Let’s idealise and say that traffic law is perfect. All pedestrian deaths must therefore result from an accidental or deliberate contravention of the law. The table below sets out all the violations I can think of…

I’ll run through what I see as being accidental. “Zoning-out” is when someone unintentionally steps into the road, which apparently became quite a phenomenon when the iPod first arrived. “Unattended minors” refers to any time you’re taking something with diminished capacity like a child, dog, cat, or ‘tard for a walk and they get off their leash. “Loss of control” – sudden brake failure; and “crash avoidance” – swerving away from a dove and smashing a biker.

I think the main aim of policy should be to move the majority of pedestrian deaths into the “accidental” column. My impression is that the single largest cause of deaths during pedantry is jaywalking. For instance, Sunnyside is a candidate for speed limit reduction – and every time I drive through there at night I think I’m going to kill someone because people materialise in the centre of its busy roads. Would I stand less chance of killing someone if I were travelling in 2nd gear? Yep. So obviously speeding and drunkenness aggravate contravention of the law either by making it more probable (a drunk is more likely to leave his retarded brother unattended) or more severe (bump vs smoosh a Sunnyside jaywalker), but both already have enforceable limits. My first choice of public policy would be to improve enforcement: fines for jaywalkers and more cameras on robot corners.

Instead this strikes me as the easy way out, a way out in which the actual problem isn’t solved but a status quo is created where the harms might be avoided. When people decide to jaywalk, or speed, or skip a light, it’s because there are no consequences (other than convenience) for their actions. I just believe consequences should be directed to change bad habits, not to limit my freedom to get through town when I’m not a traffic offender.

PS And Hells, as a regular pedestrian, I would love to see some fines for cars ignoring zebra crossings. I have right-of-way, assholes! Though if I used it, I’d end up as stawberry jam.

In case you missed Muammar’s vituperative speech at the UN General Assembly a couple of days ago, here’s a quick summary. It gives a blow-by-schizotypal-blow account of his brain-slugs, including questioning the record on the Kennedy assassination and the origin of swine flu, without you having to hear the oratory that exhausted three translators. I expect no different from the old man… The last time he made use of the UN it was in an attempt to ban Switzerland after his son Hannibal assaulted a pair of hotel workers in Geneva.

I pulled this off of Foreign Policy, where it’s explained that Hamas has accused Israel of tampering with chewing gum and allowing it to cross the border into Gaza in a diabolical scheme to enhance the sex drives of the locals.

And this is why I keep a box in my head marked “Stupid Things Said in the 3^rd World”. Into this box I toss the propositions that the AIDS pandemic is a Western plot to prevent us from having sex, and that the WHO polio vaccine is designed to make us sterile… Because then I can compartmentalise my brain and I needn’t spent time trying to make sense of things that probably never will make sense. In my spare time (spare thinking time, that is, because so much of my time is spare time), I open up the box and ponder its contents, transporting myself into a wonderful world of intrigue and guile. Very exciting – very exciting – to consider that it’s all possible. The West could indeed be fighting a pervasive Fourth Generation War against key political targets, using novel and outlandish means to create paranoia, dissonance and social instability. The powers that be would maintain global hegemony by winning the war of ideas, while simultaneously disabling poor societies from pulling themselves out of the gutter. So where can I sign up?! I’m full of nefarious plots to compete for world domination! Sigh. Then I close the box, realising that if something’s too good to be true, it probably isn’t.

If you need a reason to be proud, just look at what’s happening in the sporting realm at the moment:

We are the Rugby World Cup champions. The Springboks are currently leading the series against the British and Irish Lions. And if you happen to be a Bulls supporter, we just won the Super 14. The Proteas are ranked the no. 1 ODI cricket side in the world. Plus Bafana Bafana made it to the semi-finals of the Confederations Cup (and very nearly caused an upset too). I don’t care that I am a middle class, white female who can barely name 3 players on the pitch. I am allowed to be proud about something that I was completely unaware of 3 months ago because I am South African and that is my right.

So yes, we may be part of a 3^rd world country in “deepest, darkest Africa”, but I don’t care. All of this complaining (including my own) is starting to bore me. I am sure that I will be going on about taxis (yes, that is the plural of taxi, I had to Google it to make sure) or poverty or crime in a couple of weeks again, so enjoy this while it lasts.

