by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 28 May 2006)
There is still a buzz about the recent poll that showed the AFC garnering a healthy amount of votes if the elections were held at the time of the poll. There was even a letter to the Editor about it in yesterday's edition of the Guyana Chronicle. The letter written by Ronald Isaacs questioned the integrity of the poll, but it is another interesting point that I would like to discuss in this column.
Mr. Isaacs said, "Some of the key statistics of the poll were that 1,063 persons who are expected to exercise their franchise at the next elections were interviewed. Of this number 40 per cent favoured President Bharrat Jagdeo, 36 per cent for Opposition Leader Robert Corbin and 21 per cent preferred AFC leader, Raphael Trotman."
Most of the response to this poll, whether from the media or from the citizens, has framed the statistical information in a similar way by referring to the three potential leaders for the upcoming elections – Jagdeo, Corbin and Trotman. Even the AFC's new campaign manager, Dick Morris said he thought the party's Presidential candidate, Mr. Raphael Trotman, had an "excellent chance" of becoming Guyana's next President.
However, unless the AFC has changed its position, Trotman would actually only serve as President for half of the term if the party sweeps the elections and Khemraj Ramjattan would serve for the latter half of the term under the new rotating leadership plan they announced at the official launching of their party last fall.
As such, it would be shortsighted for voters to base their election decisions on the premise that Raphael Trotman alone is the presidential candidate for the AFC. In fact, it even seems a bit misleading for the party to put Trotman out in the limelight tagged as the presidential candidate when he will only serve for half of the term.
Personally, I don't think it is wise to change Presidents mid-term. The role of the President is not like switching hats mid-day, it takes a while for the people to warm up to anyone who fills that role. Moreover, I have a higher level of respect for Trotman than for Ramjattan because the former stayed true to his word and vacated the seat he maintained in Parliament under the PNCR.
Ramjattan, as well as Sheila Holder, held their seats hostage and carried on as if they had a right to represent their previous parties and be leaders of a new party at the same time. There were many people who felt these MP's should vacate the rightful seats of their former parties, but these two dogmatically refused to budge on the issue and in the process caused a controversial situation for the infant party right from the start.
If I were a Guyanese woman on my way to the voting booth today, I think I would find myself in a serious personal dilemma given that the AFC is pretending like it only has one presidential candidate, when in fact it has two. What if I believe one person has what it takes to do what is right for the nation and do not hold the other person in the same light?
It is difficult enough to make a decision to trust one person to effectively lead the country, so why on earth would the AFC want to create such a predicament for the voters by presenting two people to be considered for the top role of leadership?
Is this the only avenue by which Trotman and Ramjattan could find an amiable working situation? Or do they believe this strategy will bring in more votes from both sides of Guyana's political racial divide? Whatever it's reasoning, I think it only fair that the party should be completely straightforward when presenting its candidate for President to the voters.
It would be wrong of Ramjattan to ride Trotman's coattail into the Presidential Office while the nation is left to wonder how on earth he got there. If the AFC has two presidential candidates, then let the nation know so both of them can be judged separately for their ability to fill this very important leadership role.
I think the AFC should seriously reconsider instituting this rotating leadership plan since it will only diminish their chances at optimising their potential for votes. It will be confusing for the voters and cause increased levels of scepticism – as is perfectly normal with an additional personality added to the candidate list and the introduction of a new and untested plan to the party's agenda.
Whatever it is that the AFC is doing with its multiple presidential candidates, the public has the right to know. Is Ramjattan on the ticket as presidential candidate too, or is Trotman it's sole runner? Personally, I think as long as Ramjattan has a seat to hold onto for dear life – any seat will do just fine – then I'm sure he will be happy.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Stella Says…Women have more to offer the world than just a full bosom
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 25 May 2006)
I have always thought is a funny thing to watch an older man ogle a young girl who could easily be his daughter – and sometimes even his granddaughter. It is not like that grandpa has a chance in hell with that young beauty, but that does not stop him from falling all over himself to stop and watch her for as long as possible.
Why do we find such a sight funny? Well, basically because we expect an older gentleman to have learned how to display a bit more restraint in areas such as these. What is even worse is when these men make such a display of themselves right in front of their wives.
I simply love to point out the irony of the double standards of obvious socially acceptable behaviour that exists between the two genders. For example, how many times have you ever seen a woman walking with her guy and nearly fall over a complete stranger while trying to catch a look at another man?
I can guarantee you that this is not something that occurs on a regular basis. Women just have too much respect for their men to act so unseemly. It is not as if women just don't see the good-looking guys. They most certainly do see them and would love to stop and take in the scenery, but would not lower themselves to such a tasteless situation.
Yet it seems the older a guy gets, the more prone he is to openly eyeball a full bosom attached to a young face. What about his wife? You know, the woman who lost her own youthful figure when she bore his children? What about the woman who fixes his food everyday and cleans his home?
Surely this lady deserves enough of his respect to be able to walk next to him without the insolence of having him ogle another woman. Don't tell me a man cannot control himself long enough to give his wife the respect she deserves for the 30 seconds it takes to pass a beautiful woman. That is just nonsense. He is not an animal without reason; all men have the capacity to consider another person's feelings before he acts.
I don't think a woman should ever be subjected to such atrocious behaviour no matter what her age, but there is a point in her life when she is rightfully due an elevated amount of respect – which should of course include being able to take a walk with her husband without his eyes straying to every pretty young girl who walks by.
This brings me to another double standard - or rather, because of the aforementioned male behaviour there has developed another set of standards that applies to women. It seems like a natural development that if even older men who have been married to the same woman for 20 or 30 years have to ogle young women – then his wife will oft times try to look younger so he will ogle her instead.
