Mzansi Afrika

Racial bias makes you stupid

It does, although I meant it in a scientific way. Apparently we all have implicit racial prejudice, and not only that, we also harbour negative or positive feelings based on sexual preference, gender, age and other, usually non-determining factors. An Implicit Association Test, or IAT, gauges the relative ease with which participants are able to link certain groups of people, for example, gay people, and the concepts of "clean" and "soiled." Ease of association, determined by judgment speed, is considered evidence for an implicitly-held attitude toward that particular social group. If participants are quicker to link "clean" with "heterosexual," for example, as compared to "homosexual", then they're considered to be biased in favour of heterosexuals. In other words, they're prejudiced against homosexuals.

A 2003 experiment revealed that people who have implicit racial bias are "left mentally exhausted after interacting with someone from a different race. [Source]" The tests were conducted on white people, but the result is surely the same on prejudiced, black people. 30 white students took a computer test asking them to classify given names as of black or white people, and given words as being positively or negatively oriented. Testees who took longer to hit the button for positively oriented words following a black name (like for Sipho below) were considered implicitly biased. Ponder this:

 

1. Flash: SIPHO MAHLANGU 1-2-3   Flash: GREAT

2. Flash: TOM HENDRICKS 1-2-3   Flash: GREAT

Then the testees were first made to interact with either a black or a white interviewer on some controversial topic, then immediately given a cognitive test on something unrelated to that topic. I can imagine the topic being Affirmative Action, a subject that has animated the South African blogosphere (see this first post, this second one, and this third one) since it came into play. A short time, considering that after more than 40 years it is still a hot subject in the United States. Much of the information concerning its life-span can be gleaned from Fact Monster's US Affirmative Action time-line.

Lastly, the testees were shown photos of unfamiliar black and white men, with a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner studying their brain. There was a clear link between IAT-measured racial prejudice, poor performance on the post-interview cognitive test, and brain activity picked up by the scanner. In effect, when shown snaps of black men, the frontal lobe areas ("associated with reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, emotions, and problem solving" [Source], or the executive function of controlling emotion and thought) of the brains of all the white participants lit up. But no frontal lobes lit up when the participants were shown the snap of a white man.

Folks who have implicit racial prejudices are left mentally tired after interacting with a person or people of a different race. Hidden racial bias makes them stupid. The study suggests that it may be because they're trying to quell their prejudice. Use the Harvard IAT to measure your own non-bias, or bias. Ponder this post, your score on the IAT and decide whether it all teaches us anything worthwhile about ourselves. Even with the static flash test above, one sees how far implicit bigotry can go.

Say you're a white European American who truly believes that a person should not be judged by the color of his or her skin.

Despite that egalitarian attitude, according to new Northwestern University research, subconscious -- or implicit -- bias can emerge subtly but quickly from its hiding places in the psyche and cause even well-meaning whites to look at identical facial expressions of African Americans and European Americans and see greater hostility in the African American faces.

Or take whites' perceptions of racially ambiguous faces that combine both African American and European American features. If the expression on the racially ambiguous face is hostile, European Americans are more likely to identify it as African American [Source].

20 questions for president Bush

Arianna Huffington has twenty questions for President George W. Bush. As is usually the case on the Huffington Post Blog, the comments are worth a look, too, sometimes as much as the post itself. Ms Huffington, among others questions, asks this one, "Yes or no, are we building permanent military bases in Iraq? If yes, how many?"

Affirmative Action

I had lower expectations of blacks than of whites, and so I was willing to excuse poor service merely because the person was black [Source], so says Gauteng Blog, whom I frequent. But that can't be right because at another point Gauteng Blog clearly indicates that there must be "black financial advisors who are highly competent, and white financial advisors who are totally incompetent." So if there are, why would anyone have lower expectations when it comes to black people? That's the first thing that's wrong with this picture. The second thing that's wrong is that when a black professional is incompetent, Gauteng Blog attributes it to affirmative action, which is a system designed to hire minorities in order to eliminate unfair discrimination. Tell me what's wrong with the following:

Employers must make sure designated groups (black people, women and people with disabilities) have equal opportunities in the workplace. Designated groups must be equally represented in all job categories and levels [Source].