All I ask of you is this: The next time you see a Castle Lager advert giving an unrealistic depiction of unity and South African pride, and the heartfelt melody starts making you feel emotional, just go with it. Let yourself cry. It is one of the few opportunities that you will have to cry tears of joy about being part of this country.

The above clip was produced by Conan O’Brien, and helped to re-elect Finnish president Tarja Halonen. Finland ranked fourth in the world for press freedom, yet this American input was so uniquely exciting that it made a deep impact. Funny and original as Conan’s campaign was, election ads (and their spoofs) are standard fare in America, while in South Africa we saw our very first ones this year and they were neither original nor critical. To explain this, I created a child-model of media freedom:

The Press Freedom Index’s questions actually measure press impedance (which include things like how many journalists were killed in the past year), but doesn’t capture the strength of media institutions and traditions, or the willingness of individuals (important or otherwise) to engage in public discourse. I reckon media drive in the United States is a car battery – here it’s a nine-volt – so even though apparent resistance to the media might be the same, they’re a shining globe of media expression and we’re a dim lamp.

Why isn’t the media stronger in South Africa? Sure you could say it’s young, but I don’t buy that – especially since we’re supposed to have a very activisty past, complete with Journos Risking Their Lives for Truth™. Besides, one doesn’t need much money to take a satirical, popular, entertaining jab at politics. No, instead the media suffers from a chronic lack of ambition. You see, normally the ambitious are rewarded for their efforts, encouraging others to be ambitious too, but in South Africa I think this is discouraged by the wire-cutter in the wings.

The wire-cutter in the wings is the looming punishment presented to those who push the envelope. In other words, media impedance is reactionary: only once a sleeping bear has been prodded with the abrasive, outspoken pole of critique might it run onto the stage wielding a pair of wire-cutters with the intention of snipping media expression. Take the Zapiro TV show for example; it received funding from the SABC for a pilot, but once it was created it was canned for being too controversial. Or the Nando’s ad involving Julius Malema, when ANCYL threatened violence and forced Nando’s to do that clever little shuffle of blurring the Julius puppet out. Anticipating the effort of making severe commentary, most of the media battery just up and buggers off, coming to a cool equilibrium with the societal and political forces that could offer resistance.

Thus, I reckon media expression is a contest of wills and, in a country where that travesty of a media bill actually got through parliament, it’s easier to fire Bullard than to endure a shit-storm, it’s easier to be unambitious than to be edgy… It’s easier to do merely what is allowed rather than to do what is praiseworthy.

R7 021! For driving a bus!

I know people with university degrees who earn less than R7 021 a month. Does it take some special skill that I am not aware of to operate the sophisticated piece of equipment which is… the bus? Does driving a bus require some unique, sought-after personality trait, other than being a complete jackass who is under the impression that the first rule of the road is that if a bus wishes to change lanes, it is the responsibility of the driver in the golf next door to get the f*ck out the way?

Now, I am not suggesting that I would like to trade in my cushy job for a chance to spend my days careering around the streets of Johannesburg in a rickety, carbon-monoxide-filled death-trap (wow, I do seem to like my hyphenated words today). I am, after all, a snob. But I do feel that it is a disgrace to complain about earning a meagre 7K a month, while the teacher/ journalist/ designer/ political analyst/ speech therapist/ artist with a DEGREE is earning less than you. What has the world come to? Next thing you know they will be making some moron with a Grade 5 education the leader of our country. Oh wait…

To set the record straight, I am all for people earning their keep and contributing to society, and I would much rather hear that a person aspires to be a bus driver than a car guard (please do not get me started on the pathetic excuse for a human being that is the car guard). I simply believe that there should be balance in all things, and paying the kitchen staff more than the chef just doesn’t sit right with me. There appears to be only one solution: pay those of us who do have an IQ greater than 85, who have spent four years earning our degrees, more than R7 021 a month. Much more. Fair’s fair.

