Misguided Exhibitionists or Innocent Victims?

WHY is it that today's western society is unhealthily fascinated by the private lives of private individuals who usually have nothing special about them and do not lead even mildly interesting lives? I refer to our television culture and specifically to the growing number of programmes that see fit to go into people's homes or workplaces or wherever and follow them around as they live out their everyday lives and go about their everyday business and who would not normally warrant filming in any shape or form simply because there is really nothing of real interest in their lives any more than there is in the ordinary day-to-day humdrum existence of Joe and Jill Bloggs or even John and Jane Dow - that's you and me! After all, what is it exactly that we gain from this prurient eavesdropping on ordinary people’s lives? Do we actually learn anything? Is there a point to be made? Is it more than an unhealthy and overblown curiosity to pry into other people’s lives, especially when these other people are more often than not vacuous and annoying individuals who are elevated to a status they seldom deserve? And, though we might be entertained in some way – indeed there are those of us who would be entertained by watching paint dry – is there nothing worthier that could be broadcast which would require a little more creativity and artistic skill than just pointing a tv camera at a moving subject and which would entertain us in a more legitimate and rewarding manner?

AND talking of vacuous and annoying individuals, let's visit the natural habitat of such a person. It's bad enough when we are filming some particular nobody going about their daily life but it gets decidedly worse when it is one of these “problem-airing” chat shows that pretend to solve family and social problems for the great unwashed of our society. On they come in a never-ending procession of fat (oops, sorry, 'overweight') ugly misfits (or even skinny ugly misfits), speaking their appallingly bad English, wearing their unbelievably bad-taste clothes, ill-fitting and ill-matching, that usually hang off them like so many rags, the men parading their beer-guts before our jaded eyes and the women their overgrown rumps, and straight off they begin spitting venom from their foul mouths and making threatening gestures in each other’s angry faces with their intrusive limbs.
 

And these are the creatures we’re meant to feel sorry for and make every attempt to assist through such programmes with their panoply of DNA paternity tests, lie-detector tests, and their stand-by army of counsellors, therapists and body-language experts. Do me a favour!

ONE can surely not fail to notice that the overwhelming majority, over 90% I would say, of the individuals who come on these shows to wash their dirty laundry in public are from the same type of background, social class and educational and cultural level, wherever they hail from in this hallowed land. Most of them are uneducated, uncultured, uncouth and undignified in the extreme, a really nasty piece of work, one might say. Many of them are part of the loutish yob culture, rough and ready, kitted out in shell-suits, jogging gear, filthy crumpled jeans, shapeless sack-like jumpers and sweaters or clinging little belly-exposing blouse tops in the case of the women or tasteless loose-fitting shirts that dangle outside their trousers almost down to their knees like night-shirts in the case of the men. They make their angry entrances, wagging a finger at their adversary, mouthing oaths and obscenities, lungeing at their perceived opponent and, unable to do lay in to them because of the hired bodyguards who hold them back, having to settle for a verbal attack of a stream of ignorant and offensive invective. And these are the oafish louts that populate daytime tv and provide entertainment for the masses who have nothing else to occupy their time, it would seem, and we’re meant to take their troubles (mostly self-inflicted) seriously and bend over backwards to succour them. No way!

WHAT is it about folk like that who think nothing of coming on television and exposing their tacky tasteless lives to hundreds of thousands if not millions of viewers? What do they hope to gain by it? Is it money? It surely cannot be that, as they are paid relatively very little if anything at all, as I understand it (though I stand to be corrected). Is it fame? Because if it’s this, then it’s not the type of fame or notoriety that any person with an ounce of dignity and self-pride would wish. And this is because the crushing majority of them are shown to be the pathetic clueless individuals that they are and by the time they have given vent to their bile and had their 10-15 minutes of air-time, we are glad to be rid of them and never want to see their ugly mugs or hear their rough voices again. Many of us, who tuned in in the first place, hoping to derive some sinful pleasure from the trials and tribulations of society’s hoi-polloi, learn our lesson and resolve never to view such programmes again.

