People who know me know that I don't care, in general, for people. By that, I mean stupid, annoying, wish-they-would-die type people. You know, the average person walking down the street. I'm not an angry person by nature, but my blood runs hot whenever I encounter these types. I'm not saying that I'm the smartest person. Trust me, I've done a lot of stupid things in my life. It's just they are few and far between, not a lifetime. Bragging and pride aside, I do consider myself an intelligent individual - a mix of both book and street smarts. But there are people who have absolutely none of either one. To quote George Carlin:
"Some people are really fucking stupid! Did you ever notice that? How many really stupid people you run into during the day? Goddamn theres a lot of stupid bastards walking around. Carry a little pad and pencil with you. You'll wind up with thirty or forty names by the end of the day. Look at it this way think of how stupid the average person is and then realize that half of them are stupider than that. And it doesn't take you very long to spot one of them does it? Take you about eight seconds. You'll be listening to some guy, you say, 'this guy is fucking stupid!'"
Bill Engvall figured out a solution to the problem:
"Stupid people should have to wear signs that just say, 'I'm Stupid.' That way you wouldn't rely on them, would you? You wouldn't ask them anything. It would be like, 'Excuse me . . . oops . . . never mind, didn't see your sign.'"
I've worked almost my entire life in the food and beverage industry, as a bartender and manager. I've encountered a lot of stupid customers . . . and they were never right. Never! As it turns out, I'd rather spend time with my dogs than with most people. Dogs are wickedly innocent - they know they peed in the house, I know they peed in the house. But they scrunch up their face, put their head down or roll over to have their belly rubbed, and that anger goes away. People aren't like that, they aren't as repentant.
I'm not completely soured on people though. Anyone who knows me knows that when it comes to friends - true friends - I am loyal and encouraging to the bone. I'd take a bullet for most of my closest friends. That's how deep my friendship runs. That's also why I have a close-knit, core group of friends that most people don't - most of us have known each other since elementary/junior high, and we all share the same attitudes. There is an unbreakable bond between us that has long been established. That sort of trust is earned, not just given. But I don't trust a majority of people. Maybe it comes from watching too much "CSI" or "Law & Order"-type shows, but I'm guarded and suspicious toward others by nature. Ever watch those "Autopsy" shows?! For the most part, I think people are evil, and if left to their own vices would do the worst rather than strive for their best simply because they could.
That's why I hate people. Especially the stupid ones.
©2006 Steve Sagarra
To paraphrase Jesus Christ, let those who are without sin cast the first stone. Whenever one jumps to conclusions, in their own rush to judgment, there never seems to be an end of stone throwing these days. Certain people seem to think that they are the purest of the pure, with no stink that would attest otherwise. As Christ pointed out, no one is without sin, and no one should pass judgment unless they too be judged.
Bias plays a part in this judgment. Despite the greatest efforts, no one can completely remove themselves from their own ideas, philosophies and prejudices. Racism, socio-political propaganda or even outright sensationalism are unfortunate examples throughout the history of mankind. Whether intentional or not, bias is an inherent part of everyday life. However, arguments and conclusions that are based on truth and evidence, rather than preconceived suppositions and opinion, can supplant any inherent bias.
A typical companion to bias – the double standard – plays a major part in the problem. Far too often people are held to a higher standard than we would apply to ourselves. The inequities of life make it so. People often take an allegedly principled stand, only to switch to the exact opposite if it is to their advantage – utilizing a set of standards only when they support a particular preference at the time. Throughout our lives, we are bombarded by contradictions and stereotypes which fail to convey uniformity, let alone a sense of fair play, toward all. Often times they go unchallenged.
No where is this more prevalent than in the media. There are countless examples in which journalists put forth their own agenda over the reporting of the news. It is nothing new. Since the first scribe put stylus to papyrus, reputations have been built and ruined on innuendo and rumor rather than the truth. It has become far too common in today’s world to distort and misrepresent in the pursuit of a story, in spite of the facts and ramifications of such. If a journalist has an ax to grind and uses the media forum to express it, they become, in essence, a lobbyist for the formation of public opinion – no longer upholding journalistic principles of presenting the facts and allowing readers to form their own opinions.
While attaining objectivity may be theoretically futile, it is a necessity for journalistic integrity. Like anything in life, this is not easy, but there must still be the attempt. Biases and double standards violate the principle of impartiality by holding different people to different standards. Whichever part of the spectrum one is on, all sides are quick to point fingers in spite of their own biases and the failure to acknowledge such a double standard. Without reverence for the facts and truth, journalists will become nothing more than advocates for a certain perspective – their own. So, for anyone who would throw a stone, be certain you are aware what it’s casting entails. Otherwise, what goes around comes around.
©2006 Steve Sagarra
Mention the word death, and a single image springs to mind – the ending of life. Depending on culture, religion or other similar views, it can have many connotations. For some, it can mean simply the end of a life, coupled with the process of grief and coping that accompanies such loss. For others, it can represent a glorious extension of, and beyond, this life into the next that is to be honored and rejoiced. However, death for a growing number means only one thing – the end of suffering, for them and their loved ones, by means of euthanasia, otherwise known as “assisted suicide.” It is a choice that many have made, and that a majority of Americans support. Aside from the moral debate, the question is can that choice ever be reconciled with the legal challenges facing it?
Naturally, the average person does not want to die. After all, that is the secret to life – not dying. With funerals that cost the price of an average car, who wants to die in the first place? Still, many people in extreme cases refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. Such was the case for Teri Schiavo, the Florida woman who laid in a vegetative state for years and sparked a landmark legal case over the right-to-die. In such instances, an individual has only to state their wishes, such as in a living will, in a clear and mentally competent way. In Schiavo’s case, her intentions were the center of the case as she had no living will. In essence, the person is making a legal contract for their future suicide should it be necessary. What then is the difference between refusing life-sustaining treatment, often communicated through a second party, and assisted suicide, both of which produce the same fate?
The moral argument against euthanasia is ambiguous, as many cultures and religions consider suicide honorable and respectable. The classic example is the samurai warrior taking his own life in the name of honor and duty. As Americans, we are all too familiar with the kamikazes of World War Two – seen as an expression of the samurai virtue – as well as the present-day suicide bombers attempting to derail the democratic process in the Middle East. For the majority of Western culture, however, suicide is a disdainful selfish act, not to mention a sin. Nonetheless, it is an individual act dependent on either the acceptance or rejection of such morals concerning it.
The legal side of the argument is more broadly problematic. Morals aside, does an individual have the right to die by his or her own hand with the help of another? After all, one party is asking another to help murder them in order to end their suffering. It is analogous to homicidal suicide – or would it be suicidal homicide? – with legal consequences for the assisting party. However, sometimes the right, i.e. lawful, thing to do is not always the moral thing to do, and vice versa. Just ask Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who saw it as immoral to stand by and do nothing for terminally ill patients in spite of the legal ramifications. For Kevorkian and others like him, their oath to do no harm means helping end pain and suffering when no other options exist.
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is the founding principle of this nation. The question is, when life is diminished terminally and irreversibly, does liberty allow for the pursuit of dignified death? How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life and, as in life, each individual should be allowed to deal with it in their own way. It simply depends on one’s own beliefs and convictions, and only in terms of the situation at hand. It is idealistic to hope that no one ever has to make such a choice, but likewise, there is the hope that the choice could be yours to make rather than a lobbyist or bureaucrat. With the Supreme Court’s latest 6-3 ruling in support of Oregon’s “Death With Dignity Act,” that hope still remains.
©2006 Steve Sagarra