]]> http://www.blatant.co.za/2009/05/politics/metrobus/feed/ 15 http://www.blatant.co.za/2009/05/politics/unsophisticated-sophistry/ http://www.blatant.co.za/2009/05/politics/unsophisticated-sophistry/#comments Tue, 19 May 2009 14:29:29 +0000 Kyle http://www.blatant.co.za/?p=63

Something I heard about an acquaintance’s personal life (which is really none of my business and nor, therefore, yours), and the embarrassing radio performance of ANCYL spokesman Floyd Shivambu on the subject of Helen Zille being a political / literal prostitute, reminded me to comment on a speech that former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fatima Hajaig, gave a while back in Lenasia. (But look, forget Lenasia! Holy spiced balls you need to visit Bismillah in Laudium. Even though you have to sit on lawn chairs, they’ve got the yummiest curry for your money in Gauteng. Just don’t bring your daughter’s teddy bear named after the Prophet, or your T-shirt emblazoned with a certain holy book on quilted toilet paper. Or play-play plastic explosives strapped to your chest, a slingshot in your hand, and one of those Palestinian solidarity scarves tied round your head while chanting “throw the Jew down the well” in a pseudo-Persian accent. You know what I mean, right? No anti-Islamic sentiment. It will not be appreciated for its tongue-in-cheek comedic value.) 

Her speech may have contained the phrase “they control [America], no matter which government comes into power, whether Republican or Democratic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush… Their control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything”. So the Jewish Board of Deputies practised its ancient martial art, Sosueme, and laid a complaint with the Human Rights Commission and she begrudgingly apologised – twice, because her first apology was a little too begrudging.

But let’s face it, twelve bankers do rule the world, and at least eight of them are Jewish (this is a joke). That’s why I like to have Jewish friends, because I am attracted to money, power and elitism (still joking). And I’ve discovered that when you know where to apply pressure – to their sense of contractual obligation (jokes!) – then they’re happy to buy you coffee with some of that precious, precious Jew Gold they keep around their necks (…South Park joke). I’d convert so that I could also be an Illuminatus, because that’s what I’ve always wanted and I think my IQ might be high enough to get in, except I’m just too attached to the tip of my todger (seriously, no joke). What’s my point? Anti-Semitism can be funny. Borat and jibes about Jewfros are utterly hilarious. Why can anti-Semitism be funny? Because everything is funny if it is allowed space in which to be funny, and I put it to you, sirs and madams, that this figurative space is created through security. I believe that Judaism has a secure place in the West, and that the thinking man could no more entertain a truly anti-Semitic viewpoint than lop off his own John Thomas, since it simply doesn’t cross his mind as a reasonable proposition. Why do I care? I care because it shows that the ex-deputy minister is a jerk, that if she had a real point to make she would speak diplomatically and not illogically, and that at the spring-chickenish age of 23 I could’ve done better at her job than she, in all respects, within three months of occupying her office… Hmm, that was a pretty bold statement. Oh well, it’s not as if there are consequences for the things we say.

P.S. This is a trap into which political bodies seem to fall too often: The Idiocy Trap. One person will make a false, offensive statement, then deny that it was what it objectively was (as if it’s unlikely for a public figure making a public statement to be recorded verbatim and published nationally), and refuse to apologise, after which the body closes ranks to protect itself from the fallout. This causes the entire organisation to come off as idiotic instead of merely the individual – but it works out fine because if the organisation acts idiotically, then the probability exists that it is full of idiots. QED.

P.P.S. In these situations, where there’s little crunchy feedback for mistakes, idiocy at high levels and the illusion of being able to hide one’s actions is possibly due to prestigious employment being a grant to the loyal rather than a duty entrusted to the competent. It might explain the laughable us-and-them consciousness that exists between, say, ANCYL and the media, which plays out like gorillas hurling exploding bananas over rooftops at each other (like in that old game where gorillas get to hurl exploding bananas over rooftops at each other) except where one gorilla has a million lives but only the other can aim.

Floyd: Good morning, Redi, and good morning to the listeners of your radio station.

Redi: Mmmm. Can I just ask, let’s start here: You, according to the newspapers, you’ve promised “to take militant action against the fake racist girl.” What does that mean?

Floyd: Look, let’s clarify something first before we go into those questions. I think it is very unfortunate and actually childish of you as a radio presenter to make conclusive remarks without having consulted us to explain the context of what we mean by Helen Zille being racist. I think really you’re being childish.

Redi: What does ‘racist’ mean? What’s the context –

Floyd: Look, racist is about people who undermine black people.

Redi: So –

Floyd: White people who undermine African leadership. And we think that Helen Zille undermines African leadership and the majority of African people.

