There’s been considerable debate about why certain popular uprisings grab the popular imagination, and others are largely ignored, even by the professional media. Having given the matter some thought, I wrote this column for The Daily Maverick: A classy revolution: Why we cared

Needless to say, this week’s column in The Daily Maverick was about Egypt, North Africa and the Middle East: Liberty is more than mere democracy. Now complete with angry and/or incoherent comments.

I got to thinking about the Sudan over the weekend; why Thabo Mbeki is there, and why anyone might care. My column for the Daily Maverick this week was the inevitable result: Tintin Mbeki in the Sudan

While the government talks tough about joining the currency war that has broken out as a result of the collapsing dollar (see my column at The Daily Maverick: Currency: the race to the bottom), I was thinking about the many other grand but ultimately futile ideas government comes up with to plaster over the cracks of past failures. Then I thought how nice it would be for everyone, including the ANC’s own constituency, if the government tried to do far less, but do it well.

In other news, some guy on the interwebs said I called for genocide, and proceeded to point out how barbaric that would be. I quite agree. Well, I would, if there was even a shred of truth in the words he put in my mouth: The algebra has a devil for a sidekick. Cute headline, though.

There are serious kinds of political activism, and there are less serious ones. And then there are those that don’t take any effort, and don’t make one jot of difference. Online petitions, such as this one which appears to express concern about media freedom, are among the latter. So I signed it. Sort of. Read on at ITWeb.

While everyone is saying all the right things, and making all the right arguments, they’re losing the battle on media freedom. As long as the ANC’s base remains unconvinced, it will side with the ANC, and the ANC will claim a legitimate mandate to push through draconian laws that will, in effect if not in intent, stifle a free media.

Read my Daily Maverick column on the subject here: Why the media will lose this battle.

I thought that headline would grab some attention. It is entirely justified by the ITWeb column on internet pornography censorship above which it appears, methinks: I love my pussy.

The second parallel for FIFA president Sepp Blatter is King Leopold II of Belgium, aka Leopold of the Congo. In it, I wrap up my series on FIFA with the observation that FIFA may claim philanthropic intent, but is intent only on exploiting Africa, and its racism is very thinly veiled. FIFA’s heart of darkness.

Here’s a fairly comprehensive summary of why we should support our country and our team, but have nothing to do with the exploitation of FIFA: The Fifa conquistadors are coming!

My other columns on FIFA have been collected in a previous post: Boycott FIFA

I will have more to write concerning FIFA and Match, some of it in their own damning words.

PS. Here’s a #boycottFIFA ribbon for your Twitter avatar or Facebook profile picture.

My very first column for The Daily Maverick this year was a call to boycott FIFA. At the time, mine was a lone voice. Most people thought I was just being contrarian. I wasn’t. I really am incensed at the cavalier manner in which FIFA treats South Africans, and the way in which the government not only lets them get away with it, but aids and abets their plunder with special laws. As we got closer to the FIFA World Cup South Africa, more headlines began to appear in the mainstream media, documenting the real cost to South Africa — a developing nation that needs all the resources it can muster — of FIFA’s heavy-handed approach, special privileges, and allegations of corruption.

Boycott FIFA explains why I’m doing so, and that this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enjoy the football, support our national team, or welcome our foreign visitors.

A few weeks later, an idea was floated to extort money from bars and restaurants who show the football. Because no court would sanction such a law, it was quickly scaled back to cover only venues that didn’t already have a liquor licence. Still, at R50 000 for a licence to serve liquor while showing the football on TV, it’s outright extortion. This was my initial reaction: Really, boycott the FIFA farce.

While everyone was getting shrill about the late Eugene Terre’blanche and young Julius Malema, it occurred to me that even if marketing was the only benefit we derived from the billions we spent on the World Cup, what exactly would we be marketing? Division? Racism? Anger? While FIFA takes over, we fight.

Among the reasons for objecting to FIFA’s presence in South Africa is the fact that local businesses, who were supposed to benefit from this expensive shindig, are not only being excluded, but are being unfairly accused of price gouging. The only people ripping off foreigners are FIFA and its exclusive marketing partner, Match Services. Only, the foreigners won’t know this, and they’ll blame us. Who is ripping off whom?