Having equal opportunities in the workplace is actually good, it is progressive, and it falls in line with the general direction of the eleven-year-old South Africa. However, the Gauteng Blog reader is led to believe that the workforce is gradually becoming incompetent because more blacks are being hired. That amounts to a bold statement, indeed. The purpose of South Africa's Employment Equity Act is to "achieve equity in the workplace, by promoting equal opportunity and fair treatment in employment through the elimination of unfair discrimination; and implementing affirmative action measures to redress the disadvantages in employment experienced by designated groups, to ensure their equitable representation in all occupational categories and levels in the workforce [Source].

So what is unfair discrimination? Isn't any kind of discrimination unfair (to put it mildly)? When you have two equally qualified potential candidates before you, and you employ the one with the big tits, or with a penis, or with a paler skin, then you're practising unfair discrimination because those traits usually have no bearing on getting the job done. But in reality candidates with a paler skin do get hired more often than candidates with a darker skin, and this of course also happens in other parts of the world.

Show me a text that says blacks, women and the disabled can be hired even when they are less qualified than other candidates, and I'll cry foul with you. I have previously indicated that at the core I was against affirmative action, and I am, but it is essential, much as an anonymous curriculum vitae (which is being debated in France) is essential, until the playing field is level, until the prejudice wrought by Apartheid has been redressed, and until people are given jobs solely because they are the best qualified for those jobs.

Music in the blood (Part 2)

This is the continuation of a previous post which began, "I've often heard, as I'm sure you have, that black people have 'music in their blood.' The idea is that they sing more often, sing better, listen to music more often, and jive better. The inevitable question arises, they do these things more often, and better, than who? If it is indeed the case, how and why is it so? And while we're at it, exactly what kind of music are we talking about? Does the saying hold true with reference to both hard-metal rock and hip-hop?" 

Naturally, the environment becomes a communal and family-inspired teacher. The United States Census Bureau tells us that there are 211,460,626 Americans of European origin and 34,658,190 Americans of African origin. A rough round-up yields 212 million European-Americans and 35 million African-Americans, or one black person for every six white people. But look at most general music charts of any period, and the ratio turns on its head. There are about 6 black artists to 1 white artist. Remain convinced with me, however, that what these statistics teach us is only that black people "do" more music than their white counterparts. The same is true for basketball, which African-Americans have in their blood, too. On the other hand, who couldn't say as much for ice-skating, or golf, or cricket, or classical music, all of which are "done" more by white folks? We can go ahead and coin it: white people have skiing in their blood. Given what we've been saying, nothing would be more normal. 

Another lesson we learn from this is that colour is more important than we dare admit. Our customs and mores   actually depend on colour, and there are few exceptions to the rule. At my alma mater, in America's deep south, each weekend party was dee-jayed by black students. They played dance music, funk and pre-modern rap material, as well as classic soul. One day some white students went to the Dean and complained that they wanted to dee-jay half the time, to play music that made them dance. The Dean acquiesced and and those students got to play rock. But one wonders why black students were the "logical" choice for dee-jays in the first place. I must add that they were also more natural, communicating with the throng and having a better feel for its mood (Everybody say ho! ho! All the ladies in the house say Oooow! Now somebody screeeeeam!). They sometimes reminded me of the African teaser-response style of singing.

They were more natural as dee-jays because it was something they'd done or seen done often. Practice makes perfect. They were in their element as much as anyone else doing what they control would be, as comfortable as inhabitants of the Appalachians square dancing. The varsity dee-jays happened to be black because in America colour tells us who we are. Central to that student confrontation was colour. In the long run, the kind of music one inherently prefers to dance to mattered but little.

Conventional wisdom holds that black folks originated many of the following, and there's no grounds to doubt that. For reasons that are slowly becoming evident as we advance, black people are, indeed, prolific when it comes to music. But so are white people, when life calls for it. Look at number four below to see what I mean. I've dug up a reference where possible, and of course these are in no particular order.   

