Latest update March 29th, 2024 12:59 AM
Nov 23, 2008 Features / Columnists
The Parrot always hears stupid questions being asked. Actually I love to hear them. What I hate sometimes are the replies. Somehow people don’t respond “appropriately”; by this I mean with a stupid answer.
For example, two people entering an aristocratic restaurant: husband and wife or husband and mistress, or wife and a male who’s definitely not her husband. I can go on and on with this kind of list.
Any two people and the waiter asks, “Table for how many?” Most aristocrats would politely say “two”. I wouldn’t.
I see it as a stupid question. I would say “twenty, we like to change seats every few minutes”. I may even say, “I don’t know. I can’t count that high”.
I recall the days when one stood for long hours awaiting transportation to get to work. (Even the term “long hours” is stupid, isn’t it? Every hour is equally as long; sixty minutes each!).
One, who lived about ten miles out of the capital and worked in the city, had to leave home at about six o’clock in the mornings in order to reach to work in time for eight.
At eight you are still tirelessly waiting and up comes yuh neighbour’s fast-mouth wife, coming out to get transportation to “tek in” de one o’clock at Liberty.
Yes that’s how long it took to get “transpy” then. The first thing de lady ask yuh is, “Eh, eh. Boy yuh still here? Yuh ain’t gone yet?”
See my point? If you had gone then obviously you wouldn’t have been standing there. However, in fairness to that period of time, some may not have made it a priority to be on the alert for stupid questions, more so stupid answers. Time has changed and with the abundance of televisions and access to the internet, some people are now aware.
I wish all would, but I am sure we will reach a point in time we will all be conscious of stupid questions. So hopefully the days when a student would ask his/her teacher, “Can I go to the bathroom? and get this reply, “Oh, I don’t know? Can you?” will be in abundance.
While this can happen with time, some forms of stupidity will seemingly be with us forever. Last week an interesting story appeared in the press. A man was beaten by some drinking mates simply because the mates disliked the song the man was playing at the time with his portable CD player.
As a reader, even though seeing the seriousness of the story, what I found stupid was that the title of the song was conspicuously missing from the article. Many were curious to know which song led to that kind of rage.
I thought it was one of those that contained profanity. Gordon even wrote a letter asking the Big Market paper to name the song. The next day the name appeared. Hmmm. The “power” of the Pressers’ ASSociation.
The song is a very popular one; a “sweet” one; one that is a “product” of sugar cake. I am sure all of you like sugar cake. Eh? Yes, that kind too.
Anyway, the song that caused the man to be hospitalised is “Ya Stupidy, Ya Stupidy, Ya Pagalee, Ya Pagalee”. Now let’s put this in context. De man “sweet” (local term for someone under the influence of alcohol) and entered a public place where alcohol is consumed.
He was carrying (struggling to) a portable CD player. In a “rum shap” he was drinking; others too. He “put” on his favourite song; others took umbrage. They requested he “turn” it off; he refused. They threw out his CD player and proceeded to physically abuse him. Serious injuries were inflicted.
Now obviously the song was an irritant; to the others that is. Maybe it was a case where they thought that the question in the song was addressed to them. Maybe? Who knows. So, they think that the man, by extension, insulted them by implying that they ‘stupidy’.
In my opinion, I find it extremely difficult not to conclude that both parties ventured into realm of stupidity. First, someone has to be very bold to walk into any public place playing such a song and not to expect to attract attention.
Secondly, others have to be extremely stupid to resort to the level of violence seen in the incident alluded to. Look at the result of the combined stupidity; one in hospital while the others can end up in prison.
The violence must be condemned. The victim is free to walk with his CD player while others should not be disturbed. It shouldn’t have ended the way it did. These sentiments are expressed for other incidents of such violence, especially domestic violence.
There is an intensified approach from the subject Ministry and NGOs to help curb these barbaric actions, but like in every situation which leads to sanctions, “innovative” ways are devised to circumvent the scrutiny. Backtracking stands out.
In the case of domestic violence, a perpetrator, being conscious of the efforts being made to prevent it and the fact that he can be jailed if found guilty, was overheard asking a law enforcement official, “how come is domestic violence and I didn’t beat she in de house; it was on the road?” Stupid question? Don’t ask.
I also read recently about a man who was in court to answer charges of domestic violence. Knowing that the cell door was half-way opened for him, he related that it wasn’t domestic violence, but a case of his spouse being possessed. He was conducting an exorcism.
Innovative? For him maybe; not for the magistrate I presume. He is to be sentenced soon. These are the kinds of questions and innovations we can now expect as a result of the changing times.
What obviously needs to change is the way alcohol is glamorised in advertisements. Research shows that the vast majority of cases of domestic violence are alcohol related.
The harm from cigarettes is well chronicled. The efforts to have it deglamourised were relentless. Basically related advertisements are banned in some medium.
The effects of alcohol, not only to the physical well being of those who imbibe, but to the victims of domestic abuse, are also well known.
Why then don’t we see the NGOs and other organisations clamouring for change relating to advertisements? Where are those who rush to chastise for other reasons?
Stupid questions? Definitely not. The role of the media in this regard is invaluable. Would we see intensified efforts by those who “control the pen”?
Stupid question? No. So, it is clear that in these times one cannot afford to be stupidy. This question of being stupidy can aptly be asked of the victims who stay in the relationship; maybe some minibus passengers too.
So look stupid…oops, sorry, look out for stupid questions. No, I didn’t say you stupidy. So if anybody ask you if it raining outside, ask them, “Does it ever rain inside?” If you go to a party and somebody come playing “fresh” and ask, “May I have this dance? say, “Sure, I don’t want it.”
Finally, whilst in the long lines at the bank and someone approaches and asks, “Excuse me. Is this the end of the line? Say, “No. It’s the front. We are standing backwards”.
Squawk! Squawk!
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 29, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – After a series of outstanding performances in 2023, Tianna Springer, dubbed the ‘wonder girl’, is eagerly gearing up to compete in this year’s...Kaieteur News – Good Friday in Guyana is not what it used to be. The day has lost much of its solemnity. The one day... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]