Those, however, who have not yet learnt their lesson and do not desist, would do better to sign up for regular psychotherapy sessions and cure themselves of their ugly habit of slumming it with the manky masses who think the sun shines out of their arse!

ONE of the stupidest things that guests are wont to say when they are being put upon or booed by their audience is: “This ain’t got nuffink to do with you. Why don’t you mind your own fuckin’ business?!” If they would pause for one moment and realise how ridiculous such a comment is they might not say such a thing again. Here they are, after having applied to come on a tv programme whose principal if not sole aim is to show people washing their dirty laundry in front of the public at home and in the studio and these brainless idiots respond to an unwelcome comment by telling the offender to mind his own business. You might think that if they did not want anyone to meddle in their business they would not have volunteered to come on a show whose aim is to do just that. But no, the paradoxical nature of their stance never seems to occur to them. They want to have their cake and eat it. It’s all fine and dandy to parade themselves and their squalid feuds on mainstream television, but as soon as they get adverse comments and stern criticism from their audience they hit back with the ludicrous remark that the sordid problem they have just aired in front of zillions of people is none of anyone else’s business! Don’t these individuals ever stop to think? 

QUITE frankly it is enough to watch a few of these tv spectacles with their loutish ego-inflated dull-eyed denizens, to make one despair of humanity. They give the expressions “the good people of this country” and “people are not stupid, you know” an ironic twist and leave a bad taste in one’s mouth. No doubt there are millions of people who would not be seen dead on one of these problem-airing chat shows and to them I would apologise if I have appeared to lump them in the same sack. There is some hope on the horizon, small though it is. But one thing’s for sure, and that is that if I were attempting to discourage aliens from adopting the Earth as their new home I would sit them down in front of a giant tv screen and let them watch several hours of these ridiculous shows with their line-up of circus freaks ranting on about their seedy aimless lives and rowdy infighting and see if that did not deter them for good! I would bet you any money they would high-tail it back into space and never return to this conflict-ridden fucked-up planet of ours!

P.S. - ALTHOUGH I've included pictures of well-known tv shows here, they merely serve to illustrate my post. The nasty and venomous comments made by me here and the sweeping generalisations slandering (not to say libelling) a whole host of people, people who are basically good and decent and an example to us all, do not necessarily relate to anyone in these shows.

Euthanasia

MY subject this time, dear readers, is one that always excites considerable controversy and generates fierce debate and hostility between the opposing camps, the proponents and the opponents, those for and those against. And the debate rages on, unresolved, with cases coming up from time to time that are determined by the courts in a somewhat uneven-handed and arbitrary manner, given that the law of this land in this area is outdated and inflexible and unhelpful. But it is not the legal framework that I wish to discuss on this occasion, important as it is, but rather some of the social and moral aspects of euthanasia or mercy killing, as it is also known, and in doing so to express my own opinion on the matter.

*****

TO be sure we all want to live a long life, the longer the better, as our lifespan is finite and we are a long time dead! And we also want to enjoy good health and live life to the full. This is normal and understandable. But what if a point is reached in our lives when, although we are still alive, our health has completely gone and our enjoyment of life is but a distant memory? What if there is no further effective treatment for our condition, no cure, no remedy, and the likeliest prospect is that we will deteriorate over time, either gradually or rapidly? What if the only treatment available is that of just keeping us alive, in varying degrees of vegetative existence, thereby prolonging our suffering and our distress until inevitably the moment comes, be it weeks, months or years away, when we finally succumb to the inevitable?

