It appears that a new bread of ideology is being developed in South African politics, one where you are not responsible at all for any actions of your underlings, provided you didn't know.
Even if close to 200 of those same government officials were involved.
The following from our friends at Wikipedia:
"The ideology of the Führerprinzip sees each organization as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader (Führer, in German) has absolute responsibility in his own area, demands absolute obedience from those below him and answers only to his superiors. This required obedience and loyalty even over concerns of right and wrong."
Maybe what worked for Germany does not work for South Africa, even though the same '...obedience and loyalty even over concerns of right and wrong.' seems to have taken hold, but in a different, warped way.
We can call this the Guptaprinzip, and define it as blind faith that your underlings will do the right thing, and if they don't then you are not responsible, if you didn't know.
Thus you don't have to take responsibility or admit that your department is broken, so long as a scape goat can be found that is responsible.
What really makes for fun reading is the government claim now that the Waterkloof Air Force Base is not a national key point, but a strategic military base. It is the busiest SAAF airbase in the country which hosts 21 Squadron responsible for VIP transport - including the presidents own jet. But no, that means it is only strategic, whereas his house in Nkandla is a national key point.
How does these two disparate facts agree in any ones mind? The Guptaprinzip applies once again, because we said so.
Because we allowed the Gupta family access and provided transport and protection without telling customs, it does not mean that they were given preferential treatment or that we are fallible or make mistakes, or that there will be any repercussions, because we didn't know, see?
I am reminded of a Shaggy song, that can apply even in this situation, it wasn't me, I didn't know, I wasn't told - therefore I am blameless.
The Guptaprinzip.
Tagetes Minuta, Tall Khaki Weed, Mexican Marigold, Kakiebos, Langkakiebos, insangwana, unukani
Wednesday, 22 May 2013
Sunday, 19 May 2013
Saturday, 18 May 2013
Time to reflect on sex
The Ethics of Extreme Porn - http://pulse.me/s/lHxoT
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Virginity, but why?
Watching the Penn & Teller, Bullshit! episode regarding abstinence education and the push on 'saving' oneself and 'staying pure' made me wonder.Who decides that it is pure?
Who decides that being a virgin is bigger and better than not being one?
Why is the first act of sex such a big deal?
The first time I had sushi wasn't built up to be this massive big and great thing, even though you may get parasites from eating raw fish.
The same with when I climbed onto a motorbike, it is probably orders of magnitude more dangerous than un-protected sex, the chances of dying are definitely higher and it will be a lot faster than catching an STD.
Why is it that some simple and silly thing such as doing something for the first time is such a big deal in this case?
There are a lot of firsts that require a lot more time to actually think about it and consider the risks, scuba and sky diving comes to mind.
These are activities that carry real risks and require actual training, not just a fumble in the dark, whether drunk or not.
You can't just go out and find a willing partner to help you, you need to be certified and licensed.
Wouldn't it be great if we could divorce a perfectly natural act from all the stigma that surrounds it and just get on with it?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
