The death of Michael Jackson was one of those moments in history when everyone remembers where they were when they heard the news. I suspect that the conviction of his former doctor Conrad Murray, will not be remembered in quite the same way.
The trial of Dr. Murray lasted just over six weeks and during that time the world learnt of Michael Jackson's drug problems, his insomnia but also his determination to produce the best live show ever at London's O2 arena.
During the trial it was desperately sad to hear the slurred audio recording of the singer, speaking about his grand plans for his London shows and his dream to open a children's hospital under his name. Of course, both of these dreams never came to fruition because Michael Jackson died at his rented Los Angeles home after taking a deadly cocktail of drugs.
Ever since Michael Jackson's death, his family have seemed determined to look for someone to blame, and that man turned out to be Dr. Conrad Murray. There is no doubt that Dr. Murray should have done more to ensure his client was properly monitored and he should not have been administering propofol to him at home, but it is perhaps naive to lay the blame of the singer's death squarely at his door.
One of Michael's previous doctors Dr. Arnold Klein, was mentioned many times during Conrad Murray's trial, as someone who administered painkillers to the star. If this is true, Michael's drug habit may have already been well established, long before the appointment of Conrad Murray as Michael's personal doctor.
One could ask then - why didn't Doctor Murray do something about this and try to wean Michael off the drugs? He may well have tried to and in interviews with police he does indeed testify to this, but weaning his client off drugs was not what Dr. Murray was employed to do.
It seems highly likely that Michael Jackson employed Conrad Murray as an enabler, as someone who would do as he was told in return for a substantial fee. If this was the case, then killing Michael Jackson would simply have been bad business and nonsensical. It is therefore much more likely that Conrad Murray was simply out of his depth and not up to the challenge of dealing with an addicted, demanding, celebrity client. For this negligence Dr. Murray deserves to go to jail, but he cannot be blamed entirely for the disintegration of Michael Jackson's life.
From start to finish Michael Jackson's life was a performance. Everything he did was sensational, and sensationalised further by the ravenous media, desperate for the next mad episode in the Michael Jackson reality TV show.
This way of life was all the star knew, having been a performer from a young age alongside his brothers in the Jackson Five. He never knew what a normal life was and someone with as much talent as Michael Jackson was never destined to be normal.
Michael was extraordinary in every way. The most obvious example was his appearance, radically altered by plastic surgery and affected by the skin disease vitiligo, but he was different in other ways too. He did not think like other people and this was what made him a genius.
Great artists usually lead exceptionally eccentric lives and Michael Jackson was no different. Not many people would build a personal theme park and live there permanently, but this was par for the course for a man who lived in a world of his own making. Michael Jackson's fame meant he could never enjoy a normal life, so he created a life where he could be who he wanted to be.
One of the downsides to this bizarre existence was that it provoked gossip and rumour, particularly regarding his relationships with children. The star was dogged by child abuse accusations for years and whilst we will never know the truth, it is worth remembering that he was never convicted of any wrongdoing. With his death it is surely time for these rumours to be put to bed and for Michael to be remembered for his music.
Michael Jackson's relationship with Conrad Murray was a tiny chapter in his extraordinary life, and although this chapter ended in his death, it will never eclipse what he achieved during his life. Love him or hate him, there will never be anyone quite like Michael Jackson again, and we were lucky to have experienced his talent for the short time he was with us.
Tuesday 8 November 2011
Monday 15 August 2011
UK riots: we need to encourage community responsibility
The recent riots that swept across the UK, were a shock to many people but what were the reasons behind them?
The first question to ask is, why did groups begin looting? The obvious answer must simply be that they stole because they knew they could get away with it. The police were over-stretched and the looters knew it. Once one group of people had looted successfully, then it was inevitable that more would attempt to copy them.
The problem with this analogy though, is that if this was the case, all shops and property would need armed guards at all times, as without protection there would be nothing stopping people from attempting to steal. The thing that stops people doing this on a daily basis, is of course morality.
You may answer that criminals will always try to commit crime and many of them may well lack basic morals, but large groups indulging in criminal activity is much more unusual and this is almost entirely down to our society's moral framework.
Most people are brought up with a vague idea of right and wrong. This is usually enough to prevent them turning to crime (apart from a minority of society), but during the riots these values did not prevent wrong-doing. The looters knew what they were doing was wrong, but they continued nonetheless.
Politicians talk about our society as 'broken' but this is a mistake. This label only serves to label sections of society and condemn them to their likely fate. For example, if you are a teenager growing up in a poor London borough with absent parents your future is already pretty desperate. If you are then put into a box marked 'broken' you could feel that you may as well live up to this label and act as you are expected to, in an irresponsible and selfish manner.
By talking up divisions in society we only serve to deepen them further. Going back to the riots, this has been a problem with the subsequent analysis of its root causes. Everybody is looking for someone to blame, be it the government, black culture (as David Starkey clumsily did so on Newsnight) the collapse of our moral framework or even our consumer culture.
