Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2016-02-04, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2016. PAGE 5. Other Views It's an ill wind in the air "For `tis sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard..." — Hamlet, Act III, Scene 4 Ah, yes. One of Shakespeare's most repeated phrases. We all know what `hoisted by his own Petard' means. It means to have something backfire, blow up in one's face. That's apt. A `petard' was a medieval land mine employed by soldiers to blow up gates and fortifications. It comes from — and there's no genteel way of saying this — the French word for fart. Which brings us to a famous French artist who, in the early 20th century, was a sensation in Paris. King Leopold of Belgium was a fan, as were Edward, Prince of Wales and Sigmund Freud. His name was Joseph Pujol but his stage name, was Le Petomane, which translates as — again, euphemisms fail me — The Fartiste. Monsieur Pujol's musical instrument was located below decks and well to the aft, if you get my drift. He carried it with him constantly (as we all do). The difference between Monsieur Pujol and the rest of us: he could play his instrument. Like a flute. Literally. As part of his performance Le Petomane would um, attach himself, via a flexible tube, to an ocarina, a rather simple wind instrument. He would then favour the audience with a variety of popular tunes, including, patriotically, "La Marseillaise". All of this was delivered in a performance of exquisite taste. Nothing crude about Le Petomane. He performed in a red cape and a tuxedo elegantly set off by an ivory -coloured cravat and white gloves. Any adjustments that had to be made (tubes, etc.) were done off stage, behind the curtains. In addition to musical numbers, Le Petomane could produce the timid toot of a young adolescent girl and follow it with the thundering blast of a peasant farmer after a hearty dinner of feves au lard. He could replicate cannon fire and thunderstorms. He could blow out candles and deliver a 'farm tour' — a running agricultural commentary punctuated by anal renditions of every animal in the barnyard from sonorous cows through bleating sheep to clucking chickens. His piece de resistance: a blistering 10 -second glissando described as "the sound of a dressmaker ripping two metres of calico cloth". Monsieur Pujol's artistry made him a rich man. He owned a chateau, complete with servants. He had 10 children and died happy and wealthy at the age of 88. If there was any justice, Le Petomane's tombstone would bear the title of a Shakespeare play: All's well that ends well. Or perhaps from King Lear: "Blow winds, and crack your cheeks" Internet challenges or Darwinism? Since people realized they could challenge (and in turn be challenged) by people around the world via the internet, there have been a great many silly competitions spawned. These challenges typically see one party perform an activity like eating something or dumping water on themselves or covering themselves in duct tape and taking a video of it. The video, which often includes a challenge issued to friends to attempt the same stunt, is then posted on the internet. Some of these challenges are fun, interesting and for a good cause. Everyone remembers the ice bucket challenge right? If you don't, a couple years ago it was all the rage. As a means of spreading awareness of and raising funds to fight amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's Disease), people dumped buckets of ice water on their head. After participating, participants could challenge someone else with the rule that if the challengees didn't complete the challenge within 24 hours, they had to make a donation to a charitable organization (Many did compete and donate, for reference sake.) The ice bucket challenge proves that these viral campaigns can be done well and help people, but for every measurable amount of good on the internet, there is at least five times that in stupidity or evil. Take, for example, the ill-fated cinnamon or cracker challenges. The former called on participants to try and eat a tablespoon of cinnamon dry (which, as doctors would be quick to tell the public, can be dangerous, if not fatal). The latter called on people to try and eat as many saltine crackers as possible which, again, didn't always turn out well. Unfortunately, the success of the ice bucket challenge seems to have been followed up with less intelligent challenges that are in most cases, stupid, and in some cases, dangerous. Challenges have erupted that see women posting... let's say less -than -fully clothed images of themselves to prove they can hold a pen on their chest without their hands. While that might not seem all that dangerous, keep in mind that this is, in essence, seeing women post revealing photos of themselves on the internet and, just ask any celebrity who has made a mistake on camera, the internet never forgets. akDenny Scott Denny's Den Another challenge, the duct tape challenge, has even caused significant injuries to its participants. The challenge has someone duct taped (supposedly willingly) to a wall and the participant is challenged to escape the bonds of the handyman's secret weapon. That might not seem like such a dangerous proposition. I've covered events where teachers (looking at you Mrs. McDowell) were duct taped to a wall by students as a way to encourage them to donate to causes or commit positive actions at school. However, what inevitably happens with these challenges is someone decides they are going to take part and don't fully think through the repercussions of their actions. Take, for example, the tale of Skylar Fish from Washington. Skylar, according to reports, was participating in the duct tape challenge with some friends for the second time, having completed the challenge successfully the first time. His second attempt, however, didn't go quite so well. The 14 year old was wrapped in duct tape but, before he could escape, fell over, crushing his eye -socket against