She should never be put in this position in the first place, but this double standard in society has women doing everything possible to try and look as young as possible for as long as possible. It is simply absurd for a woman of 50 to be expected to look like a fresh 20 year-old girl. There is something seriously wrong with society.
Society considers a man distinguished if he is in his 50s, balding, getting grey hair and wrinkling. Society allows men to grow old with respect. However, a woman in her 50s who is greying and getting wrinkles is considered old. Why are women not afforded the same respect?
Instead, she is expected to colour her hair, fix the wrinkles and even get surgery if necessary – or she deserves nothing more than to be traded in for a newer model. Women are subjected to any number of unreasonable expectations and as a result her insecurity grows exponentially as she ages instead of being able to rest in the monumental achievements of her life.
ABC News Nightline aired an interview with the beautiful Isabella Rossellini in which she talked about being nigh onto 54 years old and the way that society handles a famed beauty as she gets older. She said that when people say, "Ah, you don't look your age," they think of it as a compliment, but it is the exact opposite.
I completely understand what she is talking about. I have people tell me I don't look 37 all the time – as if there is something wrong with being 37. I am proud to be 37 and wouldn't want to be 25 again for anything in the world. The older I get the more grounded I feel with the world and have no desire to return to the precarious position of being a younger woman again.
Isabella put it like this, "Isn't it a bit like telling a gay guy you don't look gay or a black person you don't look black – your skin is not dark enough?" Why is it so difficult for society to accept that women who are in their 30s, 40s and 50s are still beautiful? Gloria Steinem once told someone who told her she didn't look 40, "This is what 40 looks like."
My mother-in-law, who is well past her 50s, is just as beautiful now as she was in her younger years. She is absolutely stunning, yet she still hates to let others know her age. What a pity that she has to pretend to be younger when she should be able to rest in the fact that she is beautiful no matter what her age.
This discrimination against women forces us to seek to become an unreachable idea and reduces us once again to nothing more than a pretty face to be admired. The longer women play along with these hypocritical double standards, the longer we will be expected to be naïve 20 year-olds instead of the wise and intelligent women we really are. Ladies, we have so much more to offer the world than just a full bosom.
Email: StellaSay[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 25 May 2006)
I have always thought is a funny thing to watch an older man ogle a young girl who could easily be his daughter – and sometimes even his granddaughter. It is not like that grandpa has a chance in hell with that young beauty, but that does not stop him from falling all over himself to stop and watch her for as long as possible.
Why do we find such a sight funny? Well, basically because we expect an older gentleman to have learned how to display a bit more restraint in areas such as these. What is even worse is when these men make such a display of themselves right in front of their wives.
I simply love to point out the irony of the double standards of obvious socially acceptable behaviour that exists between the two genders. For example, how many times have you ever seen a woman walking with her guy and nearly fall over a complete stranger while trying to catch a look at another man?
I can guarantee you that this is not something that occurs on a regular basis. Women just have too much respect for their men to act so unseemly. It is not as if women just don't see the good-looking guys. They most certainly do see them and would love to stop and take in the scenery, but would not lower themselves to such a tasteless situation.
Yet it seems the older a guy gets, the more prone he is to openly eyeball a full bosom attached to a young face. What about his wife? You know, the woman who lost her own youthful figure when she bore his children? What about the woman who fixes his food everyday and cleans his home?
Surely this lady deserves enough of his respect to be able to walk next to him without the insolence of having him ogle another woman. Don't tell me a man cannot control himself long enough to give his wife the respect she deserves for the 30 seconds it takes to pass a beautiful woman. That is just nonsense. He is not an animal without reason; all men have the capacity to consider another person's feelings before he acts.
I don't think a woman should ever be subjected to such atrocious behaviour no matter what her age, but there is a point in her life when she is rightfully due an elevated amount of respect – which should of course include being able to take a walk with her husband without his eyes straying to every pretty young girl who walks by.
This brings me to another double standard - or rather, because of the aforementioned male behaviour there has developed another set of standards that applies to women. It seems like a natural development that if even older men who have been married to the same woman for 20 or 30 years have to ogle young women – then his wife will oft times try to look younger so he will ogle her instead.
She should never be put in this position in the first place, but this double standard in society has women doing everything possible to try and look as young as possible for as long as possible. It is simply absurd for a woman of 50 to be expected to look like a fresh 20 year-old girl. There is something seriously wrong with society.
Society considers a man distinguished if he is in his 50s, balding, getting grey hair and wrinkling. Society allows men to grow old with respect. However, a woman in her 50s who is greying and getting wrinkles is considered old. Why are women not afforded the same respect?
Instead, she is expected to colour her hair, fix the wrinkles and even get surgery if necessary – or she deserves nothing more than to be traded in for a newer model. Women are subjected to any number of unreasonable expectations and as a result her insecurity grows exponentially as she ages instead of being able to rest in the monumental achievements of her life.
ABC News Nightline aired an interview with the beautiful Isabella Rossellini in which she talked about being nigh onto 54 years old and the way that society handles a famed beauty as she gets older. She said that when people say, "Ah, you don't look your age," they think of it as a compliment, but it is the exact opposite.
I completely understand what she is talking about. I have people tell me I don't look 37 all the time – as if there is something wrong with being 37. I am proud to be 37 and wouldn't want to be 25 again for anything in the world. The older I get the more grounded I feel with the world and have no desire to return to the precarious position of being a younger woman again.