*****

WHAT is it about those who oppose euthanasia that they feel they must officiously strive to keep others alive, often against their express will, even where they are barely breathing, and where they can only be sustained if linked up to some sort of machine, tube-fed and given round-the-clock medical and nursing care? Is it because there is a shortage of people in the world? Is it because they themselves are not in that wretched state and are happy to pontificate and decide the fate of others? Is it because quality of life means nothing to them and they feel it is enough just to breathe even where this is only possible by means of a respirator? Is the mere fact that one exists, regardless of one's physical and mental condition, sufficient to hang on to life at all costs? Or does it all come down to religion in the end? Do they see euthanasia or assisted suicide as a sin against God, a mortal transgression which will consign the victim or perpetrator to the everlasting fires of hell?

*****

IN all honesty, I fail to see how the anti-euthanasiaists can adequately justify their stance. And this is not because I do not respect their opinion or do not think that they should be allowed to choose, as far as possible, the manner of their exit from their world. It is because this issue is a very personal one and is interwoven with a whole set of beliefs and convictions peculiar to each person and that they have no moral right to impose their beliefs and practices on others. It is because one's life is exactly that: one's life and no-one else's. This means that not only should people have the freedom to lead the lives they want to (providing of course they are not harming others) but also the freedom to end their lives when they have lost every faculty that gives any meaning to such life, when they are gravely ill, in considerable pain and anguish and when there is no reasonable prospect of their recovering or at least improving to a point where life is worth living.

*****

We all surely agree that life is precious, that it should be respected and preserved, but at the same time we must just as surely make an effort to understand the terrible plight of someone who has lost all those faculties that make life a good and positive thing and not a protracted nightmarish experience empty of all joy and full of pain and dread and an almost certain cruel end. It seems to me a very selfish and narrow-minded stance to insist that we know best what's good for someone going through such torment and that they should seek to stay alive and indeed that those around them, including their loved ones, should strive to keep them alive whatever the cost, the heartache and the suffering, even if it means going against the wishes of the sufferer. We cannot appoint ourselves, or even expect the law to do this on our behalf, supreme arbiters and regulators of the lives of others simply because we would not take the same course of action as someone else in similar circumstances. We have no right to impose what we see as right and just for ourselves on others in such a subjective and personal matter.

*****

We should not have to resort to going abroad to countries with a more liberal and synpathetic regime in order to have a quick, quiet and painless death or to be assisted by another person to the same end. And mothers who, suffering the unspeakable anguish and torment of watching their child wasting away under the onslaught of an incurable and progressive disease or a condition which, although not fatal (at least in the short-term), condemns the victim to a lifetime of pain, incapacity, misery and despair, should not be hauled up before the courts to be convicted of having committed a crime and be sentenced to a prison term for having done nothing worse than free their dearly loved child from a living nightmare and a fate literally worse than death! This is surely not morally right. And it is about time that the law was brought into line with the dictates of a higher principle than that which would have us desperately, frenetically and dementedly clinging on to life as a mere reflex reaction or cultural precept or inflicting this on someone in our charge. After all, when all's said and done, and sooner or later, we will ALL, every single one of us, die one day, no-one lives forever. It is just that some people are more fortunate than others and are blessed with a fuller and longer and more enriching life than others but their life too must come to an end one day. They should just be grateful that they were spared the horrible fate of those who are driven to consider euthanasia as a way out of their intolerably painful, wretched and demeaning existence.

The End of the World?

Before you start making fun of this little fellah with the shocked expression, just read on and view the pictures and you will understand why he has reason to go beady-eyed and flat-eared! In fact, he's probably even shitted himself from fright but there's no way of knowing that from the photo. I'm sure he can't believe he's been spared so far, given that the kids haven't, and he'll be wondering what his next move should be if he is to stand any chance of survival in a dying crumbling world. You might think why bother? If the world is decaying and dying after some apocalyptic catastrophe, why not just lie down and die with it? Why string it out and struggle on in an increasingly hostile environment? Well maybe he won't bother. Maybe, unable to flush himself down the toilet, he'll ransack the family medicine cupboard, take an overdose and exit quietly.

