Blog 15_Humorists

Humour plays a vital role in our everyday life; it provides us entertainment. According to Alain de Botton in his 2004 book Status Anxiety, another purpose of humorists, aside from entertainment, is to “convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” However, in my opinion, conveying messages that may be risky to say directly is not the aim of humorists; their aim is merely to entertain, and sometimes while they do so, they unintentionally instil awareness in their audience.

There are a few types of humour where there are hardly any messages contained; these include certain cartoons or jokes. Children’s cartoons such as the Powerpuff Girls and Scooby-Doo make no contribution to rectifying society; these flying girls and talking dogs are produced solely for laughters. Jokes such as knock-knock jokes and yo mama jokes do not convey any special messages either.

When we turn on our televisions, we come across many stand-up comedians. They tackle racism, sexism, and many other social aspects. When they take on subjects like these, they do not have a corrective purpose in mind; they are merely taking what is commonplace to their audience and discussing it in a humorous attempt for entertainment. For example, Russell Peters, a popular contemporary stand-up comedian, always applies extreme stereotypes in his shows, while imitating different accents, particularly the Chinese and the Indian accents. In one of many occasions, he mentions his Indian father responded to three gay Indian guys on the television gay pride parade and he talks about how there is a population crisis in India now and that they “could use a couple of homos”; his sole purpose was to amuse his audience. However, while Russell Peters entertains his audience, he unintentionally raises awareness of the cultural differences in regards to homosexuality and the population crisis in India. He does not provide solutions as to how to solve these issues in society because that is not important in his gig.

In modern day society, there are many different forms of humour, such as short skits or television series, that directly makes fun of pop culture and society. MADtv is an American sketch comedy television series that parodies popular television shows, movies, music, and other pop culture. In one short skit, MadTV presents Steve Jobs and his new product iPhone. The audience were astounded and fascinated by the functions of an iPhone until there was too much for them to believe, so they began to call the iPhone witchcraft and Steve Jobs a witch. Humorists of this type do not wish to incite a revolt or radical change, but they ridicule society for acting foolish or gullible, which makes the audience more aware of their thoughtlessness or naivete.

There is really only one type of humorists whose primary goal is correct society: the satirists. Satirists shine a new light on a certain issue in order to “correct” society. The most noted satire would be Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, where he proposes to sell and eat Irish babies to help the economic and social life. Jonathan Swift’s purpose was to point out the injustices of the British treatment to the Irish. Satirists are harder to find these days because people are only attracted to amusement. The contemporary satirists would have to include their ideas subtly and ornate their ideas with seemingly plain humour.

I do not disagree with Alain de Botton in his idea that another chief aim of humorists is to convey messages that are dangerous to express directly, because that is true in some cases, such as with satirists. However, most humorists use society simply as a backdrop for their jokes because the audience enjoys humour that is commonplace and familiar. As humorists base their ideas on society, people grow more aware of certain issues in society but no actions would ever be taken to change them for the better. Humorists do serve a vital function in society, just not for correcting it.

Blog 14_Organ Donations

While eating dinner and flipping through the channels, I came across Jodi Picoult's My Sister's Keeper. This movie is about 13-year-old Anna, who sues her parents for medical freedom, because they constantly make her donate body parts to her sister who is diagnosed with leukaemia. They want her to donate her kidney next but Anna hires a lawyer to defend her. Anna's mother is infuriated because she cannot believe Anna would let her sister die. However, isn’t Anna entitled to the right to make decisions for her own body?

Like every other human being, Anna has the right to decide for her own body, especially when it comes to donating kidneys. That is part of her basic human rights. Furthermore, there is the concept of “No Duty to Rescue” in tort law. It states that the American jurisprudence imposes no duty or obligation on an individual to rescue another in the absence of having created the peril.1 Basically, family members or friends are not obliged to donate organs to “rescue” another unless they wish to. Therefore, parents cannot compel their children into donating blood, skin, or anything else if the children do not wish to.

Taking parts of one’s body always has its drawbacks, perhaps weakening one’s immune system or disabling one from playing sports. According to the National Marrow Donor Program, common side effects include fatigue, faintness, headaches, sore­ness, inability to properly walk, difficulty climbing stairs, sore throat, pain sitting, nausea, and vomiting.2 Kidney donation also has its side effects: vomiting, abdominal and pelvic pain, dizziness and lethargy. What if the donor permanently suffers from the side effects? Who will take care of him/her? Often times the donor would be overlooked as patients

To me, donating body parts is no different than cutting a piece of meat from a person every once a while. Even though sometimes there will be no harm done to the donor, it is nonetheless an intimidating process. Anna has already donated so much to Kate before she was even old enough to understand the process. Did she have an option? No, but that is another story. Now that she is old enough to understand the process, she should be given the right to decide for herself -- whether to have her body cut open and lose a part of her or not.

It may seem coldhearted and cruel to give second thoughts to donating organs to family members or friends but surely most people ponder about jumping in front of a car or into the railway. The scary part is the taking the risk. In Anna’s position, her older sister Kate who is sick with leukaemia has always relied on her for bodily substance and now she needs a kidney. What’s worse is, the stress of the operation may stress Anna so much she may not live and the operation may not even help Kate. Anna may suffer life-long consequences. If you were Anna, wouldn’t you be hesitant?

We were all born with our own body, with which we have the power to make decisions for. It is not right for others to dictate what one has to do with his/her body, but to encourage or persuade is acceptable. Most people claim that they will donate their organs to family or friends who need them when necessary, without hesitating. However, most people have not experienced organ donation and would never understand the fear and uncertainty of the donor.

Blog 13_Industrialisation or Health?

Surely we would all agree that industrialisation and modernisation are good for a country. However, everything comes with a cost. As we all know, China is a rapidly growing country where factories are replacing rice paddies, labour is supplanting agriculture. China's currency, yuan, is appreciating rapidly (and the government is trying hard to keep it low). This all comes with a cost - pollution.

BBC News reported that 24 school children in eastern China have been hospitalised with lead poisoning, and at least 200 children in that area have elevated lead levels. According to Zhang Gong, director of the hospital's child care department, excessive amounts of lead in the blood can cause damage to the digestive, nervous and reproductive systems, and also stomach aches, anaemia and convulsions. All of this resulted from the China's position as the world's greatest producer of lead for batteries, thus the plethora of battery factories in the area.
This is a tragedy; all those hospitalised are between the age of nine months and 16 years. Most of our brain is developed in our adolescence, so this is an important stage of our lives. If lead pollution ruins our brains, we might never recover from the damage - this would create a problem in China. If many of its younger population, the future working force, are impaired, what's there to expect of the country? Even if there are many function factories built, no further advancement can be achieved, because everything has been paid in return and nothing is left.