Isabella put it like this, "Isn't it a bit like telling a gay guy you don't look gay or a black person you don't look black – your skin is not dark enough?" Why is it so difficult for society to accept that women who are in their 30s, 40s and 50s are still beautiful? Gloria Steinem once told someone who told her she didn't look 40, "This is what 40 looks like."
My mother-in-law, who is well past her 50s, is just as beautiful now as she was in her younger years. She is absolutely stunning, yet she still hates to let others know her age. What a pity that she has to pretend to be younger when she should be able to rest in the fact that she is beautiful no matter what her age.
This discrimination against women forces us to seek to become an unreachable idea and reduces us once again to nothing more than a pretty face to be admired. The longer women play along with these hypocritical double standards, the longer we will be expected to be naïve 20 year-olds instead of the wise and intelligent women we really are. Ladies, we have so much more to offer the world than just a full bosom.
Email: StellaSay[at]gmail.com
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Stella Says…Are you a real patriot?
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 23 May 2006)
In an attempt to define what it means to be a "patriot," perhaps it is time to explore some of the basic traits of patriotism, such as love of country and loyalty to democracy.
Is it patriotic to toe the line? Is it patriotic to keep one's mouth shut because if you open it you would automatically spew out words of disagreement with a political leader? Not at all. In fact, voicing dissension against any corrupt government official makes a person even more patriotic than the one who silently submits.
I like the gall of Benjamin Franklin who proposed the words, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God," for the American seal. I cannot think of a more fitting phrase to describe patriotism in its rawest of forms.
Let's also consider the noble words of Thomas Jefferson. Now this was a man who was not afraid of the voice of dissent. In 1786 a former US Revolutionary Army captain named Daniel Shays led a rebellion of farmers against unsettled economic conditions and against politicians and laws which were grossly unfair to farmers and working people in general.
Concerning this rebellion, Jefferson wrote, "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion ... the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Does unity come at the sacrifice of personal convictions? Should a true patriot shelve inward morality and decency to stand unified with an action contrary to what he or she believes to be right and just? In Jefferson's words, God forbid! There is nothing at all patriotic about such behaviour.
On the contrary, this country was founded on the very nature of rebellion. Guyana refused to be chained to the control of a foreign ruler. She would not toe the line. This is love of country and when the leaders of a country acknowledge the right of the people to dissent, democracy reigns in the place of fear.
In that same spirit, I chose to oppose the war in Iraq. I would gladly support any military action by the United States that would defend its people, their freedom or the principles on which the country was founded. In fact, given the opportunity, I would take up arms and fight to the death to defend it myself. However, I vehemently refuse to support an unprovoked act of aggression against another nation.
Instead, I chose to take up my pen and exercise my freedom of speech with dissent. What good are these freedoms if never put to any use? Do you have a pen? Do you have a voice? If so, put your patriotism to the test and let your voice be heard on the points you take issue with in Guyana.
Patriotism can sometimes be subjective because each individual can interpret it differently. Webster's Dictionary defines a patriot as someone "who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests." I like that definition because it includes someone like me who doesn't necessarily agree with the actions of a leader but strongly supports the country's authority and interests.
Of course, the problem created by this definition for me is that I do not believe the United States ever had the authority to be in Iraq. However, I suppose my patriotism is as strong as any American's, perhaps stronger since my support is in what the country's authority and interests should be as opposed to what they actually are at the present time.
Likewise, there are so many Guyanese who love their country with all of their heart and who heartily support what this country’s authority and interests should be as opposed to what they actually are at the present time. These are the true patriots of Guyana – the ones who refuse to give up no matter how bleak the circumstances.
Considering one more piece of advice from Jefferson in a letter to a Virginia physician, he said, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." I'd say these statements show Jefferson had a firm grip on what it meant to be patriot. In other words, when you voice your dissent you become the very embodiment of patriotism.
In a speech delivered by Dr. Cheddi Jagan at his swearing-in ceremony on October 9, 1992, he ended his discourse by declaring, “Long Live National Unity. Long Live Guyana.”
I would like to note the omission of any leader's name in that statement. This omission is noteworthy because Guyana is not about a single person or a solitary party, but about the people as a whole. Therefore, the loyalty of the people should be to the country and its best interests and not to a person or group.
A real patriot remains steadfast in his or her loyalty to the nation regardless of pressure to bend to political sway. If you count yourself to be a true patriot, don’t allow your loyalty to country become sullied by any politician who divides Guyana.
There is a constant demand on the hearts of Guyanese to choose a side – but if there are always two sides the country will never be unified. If you want to know who to vote for in the next election, watch for the party that promises unity instead of retribution.
If there is one party that can put aside the fear tactics and bring the people together instead of tearing them apart – this is the party that should lead the nation. Let your patriot’s heart lead the way during the elections this year.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 23 May 2006)
In an attempt to define what it means to be a "patriot," perhaps it is time to explore some of the basic traits of patriotism, such as love of country and loyalty to democracy.
Is it patriotic to toe the line? Is it patriotic to keep one's mouth shut because if you open it you would automatically spew out words of disagreement with a political leader? Not at all. In fact, voicing dissension against any corrupt government official makes a person even more patriotic than the one who silently submits.
I like the gall of Benjamin Franklin who proposed the words, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God," for the American seal. I cannot think of a more fitting phrase to describe patriotism in its rawest of forms.
Let's also consider the noble words of Thomas Jefferson. Now this was a man who was not afraid of the voice of dissent. In 1786 a former US Revolutionary Army captain named Daniel Shays led a rebellion of farmers against unsettled economic conditions and against politicians and laws which were grossly unfair to farmers and working people in general.
