't say I lived in a modest way, but I didn't really go out to waste money either.
No, I didn't ever buy a $30,000 car.....ever.
No, I have never owned a $60k RV....ever.
No, I never bought a $9k quad-bike.....ever.
I disagree with Suze on this number of 5-million. In general, as long as you don't have a mortgage hanging over you at retirement, with no real debt (especially credit cards), and you have some monthly amount of 1,500 to 2,000.....you can retire at age 50. The problem though...is this stupid mortgage deal, and the condition of your house.
I worked with a guy at the Pentagon who came to face a problem with his roof. By the time that the carpenter did the estimate of damage....this guy was looking at a $30k renovation project. This was also the year that his wife's car had transmission problems, and he had to buy a new car. His plan to retire at age 58? Gone. He had to add a minimum of two more years onto his master-plan for retirement.
I worked with a NCO in the 1990s who had around $150k in debt (both he and wife had incomes). He laid it out.....various cost factors....one daughter had drained $70k over four years at some university, and he had one more kid to put through college. He figured just in interest per year....they had $15,000 going out.
Maybe Suze is correct on the 5-million, if you have debt of any size. But I just have a problem with this idea of a massive amount of money required to retire upon.
Wednesday, 3 October 2018
The 'Message' Story
At some point today, across America....the Homeland Security folks will send out some mass 'test' message to every single cellphone....to demonstrate to the public that emergency info can be pushed out....if conditions require it.
Who is in charge of the test? FEMA.
There are three observations that I can make over this.
First, someone is going to copy the 'message', and turn it into a hoax-type thing, and resend it at various times to unsuspecting people, who will freak out over some fake nuclear incident....fake volcanic eruption....or some circus tiger being on the loose in your community.
Second, it's going to turn all political because people will suggest that Trump will send out fake 'messages' to alarm the public.
Third, even if you got a real 'message' in the future over some event unfolding (like aliens having landed and launching an invasion)....do you really want to take the government's advice on evaluation or how to handle your end of the situation?
Being from Alabama, I would suspect that forty-percent of the public in the state will discount the government advice right off the bat, and start making their own assumptions and solutions. Distrust? It's been proven over and over....the last people on earth that you want advice from in a contingency....is the US federal government.
A month or two down the line, I expect dozens of people each day will get some fake alert from some guy....warning of a dam collapse, or lion spotted in the local area, and this will become a big problem with people freaking out and getting hyped-up over nothing. Eventually, some idiot will fire off 10,000 messages to some folks in DC, notifying them of a nuke attack on Fairfax, and scaring thousands to evacuate to West Virginia in the middle of the night.
That's the problem about technology.....you just don't know where it's going to lead onto.
Who is in charge of the test? FEMA.
There are three observations that I can make over this.
First, someone is going to copy the 'message', and turn it into a hoax-type thing, and resend it at various times to unsuspecting people, who will freak out over some fake nuclear incident....fake volcanic eruption....or some circus tiger being on the loose in your community.
Second, it's going to turn all political because people will suggest that Trump will send out fake 'messages' to alarm the public.
Third, even if you got a real 'message' in the future over some event unfolding (like aliens having landed and launching an invasion)....do you really want to take the government's advice on evaluation or how to handle your end of the situation?
Being from Alabama, I would suspect that forty-percent of the public in the state will discount the government advice right off the bat, and start making their own assumptions and solutions. Distrust? It's been proven over and over....the last people on earth that you want advice from in a contingency....is the US federal government.
A month or two down the line, I expect dozens of people each day will get some fake alert from some guy....warning of a dam collapse, or lion spotted in the local area, and this will become a big problem with people freaking out and getting hyped-up over nothing. Eventually, some idiot will fire off 10,000 messages to some folks in DC, notifying them of a nuke attack on Fairfax, and scaring thousands to evacuate to West Virginia in the middle of the night.
That's the problem about technology.....you just don't know where it's going to lead onto.
Monday, 1 October 2018
My Soon Anticipated 'Safari'
In two weeks, I set off on a trip to South Africa, with a mini-safari included in the deal. To be honest, it's not one of the top ten places that I'd prefer for a tour but the wife rated it number one.
Years ago as a kid, I heard a fascination with a Saturday afternoon show.....Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. The head guy was Marlin Perkins and for thirty minutes, you were entertained by clips of Marlin's latest adventure. The show went from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s.
I didn't so much watch to view Marlin, but his number one assistant....Jim.
Jim seemed to always be the guy who was assigned to climb into some lion pit, or handle some hefty snake. Jim, in my humble opinion, was just a breathe away from death in almost every episode. Jim seemed to favor clean living, no booze, and no cigarettes.
Marlin would tend to talk about the trip....the strategy of hunting elephants....the handling of tigers, etc. Jim was the action-guy.
My take, after probably watching four-hundred episodes....Africa and this safari business was probably not on my top ten 'adventures'. I think this was mostly Marlin's fault because he made it all seem perfectly safe and with no hazards.
Last week, I noted some German gal who'd entered some safari park in Tanzania....then decided she needed to take some picture of a nearby elephant. No one says if she said anything, or just scared the elephant....but he came over and stumped her to death. Today, I noticed another travel story from the region (occurring over the weekend)....a German guy walked too near some elephant and the elephant freaked out....attempting to stomp him to death (failing, but giving the guy a broken leg and arm).
Maybe these two Germans were a bit like Jim and willing to take chances. It's hard to tell.
Years ago as a kid, I heard a fascination with a Saturday afternoon show.....Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. The head guy was Marlin Perkins and for thirty minutes, you were entertained by clips of Marlin's latest adventure. The show went from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s.
I didn't so much watch to view Marlin, but his number one assistant....Jim.
Jim seemed to always be the guy who was assigned to climb into some lion pit, or handle some hefty snake. Jim, in my humble opinion, was just a breathe away from death in almost every episode. Jim seemed to favor clean living, no booze, and no cigarettes.
Marlin would tend to talk about the trip....the strategy of hunting elephants....the handling of tigers, etc. Jim was the action-guy.
My take, after probably watching four-hundred episodes....Africa and this safari business was probably not on my top ten 'adventures'. I think this was mostly Marlin's fault because he made it all seem perfectly safe and with no hazards.
Last week, I noted some German gal who'd entered some safari park in Tanzania....then decided she needed to take some picture of a nearby elephant. No one says if she said anything, or just scared the elephant....but he came over and stumped her to death. Today, I noticed another travel story from the region (occurring over the weekend)....a German guy walked too near some elephant and the elephant freaked out....attempting to stomp him to death (failing, but giving the guy a broken leg and arm).
Maybe these two Germans were a bit like Jim and willing to take chances. It's hard to tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)