Blame

There was a bizarre story in yesterday's freesheet. A group of local women calling themselves 'Housewives against Prostitution in Richmond' sent a letter to the mayor and local councillors complaining that many massage parlours in the city were in fact offering extras. None of the housewives signed the letter. I do have a certain amount of sympathy, what they are saying really is that the RCMP or the City, who presumably licenses them are not being pro-active enough in investigating these places. But it's also a little naive. What does the term 'massage parlour' mean? It means brothel.
I myself went for a massage once. I didn't think of it on my own, I was given a gift certificate. The certificate was for a particular beauty therapy section of my hairdresser's which was in a department store. The paper qualifications of the beauty therapists were displayed on the wall. And yet, in spite of the legitimacy of it all, in spite of the beautician being a woman, it was odd to have that level of intimacy with someone other than my partner.
The only other context in which I have come across massage, was sports massage. My X was a runner and when he had injuries he would go to a sports physiotherapist, a man, also with significant qualifications and X had insurance which covered it.

I am, as I said, sympathetic to these ladies, and it is right that they should draw the attention of the authorities to the problem, but the bottom line is that, if there are a group of them, they should all be reining their blokes in. How often is it necessary for the ordinary person on the Clapham omnibus to have a massage? I suspect not so much. As both local papers said, the problem is just as much the men who go out looking to buy sexual services as the providers of it.

I can see this same misplaced blame in the story of the Edinburgh Fringe production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. You put on a production in Edinburgh, or in fact Scotland as a whole, and Ireland too and you accept the fact that these are countries where you cannot smoke in public places. So to whine lamely that your creativity is being stifled by not being allowed to do so is disingenuous.
Last year we saw a superb production of R&G in Vancouver, also a city where you may not smoke in public venues and presumably the director was a bit more creative than poor old Ben Waring, because there was no cocaine either, just a damn fine play.

And likewise, the British muslim leaders who fail to send a clear message to their own people that terrorism in the name of their faith is completely unacceptable, but instead place blame elsewhere.
'Don't put temptation in our way,' they bleat. Rein them in.

One last example of this. A film which is a classic, but only to me, is Jim Jarmusch's 'Ghost Dog'. Wonderful film. Ghost Dog is given a contract to kill a mob Capo, which he does, with the efficiency of a Samurai. But someone else hasn't done their job and another person is present. Ghost Dog will not kill her, it would be dishonourable. But then the very people who have given him the contract, decide that he must be killed precisely for fulfilling that task.
The mob are portrayed as buffoons, and Ghost Dog as an honourable modern Samurai.

All too often it is difficult to see exactly where blame should be laid, but equally often it is fairly clear where blame has been misplaced. And there is quite frequently a certain amount of lazy thinking involved.

Lazy thinking and apathy, how pitiful.