   
1. Blues, Jazz and Gospel. "From blues music came great artists, such as Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Buddy Guy, Bessie Smith, and others. But the blues might never have been created if it had not been for the influence of hollers, calls, and the changes that occurred in the lives of blacks. The evolution of the blues provides insight into the changes that took place in the lives of African Americans after slavery ended [Source]."   
2. R&B, Rock & Roll, Reggae and others. Apparently the "first rock and roll record, Ike Turner's Rocket 88, [was] released" in 1951, three years after "John Lee Hooker [recorded] Boogie Chillen' for Modern Records, a single, which topped the R&B charts," and a year before Little Richard's first record was released [Source].       
3. Break-dancing, hip-hop, rap and their derivatives (eg beat-matching, turntablism, dee-jaying, and South Africa's own Kwaito). "The roots of hip-hop music are in West-African and African-American music. Discussion of the roots of hip-hop (and rap) must mention the contributions of griots The Last Poets and Jalal Mansur Nuriddin, whose jazzy and poetic 'spiels' commented on 1960's culture. Hip-hop arose during the 1970s when block parties became common in New York City, especially in the Bronx. Block parties were usually accompanied by music, especially funk and soul music [Source]."       
4. Country and Western Music. "Country music has its beginnings in music styles brought over by the first European settlers. In medieval times, storytelling was a tradition that allowed history to be recorded when few were able to read and write. When the first British settlers came to America, they brought this tradition with them, along with songs they had learned in Europe. The people who settled in the Appalachian mountains and the West did not have an easy life and their music gave them an outlet to express their hardships [Source]." 

Why were the above-mentioned black students the "logical" choice for dee-jays? The answer is simple. Because that's what they're good at, and everybody knows that. If you were shown a photo of a black dee-jay and another of a white dee-jay, you already think you know what kind of music they'd play, don't you? A university bash is an event where students get together to drink and dance and have fun. They want to hear "Now somebody screeeeam!" to the background of a warm, thumping guitar string, a mature rhythm, berserk dancing, the whole culture of dance and hip-hop and using music to do what a bash is all about in the first place: having a ball. I realise that a lot of this has to do with packaging. Many of us buy Coke® more for the prestige that goes with its image, it's renown, its packaging, than for its taste. In other words, Coke® sells more than Pepsi®. Yet in blind taste tests Pepsi® beats its opponent flat out. But if you remember, when the latter was working on its image of a new generation, the gap was narrower.

Music in the blood (Part 1)

I've often heard, as I'm sure you have, that black people have "music in their blood." The idea is that they sing more often, sing better, listen to music more often, and jive better. The natural question arises, they do these things more often, and better, than who? If it is indeed the case, how and why is it so? And while we're at it, exactly what kind of music are we talking about? Does the saying hold true with reference to both hard-metal rock and hip-hop?

Mind you, I'm not interested in whether or not non-black people can or cannot sing and dance. I'm interested in finding out whether black people can, and if so, why? After all, the saying does refer to black people having music in their blood. So what conditions would favour such an ability? If non-blacks underwent the same conditions, could they too sing and dance (well)? In reality, do such conditions exist more for blacks and less for non-blacks?

The Center for Music Therapy Philosophy says that, "Music influences human behavior by affecting the brain and subsequently other bodily structures in ways that are observable, identifiable, measurable, and predictable, thereby providing the necessary foundation for therapeutic applications [Source]." For instance we know that

   
1. In South Africa, black people sing and dance at (politically sensitive) funerals. You may have actually witnessed this on the telly, whenever a prominent South African politician is laid to rest (Steve Biko, for example). But they also belt out songs at political rallies, using the question and response style in which the lead singer sings a teaser, and the rest grab it. If you've ever listened to Ladysmith Black Mambazo you know the style I'm referring to;
   
2. In southern Africa and elsewhere, workers sing or chant to coordinate effort and thus improve the yield. I was about twelve or so when I attended my first letsema (or communal labour), which means people helping each other out to get the job done faster. A house to build? The community pitches in. Harvest in? The community comes over to help. You provide the food and the beer. My first letsema concerned threshing sorghum. All the men, each with a knob-kerrie, gathered round the harvest. Chanting and singing in unison, we raised our knob-kerries to the rhythm of the chant and brought them crashing onto the plants, before raising them again to carry out the movement anew;
   
3. Musicians played an important role as griots and historians in 10th-20th century kingdoms in different parts of Africa. In Lesotho that job belongs more to poets than to anybody else. But of course there's a lot of music in poetry. The performer may or may not scribble reminders (dates, order of events, names, etc) somewhere on their hand. They use the same poetic techniques as other poets: alliteration, consonance, stress, intonation and rhyme, and may go on for quite some time, praising a warrior, a king, a clan or themselves;
   
4. In southern Africa, shepherds sometimes use flutes and other musical instruments to control the movement of cattle. I was a shepherd once, and I remain grateful for it. I learned how to stick-fight, for one, and I learned what wild roots to eat. Stick-fighting (lekallo) involves a lot of moves that are tantamount to dancing, as the fighters circle each other, or thrust stylishly, or block in a certain, imposing way. To see what I mean, think of the dance moves inherent in capoeira, or even in bull-fighting. Herd-people also play very simple musical instruments, like the lekolulo (Sotho flute), composed of a stick, a cord and a reed;
   