Concerning this rebellion, Jefferson wrote, "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion ... the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Does unity come at the sacrifice of personal convictions? Should a true patriot shelve inward morality and decency to stand unified with an action contrary to what he or she believes to be right and just? In Jefferson's words, God forbid! There is nothing at all patriotic about such behaviour.
On the contrary, this country was founded on the very nature of rebellion. Guyana refused to be chained to the control of a foreign ruler. She would not toe the line. This is love of country and when the leaders of a country acknowledge the right of the people to dissent, democracy reigns in the place of fear.
In that same spirit, I chose to oppose the war in Iraq. I would gladly support any military action by the United States that would defend its people, their freedom or the principles on which the country was founded. In fact, given the opportunity, I would take up arms and fight to the death to defend it myself. However, I vehemently refuse to support an unprovoked act of aggression against another nation.
Instead, I chose to take up my pen and exercise my freedom of speech with dissent. What good are these freedoms if never put to any use? Do you have a pen? Do you have a voice? If so, put your patriotism to the test and let your voice be heard on the points you take issue with in Guyana.
Patriotism can sometimes be subjective because each individual can interpret it differently. Webster's Dictionary defines a patriot as someone "who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests." I like that definition because it includes someone like me who doesn't necessarily agree with the actions of a leader but strongly supports the country's authority and interests.
Of course, the problem created by this definition for me is that I do not believe the United States ever had the authority to be in Iraq. However, I suppose my patriotism is as strong as any American's, perhaps stronger since my support is in what the country's authority and interests should be as opposed to what they actually are at the present time.
Likewise, there are so many Guyanese who love their country with all of their heart and who heartily support what this country’s authority and interests should be as opposed to what they actually are at the present time. These are the true patriots of Guyana – the ones who refuse to give up no matter how bleak the circumstances.
Considering one more piece of advice from Jefferson in a letter to a Virginia physician, he said, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." I'd say these statements show Jefferson had a firm grip on what it meant to be patriot. In other words, when you voice your dissent you become the very embodiment of patriotism.
In a speech delivered by Dr. Cheddi Jagan at his swearing-in ceremony on October 9, 1992, he ended his discourse by declaring, “Long Live National Unity. Long Live Guyana.”
I would like to note the omission of any leader's name in that statement. This omission is noteworthy because Guyana is not about a single person or a solitary party, but about the people as a whole. Therefore, the loyalty of the people should be to the country and its best interests and not to a person or group.
A real patriot remains steadfast in his or her loyalty to the nation regardless of pressure to bend to political sway. If you count yourself to be a true patriot, don’t allow your loyalty to country become sullied by any politician who divides Guyana.
There is a constant demand on the hearts of Guyanese to choose a side – but if there are always two sides the country will never be unified. If you want to know who to vote for in the next election, watch for the party that promises unity instead of retribution.
If there is one party that can put aside the fear tactics and bring the people together instead of tearing them apart – this is the party that should lead the nation. Let your patriot’s heart lead the way during the elections this year.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Stella Says…We are paying a high price for a good laugh
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 21 May 2006)
I like a good laugh just as much as the next person. Although the slapstick humor of the Three Stooges has never been my forte, I have been known to laugh to the point of tears while watching John Lithgow on "3rd Rock from the Sun."
I also like a bit of sarcasm in my comedies. Those are the types I find the funniest. Who can resist a wry smile and a punchy line delivered with just the right timing?
However, I'm finding it more and more difficult to find comedy that is actually funny without being offensive. I'm not talking about the kind of offence that simply makes a head shake in disbelief of the material's poor taste. I'm talking about offences that have shock jock value - or worse.
These comedies make fun of sensitive ideas and values to get a laugh. I've seen it on "South Park" when the show poked fun at Jennifer Lopez with stereotypical racial remarks that would send chills up the spine of any Hispanic.
I've seen stand-up comedians who berate groups of people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, geographical location, financial status and intellectual capacity - all of which are qualities that define each of us as an individual.
I have even seen this rude and unseemly behaviour on kids' cartoons. "Johnny Bravo" can make U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas look like a choirboy.
There are many adults today who moan about the unruly condition of today's classroom due to a lack of respect from the students. Parents say it is getting more difficult to get children to use the manners they are taught at home. There is certainly no doubt that our youth are ruder than ever.
We don't have to look far to find the mentor of the hard-to-handle attitude and crude language. It's the good old "boob tube," as my mom use to call it.
The shock value of today's entertainment world has definitely moved into every venue of comedy. I don't usually care about this type of stuff. Hey, if someone wants to eat scorpions on some reality show just to be on television, what business is it of mine?
However, it was when I saw something that made my skin curl and my heart drop right to the floor that I started wondering how far is too far in today’s crass world. It was a commercial on Comedy Central with a boy in a wheelchair next to a man who asked, "Are pathetic, disgusting-looking sick people ruining your favourite telethon?"
The man then gave the wheelchair a good shove and said, "Not any more," as the boy went crashing off camera. Without missing a beat, the man nonchalantly continued with the purpose of the commercial.
Although I had seen the commercial twice in one hour, I never did discover the point of the commercial. I was so deeply offended by this horrid act that my mind just could not move on.
Even though I knew it wasn't real, all I could think about was jumping into the screen to help the boy. See, in my head, that boy was my own brother. I had a brother who was a wheelchair-user due to Muscular Dystrophy from the age of 5 until he died at 15 from the disease. He was five years older than me, so I had never known him without a wheelchair.
My entire childhood was spent helping my single mother take care of my brother. He couldn't dress himself, go to the bathroom by himself or play with the neighbourhood kids when we gathered in the alley to play kickball.
The disease eventually took all of his mobility, and toward the end of his life, he couldn't even feed himself. He couldn't even turn over in bed if he wanted.