The reality is that it's odds on that one day we, homo sapiens (hahah), will have screwed up so badly that we will finally have rendered our planet incapable of supporting us and that it will have gone so far down the path of non-viability that it will just implode on us, as it were, and put in motion our slow but sure eradication as a species from this Earth that we have so scarred with our unholy activities. This is assuming of course that we have not already wiped ourselves out by some mad mutually destructive orgy of violence. I'm here essentially referring to a slower process of decline and destruction that comes about by tampering with the forces of nature that have nurtured and sustained all animal and plant life, including us unholy malefactors, for millions of years.

It is surely obvious to all thinking men and women that the only creature on this planet which does not exist in harmony with its environment is mankind. Only humans feel the need to alter their surroundings, and massively so, and to create an artificial habitat that satisfies their 'creature comforts'. Only humans seem ill-adapted to their world. All other creatures appear to be pefectly adapted to their environment, living in harmony with nature and at one with it. Only mankind, through some mysterious course of evolution, has seen fit to develop body coverings that not only protect him in practical terms from the weather but apparently have become indispensable to preserve his modesty, i.e. hide his intimate parts, from the gaze of his fellow men. After all, in many tropical countries where temperatures are often asphyxiatingly high, the most comfortable condition is nudity, but of course this is no longer an option (at least not in public), as our bits and pieces, mostly down below, would then be on view to others. The fact that we have the same bits and pieces as everyone else does not seem to carry any weight. The other person, except of course in an intimate relationship and behind closed doors, must not see our naughty parts because, well, they may not have naughty parts and be shocked to see that we have!

Come to think of it, our horrified little pussy above may have seen these two speciments in the altogether and been traumatised for life! Before you know it, he too will be rushing off to get himself some fig leaves to cover his naughty bits. Though me may have to be content with sycamore leaves, fig-trees being rather thin on the ground in this part of the world. Or better still, some modern equivalent of leaves that's reusable and long-lasting.

Anyway, I digress, and we must get back to the point of this sorry tale. And one hell of a sorry tale it is! In fact, speaking of hell, will our much-deserved end be as portrayed in the last of our images here? Are we destined to roast in one vast fiery inferno and our unhallowed ashes blown to the four corners of the planet in preparation for a brave new world free of mankind and his destructive ways? Will our greenhouse gases and the rest of our pollutants stoke the flames of our self-annihilation and rid the long-suffering Earth of us and our pestilential ways? If this is to be our fate, then we will have more than earned it. We will not be able to plead innocence or perhaps even beg forgiveness. Our end will relieve the planet of a human plague that has over-exploited and criminally abused its resources for long enough and that has caused untold harm to the other animals that share this planet, to the plant life, to the land, seas, and atmosphere that make up Mother Earth. Our mass death will not be mourned, our passing will not be lamented. Quite the contrary, it will finally be 'good riddance!' to the most destructive creature ever known on this planet... Us! Cheerful chappie, aren't I?

Are these the searing flames that will finally cleanse the

Earth of mankind and his works and create a new world

where the balance of nature has been restored?

Or am I one sick individual who needs

psychiatric treatment?!

Apologies All Round!

Today the art of the public apology for sins committed, be they great or not so great, has become big business. It's cool, you might say, and everyone's into it, but most especially those in government and in high positions in our society. The apology goes out on television, is broadcast on the radio, published in the papers and posted on the internet to millions, if not billions, of apology-hungry people nationwide and globally. The apology is glaringly public, the contrition a necessary evil, and the shame, though optional, is highly recommended if the apology is to have maximum impact.

