I’m no financial expert, but I think that I can pretty simply summarise the Budget speech given by SA Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan this afternoon as follows:
There we go. I hope that’s made things clearer for you.
Have a nice day.
…it might be the best bar bill ever.
Paavo Arhinmäki (Left Alliance), Finland’s Minister of Culture and Sport, has apologised for his conduct in Sochi on Saturday, conceding to reporters at the Helsinki Airport on Monday that the evening had got out of hand.
“Naturally, ministers should be able to control their partying in order to prevent it from going so far. It went too far,” he admitted when asked whether Saturday’s events were fitting for a minister. I haven’t passed out before. I use alcohol with moderation, but this time the party got out of hand,” emphasised Arhinmäki.
In addition, the minister reminded that the party was a private function with members of the Finnish ice hockey team. “Of course, it’s part of my official duties to also take part in such parties,” he added.
And here’s a cleverly-made mock up of the bill. It’s very amusing.
My favourite item has to be:
1 Sircus Midget With Hula Hoops
But wow, that’s pricey for a small person. You can get a couple of Blonde Excort ladies for less than that (see a couple of lines above) (although Whipped Cream is extra) (obviously).
To be fair, if it wasn’t for sending out for the Karjala, it would have been a more than reasonable evening to celebrate the Finnish ice hockey bronze medal.
The City of Cape Town plans to change the City’s logo and – obviously – there is MASS OUTRAGE over their decision and – obviously – over the new logo as well.
Here’s what it is currently (wax crayons over mountain, left) and what they’re proposing (child’s multicoloured snowflake, right):
Many colours. Much circle. Very new. So round. Such different. Wow.
And here’s a video they’ve made explaining why they’re proposing the change and what’s behind the new logo:
Obviously, people don’t like change. It’s unsettling, and thus humans are naturally resistant to it. Personally, I find myself more unsettled by the city media manager’s comments last week:
The Argus quoted Cape Town city’s media manager Priya Reddy as saying that a review of the metropole’s current corporate identity and accompanying tagline – “This city works for you” – was found to be “completely misaligned to this government’s vision”.
Which, when you read it again, doesn’t sound great, does it?
Suddenly, everyone is a corporate logo design expert. All the people, with their insightful comments like: “The colours aren’t right”, “it’s too round” and the inevitable “It’s got to have a more inclusive feel and communicate with both the client and their audience, though simplicity and multi-medium reproducibility are obviously key parameters to groupthink when approaching iconic and practical corporate logo design”.
Hmm. Actually that last one might have been a real corporate logo design expert.
Of course, there have already been allegations of wasted expenditure but there’s been the usual hyperbole too: apparently the logo will cost “hundreds of millions” to introduce. Just like the new Portside building was going to be “as high as Table Mountain” and Jacob Zuma was going to be “a great president”.
I’ve always loved the way that people make stuff up to support their opinions.
As for the logo? I quite like it. The old one has been with us since I moved over to Cape Town, and, like me, it’s getting a bit long in the tooth and rather stale. Those arguing that the money could and should have been spent on something better are probably right, because there’s always something more needy than whatever we’re spending money on in South Africa. Always.
I would say that they were rather quiet when the City projected Nelson Mandela onto the face of Table Mountain with big green lasers though. Presumably because, although the big green laser money could obviously have been spent on something better, they quite liked the big green laser thing.
Understandably, too: It was quite cool.
But equally, see: summer water parks in the city, concerts in De Waal park, Christmas lights, the MyCiti bus service and traffic police roadblocks.
If this new logo is approved, then I’m willing to bet that in a decade’s time, there’ll be equal outrage when the City decides to change it again. Presumably (according to Priya Reddy, anyway) because people weren’t making progress possible. Together.
UPDATE: An expert opinion.
(But you probably don’t want to listen just in case you don’t agree with him.)
I don’t agree with much that Gareth van Onselen writes, but fair play to him for sticking his white, middle-class, privileged, male head over the metaphorical parapet and writing this:
Sisonke Msimang works as a senior programme specialist in charge of policy development, advocacy and communications at the Sonke Gender Justice Network. She is an outspoken advocate for women’s rights, a Yale fellow and was selected as a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader.
In November last year, Msimang wrote a letter to her daughter in which she said of those who say a woman is “sexy or beautiful” when she is trying to be smart, “they do this because they want to put you in a box, and you must fight them and their boxes tooth and nail”. Yet she has a box for Harris, and the only thing inside it is eye candy.