So when I saw that commercial, my natural reaction was that of compassion. I needed to help the boy. Then reality hit and I was furious. This time they had gone too far. This was not the least bit funny. In fact, it was nothing but putrid manure in my eyes.
What does this type of behaviour say about our society? When did we decide it was comical to make fun of someone with a disability? Are we really so starved for entertainment that we stoop to deriding the disabled just to get a laugh?
We like to think ourselves so enlightened and so intellectually progressive, but this trend in shock entertainment clearly shows that there are still areas where we are no more evolved than any other animal on earth - perhaps even less so.
In a society where capitalism rules and money speaks loudly, the ratings of any show are what drive these acts of inhumane behaviour. In other words, barbarism and cruelty equals money in the pocket. We have been reduced to animal-like savagery so some corporate media executive can buy a new private jet.
I'm not suggesting we become puritanical, but can't we at least be decent? Can't we at least show some form of human goodwill and morality? Have we sold our souls just to have a good laugh? That is a high price just to get a laugh.
Can't we demonstrate at least some of the qualities that separate us from the rest of the animal world, like the capacity to reason and show compassion?
Maybe as a society it's time to dig deep and find a conscience again. Perhaps it's time to start putting the feelings of people before money. One thing is for sure, it is high time to stop gobbling up everything we are fed by the media and start thinking for ourselves again.
In other words, we just need to start being human again.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 21 May 2006)
I like a good laugh just as much as the next person. Although the slapstick humor of the Three Stooges has never been my forte, I have been known to laugh to the point of tears while watching John Lithgow on "3rd Rock from the Sun."
I also like a bit of sarcasm in my comedies. Those are the types I find the funniest. Who can resist a wry smile and a punchy line delivered with just the right timing?
However, I'm finding it more and more difficult to find comedy that is actually funny without being offensive. I'm not talking about the kind of offence that simply makes a head shake in disbelief of the material's poor taste. I'm talking about offences that have shock jock value - or worse.
These comedies make fun of sensitive ideas and values to get a laugh. I've seen it on "South Park" when the show poked fun at Jennifer Lopez with stereotypical racial remarks that would send chills up the spine of any Hispanic.
I've seen stand-up comedians who berate groups of people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, geographical location, financial status and intellectual capacity - all of which are qualities that define each of us as an individual.
I have even seen this rude and unseemly behaviour on kids' cartoons. "Johnny Bravo" can make U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas look like a choirboy.
There are many adults today who moan about the unruly condition of today's classroom due to a lack of respect from the students. Parents say it is getting more difficult to get children to use the manners they are taught at home. There is certainly no doubt that our youth are ruder than ever.
We don't have to look far to find the mentor of the hard-to-handle attitude and crude language. It's the good old "boob tube," as my mom use to call it.
The shock value of today's entertainment world has definitely moved into every venue of comedy. I don't usually care about this type of stuff. Hey, if someone wants to eat scorpions on some reality show just to be on television, what business is it of mine?
However, it was when I saw something that made my skin curl and my heart drop right to the floor that I started wondering how far is too far in today’s crass world. It was a commercial on Comedy Central with a boy in a wheelchair next to a man who asked, "Are pathetic, disgusting-looking sick people ruining your favourite telethon?"
The man then gave the wheelchair a good shove and said, "Not any more," as the boy went crashing off camera. Without missing a beat, the man nonchalantly continued with the purpose of the commercial.
Although I had seen the commercial twice in one hour, I never did discover the point of the commercial. I was so deeply offended by this horrid act that my mind just could not move on.
Even though I knew it wasn't real, all I could think about was jumping into the screen to help the boy. See, in my head, that boy was my own brother. I had a brother who was a wheelchair-user due to Muscular Dystrophy from the age of 5 until he died at 15 from the disease. He was five years older than me, so I had never known him without a wheelchair.
My entire childhood was spent helping my single mother take care of my brother. He couldn't dress himself, go to the bathroom by himself or play with the neighbourhood kids when we gathered in the alley to play kickball.
The disease eventually took all of his mobility, and toward the end of his life, he couldn't even feed himself. He couldn't even turn over in bed if he wanted.
So when I saw that commercial, my natural reaction was that of compassion. I needed to help the boy. Then reality hit and I was furious. This time they had gone too far. This was not the least bit funny. In fact, it was nothing but putrid manure in my eyes.
What does this type of behaviour say about our society? When did we decide it was comical to make fun of someone with a disability? Are we really so starved for entertainment that we stoop to deriding the disabled just to get a laugh?
We like to think ourselves so enlightened and so intellectually progressive, but this trend in shock entertainment clearly shows that there are still areas where we are no more evolved than any other animal on earth - perhaps even less so.
In a society where capitalism rules and money speaks loudly, the ratings of any show are what drive these acts of inhumane behaviour. In other words, barbarism and cruelty equals money in the pocket. We have been reduced to animal-like savagery so some corporate media executive can buy a new private jet.
I'm not suggesting we become puritanical, but can't we at least be decent? Can't we at least show some form of human goodwill and morality? Have we sold our souls just to have a good laugh? That is a high price just to get a laugh.
Can't we demonstrate at least some of the qualities that separate us from the rest of the animal world, like the capacity to reason and show compassion?
Maybe as a society it's time to dig deep and find a conscience again. Perhaps it's time to start putting the feelings of people before money. One thing is for sure, it is high time to stop gobbling up everything we are fed by the media and start thinking for ourselves again.
In other words, we just need to start being human again.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Stella Says…I say a lot, but what would Jesus say?