One could argue for example that what bound the looters together was a love of consumerism and a desperate need for branded goods that they could not afford. There may be some truth in this when put against the shops that were targeted. For example, Currys, Foot Locker and JD Sports were all hit hard by looters and all sell expensive, desirable consumer goods.
However, consumerism is not all to blame. To look at it in a positive way, it encourages people to achieve and as a by product earn more money and enjoy a better quality of life. It does of course have negatives, with many poorer people unable to participate in the hoarding of expensive goods. This can provoke jealousy and ultimately criminal activity.
Another suggested reason behind the riots could be family breakdown. In the UK the divorce rate is almost 1/2 and whereas in the past children may have learnt moral standards from their parents, this may not be the case today. However, once again this argument has flaws. More marriages may have lasted in the past, but this is not to say that those families were good influences on their children. These days divorce is more socially acceptable, but as much as politicians deny it, sometimes it happens for the right reasons. It is much better for example for a child to grow up with one parent, than with two parents who hate each other.
The truth is that police inactivity, lack of morals, consumerism and family breakdowns are all reasons behind the riots. Where they all converge, is in a lack of collective responsibility. In truth, this country has not had a true collective responsibility since the second world war. Back then different communities joined together under one banner and for one aim: to win the war. Today we have a rich cultural and socio-economic heritage and often this is to our benefit, but far too often communities fail to integrate with others.
London is a good example of this. In many areas outrageously expensive town-houses sit alongside dilapidated council estates, neither community engaging with each other. This situation is not sustainable in the long-term and something needs to be done about it soon. In a city where there is enormous wealth, the poor should be getting richer over time, but the reality is the opposite, they are getting poorer.
The riots happened not because the poor wanted what the rich had or children from broken homes did not know right from wrong. They happened because people stopped caring about their own communities. The government's plan to toughen up police tactics may work in the short-term but in the long-term politicians need to engage with communities and try to understand why they have lost their identities. The blame game has to stop here.
The first question to ask is, why did groups begin looting? The obvious answer must simply be that they stole because they knew they could get away with it. The police were over-stretched and the looters knew it. Once one group of people had looted successfully, then it was inevitable that more would attempt to copy them.
The problem with this analogy though, is that if this was the case, all shops and property would need armed guards at all times, as without protection there would be nothing stopping people from attempting to steal. The thing that stops people doing this on a daily basis, is of course morality.
You may answer that criminals will always try to commit crime and many of them may well lack basic morals, but large groups indulging in criminal activity is much more unusual and this is almost entirely down to our society's moral framework.
Most people are brought up with a vague idea of right and wrong. This is usually enough to prevent them turning to crime (apart from a minority of society), but during the riots these values did not prevent wrong-doing. The looters knew what they were doing was wrong, but they continued nonetheless.
Politicians talk about our society as 'broken' but this is a mistake. This label only serves to label sections of society and condemn them to their likely fate. For example, if you are a teenager growing up in a poor London borough with absent parents your future is already pretty desperate. If you are then put into a box marked 'broken' you could feel that you may as well live up to this label and act as you are expected to, in an irresponsible and selfish manner.
By talking up divisions in society we only serve to deepen them further. Going back to the riots, this has been a problem with the subsequent analysis of its root causes. Everybody is looking for someone to blame, be it the government, black culture (as David Starkey clumsily did so on Newsnight) the collapse of our moral framework or even our consumer culture.
One could argue for example that what bound the looters together was a love of consumerism and a desperate need for branded goods that they could not afford. There may be some truth in this when put against the shops that were targeted. For example, Currys, Foot Locker and JD Sports were all hit hard by looters and all sell expensive, desirable consumer goods.
However, consumerism is not all to blame. To look at it in a positive way, it encourages people to achieve and as a by product earn more money and enjoy a better quality of life. It does of course have negatives, with many poorer people unable to participate in the hoarding of expensive goods. This can provoke jealousy and ultimately criminal activity.
Another suggested reason behind the riots could be family breakdown. In the UK the divorce rate is almost 1/2 and whereas in the past children may have learnt moral standards from their parents, this may not be the case today. However, once again this argument has flaws. More marriages may have lasted in the past, but this is not to say that those families were good influences on their children. These days divorce is more socially acceptable, but as much as politicians deny it, sometimes it happens for the right reasons. It is much better for example for a child to grow up with one parent, than with two parents who hate each other.
The truth is that police inactivity, lack of morals, consumerism and family breakdowns are all reasons behind the riots. Where they all converge, is in a lack of collective responsibility. In truth, this country has not had a true collective responsibility since the second world war. Back then different communities joined together under one banner and for one aim: to win the war. Today we have a rich cultural and socio-economic heritage and often this is to our benefit, but far too often communities fail to integrate with others.
London is a good example of this. In many areas outrageously expensive town-houses sit alongside dilapidated council estates, neither community engaging with each other. This situation is not sustainable in the long-term and something needs to be done about it soon. In a city where there is enormous wealth, the poor should be getting richer over time, but the reality is the opposite, they are getting poorer.
