followed tags: 21
followed domains: 1
badges given: 0 of 1
member for: 1910 days
So Msholozi has stepped down. TBH I am somewhat surprised. Most of his speech was about being beholden to only the constitution (as opposed to the resolutions of his party). And then in almost no time at all, finished it off with a "that being said".
As the president-in-the-wings finds it sufficient to enrich himself through only vanilla capitalist exploitation, the global investment crew seem to think this is a positive development. As to whether that is true on any more fundamental level remains to be seen.
But tomorrow the sun will come up and there will not be any military on the streets and people will be as free as they were today and there are reasons to be happy. Happy Valentine's day!
Hey all. Four beers down.
His Excellency, the president of the Republic is busy addressing the proles in re his feelings about resigning.
For all its faults, I am grateful that in SA whether the big man feels like doing so or not is largely irrelevant. A motion of no confidence will occur tomorrow and, with the support of his own party, remove his ass.
But I can't type fast enough to keep up with the speech so hold tight for some retrospective analysis.
Bittersweet start to the year.
On a “career” level, things could hardly be better. I finished up the article write-up of my work last year and sent it forward for my higher-ups to check out. It was the definitive box to tick that would signify the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018 – which also means that I am now officially starting my PhD. First order of business: proposal.
Also in the pipeline is a trip to Vancouver to present my work at a fancy conference, as well as the opportunity to head to Portugal and Finland for my case studies and sampling.
Unfortunately, life comes at you hard – my supervisor was diagnosed with cancer early last year and just learnt that it has spread all over. Terminal, with a horizon of end April. I’m finding that it’s a really strange thing to process. Time will tell. But I do know that I have a massive fire in the belly to get my proposal done such that I can present it with her there – just on a personal level it feels important.
Tough months ahead…
Wow. Thanks. This article hit me hard. It meanders through thoughts I have had for a while now and although I don’t think I have really formed a fully-fledged opinion, I think it touches on a number of difficult yet important conversations.
In South Africa, segregation is like a corporeal thing: I don’t really have the words but I want to convey that it is something very tangible which permeates basically every part of life.
Here is where I grew up:
Here is where I live now:
Here is a random town in the middle of nowhere:
There are some important things to note from these (particularly the Cape Town one) which I think are broadly similar to the American experience – spatial integration left to its own devices takes place in two ways: upward mobility of PoC, and gentrification of a few well-located areas. Note that it does not appear to occur through downwardly mobile whites (or even idealistic ones) moving into the townships. These dynamics are important because they reflect an imbalance which gives segregation a kind of self-sustaining momentum.
Schools are an obvious site of friction for this sort of thing – the place where a child’s future is supposedly shaped. And so the author hits on an important question when she considers where to send her kid: contributing to (racial) diversity in an affluent white school or contributing to (class?) diversity in a poor non-white school.
The first aligns with the upward mobility idea above and the second with the idealism situation. The comparison is not absolute but suffice to say in both cases there is an anabatic and a katabatic option. One appears to be rational, the other based on ideology:
- One family, or even a few families, cannot transform a segregated school, but if none of us were willing to go into them, nothing would change.
- The few segregated, high-poverty schools we hold up as exceptions are almost always headed by a singular principal like Roberta Davenport. But relying on one dynamic leader is a precarious means of ensuring a quality education.
This is of course the crux of the reasoning for that second option. I think on face value it’s a laudable idea. It’s certainly an important question in general: what if any active role should be played in the integrative “project” by those with choice, resources, social capital etc? (Imbedded in there is the equally quagmired issue of paternalism but I don’t want to go there)
- But integration as a constitutional mandate, as justice for black and Latino children, as a moral righting of past wrongs, is no longer our country’s stated goal.
I agree here that this is troubling – as I said, integration left to progress organically has, I think, undesirable outcomes. At the least we can agree that it happens slowly.
- In early spring 2015, the city’s Department of Education sent out notices telling 50 families that had applied to kindergarten at P.S. 8 that their children would be placed on the waiting list and instead guaranteed admission to P.S. 307. Distraught parents dashed off letters to school administrators and to their elected officials.
FWIW we get a lot of this sort of thing in SA too but it’s more often under the bracket of language (an added spanner in the works).
The author's description of what happens along the whole redistricting thing is reminiscent of the arguments around gentrification – what seems a positive change on the one axis might have unintended negative consequences on another. What I got from this story is another example of the deep web of complexity which I think is ultimately the reason why this segregation thing is so hard to beat.
- True integration, true equality, requires a surrendering of advantage…
She gives this as a statement but I think it is probably the real site of debate on these sorts of issues – a debate which doesn’t look like being resolved any time soon.