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 18 May 2006)
I have often wondered what Jesus would say about those who peddle God. This thought came to my mind once again this week when I found out that the big-time American televangelist Benny Hinn is to be in Trinidad and Tobago this weekend.
No doubt there will be scores of people who will turn out for his crusade. Perhaps there will be some Guyanese who attend as well. After all, this man is supposed to have a direct line to God himself. Yet I still cannot help but wonder what Jesus would say about Benny Hinn and his multi-million dollar crusades.
I do hope you will indulge me a bit in this column. I have mentioned that I was once very religious and that I have extensively studied and even taught Christian scripture for many years. As such, I thought it would be fun to use my knowledge of the Bible to answer my own question of what Jesus would say about ministers like Benny Hinn.
Let me begin by talking about Hinn and his ministry. He is one of those ministers who bring in millions of American dollars every year from those faithful to Christianity. He is also one of those types of ministers who live an extravagantly lavish lifestyle. So much so that many of the news shows in the US have done exposes on his extravagance.
The Trinidad Express recently highlighted one of Hinn's many excessive spending sprees, "In 2003, en route home from a European crusade, during a layover in Milan, Italy, for refuelling of his jet and allowing for pilot rest, Pastor Hinn selected a hotel suite, said to be the largest on the continent. The 'room' offered 5,400 sq ft of living space, including a 100-foot long indoor swimming pool outfitted in genuine marble, 'essentials' costing TT$63,000 per night." That is over US$10,000!
Don't get me wrong, I think it is just fine for a person to spend their own money on nice things, but I have serious issues when a minister spends the money given to him/her by old grandmothers who can barely keep food on their own table. These ministers often promise their followers that if they if generously to his/her ministry, God will give them back even more.
When Hinn went to Nigeria last year, he railed the people during one of his meetings because of the low turnout and because they did not come close to giving him the US$4 million he was promised by the local ministers who sponsored his crusade.
If the NBC report was right, perhaps if Benny sacrificed his nice hotel room, his US$10 million home and the US$115,000 monthly operating costs of his private jet and Mercedes Benz (costing about US$80,000 each) then maybe he wouldn't be so worried about covering the costs of his crusades. After all, when someone gives to his ministry, I bet they are hoping the money goes to help others – not to put Benny into lavish cars, jets and hotel rooms.
I just hate to see people manipulated – whether by politicians or by ministers who claim to hear from God. It would be better to keep your money or give it to a poor person on the street than to send it to such ministers.
However, in a case like this, my reason and logic will make no headway with those who might be swindle by ministries who peddle God. So let us instead find out what Jesus had to say about it. Are you ready for a mid-week sermon?
Let me start first by admonishing Christians that Proverbs 14:15 says, "Only simpletons believe everything they are told! The prudent carefully consider their steps." It is a noble quest to seek answers to questions of orthodoxy (correct Biblical interpretation).
Acts 17:10-12 tells us that the Bereans questioned even the apostles Paul and Silas when they taught in the synagogue. Verse 11 says, "They (the Bereans) searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth." (NLT) And the Bereans were considered nobler than those in Thessalonica because of their questioning.
Remember that according to the Bible, "there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Therefore, the people are supposed to be able talk to Jesus themselves. As such, the scriptures I just mentioned clearly encourage believers to seek the truth and to not believe every thing they are told. If you are a Christian, the Bible is the standard by which you should live – not a standard raised by a man or woman.
Now back to Benny Hinn and his extravagance. Here is what the Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, it is very hard for a rich person to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. I say it again -- it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" (Matthew 19:23-24) If this is true, then why would any minister want to be rich?
The apostle Paul said in Philippians 4:11-12, "For I have learned how to get along happily whether I have much or little. I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything, I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little. For I can do everything with the help of Christ who gives me the strength I need."
If Jesus and Paul could get by on little and chose to live a life of temperate moderation, why are so many ministers ignoring their examples and choosing a live of extravagance while they expect people who live in poverty to pay for their excessiveness? I wonder how many Guyanese pastors will be attending this meeting and staying in posh hotel rooms paid for by their poor congregation?
At Hinn's meeting this weekend, there will no doubt be special seating in the front for the "important" people. Once again this is in opposition to the Bible. "My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim that you have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favour some people more than others? For instance, suppose someone comes into your meeting dressed in fancy clothes and expensive jewellery, and another comes in who is poor and dressed in shabby clothes. If you give special attention and a good seat to the rich person, but you say to the poor one, 'you can stand over there, or else sit on the floor' -- well, doesn't this discrimination show that you are guided by wrong motives?" James 2:1-4
How far away from the Bible has Christianity gone? So far that those who claim to know God the most seem to know him very little at all. Hinn and other ministers like him are perfect examples of how a Christian should not act. I do not even claim to be a Christian, yet even a heathen like me can spot a minister who is peddling God instead of sharing "Good News." This concludes today's sermon.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 18 May 2006)
I have often wondered what Jesus would say about those who peddle God. This thought came to my mind once again this week when I found out that the big-time American televangelist Benny Hinn is to be in Trinidad and Tobago this weekend.
No doubt there will be scores of people who will turn out for his crusade. Perhaps there will be some Guyanese who attend as well. After all, this man is supposed to have a direct line to God himself. Yet I still cannot help but wonder what Jesus would say about Benny Hinn and his multi-million dollar crusades.
I do hope you will indulge me a bit in this column. I have mentioned that I was once very religious and that I have extensively studied and even taught Christian scripture for many years. As such, I thought it would be fun to use my knowledge of the Bible to answer my own question of what Jesus would say about ministers like Benny Hinn.