a window frame, pinching nerves in his eye according to Fish's mother, Sarah. The young man may never get the vision back in his eye. He also suffered a brain aneurysm as a result of the stunt gone awry. He now has a massive scar on his head from the 48 staples that had to be inserted as part of the reconstructive surgery. If you're going to look in on Fish, be warned, the images you might run into are graphic. While you're looking it up, you may run into other challenges like the Kylie Jenner Challenge. This challenge, which hit its peak early last year, involved people using suction to try and cause their lips to swell to give them the pouty look that the then -17 -year-old reality - television star had made part of her signature look. Jenner, for her part, eventually told people to stop and said that her look came from make-up and not plastic surgery (and nothing like what the people in the challenge had been putting themselves through). The challenge saw people exerting so much pressure on their lips that it was causing bruising around the month and could cause scars, according to medical professionals. To be honest, this kind of behaviour isn't anything new. Children and teens have been betting and challenging each other for years. Maybe it was seeing if a blanket or towel would work as a parachute for a kid jumping off a garage. I won't lie. I've done some stupid things on a dare. For example (and this is more recent than I'd like to admit publically), I was at a place where there was an above -ground pool, an easily -accessible roof and a trampoline between the two. I'm sure I don't need to spell out what happened next (and yeah, it was pretty awesome). Children don't make the best decisions when they are challenged or bet. Look at the kids in Tennessee who are dying from mixing gasoline (instead of liquour) with their Mountain Dew and dying as a result of it. Ignoring the idea of how gross of a mix Mountain Dew would make, these kids are literally killing themselves and the good money says they found out about the fact that gasoline contains a type of alcohol through some video on the internet. So remind the young people around you; the internet isn't the place to get ideas for what to do for fun. Anyone can post there. That said, I think when we look at these things, we have to see it as a systemic failure of sorts. You didn't need to tell me when I was a child that coyote and the road runner cartoons shouldn't be imitated. It seems, however, that lesson is lost on today's youth. Final Thought Three grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love, and something to hope for. - Joseph Addison Shawn Loughlin Shawn's Sense A world all its own Arguments began on Monday in the Jian Ghomeshi trial and without a doubt news in Canada is destined to get a lot darker in the coming weeks and months as a result. Ghomeshi, the disgraced CBC radio host, is charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking to overcome resistance. He has pled not guilty to all charges. This is a refrain that is often heard when trials involving sexual assault or rape are in the news, but the process is not going to be easy for anyone. On Monday, the first day of the trial, there was already a strong commentary commending Ghomeshi's alleged victims for coming forward, whether it be for the trial or back when they first let their story be heard, because it isn't easy. Sexual assault cases are a legal anomaly. They are the only cases in which people, whether it be the public, judge and jury or the defense, attempt to blame the victim in one way or another. In a murder trial, it's rare that a defense attorney will make the case that a victim played a role in causing his own death. And if so, it certainly wouldn't have been intentional; accidental death maybe. Sexual assaults and rape, however, are a whole different ball game. They are difficult cases to prove. As has been said a million times, the majority of the time, there are just two people who know what really happened and who were there at the time: the victim and the person facing assault charges. As a result, the actions and intentions of the victim get picked apart by the defense and debated by the public in an attempt to show that what happened was consensual. A legal defense team attempting to poke holes in the prosecution's case is, of course, nothing new. It just takes on a new, sleazy veneer when it's a sexual assault case. Perhaps the victim (very often a woman) was sending the wrong signals. Perhaps she was dressed too provocatively. Perhaps she was willing to have sex with the man, but changed her mind at the last minute. Perhaps the sex was consensual, but something happened after the fact that upset the woman, causing her to act viciously and accuse the man of rape. These are all comments that have been made over the course of most sexual assault cases and they are the reason why most women, statistically, choose not to file charges when they're assaulted. There are real, old school ideas at play during this process that conjure up images from centuries ago involving women being publically shamed, and subsequently punished, for using their sexuality in ways deemed by the public of the day to be inappropriate, but often, as it seems in this case, through no fault of their own. And while no one is getting physically dragged around or stoned or yelled at just because it's in a courtroom, everyone is dressed in nice suits and a judge is present, there are few fundamental differences. So, while in the next few months, we'll no doubt hear about the bizarre sexual tendencies of Ghomeshi that make us all feel as though we need a shower, we'll also hear about the grilling his alleged victims have to face that should make us feel exactly the same way. They'll be asked what they might have done to bring this on, what they could have done to stop it earlier and their motivation behind reporting the crime — questions they'd never be asked if they were reporting their car stolen.