Overzealous NICH must apologize to incontinent tourist
This shaming of a tourist who released some kidney-filtered beer on the lawn in front of the temple, it goes under the category of making a mountain out of a molehill, or worse, inflating a peccadillo into a mortal sin. This one also goes under the category of ingratitude mixed with overzealousness. Almost no matter what a guest does, as long as itís within the category of ignorance or a health condition, not malice, you donít roll the stateís machinery over them.
We donít know if the brother arrived at the PGIA, or his ship, under a tourist police escort when he left, but we are pretty certain, after getting the full exposure of the backlash, that he didnít get any Ďbon voyage, come back sooní.
It was indecent what he did. Very. The proper place to do the number one is in a bathroom, or at the foot of a lamp post or tree. It was not desecration. Desecration is assaulting a temple with a bulldozer.
This person, the philistine who took the picture ó with a big stretch we might forgive him for the lapse, his photographerís mistake, but he should have come to his senses before scandalizing the gentleman. And NICH, it would have been sufficient when they got the picture (which the photographer should have destroyed) for them to have identified the gentleman and sent him a note, a caution about sprinkling the lawn with impure water. That would have been sufficient. If NICH wanted to go further they could have asked him to pen a one-hundred-word essay about, okay why we shouldnít pee-pi in the park.
My glance of the pic did not show anyone else in the frame Ė I didnít see anyone else ó and common sleuthing would tell you that means that the guy hung back, stayed back so he could get as far behind the crowd as he could, before he eased his bladder that must have been at the point of bursting.
Donít rule out that the man had a bladder problem and he just had to go. Look, he didnít do it on the temple. He did it on the lawn. I canít see those inside the sarcophagus getting angry about that. Indeed, our ancestors must have been happy for him, realizing how desperately that poor bohga might have had to go.
A story by Rowland Parks in the Tuesday Amandala shows the man drinking a Belikin beer, and he makes the comment that NICH has a strict no-drinking policy. I donít follow this. The rule must be, no drinking in GLASS bottles! A law like that would make perfect sense. You donít have to be drunk or careless to let a glass bottle fall. Accidents do happen. Shards from a broken bottle could ruin a beautiful day at the park.
Somebody has to tell Mr. Parks, and NICH, that the Catholics say that beer is FOOD. Thatís right. Itís a nutritious drink, loaded with stuff that protects the heart, cleans the kidneys, lowers bad cholesterol, helps the bones, relaxes the mind and a whole ton of good stuff there. If itís alcohol content youíre after, youíd have to drink a case of it to get drunk.
He must have drunk a whole case. Maybe heís one of those types who takes one and canít stop. There are people who have this problem with dinner. They have no restraint. The man was drunk and that might indicate that he has no self-control when it comes to drinking, but the thousand words we draw from the picture we were shown is that when it comes to keeping his liquid in his body until he could dispose of it decently, he exhibited incredible restraint. I repeat, he was the only person I saw in the picture, so he held it in and held back until the lawn was clear.
We know the man was drunk. The proof that he was drunk is from the backside, which was half exposed. Iím not so sinister to think that he was about any kind of in-your-face gay parade. The man had to be slobbering drunk to pull his pants down so far, because in full mind no fellow pulls down his pants that way to execute a function from the front.
Thereís another argument for drunk. If he was sober and he had the overwhelming need to let go his fluid excess, he would most likely have feigned a plank and doused the grass right from that position. I think then that that devil cameraman would have had to disgracefully drop to all fours, get on his belly like a snake to get a sneak shot of what the brother was doing.
Bladder problem, drunk ó did NICH want the gentleman to do it in his pants? Then what? Would they have allowed him to get on the bus? Then he would have missed his ship, or plane. If he didnít have sufficient pocket money he would not have been able to afford a hotel, so he would have had to sleep in the street, and with all the predators about, someone could have assaulted him. Then we would have had an international mess on our hands. People in power really have to make better use of their thinking faculties.
Lucky we, we escaped that extreme situation. Daam to a sneak shot by a camera in the wrong hands, and an overzealous NICH Board! No one around here ever heard about letting a trivial matter lie?More in Amandala