Luke Watson and the Springbok emblem have dominated the past week in rugby, and they just happen to be the two subjects I really struggle at times to make my mind up about.
On the topic of the Bok emblem, my ambivalence is built into an inability to grasp why, when the various sporting codes in this country were unified in the early 1990s, all except rugby were prepared to dispense with the Bok.
But while I fully understand both the argument of the anti-emblem faction that the Bok is a reminder of a racially exclusive past, and the pro-emblem faction that it is a universally recognised brand which has been shaped afresh into a potentially unifying symbol, it is Sports Minister Makhenkesi Stofile who most reflects my thoughts.
"My view is that emblems are not matters of life and death," said Stofile during last week's Sports Indaba, where this whole furore over the Bok blew up.
If everyone in the government and politics took that view, this country would be in good hands. Surely the real issues in the South Africa of today are the housing crisis, massive disparities in wealth, AIDS and crime - not what emblem appears on the left breast of the national rugby team.
So on to Watson, and to understand why I can never quite make up my mind about him read the extract below, taken from an interview with SA Sports Illustrated magazine in 2006:
"Playing for the Boks would be a great honour. It has the potential and it has the ability to become one of the most powerful emblems this world has seen.
"It stands for equality. It stands for unity. It stands for a once divided nation that now stands together. It stands for everything this world doesn't have, and everything this world wants.
"It stands for people of different cultures and races, former enemies, coming together and forming an alliance."
That is a complete contradiction of what he has said subsequently, and you can only imagine that the experience of being thrust into the Springbok camp as the unwanted Player No 46 last year played a role in changing his mind.
Watson, in the speech which has caused all the fuss, admitted that he was being used as a political pawn, which was the reason many of his fellow players had a problem with his selection.
My reading of what Watson said backed up his contention he was taken out of context (his evangelical oratory style is difficult to follow), but the reaction to it was quite damning, particularly that of Victor Matfield, who said what many suspected all along - he just isn't a good team man.
And in a country where so many millions aspire to be national rugby players, Watson's admission that he did not want to be part of the team, that it was not his dream (he was not taken out of context here) to be a Bok, should be seen as being tantamount to a resignation.
Watson, in quoting his father's reason for why he should stick it out, described the South African Rugby Union as an institution that was "rotten to the very core".
If the rugby administration wants to get him on a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, they probably have the leverage to do so, for others have been punished for far lesser crimes.
When mention is made though of Watson's father, Cheeky, that is where I struggle to settle on a strong line against the player.
In his speech at UCT, it becomes abundantly clear that he is fighting a battle that has been waged on his behalf by his father and others who "bled" for him and sacrificed their lives for him (now I need those nausea pills).
When I read all that, I did not feel anger towards Luke, just sorrow that we may never get to see the real Luke Watson, only the one that has been created in his father's image, and who has been made to see himself as a crusader at a time when a crusade is not as necessary as it may have been in 1978.
If his international career really is over, perhaps this is a good time for Watson to see if Western Force still want to offer him the contract they offered him two years ago, and get out of this country for a while, away from not only it's problems but also his family, and try and see the world from a different perspective.
He could learn a lot from just being another rugby player.