5. An African's life span is marked with musical events, from lullabies through play songs, initiation rite songs, weddings, to funerals. Every wedding in Lesotho sees two competing choirs, one from each of the partner's village. They actually wear distinguishing uniforms and just raise hell and dust to sing the other side down. [Some of the above comes from MSN Encarta]
 

Music, then, is serious matter in Africa. By extension, it is also serious matter to African-Americans, whose fore-parents brought it over as slaves, and maintained enough of it for future generations to "have it in their blood." In her 1899 article called The Survival of African Music in America, Jeanette Murphy says that

During my childhood my observations were centered upon a few very old negroes who came directly from Africa, and upon many others whose parents were African born, and I early came to the conclusion, based upon negro authority, that the greater part of the music, their methods, their scale, their type of thought, their dancing, their patting of feet, their clapping of hands, their grimaces and pantomime, and their gross superstitions came straight from Africa [Source]."

This is as far as I could get for now. I will continue to explore the question in parts 2 and 3 of this post, which will probably be less than a week apart (my fingers and my toes are crossed). There are many more angles to consider than I could have ever imagined. I'll try to dig into as many of them as I can.

Minority Report

"A group of people who differ racially or politically from a larger group of which it is a part." That's this Princeton definition of the word "minority." Blacks and Hispanics in the United States of America, Boers living in Lesotho, homosexuals the world over, and Pakistanis in England all fit the definition. I live in France where I am part of a racial minority population. The opposite of minority is, of course, majority.

The mathematical majority doesn't always add up to power and control -- it's not a given. Look at South Africa up to eleven years ago. In that country, a mathematical minority sat on a mathematical majority for the longest time.
Traditional Kenyan DressLook at Rwanda. And look at Lesotho, where a political minority sat on a political majority through the power of the gun, for more than two decades. The white settler was a mathematical (and arguably political) minority in North America; faced with the red majority, he whipped out his technological superiority and used it to subdue that menace.

Another trait a majority doesn't necessarily possess is rightness. Numbers do not make right, nor does might, despite the popular adage. Many-a-crime has been committed from behind the mask of superior numbers. The flock-effect is strong and wins often, so that we tend to follow the behaviour of the group and most everything else: fashion, speech, music preferences, you name it, favouring the illusion that numbers make right. In France if you veer from the customary path you're admonished with a terse, "Ca se fait pas!" Or we don't do that!. To which I like to retort, "Who says?" The majority says, of course, though my interlocutor is always too stunned by the retort to reply.

If you're part of a minority and you're lucky enough, your group will neither be despised nor venerated. Politicians will then bring up the subject of integration, especially where talk is of immigrants. Is integration really feasible? Probably. Is it really desirable? Probably not. Black folks have not integrated into America, as that country is represented by its cultural majority.

Continental WearNot that they were that welcome. They went off and lived in a parallel culture of their own (thank God). White folks (a mathematical minority) haven't integrated into South Africa either, as that land is represented by its cultural majority. Why should they? I say when in Rome don't do as the Romans do; keep the diversity alive. My own personal culture and language are on their way to extinction. I wish I was writing these words to you in Sesotho, not in English. Note that white South Africans were actually the political majority since they had power, were dominant and had total control of their lives.

I think immigrants in Europe and the USA, or elsewhere, should not feel pressed by any circumstance to melt into the mores they find in the new country upon arrival. Their own ways are certainly not "less" than those of their new country. By the same token, immigrants, workers, Peace Corps volunteers and other entrepreneurs in Developing countries can all wear what they please, should eat the food of their choice, and should worship in the church, synagogue or mosque of their choice. Minority has never meant conquered. If it's decent and not disrespectful, why shouldn't one be allowed to do it? I'm not suggesting that a woman of African descent living in Europe should go to work wearing Kenyan traditional clothes; I'm suggesting that she may go to work wearing continentally styled African clothes.

The Zuma phenomenon

I have not written much about the Zuma rape trial...yes, I know, I haven't written much at all. But anyway, there is something I REALLY don't understand, and maybe someone can explain it to me. Although, I don't think there is an answer, or at least not a plausible answer that we could understand.