These are among the many reasons why South Africans should avoid supporting FIFA and its sponsors. They are exploiting a country that can ill afford it. Instead, support anyone who isn’t associated with FIFA. Help them turn this economic disaster into an opportunity, however small it may be.

Update: I’ve just created a Twitter ribbon (or “twibbon”) for your avatar, and a Facebook sticker for your profile pic. Show your displeasure with FIFA’s exploitation of South Africa. Get your #boycottfifa twibbon now.

I wanted to reply to the two Australians who commented on this article: Can Africa Topple Australia in the Contest To Build the World’s Biggest Telescope?

All I got, however, was this: “Comment Submission Error. Your comment submission failed for the following reasons: Text entered was wrong. Try again.”

This summary rejection is somewhat puzzling, since the error is meaningless, and the preview worked fine. [UPDATE: After several more attempts, I appear to have succeeded in posting my comment. Looks like the Captcha widget was broken for a time, and it was this “text” that the error referred to. The comment remains invisible, however, with no indication of whether it is merely being moderated.]

However, because I think it’s important, I’ll post my comment on the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) radio telescope here:

Frankly, the SKA shouldn’t be built, except with private money. Not in South Africa, and not in Australia. There. Having got libertarian principles out of the way, let’s get to business.

It is true that Africa is considerably poorer, somewhat less politically stable, and composed of several more countries, than the island colony of Australia. The same is true for South America, Asia, and indeed Europe.

And nevermind McGruder’s blackness, or the dark skins of most Africans. Racist reasons for building it, or not building it, belong in previous centuries. Africa might move on, if the people outside Africa who incessantly disparage it would do so.

If anyone needs investments like these, it’s the 750 million people of Africa, many of whom are cursed with economies that Western do-gooders, along with vogueish socialism at home, have made dependent on foreign aid and debt relief. Africans suffer as a result of inadequate basic infrastructure and difficulty in securing basic education for their children. Not that some major economies in the West aren’t heading for the same socialist malaise, so there’s no need to whitewash reality.

Projects like the SKA will contribute to the development of physical infrastructure (like electricity and telecommunications), political infrastructure (like the SADC customs union that continues to make slow progress), and social infrastructure (like education).

In terms of the standard of its scientists, the sophistication of its economy, and the development of its politics, Africa is quite capable of hosting a Big Science project such as the SKA. It has problems, sure, but motives to solve them trump negativity and despair. No politician in Africa (well, very few) would be stupid enough to put at risk a major project with international visibility such as the SKA.

Unlike the two Australian gentlemen who commented above, I will decline to speculate on a country I do not know. Australia’s virtues or shortcomings are not mine to judge. I’m sure it’s a splendid place, full of shiny, happy people. However, they might show the same courtesy towards others. If anything, short-sighted and ill-informed comments by people who haven’t a clue about the reality of Africa should provide added impetus for siting the SKA in Africa.

I live in Africa, by choice. As a columnist, I am frequently critical of the socialism and corruption that so often hurts Africans. And while the West has a lot to answer for in this respect, I believe Africa should sweep its own doorstep first. But to do that, it needs brooms. And indeed doorsteps.

If anyone in Africa were sceptical of the local capacity to operate a major facility like this, and their reasons weren’t knee-jerk racism, I’d probably be among them. However, I’m not sceptical. I believe anything is possible in Africa. I have faith in the ingenuity and dedication of its people. I believe, based on the scale and sophistication of numerous other industrial and scientific projects, that Africa has the technical and organisational ability to make the SKA an ongoing success.

Most importantly, I believe hosting the SKA can only make Africa a better place for everyone in it.

And that is worth more than all the stars in the sky.

I’ll bet if the Science Insider blog was hosted in Africa, by an African, its comment system would have worked.

My previous column at The Daily Maverick, Break the banking cartel, argued that the banks are unlikely ever to solve the problem of a generalised, cash-like, electronic transaction infrastructure that addresses the entire market, both rich and poor, local and foreign, buyer and seller, banked and unbanked.

Lest that argument be interpreted as a denunciation of bankers in general, I thought I’d question why everyone believes politicians when the latter blame the economic crisis on the former. Bankers are a product of their legal and regulatory environment. Hence, In defence of bankers.