Redi: OK.

Floyd: Remember after the elections she said that majority of the people who voted for the ANC, of whom majority are African; she said are voting with their hearts not with their, with their minds. It means to Zille we cannot think. That is according to the – That is undermining black people.

Second, she does not believe in African leadership. Even in her own party. Whenever black people, African people, are given the opportunity to lead she does not agree on that role or posibility. Like… she thinks in a similar way that she thinks… the women of the Western Cape, the entire Western Cape cannot lead, do not have the capabilities. The same station that represent who Helen Zille is, but do not give us that space to explain this and to make conclusive remarks to say that we are childish and everything, and I think you’re the one who’s being childish in terms of these issues. Now, in terms of what was … we … we’re disgusted by the manner in which Helen Zille has handled certain issues. She must justify … that unjustifiable appointment of an all male cabinet in a huge province like the Western Cape.

Redi: Uh mmm?

Floyd: It’s just not justifiable. We’re coming from very far. We’re coming from a system that institutionalised both racism and sexism which thought that women cannot do things, which thought that African people cannot do things; and that ideological framework and sentiments continues to guide Helen Zille. And that is what we are speaking about, and there is nothing untoward about all the statements we’ve made. We stand by everything we’ve said as the ANC Youth League; and I think it is very unfortunate for 702, and for yourself as well as radio presenter to behave in the manner in which you’ve been behaving for the entire show today.

Redi: Mm-hmm. OK. Floyd, I’ll respond to you in just a moment. I think you don’t understand the meaning of the word childish. My not calling you before making my statements is certainly not childish; and I don’t have to call you every time I open my mouth. I heard you on television. I read what you’ve said. I don’t need to call you. Racist means racist and I think anybody with a brain knows what that means. But anyway, let’s just move on. I think you need to look at the meaning of childish, but let’s –

Floyd: …Our definition of racist –

Redi: That’s fine. You have your own definitions of everything when the whole world has a different definition of things, but anyway, that’s not what I’m talking about.

Floyd: It’s not the whole world. It is a common definition that people who thinks that African people cannot…

Redi: Ok

Floyd: …white people who think that Africa people cannot do anything…

Redi: All right, Floyd. That’s not the issue here. Let’s move on. Let’s move on. You’ve said your say. I’ve said mine. Let’s just move on.

Floyd: Yes.

Redi: On the question of Zille, and her boyfriends, and concubines: what did you mean? Because as you’ve rightly pointed out, there are certain dictionary meanings of words, but the ANC Youth League has its own definition. What’s your definition?

Floyd: We are saying, we are saying that Helen Zille must prove us wrong that these people are not her comcombines and boyfriends because these are useless people. One of the education –

Redi: Hold on, hold on. Floyd, slowly. The fact that they are useless means they’re here boyfriends and concubines?

Floyd: No. Listen to what I’m saying.

Redi: I am listening. You’re not making sense. That’s the point.

Floyd: If I’d completed my statement, you’re going to understand properly what we mean by what we’re saying; and please be patient. We’ve been patient. We’ve been listening to you for the whole day.

Redi: [Laughs.] It is my show, but anyway, carry on.

Floyd: Yes, the people who have been appointed there, she claims are capable people and have a lot of other things. One of the education MECs that was appointed there she says is going for a crash course about the education [methods]. What is capability about that? There’s no other explanation you can give except to say that the reality and the truth; that these are her boyfriends that she continues to sleep around with and we stand by that particular statement.

Redi: Hold on Floyd. What do you mean by sleeping around?

Floyd: We mean exactly that. We say what we mean. We say that she’s sleeping around and we mean that she is sleeping around.

Redi: Hold on. Uh, Floyd. There’s a reason I’m asking you that, because in one interview you denied that sleeping around meant having sex with more than one person. You said… hold on let me finish. You’ve been telling me I must let you finish. You let me finish.

Floyd: OK.

Redi: You said: “No, we never said that she is going to have sex with them. We are saying that she’s sleeping around with them.” What does that mean?

Floyd: It means sleeping around. Our interpretation of sleeping around is sleeping around. We mean what we say and –

Redi: You are being ridiculous Floyd. You’re interpretation of sleeping around is sleeping around. What does that mean? Answer the question.