Regarding this tweet:
“If @mbalimcdust and @zilevandamme can organise private discussion on erm, DA Econ policy w Tim Harris I will abandon the IFP. @JoziGoddess?”
Regarding Tim Harris, DA Poster Boy er… Finance Spokesman.
And not withstanding that there are obviously some complex issues at play here (a point which van Onselen covers), it’s a clear case of double standards from someone who really should know – and think – better.
Two wrongs have never made a right.
…or “Why Jacques is right – and wrong”.
…or “Why I wrote what I wrote”.
…or “Meh, whatevs”.
I really don’t want to add to this molehill in my teacup, but I feel that I – and maybe others – might want some explanation (and need some clarification) on my rationale behind the women24 post I wrote on Friday, just for when we fondly look back on these halcyon days. My twitter, email and blog have since been alight with misquotes, unfounded allegations, hyperbolic extrapolation and general hatred.
It’s been such fun. Really.
Jacques Rousseau wrote about that post here and set out – as always – a compelling and sagacious case on why he feels that I was incorrect to have used the term “mixed messages” when calling women24 out on their coverage of the distasteful and bizarre spectacle that is ‘The Red Carpet’ at the annual State of the Nation Address (SONA). That said, and despite the absence of the ‘challenging vocabulary’ for which he are famed, I still don’t agree with him.
The argument against my stance presented by Jacques and others seems to rest upon the fact that the hate-filled, vitriol-spewing (LOLz) gallery I used as an example was from last year’s SONA and that women24.com’s editorial policies have changed since then.
Jacques and others suggest that this invalidates my message. And, if one works from that foundation, and uses simple logic, Jacques and others are absolutely correct.
But here’s my issue. Jacques hints (and others have triumphantly asserted) that I was unaware that the gallery in question was from 2013. Not so. No, I state that very clearly in my blog post.
For me, the date of the pictures and the comments is irrelevant, because if anyone searches on women24.com for SONA fashion, they’ll find that vindictive 2013 gallery right next to this year’s wonderfully positive one. You don’t have to be a regular reader of women24.com to do a search; you don’t have to have the context that Ms Radloff et al are only nice about the fashion choices of politicians these days.
But don’t get me wrong. I’m delighted that at some point between February 2013 and last Thursday evening, women24.com came to the conclusion that shaming politicians over what they choose to wear to an annual ceremonial event wasn’t a nice thing to do (actors are evidently still fair game though) (unless there’s been another sea change in editorial policy since January 13th).
Anyway: well done, welcome to the 21st century.
But there’s nothing on that 2013 gallery that says “Actually, we’ve realised since we published this that it was a bit of shit thing to do and so we’ve stopped doing it now”. There’s nothing in that faux holier than thou “OMG, How Could You?” post from Friday that says “Although, in fairness, we were also still doing this until very recently too”.
Moreover, and perhaps more realistically, as far as I’m aware (and I’m quite sure that someone from that band of merry women would have pointed it out to me if it existed), there’s nothing on women24.com telling us about what – let’s face it – is quite a big shift in editorial policy for a women’s “lifestyle site” and one which they should surely be proud of.
This is something that Jacques eludes to as well.
So, yes. If any one of those things was clear, then yes, the foundation of Jacques’ argument would be solid and maybe I’d look a bit foolish (Hell, it’s happened before…). But their asking “since when do we expect members of parliament to look and dress like A-List celebrities? And why do we care?” and “can’t we at least let them wear what they want?”, just because they changed their minds on how they choose to report that, and while still having that 2013 gallery readily accessible on their site, well yes, that for me clearly amounts to sending out “mixed messages”.
This really isn’t meant to reignite any flames of argument. As I stated a few hundred words ago, it’s merely an explanation and clarification of why I said what I said and why I’m happy to stand by that position.
The difference between that position and Jacques’ comes down simply to a difference in opinion, and as far as I know, there are no set rules about that sort of thing, other than “it’s fine to have them”.
And on that note, let’s just remind ourselves of Jacques’ final paragraph:
When we get around to engaging each other – on these and other issues – let’s try not to assume the worst, though. It’s getting more and more difficult to talk about issues without presumptions of guilt or virtue, and we all play a part in creating – but if we care to be more careful, undermining – a culture in which blaming, judging, and shouting are valued more than understanding is.
Preach, brother…