The riots happened not because the poor wanted what the rich had or children from broken homes did not know right from wrong. They happened because people stopped caring about their own communities. The government's plan to toughen up police tactics may work in the short-term but in the long-term politicians need to engage with communities and try to understand why they have lost their identities. The blame game has to stop here.
Wednesday 23 February 2011
Morality should not be compromised by national interests
Colonel Gaddafi's long rule over Libya now looks doomed. Diplomats, military personnel and government officials have begun deserting his regime like rats off a sinking ship, but Gaddafi's demise has far more wide reaching implications than just the fall of an ageing dictator.
Across the Middle East and North Africa, a host of countries are ruled over by small elite groups or dictators, but the events of recent months are beginning to radically alter the political landscape and the aspirations of the people living in these countries.
The first country to be affected was Tunisia. President Ben Ali had been in power since 1987, at the helm of a regime that mercilessly surpressed its opposition and paid little attention to human rights. His power looked secure but following protests in January over unemployment, Ben Ali was forced to step down and fled the country.
What the Tunisian people had achieved clearly inspired others, and soon Egypt had removed its leader, Hosni Mubarak. Since then, there have been protests in Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain and most recently Libya.
This domino effect is extremely serious. In countries where political opposition has been surpressed for decades, there is no easy way to fill the power vacuum left by the removal of a dictatorship. In Egypt this has resulted in the Army taking control of the country until elections can be held in September.
When people were laying down their lives in Tahrir Square, military rule may not have been their goal, but at least now there is the prospect of democratic change in Egypt.
The situation in Libya is far more uncertain. Gaddafi is unlikely to step down as leader, having already pledged to 'fight to the last bullet.' The end may come swiftly for the Colonel, but do not expect him to go down quietly.
The Western powers now openly condemn Gaddafi's actions and his conduct towards his people, but it was not long ago that Gaddafi was portrayed as an important ally who had begun to change his ways. In 2004 BP signed a $550 million gas exploration deal with Gaddafi's regime and Tony Blair visited the Colonel in Libya for talks, aimed at joining forces to fight terror.
Of course it is very easy to look at all of this with hindsight and sarcastically riducule Blair's actions, but it also illustrates an important point. When brutal dictators like Gaddafi and Egypt's Mubarak are useful to us they are our friends, but as soon as things turn sour we immediately take the moral high ground, calling for democratic reforms.
It should never be the case that our morality is compromised by our national interest. If we are tolerating brutality and exploitation in countries that we make business deals with, we should not be making these business deals in the first place.
Hopefully the events of recent months will dissuade world leaders from compromising their morals to boost their balance books. Perhaps David Cameron and the delegation of arms dealers he took to Egypt, are not quite ready to subscribe to this idea of morality.
Across the Middle East and North Africa, a host of countries are ruled over by small elite groups or dictators, but the events of recent months are beginning to radically alter the political landscape and the aspirations of the people living in these countries.
The first country to be affected was Tunisia. President Ben Ali had been in power since 1987, at the helm of a regime that mercilessly surpressed its opposition and paid little attention to human rights. His power looked secure but following protests in January over unemployment, Ben Ali was forced to step down and fled the country.
What the Tunisian people had achieved clearly inspired others, and soon Egypt had removed its leader, Hosni Mubarak. Since then, there have been protests in Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain and most recently Libya.
This domino effect is extremely serious. In countries where political opposition has been surpressed for decades, there is no easy way to fill the power vacuum left by the removal of a dictatorship. In Egypt this has resulted in the Army taking control of the country until elections can be held in September.
When people were laying down their lives in Tahrir Square, military rule may not have been their goal, but at least now there is the prospect of democratic change in Egypt.
The situation in Libya is far more uncertain. Gaddafi is unlikely to step down as leader, having already pledged to 'fight to the last bullet.' The end may come swiftly for the Colonel, but do not expect him to go down quietly.
The Western powers now openly condemn Gaddafi's actions and his conduct towards his people, but it was not long ago that Gaddafi was portrayed as an important ally who had begun to change his ways. In 2004 BP signed a $550 million gas exploration deal with Gaddafi's regime and Tony Blair visited the Colonel in Libya for talks, aimed at joining forces to fight terror.
Of course it is very easy to look at all of this with hindsight and sarcastically riducule Blair's actions, but it also illustrates an important point. When brutal dictators like Gaddafi and Egypt's Mubarak are useful to us they are our friends, but as soon as things turn sour we immediately take the moral high ground, calling for democratic reforms.
It should never be the case that our morality is compromised by our national interest. If we are tolerating brutality and exploitation in countries that we make business deals with, we should not be making these business deals in the first place.
Hopefully the events of recent months will dissuade world leaders from compromising their morals to boost their balance books. Perhaps David Cameron and the delegation of arms dealers he took to Egypt, are not quite ready to subscribe to this idea of morality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