Let me begin by talking about Hinn and his ministry. He is one of those ministers who bring in millions of American dollars every year from those faithful to Christianity. He is also one of those types of ministers who live an extravagantly lavish lifestyle. So much so that many of the news shows in the US have done exposes on his extravagance.
The Trinidad Express recently highlighted one of Hinn's many excessive spending sprees, "In 2003, en route home from a European crusade, during a layover in Milan, Italy, for refuelling of his jet and allowing for pilot rest, Pastor Hinn selected a hotel suite, said to be the largest on the continent. The 'room' offered 5,400 sq ft of living space, including a 100-foot long indoor swimming pool outfitted in genuine marble, 'essentials' costing TT$63,000 per night." That is over US$10,000!
Don't get me wrong, I think it is just fine for a person to spend their own money on nice things, but I have serious issues when a minister spends the money given to him/her by old grandmothers who can barely keep food on their own table. These ministers often promise their followers that if they if generously to his/her ministry, God will give them back even more.
When Hinn went to Nigeria last year, he railed the people during one of his meetings because of the low turnout and because they did not come close to giving him the US$4 million he was promised by the local ministers who sponsored his crusade.
If the NBC report was right, perhaps if Benny sacrificed his nice hotel room, his US$10 million home and the US$115,000 monthly operating costs of his private jet and Mercedes Benz (costing about US$80,000 each) then maybe he wouldn't be so worried about covering the costs of his crusades. After all, when someone gives to his ministry, I bet they are hoping the money goes to help others – not to put Benny into lavish cars, jets and hotel rooms.
I just hate to see people manipulated – whether by politicians or by ministers who claim to hear from God. It would be better to keep your money or give it to a poor person on the street than to send it to such ministers.
However, in a case like this, my reason and logic will make no headway with those who might be swindle by ministries who peddle God. So let us instead find out what Jesus had to say about it. Are you ready for a mid-week sermon?
Let me start first by admonishing Christians that Proverbs 14:15 says, "Only simpletons believe everything they are told! The prudent carefully consider their steps." It is a noble quest to seek answers to questions of orthodoxy (correct Biblical interpretation).
Acts 17:10-12 tells us that the Bereans questioned even the apostles Paul and Silas when they taught in the synagogue. Verse 11 says, "They (the Bereans) searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth." (NLT) And the Bereans were considered nobler than those in Thessalonica because of their questioning.
Remember that according to the Bible, "there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Therefore, the people are supposed to be able talk to Jesus themselves. As such, the scriptures I just mentioned clearly encourage believers to seek the truth and to not believe every thing they are told. If you are a Christian, the Bible is the standard by which you should live – not a standard raised by a man or woman.
Now back to Benny Hinn and his extravagance. Here is what the Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, it is very hard for a rich person to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. I say it again -- it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" (Matthew 19:23-24) If this is true, then why would any minister want to be rich?
The apostle Paul said in Philippians 4:11-12, "For I have learned how to get along happily whether I have much or little. I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything, I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little. For I can do everything with the help of Christ who gives me the strength I need."
If Jesus and Paul could get by on little and chose to live a life of temperate moderation, why are so many ministers ignoring their examples and choosing a live of extravagance while they expect people who live in poverty to pay for their excessiveness? I wonder how many Guyanese pastors will be attending this meeting and staying in posh hotel rooms paid for by their poor congregation?
At Hinn's meeting this weekend, there will no doubt be special seating in the front for the "important" people. Once again this is in opposition to the Bible. "My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim that you have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favour some people more than others? For instance, suppose someone comes into your meeting dressed in fancy clothes and expensive jewellery, and another comes in who is poor and dressed in shabby clothes. If you give special attention and a good seat to the rich person, but you say to the poor one, 'you can stand over there, or else sit on the floor' -- well, doesn't this discrimination show that you are guided by wrong motives?" James 2:1-4
How far away from the Bible has Christianity gone? So far that those who claim to know God the most seem to know him very little at all. Hinn and other ministers like him are perfect examples of how a Christian should not act. I do not even claim to be a Christian, yet even a heathen like me can spot a minister who is peddling God instead of sharing "Good News." This concludes today's sermon.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Stella Says…Watch your back, morality police are lurking
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 16 May 2006)
Imagine you have decided to have sex with someone.
Whether you are in love with this person or not isn't the issue. Neither is whether you want to pursue a relationship with this person. The only issue is that you are going to have sex with a person of your choosing.
For a Houston couple in 2003, this choice got them arrested.
During the actual act, something totally unexpected and utterly humiliating happened. The police burst into the house and arrested them. The law enforcers were not checking to make sure both people involved were mutual, consenting adults.
The police did not care if the two were Christian or Muslim. Nor did they care about the race of the "offenders." Marital status was not the issue either. So, what were the police looking for that penned these two people in a jail cell? The couple was arrested because both were men.
A similar incident could take place in Guyana today since sodomy is still on the law books here too. Unless the standing laws of the country change to be more tolerant of sexual preference, it seems the logical outcome could one day be paranoid heterosexuals narking on their homosexual neighbours to "clean up the neighbourhood."
The privacy of gay couples could be torn asunder by the scrutinizing eyes of disapproving moralisers. The civil rights of these homosexual Guyanese could be lost through ignorance and fear.
According to a press release from The Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD), the group plans to have events all week as it joins, “organisations from over 40 countries to commemorate the second International Day against Homophobia on Wednesday.”
The press release mentioned that the General Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders on May 17 in 1990. That is only 16 years ago! Sometimes when I think the human race is progressing along at breakneck speed, all I have to do is read about this kind of backward behaviour to be reminded of how far we still have to go.