The rape trial of Jacon Zuma has brought to light that this man slept with a women who he knew had AIDS and yet he didn't use a condom. Whether he raped her not, he still knowingly went into a situation whereby he willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with a women that he knew to be infected with the AIDS virus. Huh? As a leader of a country with one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS in the world, this is his personal behaviour? I don't get it - shouldn't he know better?

I mean this is the man, who as former deputy president of South Africa, was not only head of the Moral Regeneration Movement, but also chairperson of the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC). I end this post with a quote from a speech made by Zuma, in his position as chairperson of SANAC.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I said earlier that we have now come face to face with the epidemic. We are therefore one step ahead in that we are steadily moving away from the era of doubt, fear, denial and ignorance.

However there is also a danger that this first-hand knowledge of the disease may lead to complacency, and to people taking AIDS for granted as a "given", something that will happen at some time or other in their lives, that they will just have to live with.

That would be dangerous. We should remain as vigilant and as determined to stop the spread of HIV and AIDS as we were when we did not know a single person who had succumbed to the disease.

It is important for us to arm ourselves with knowledge on how not to contract HIV, and if we are already infected, we should seek knowledge of how to live positively with it.

The message of prevention still remains important, Abstain, Be Faithful or Use a Condom. With regards to young people, we advocate abstinence until you are old enough to understand the seriousness of relationships."

Petty discrimination

A man of European descent jay-walks across the street at the wrong time. You swerve at the last instant and miss him by half an inch. "Son of a bitch!" you yell. A man of Far Eastern descent jay-walks across the street at the wrong time. You swerve at the last instant and miss him by half an inch. "Fucking Chink!" you yell. Spot the difference. Many people refer to this kind of thing as petty discrimination. I call it real discrimination.

Your reaction to both incidents is not really conscious, but comes from the uncalculated depth within. It is what Malcolm Gladwell calls rapid cognition, or thinking without thinking. It is independent of thought and of analysis, and therefore is untainted; unless of course we go back far enough to see why you react in that particular way. But for all intents and purposes it is the real-deal-feeling of the yeller. I contend that what would be appropriate would be yelling, "Son of a bitch!" at both trespassers, or yelling "Fucking Chink!" to one and "Fucking Honky!" to the other.

Sometimes as I walk down the street, handbags get switched from the side (left or right) near which I'll pass the switcher. Other times, car doors get locked when I cross the street at a pedestrian crossing, usually somewhere near twilight. I'm black, if you didn't know. This kind of stuff happened to me more in America than anywhere else. But it isn't all that uncommon in Europe. And South Africa -- does this happen at all to black, white or coloured folks in South Africa?

And is it right to refer to the practice as "petty"? I think not. It is more degrading than being picked up by the former SAP for not having a Pass (which I was, though I wasn't South African. My skin colour qualified me). Why more degrading? You at least expect the latter to happen, and can put up some sort of armour beforehand; the former sneaks up on you as you mosey about like a free person in a free country. Bam! I don't call that petty; I call it ugly.

Ugly discrimination is also the begging caucasian woman in Bloemfontein, Orange free State, who refused my coins; the negroid man in Knoxville, Tennessee, who said to me, "You've lost your way, brother," solely because I was lunching with my caucasian wife. Discrimination is loose in our midst and out on the street. There's racial discrimination, gender discrimination, religious discrimination and I don't have enough space to list them all. Are any of them petty? Petty means "small and of little importance." But this particular behaviour is huge, and it is destroying the world. So next time you hear someone say, "petty discrimination," tell them how wrong they are.

Whose side is God on?

Most everyone seems to be soliciting God's favour. It is of course a normal thing to do for those among us who do believe in God. Problem is, my opponent is asking for favours from Him at about the same time that I am. What's more, even in confrontational situations such as war, or a murder trial, both parties seek help from the same entity. Does God's help then go to the one who eventually wins? And does that mean God isn't on the side of the loser?

This request for favours goes up by way of prayer. Within the Christian faith, prayer has been defined as "Talking to God," or as

the act of attempting to verbally communicate with the supernatural. It is found in almost all the religions of the world. It is sometimes communal, as during a church service; it is sometimes done in private. Its purpose within Christianity is to assess the will of God for one's life, to praise God, to give thanks to God, to repent of sinful behavior, to ask forgiveness, to seek a favor from God, and (occasionally) to ask God to curse an opponent. [Source]

"Assessing the will of God," the same source informs us, is described in Psalms 86:6-7: "Give ear, O LORD, unto my prayer; and attend to the voice of my supplications. In the day of my trouble I will call upon you: for you will answer me." The other characteristics of prayer, from praising God to asking God to curse the enemy, are clear enough not to be belaboured.