Perhaps. It will depend so much on the implementation. Keep in mind that about a fifth of the city already receives their water through communal taps which is essentially what will happen for everyone. I also think the fact that it has been approaching so slowly means it will be more... orderly - at least in contrast to other disaster scenarios where everything happens at once and authorities are left scrambling. I can only speak for myself but I have made peace with having to queue for water and I guess most others people have too.
Indeed. I think there some interesting things to talk about here:
- Unless residents drastically cut down on daily use, warns Cape Town Mayor Patricia De Lille, taps in the seaside metropolis of four million will soon run dry.
I don’t know what “drastic” means in this context. Current metro usage is hovering fairly stable at 600 ML/day (consulting the oracle). Before people gave a shit, it would have been around double that. I can assure you that the lifestyle change I am currently undergoing certainly feels drastically in line with the apparent halving of usage.
Here is a nice visualisation of the projection that (reading between the lines) the City is using to calculate Day Zero. Messing with the values and replacing 600 with the target 500 (which appears to be as low as it wants to go) only buys a week at this stage. So really, any additional consumption changes don’t affect the ultimate situation – that it is going to come down to the wire and mostly up to the will of the gods. If it rains early and abundantly, the City buys time to introduce additional abstraction and concoct new bylaws. If not… I’ll see you guys on the other side.
For me the most interesting stuff is in the hard lessons being learnt – this situation will probably be the poster child for how long-term dynamics can take you for a ride. This article is a good explainer for those with little background. The key for me is this set of graphs:
The yellow dots indicate predicted years with 2017 (i.e. drought) rainfall. None of the models necessarily agree in the absolute sense but what they do show is that a little lower average and a little more variation is all it takes to turn what used to be a 1-in-1000 year event into a 1-in-50 year event. And that’s what the face of climate change is likely to be (even if it’s not the culprit here – I understand the jury is still out on that).
On the politics side, there are also unforeseen consequences. One of the biggest issues is that in SA, water is used as a cross-subsidiser in municipal budgets. So the reduction in consumption has had a big impact on the balance sheet. Furthermore, as the rich take themselves off the grid with rainwater collection and boreholes, this income will probably stay lower than before. On top of this, unregulated groundwater abstraction is likely to be lead to massive problems in the future.
- The local version of Craigslist is already full of listings for companies willing to truck in tankers full of water from less drought-prone parts of the country, for a price.
Along similar lines, I seriously worry about the potential impacts of a laissez-faire approach which allows this kind of thing uncritically. SA is dry in general, and the Western Cape is not the only province with issues. People are playing themselves if they think exporting their water footprint elsewhere in the country is a sustainable solution.
- According to city statistics, only 54% of residents are hitting their target, one of the reasons why Day Zero was moved forward a week earlier this year.
I am very sceptical of this number. I live in an apartment complex and like most in the City, it does not have unit-by-unit water meters – I suspect the 54% value refers to the ones they can be sure about and 46% includes both guzzlers and unknowns. In any case, again, this is one of the things which will likely change going forward. There’s a silly saying that you can’t manage what you don’t measure but I think it rings true in this case.
- I feel an apathetic slumber accompany even the scantest attention to the deluge of scandal, rank idiocy, and bigotry that comes daily out of our nation's capital.
Two related points:
The first is that I am starting to get the impression that the true equilibrium state of democracy is people fighting their elected officials and the officials simultaneously seeing how big of a cake slice they can get away with. Different countries lie in different places along the graft scale in this context. In such a situation, apathy is (at the least) dangerous - it allows people the opportunity to push the envelope a little more the next time.
But how do you react with anything but apathy for something which is so antithetical to what you believe in? The recent thread about Sam Altman's post got me thinking about this thing of debates and arguments - convincing other people, in whatever context, that you are right. When so much of the nonsense above is driven by what can lightly be described as a "difference of opinion". Do we entrust this kind of debate to our legislative bodies alone? What, really, is the process by which large amounts of people change their opinions?
I think if you truly believe something must be changed, or are otherwise unhappy with the state of affairs, you should try and actively foster that kind of change in opinion in others. People may hold opinions that are nasty (or even illegal) but this hopefully does not condemn them to those opinions. As I say though, I have no idea what a concrete strategy for this is because as sure as you are of your convictions, so sure are the others. Difficult.
Been thinking about a few things recently
I've been experiencing what I can only describe as a fight against complacency. Complacency with the way the world is, the way the country is, the way I am. Complacency might not be the right word so I want to sketch out the scenario:
For as long as I've been politically conscious I have told myself that I need to devote my time and energy to some society-building endeavour. Whether you frame it as a social justice problem or a sustainability problem, it appears to me that the world is fucked (reality check - is this just student angst?) and that there's a lot to make noise about. But it's hard - ever more I feel the crushing weight of the world's problems are not something I can carry indefinitely. It's certainly not good from a mental health perspective.