Although I am a white woman, I have never been attracted to white men. As such, it would infuriate me to have someone deem me mentally disabled simply because I do not find white men attractive. However, our world is such that there was a time not so long ago when a white woman could have been killed for having sex with a man who was not her same race.
So what about women who do not find any men attractive or men who do not find women attractive? In my opinion, they should be allowed to pursue whomever they do find attractive – even if is their same gender.
Humans can be slow to accept change, even if we claim to be open-minded and ready to learn the ways of other cultures. This is especially true when it involves our religious beliefs. However, the question of gay sex morality is not even the point when it comes to these standing laws.
Rather, this is a question of whether civil rights apply to all Guyanese or just the ones who comply with traditional, conservative religious values. Should those who practice one of the mainstream religions be afforded a higher status as a citizen simply because they choose to align themselves to traditional values?
What of those in society who choose to reject those traditional values and seek to be the master of their own values and goals? Typically, as long as these individuals do not infringe on society’s established rules, they are usually given the freedom to pursue their own way of life.
It is when these non-conformists begin stepping on the toes of the traditionalists that things start to get messy. Homosexuality has been one of those areas that society as a whole has been far more resistant in doling out tolerance. However, society should not have the right to define the parameters of its citizen’s sexual preference.
What is done in a person's bedroom should be honoured with privacy, regardless of sexual orientation. If those rights are subject to infringement at the whim of a person who frowns on a homosexual lifestyle, then we should expect the same of other “moral” issues as well.
Will drinking and dancing be next on the list since there are many religions that frown on these activities too? Legislation such as this was passed in ignorance and intolerance, just like laws in several states in America that banned inter-racial marriage.
However, the fact that such laws remain is an affront to people who want to step outside of the simple construct of religious morality. I cannot help but wonder if there aren’t times when religion divides a nation more than it helps it. I will explore this a little more in my column on Thursday.
Perhaps it's time to step out of the dark ages and recognise that all forms of diversity makes us beautiful – not evil. When we stop insisting that everyone one must look and act like one certain group, we will finally be able to enjoy the beauty of our diversity instead of feeling like we are being forced into a mould made for someone else.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 16 May 2006)
Imagine you have decided to have sex with someone.
Whether you are in love with this person or not isn't the issue. Neither is whether you want to pursue a relationship with this person. The only issue is that you are going to have sex with a person of your choosing.
For a Houston couple in 2003, this choice got them arrested.
During the actual act, something totally unexpected and utterly humiliating happened. The police burst into the house and arrested them. The law enforcers were not checking to make sure both people involved were mutual, consenting adults.
The police did not care if the two were Christian or Muslim. Nor did they care about the race of the "offenders." Marital status was not the issue either. So, what were the police looking for that penned these two people in a jail cell? The couple was arrested because both were men.
A similar incident could take place in Guyana today since sodomy is still on the law books here too. Unless the standing laws of the country change to be more tolerant of sexual preference, it seems the logical outcome could one day be paranoid heterosexuals narking on their homosexual neighbours to "clean up the neighbourhood."
The privacy of gay couples could be torn asunder by the scrutinizing eyes of disapproving moralisers. The civil rights of these homosexual Guyanese could be lost through ignorance and fear.
According to a press release from The Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD), the group plans to have events all week as it joins, “organisations from over 40 countries to commemorate the second International Day against Homophobia on Wednesday.”
The press release mentioned that the General Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders on May 17 in 1990. That is only 16 years ago! Sometimes when I think the human race is progressing along at breakneck speed, all I have to do is read about this kind of backward behaviour to be reminded of how far we still have to go.
Although I am a white woman, I have never been attracted to white men. As such, it would infuriate me to have someone deem me mentally disabled simply because I do not find white men attractive. However, our world is such that there was a time not so long ago when a white woman could have been killed for having sex with a man who was not her same race.
So what about women who do not find any men attractive or men who do not find women attractive? In my opinion, they should be allowed to pursue whomever they do find attractive – even if is their same gender.
Humans can be slow to accept change, even if we claim to be open-minded and ready to learn the ways of other cultures. This is especially true when it involves our religious beliefs. However, the question of gay sex morality is not even the point when it comes to these standing laws.
Rather, this is a question of whether civil rights apply to all Guyanese or just the ones who comply with traditional, conservative religious values. Should those who practice one of the mainstream religions be afforded a higher status as a citizen simply because they choose to align themselves to traditional values?
What of those in society who choose to reject those traditional values and seek to be the master of their own values and goals? Typically, as long as these individuals do not infringe on society’s established rules, they are usually given the freedom to pursue their own way of life.
It is when these non-conformists begin stepping on the toes of the traditionalists that things start to get messy. Homosexuality has been one of those areas that society as a whole has been far more resistant in doling out tolerance. However, society should not have the right to define the parameters of its citizen’s sexual preference.
What is done in a person's bedroom should be honoured with privacy, regardless of sexual orientation. If those rights are subject to infringement at the whim of a person who frowns on a homosexual lifestyle, then we should expect the same of other “moral” issues as well.
Will drinking and dancing be next on the list since there are many religions that frown on these activities too? Legislation such as this was passed in ignorance and intolerance, just like laws in several states in America that banned inter-racial marriage.
However, the fact that such laws remain is an affront to people who want to step outside of the simple construct of religious morality. I cannot help but wonder if there aren’t times when religion divides a nation more than it helps it. I will explore this a little more in my column on Thursday.
Perhaps it's time to step out of the dark ages and recognise that all forms of diversity makes us beautiful – not evil. When we stop insisting that everyone one must look and act like one certain group, we will finally be able to enjoy the beauty of our diversity instead of feeling like we are being forced into a mould made for someone else.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)