Floyd: It means exactly that, it means exactly –

Redi: Is she having sex with them?

Floyd: – that she is a political prostitute who does not have co-ordinated views –

Redi: What’s a political prostitute?

Floyd: It’s, it’s act– it’s people who sleep around in the –

Redi: Having sex? Getting naked and having sex?

Floyd: No look. Don’t –

Redi: I’m asking. I don’t understand. I’m asking. It’s not statement that I’m making, it’s –

Floyd: That is your own, that is your own…

Redi: No. Floyd, I’m not interpreting this. I’m asking you to explain what you mean. What do you mean she’s sleeping around?

Floyd: There’s no other explanation we’re going to give except that she is sleeping around.

Redi: Floyd, you… I need to understand before… You said, when you came on the radio, rightly so. I need to understand what you are saying before I respond to it. You and I agree on that.

Floyd: Yes.

Redi: I’m saying I don’t understand what you mean. Explain to me…

Floyd: Unfortunately… If there possibly is a problem with yourself if you don’t understand what sleeping around is –

Redi: But explain. It is your role as a spokesperson. Explain. What is it?

Floyd: Our explanation of sleeping around is that she is sleeping around. There’s no other explanation that we can give except that explanation. If you don’t understand then, then there’s a problem with yourself –

Redi: Can you help me understand then?

Floyd: Helping you to understand is to explain that sleeping around is sleeping around. You must go check, I don’t know where. Sleeping around is sleeping around, and we are going to consistently say that she is sleeping around. We’re not going to change from that particular –

Redi: You actually don’t know what you mean?

Floyd: We know what we mean. We mean… We say what we mean and we mean what we say. We –

Redi: Oh for goodness sake, answer the question. You’re playing around with words. “We mean what we mean, we say what…” What do you mean she’s sleeping around?

Floyd: You want me to answer the question in the manner in which –

Redi: No! I want you to answer the question, full stop.

Floyd: – I, I, no –

Redi: Just answer the question full stop, in whatever way. What does sleeping around mean?

Floyd: Sleeping around means sleeping around. There’s no other explanation that we can give except that she is sleeping around. Unfortunately, you can ask me a million times. We’re not going to change that explanation. We mean what we say and we say what we mean. Exactly that.

Redi: You don’t think it’s important for people to understand what you mean? Because Floyd, hold on. Hold on Floyd –

Floyd: Look we don’t… we don’t. Millions other people agree with us in terms of…

Redi: Which millions other people? Stop lying. Which millions of other people?

Floyd: People who’ve been calling us, have been sending us e-mails –

Redi: Well we don’t know about that. It’s your people. We don’t know anything about that.

Floyd: You do not know anything about –

Redi: But you are talking on a public platform. Don’t tell us about private phone calls that go on to you –

Floyd: [Argues.]

Redi: Tell us something that is in the public domain. Something that you’ve said in the public domain. I’m giving you an opportunity to explain –

Floyd: Listen to what I’m –

Redi: Hold on Floyd. Floyd?

Floyd: Listen to what I’m saying.

Redi: But I can’t because you’re not saying anything. You’re saying “We mean what we say, we say what we mean”. What does that mean? I’m sure you were chosen as a spokesperson because you’ve got a brain and you can express yourself. I’m saying there’s a problem. You’ve said something that is not being understood. What did you mean she’s sleeping around? That’s the question.

Floyd: We are saying that she is sleeping around, and our meaning… Our interpretation of sleeping around is sleeping around. There’s nothing else you can explain beyond that.

Redi: OK. Alright. Can I ask you something, Floyd? Can I ask you something? I said when I started the show that Helen Zille should have answered the question which I think is legitimate. A question about the composition of a provincial cabinet. And I think you and I agree on that.

Floyd: Yes.

Redi: She should have answered the question and I still insist that her comments on president Zuma were irrelevant in that particular context. But I’m concerned that when a woman is at the top and appoints men, you reach the conclusion, in this sexist society called South Africa, that she must be sleeping with those men. What happens when the ANC appoints women? I would like to believe you’re not appointing women because they’ve slept their way to the top. Why is that relevant when it’s a woman appointing men?

