Van waar die makelaars?

Besoek ek vanoggend ‘n gerekende finansiële adviseur. Dit in navolging van my ambisieuse 2015-voorneme om meer dankbaar te wees. Aag, sommer ‘n lukrake dankbaarheid, oor alles en almal wat my omring. En so sit ek vanoggend en luister na die man. Want om dankbaar te wees is nogal ‘n verantwoordelikheid, ‘n hewige las en grinterig van tekstuur, veral op ‘n delikate gestel soos myne. En algaande die man praat kan ek die skaaf aan my lyf voel. Hy draai die rekenaarskerm na my en wys my die profiel van ‘n welvarende boer; polisse en annuïteite word een na die ander gelys en dan praat ons nog nie van die huurinkomste uit sy talle eiendomme nie. Dan kyk hy my waterpas in die oë en sê hy’t nog altyd gewonder wat joernaliste verdien. Ek weet nie wat ander joernaliste verdien nie, antwoord ek. Dan vertel ek hom wat my maandelikse inkomste is. Daarna is die man vir die eerste keer die oggend, vir ‘n paar genadige oomblikke stil. Asof hy daar sit en die somme probeer maak. Maar iets skort met die wiskunde en dan staar hy my net aan. En ek begin ongemaklik voel. So is ek daar weg. Sonder veel finansiële raad van die gerekende finansiële kenner. As die syfers te klein is, so lyk dit my, kan selfs die bestes nie die somme maak nie. Op my oudag sal ek hieraan dink, elke keer as ek in die ry gaan staan vir my welsynstoelaag.

Jury still out on ‘fracking’

PRINCE ALBERT- Local resident, Judy Maguire, who spoke from the floor received the loudest applause from the audience at a debate on fracking. Brandishing a doctorate in palaeontology Maguire deflated much of the huff and puff debating by suggesting that any conclusions regarding the matter of shale gas exploration in the Karoo is premature considering the lack of scientific evidence and research.
Jonathan Deal, chairman of the Treasure Karoo Action Group (TKAG), may have entered the debate regarding fracking last Saturday with a measure of confidence, thinking that Prince Albert would provide him with home turf advantage. The debate, organised by the Prince Albert Writer’s Guild and the Prince Albert Cultural Foundation formed part of the weekend’s Leesfees (Reading Festival) proceedings and the debate saw the attendance of locals as well as other interested parties. Deal’s opponent was Ivo Vegter, a maverick freelance journalist and author of the controversial book Extreme Environment in which he argues against an exaggeration of environmental issues. Vegter admitted to the crowd beforehand that he contemplated a less-than-friendly response while delivering his message of scientific contemplation in the Karoo. Even the contrasting surnames made for an enticing duel: Vegter vs Deal, evil vs good. In contrast to the former, who admittedly, “argues for fun,” deliberately upsetting established conventions and views for the sake of argument and discussion, the latter cuts a stark figure, sticking to his guns on matters of principle. It must have been even harder for the people gathered outside the Jans Rautenbach Schowburg, crowding at the entrances to listen in, to get a sense of the personalities performing these arguments. Inside the dimly lit theatre the contemplative Vegter seemed an elusive figure, at times contained within a blurred outline avoiding the camera’s gaze, often testing the boundaries by slipping back and across the edge of serious debate. In contrast Deal’s angular features photograph perfectly. He postured confidence and ease, at times seemingly in judgement of his audience. Deal stepped to the stage, wearing a t-shirt with the words “Don’t Frack with Our Planet” to which Vegter remarked wanting to wear his t-shirt that says “Let’s stop global whining.” Deal refused eye contact with his opponent and did not acknowledge the remark. The merchant of contention and ideas pitted against the emotional idealist, perhaps.
Vegter’s quip was not meant for the microphones. Nor was it an attempt to raise the ire of his opponent before the start of a serious debate. It may well have been an attempt to disengage emotions from a topical and troublesome issue, to distance emotional reasoning from a matter that requires scientific reasoning and proof.
Deal’s emotional-laden argument, carefully crafted and delivered from an Ipad, garnered the popular vote as he lambasted government for their lack of oversight, inability to monitor industry, absence of relevant legislation as well as a flawed and inadequate public participation process. He claimed pending disaster and hinted at continued corruption within government, following the lifting of the moratorium on shale gas exploration to which the crowd murmured consent. Deal said that any argument for fracking, was “Akin to calculating the value of a business on the basis of its future sales and not taking into account input costs.” Vegter, describing himself as “sceptical of authority” and “caring about unemployment,” urged attendees to take only scientific facts into account when evaluating the matter at hand. “We do not face a simplistic choice,” he told the public while urging them to guard against what he called “bad science and anecdotal claims.” While both participants backed up their claims with scientific proof, it became clear that no final verdict can as yet be given. Studies from the United States, for instance, cannot be applied to the Karoo as the composition of rock is not the same and any predictions regarding effects of the process would rest largely on speculation.