Do I pick some particular small thing and focus on it? Not sure. At the least I know that it's all too easy to show the veneer of caring - it's very simple to point out injustice but more difficult to really hear it as a clarion call. So that's the one side of the coin: whilst unsure about how to traverse it, I feel some sense of duty here (Calvinist tendencies...) to the rest of humanity, because we only really have humanity in a shared way.
On the other hand, it seems that a good number of people don't share that view, enough so to make me incredibly despondent (cf. Trump retweets) - in essence whether it's worth it to try and bring everyone into communion when I would consider a lot of them to be assholes. This thread kind of touches on that in some way. I don't want to get into the question of "how do you deal with the people you don't agree with" here though. Suffice to say that this force pushes me more into the individualistic direction of avoiding the difficult issues and just trying to live my best life. In many ways I think I have seen others wrestling with a similar feeling, maybe also described as "guilt".
On face value these might not seem like a dichotomy, and probably in a rational sense they aren't. But for me, I think I need to have some kind of "philosophical" backing for the overarching decisions that I make in my life - what direction to pursue. Coming back to the complacency, I feel that I have to choose whether to head in the ascetic, humanist direction or what could very well be a great white picket fence first world life that is complicit but never directly so. My "bias" obviously shows but the point is that complacency only pushes you in one direction, and so the choice is how to respond to it.
This is all the more relevant of late as I have been presented with a wonderful opportunity to start my PhD next year with EU funding and a range of bells and whistles that make it a really great proposition. Trouble is that this would be a pretty huge commitment to a life (or at least the next few years) that could be dramatically improved upon from the white picket fence perspective if I cut my project off and just hand it in as a Masters. I actually started writing this comment a few weeks ago so in this particular case I think I have made up my mind. There were a number of things adding to the calculus though. What I do know is that I haven't dissolved the contradiction in my mind yet, and so it will inevitably crop up again once I'm faced with the next big decision.
Has anybody here forded a similar kind of dilemma before? I'd really love to hear how you dealt with it...
Some bonus anecdotes:
One of the areas on Table Mountain is called Echo Valley. I've only been there a few times but it has to be one of the most hauntingly beautiful places. I don't have a photo but turns out there is actualy Street View up there...
Keep going and along the way down and you are greeted with this:
Reason I mention it is because it is somewhere where the "Pale Blue Dot" field is particularly strong - nothing else in the world really seems to be terribly important against that backdrop. There's a Xhosa phrase: sixole kanjani? When will we find peace? So I know there are times and places where people can find it transiently, and maybe you can build your life around those. But is it really worth it when not it's not "us" but "me" finding it...
All the Zimbabweans I've spoken to in the last few days have been positive/hopeful in general. It seems that it is less a coup against Mugabe than his wife Grace and her G40 faction - this could better be considered an internal power struggle within the ruling party. Furthermore, whatever happens it looks like Mugabe will be the one to "make the decision" - for better or for worse the man is unassaible in his individual capacity.
Situation on the ground seems calm but probably very tense. As to whether things will be better, I think the best outcome will be had if fresh elections are called soon. Will have to wait and see.
Thinking about this a bit more I feel it highlights something that I've been struggling to make sense of - complexity. Our first tendency is to try and look for simple explanations which can boil down an event or thing such that we draw some conclusion from it. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that almost any problem which is an important problem is probably a wicked problem. One with multiple layers of complexity that take a lot of work and understanding to peel back.
(That's one of the things I wanted to do with these posts - start to peel back at least some of those layers to see what can be learned in looking at far-away issues with a bit more context than usual.)
The trouble with grappling with complexity is that it gets paralysing after a while - my work is in trying to make mining do better and it's a daily struggle to convince myself that I can even make a difference. Trying to imagine solutions to or even causes of internecine political conflict on the other side of the country is even harder.
How do we manage actually understanding problems on a fundamental level without becoming swamped by the complexity of it? For now I'm taking the route of digging deeper where I can - maybe there is light somewhere down at the bottom...
I'll be honest and say that politically motivated killings are not something I know much about, at least in terms of getting below the surface. Certainly in the past it was much worse, even with the "rule of law" associated with an iron fist minority government and pliable Bantustan leaders.
The proximal cause is essentially political infighting and maneuvering by internal ANC factions. Why it can happen in the face of laws and democracy? More difficult. On the one hand it's clear that the police don't actually have the power/resources to prevent this kind of thing happening. But on a deeper level, and in line with what I was saying above, the situation (or more accurately, the system) on the ground has not really changed much since the IFP/ANC/Third force "war" in the 80's and 90's. I guess what I'm saying is that the rule of legitimate law can hardly break down if it was never built up to begin with.