Floyd: Look… There’s no justification on the position of Helen Zille, eh…

Redi: But what I saying is why do you reach the conclusion that is has something to do with sex? Is it because she’s a woman? When the ANC appoints women it has nothing to do with sex, it’s about empowerment…

Floyd: So it appears that you’ve got the answer of what you mean by sleeping around and that is your own interpretation.

Redi: But you’re not giving the interpretation.

Floyd: You can live with that possible explanation yourself. It correctly suits you –

Redi: Floyd, I don’t know which planet you come from, but when someone’s sleeping around…

Floyd: Don’t be angry. Don’t –

Redi. Floyd, Floyd, I’m not angry. I’m not angry. I’m not angry at all. I am so not angry, but anyway, we’re not talking about me. And you now deflecting the attention from the fact that you’ve come on the radio and given us the most ridiculous answers to very simple questions. Anybody with a brain knows that sleeping around means having sex and sleeping with more than one person. I was giving you an opportunity to explain what you meant by it and you can’t answer the question so you’ve wasted time.

Floyd: Our explanation is that it’s sleeping around, and we’re not going to change from that particular explanation.

Redi: Because you can’t think. That is the problem here.

Floyd. No! You are being angry. You are being angry. You are being typical of yourself. Please, can you grow up a bit…

Redi: I don’t think you know anything about me, but let’s leave it there. I don’t think we’re talking about me. The point is, you are a representative…

Floyd: You are! You are part of DA views there –

Redi: That’s fine. If that’s what you think, that’s fine. No, I don’t need to justify myself –

Floyd: …Must be able to address these issues: concrete in terms of what we mean…

Redi: Alright, Floyd. Floyd?

Floyd: [We] are explaining this thing that, at least in the future, when you want to speak about us, consult us –

Redi: I don’t have to. Floyd, Floyd? I don’t have to.

Floyd: It’s not about you as a person. It’s about 702. That station does not belong to you, it belongs to people –

Redi: Floyd?

Floyd: – who own it, I do not know who those people are so please –

Redi: Floyd, I hear you. I hear you Floyd, I hear you, and thanks for saying that, but I’m saying to you, I’m saying to you: you had every right to come on the radio this morning and explain. And I’m saying you haven’t achieved that. All you have done is come on the radio to say –

Floyd: We have…

Redi: Hold on! I’ve listened to you. I’ve just listened to you.

Floyd: …Why we think Helen Zille is racist…

Redi: Floyd, I’ve just listened to you, you listen to me. I’m saying to you: you are saying I’m not doing my job in terms of asking you questions and giving you a chance to explain. And I’m saying, I’ve just done that and all you’ve done is come on the radio and said you can have whatever interpretation. I’m not interested in my interpretation or anybody else’s. I want to hear what you meant. You can’t answer that.

Floyd: Our interpretation! You can say that you are not happy with our interpretation, but we’re not going to change the interpretation.

Redi: But I don’t know what your interpretation is because you haven’t explained it.

Floyd: The interpretation of sleeping around in our world, in our explanation is sleeping around. There’s no other language to explain sleeping around except that particular statement. That is what we’re saying.

Redi: [Laughs.] OK, look Floyd. You and I agree, Helen Zille should have answered questions about the cabinet composition and I don’t think there was enough focus on that. And I think that people who are asking question about it are justified given what we want to achieve in South Africa. You and I agree on that one, but I’m not… I don’t believe that as the ANC Youth League, you’ve answered the question that has been asked. I think it is very dangerous in the society such as ours, to call women names. It’s one thing to criticise her decisions, and I think you have every right to do that, but to accuse her of sleeping around because she’s appointed males; I think that is problematic. It’s the same thing, if we were to turn around and say the appointment of women in the ANC, it means those women have slept their way to the top. I think that those are things that should be left out and we should be looking at the issue. And the issue is there are no females in the Western Cape cabinet. Why? And Helen Zille must answer that one. Anyway Floyd, thank you very much for calling us.

Floyd: Thank you very much Redi, and please grow up in the future when I speak about this, please…

Redi: Thank you Floyd, I will grow up. Thank you. That’s Floyd Shivambu who is the ANC Youth League’s spokesperson. He wanted the right to reply. He wanted to tell us what the ANC Youth League meant when they said Helen Zille is sleeping around. If you understand what it meant, then congratulations to you. Let’s take a break.

You can also see Floyd’s response to the ANCYL mailing list here.