The questions remain, however -- questions whose answers seem even farther away when one ponders the multitude of religions. When President George W. Bush, a well-known born-again Christian, kneels down at bedtime to ask for favours concerning the capture of Osama bin Laden, and the latter, a well-known Islamic Fundamentalist, does likewise to ask for something against the former, what happens? And is that what some label "the clash of civilisations/religions"?

One of the things that get me is how most who think God is on their side don't listen to Her. By right, prayer should be a two-way street. You ask, you praise, you acknowledge, BUT you also listen, intently. Our friends, however, know what their God requires of them, know who their God likes, dislikes, will help, will dump, and so on. So in prayer they're really just mumbling meaningless and memorised sayings of the sort, "Shower them with your love." But in all honesty they aren't listening.

If there's a God out there or up there, He is probably not on the side of rich folks who sit on poor folks. He's probably unhappy at folks who kill others in his name. He's probably wagging his finger at those who go against the grain of goodness that is inherent in human beings. What grain of goodness? I don't know and I can't be sure of it's existence except where it relates to my own consciousness. Wagging what finger? Again that's what I think God would do, if God existed. But I'm careful not to impose that on you. My own prayer is that we should all strive not to impose our consciousness on others, because I believe that if we succeed, we will have made a giant step toward living together peacefully. There are so many religions and beliefs that if all of us strive instead to impose ourselves on others, then as a race it is a sure thing tha we will never, ever stop fighting amongst ourselves.

Afmalesy

I have not yet identified the source of the strain in African leaders that makes them go awry, that makes them want to hang onto the reins of power despite evidence that they should not do so. This is often at the expense of their country and their country-people. I do not intend, however, to dedicate such behaviour only to African men, first because other continents have known the same fate, albeit to a much lesser degree, and secondly because African leaders have exclusively been men. Who knows how African women leaders would have turned out?

Here's a quick exercise to do right this minute. Get an atlas. We'll wait for you.

One theory I back is that the African family structure has seeped into politics. At home, the father is all powerful, and his word is carved in stone. The mother and the children are his subjects, literally. Let me quickly point out here that I in no way intend to dedicate this pathology to black, African male leaders only. The Afrikaner has it, too, although not of the same origin. His is tinted with religious overtures, whereas the black African male's has a traditional bent. But, indeed, the woman is treated not in a better way by the Afrikaner, and that fact shows in the way he handles politics.

Got that atlas now? Ok, open it to a political map of Africa. Shut your eyes. Place a finger on the map and move it about for the sake of randomness. Now, open your eyes. Your finger will rarely fall on a country that has not known the African Male Leader Syndrome. Call it AFMALESY for short, and for the fact that it sounds like the disease that it is. Alternatively, do this other exercise: listen to African news on the radio, as I did this morning. What do you hear? So what do you think gives?

Another theory is based on the fact that to date, African leaders have largely been freedom fighters. Put "freedom" in inverted commas for some of those. The result is that you end up with all these heads of government whose main skill is toting a machine-gun and rallying people to fight. In the long run that's exactly what most of them do as heads of government. The bush did not teach them about health insurance and about how to curb unemployment. It taught them how to subjugate others. No wonder they run their countries into the ground. Lech Walesa was a bad president because he was such a good something else, having learned and mastered the art of bugging a regime. President Lech Walesa had  absolutely no regime to bug.

I rather like the idea of having a charismatic freedom fighter run the country she's helped liberate, for a term or so. I rather liked seeing Nelson Mandela as president of South Africa for a while, and I liked seeing him leave the political arena to politicians. Okay, the country's free now, I can go back to doing what I do best. Who can I bug into submission? The same thing happended in Lesotho when Ntsu Mokhehle led the country for a term, following the first free elections in that country, then stepped down and handed the reins to more agile politicians.

Yesterday was Women's Day. It would be good if we used it to remember that there are only 11 female heads of government in the entire world, that Africa has just 1 (one out of 52 countries), and only since November 2005; that numbers for women approach 50% within badly paid sectors of the job market, but remain low in other sectors; that in the Arab world, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Turkey, Venezuela, Argentina and other places, men still commit what they call honour crimes and killings.