A president gives a speech making a public apology for long-standing injustices committed by his or an earlier administration (even though he may not have been born at the time), a prime minister issues a statement apologising for not foreseeing the disastrous consequences of a certain social or economic policy, the governor of the state bank says sorry for having misread the prevailing financial mood and failed abysmally to act to protect depositors' savings, the state chancellor apologises for a brutal genocide practised by a barbaric wartime regime (again perhaps before he and his ministers were born), a military general says sorry for having unthinkingly made insensitive remarks about the death of civilians through the careless actions of his men, captains of industry say sorry for their short-sightedness and the ruination of the commercial enterprises in their charge, chief executives of national banks say sorry for having been reckless and brought the banking system into disrepute and to its knees, police chiefs issue a contrite apology for having bungled an investigation that resulted in the death of one or more innocent people, social services say sorry for having failed through neglect or oversight to prevent the death of an abused child, and so on and so forth.

Everyone is on the apologies bandwagon in this day and age as a quick-fix solution. Apologies are made to native peoples for their unjust treatment at the hands of the colonising nation centuries ago or to the relatives of persons wrongly convicted and executed many years back. Posthumous pardons are granted to those previously considered to be brutal murderers or enemies of the state in an earlier time. Apologies are issued and accepted, be it resentfully, and everyone gets a warm tingly feeling that the decent thing has been done and goodness has triumphed over evil. Amazing what curative powers a simple apology has!

I may have burnt your house down and/or destroyed your business and/or robbed you of all your money and possessions and/or raped and murdered your wife and/or kidnapped and killed your children, but at least I have the decency to apologise for it. Not everyone would do that. I may have ruined your life, blown away your family, upended your world, robbed you of a future, cheated you of happiness, but heyyyy... I'm big enough to say sorry, so come on, man, be fair!

Apologies fly around in all directions, from the exalted few on high downwards to the hoi polloi at the bottom, from lowly functionaries upwards to government ministers, from officials across to their peers (and of course the greater the status of the apology-giver the more it is relished by the public). The apologies market is looking healthy and the apologists are jostling for position to let the world know how sorry they are for some transgression they or others were found to have committed in this or in another lifetime, today or hundreds of years ago. They are all pretty decent apologies, some decidedly better than others, but probably the ones most to be admired and marvelled at are those of the bankers and the captains of industry. Having been caught red-handed with their hand in the till and with their apologies still fresh on their lips they slope away with shedfuls of 6-to-7-figure payouts, bonuses, redundancy payments and pensions to compensate them for having had to resign their position. They scurry away into the shadows relying on the public's short memory and looking forward to spending their princely compensation packages well away from the public eye. After all, they have earned the astronomical sums paid to them, havent't they? Did they not say they were sorry for making a mess of everything and ruining the lives of so many who depended on them? Surely that is enough?

What is it about our society today that everyone is expected to apologise for their misdeeds in exchange for being sent off with a mild scolding? And the worst part about it is that we oblige those in high office to apologise for the wrongdoings of others long gone and long dead, thus making the apology all but worthless since it comes from those with no involvement in the offence. We have simply grown accustomed to receiving apologies from those who govern and control our lives. But is an apology meant to take the place of legal sanctions? And is it just the highly-placed who can say sorry and get away with wrongdoing and gross negligence or can the common man do the same thing? It would seem not. There would appear to be one rule for industrial and financial potentates and another for Joe Bloggs in his council flat.

But what happens when mere spoken apologies are no longer enough? Will we require offenders to don sackcloth and ashes next? Will we need to see wailing, beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth? Perhaps some self-flagellation? Will we have spectacles held of high officials and company heads presenting their apologies in the form of dramatised apologias? Will we pay for tickets to see heads of state and other leaders apologising for past, present and future mistakes and screw-ups? The possibilities are enormous and I can just see the potential for the merchandising industry to cash in on this with DVDs of industrial magnates and political leaders offering their abject apologies to the public, and with t-shirts and mugs etc inscribed with the apologies of the same high-ranking decision-makers. And more importantly will all this compensate us for the fact that in many cases the wrongdoers will get off scott-free in return for having apologised, be it ever so cynically?

Oh well, whatever the future outcome of all this, if you can't beat them, join them, as they say, and accordingly I offer up my own apologies, and I can only hope you will accept them...