I have a trivia question for you. Do you know what the most famous catch phrase of 2007 in the United States was...?

It was “Don’t tase me bro” uttered by a student, Andrew Meyer, in a scuffle with police during a question and answer session with US Senator John Kerry. Meyer’s aggressive attitude towards Kerry got out of hand, and the police felt they should intervene.

Some translation might be in order: “bro” is American slang for “brother” (the British would use “mate”), while “tase” refers to the Taser gun, which has become a normal weapon that American policemen use.

I was reminded of all this when I read the story that our Police Corps are to get Taser guns. The guns send electric shockwaves to the body, immobilising a person without causing injury, and they have been found to be more effective than any other type of weapon in controlling a suspect.

For those who hate anything American, this will be scornfully dismissed as just another “amerikanata”. On the other hand, police officers who have to contend with out-of-control, sometimes dangerous people, will probably welcome Taser guns. It has also been pointed out that these guns are safer for all concerned, and perhaps it will mean that we will no longer hear of people being brutally beaten up while in police custody. Unless of course, there is abuse... in which case, there would be abuse no matter what kind of weapon is used.

Personally, these guns remind me rather uncomfortably of those guns that are used to stun animals in the wild. It’s a rather grim testament to mankind that we need to treat people like animals in order to keep a semblance of order in our society. It’s rather ironic too, that we call this “civilisation”.

To get back to the “don’t tase me bro” incident... this escalated into a full-blown controversy in the States with Andrew Meyer becoming a sort of folk hero, and people arguing that his right to free speech had been compromised. Radio stations and TV talk shows debated the incident, and university students held protests against the use of Tasers on campus. As so often happens in pop culture, the phrase itself inexplicably caught the imagination of the general public and was used on T-shirts and ring tones all over the country. The You Tube clip of the incident was one of the most viewed ever. There was even a song written about it. It became a sort of 2007 version of the 60s anti-establishment flower power culture. The little guy v. The Man.

Now that Tasers are coming to Malta, I wonder if we’ll have a colloquial version: “Ittazzerjanix, man!”

Commit, why don’t you

It’s very much human nature that we tend to be touchy about issues that affect us personally, and I am no exception.

When people generalise about the relationships of others, I tend to see red.

I recently read a letter, which said:

“But cohabitation, by its very nature, involves a reluctance or an inability to accept the bonds of commitment, obligation, duty and sacrifice – the very qualities needed for marriage to survive and which a strong family passes on to its children. That is why marriages – despite the high separation rate –- tend to last longer than cohabiting relationships.”

My first reaction to this is unprintable. But my next reaction was that after all this time, I should be used to this kind of insensitive, sweeping statement. After all, I have been living with my partner for the last 21 years. (I refuse to use “cohabitating” – I can’t stand that stupid word. Once again I’m reminded of wildlife such as when they describe animals in documentaries in hushed voices as “living in their natural habitat”).

Throughout this time, I have lost count of the times people have told me with a smirk, “tajjeb, you can just pack up and leave whenever you want to.”

Oh really? We may have never exchanged vows or rings in front of a priest, and there is no “contract” to keep us together, but from where I stand, it seems that the people who are “packing up and leaving” are the ones who did the whole marriage thing. I find it odd that people assume that it is the contract or the wedding that keeps you together, and not the emotional commitment. Perhaps it is the civil contract and church wedding which makes it difficult to get out of the marriage from a legal point of view, but as we see all around us, anyone can physically (and emotionally) leave a marriage by just walking out and slamming the door behind them.

Like most of you reading this, every week I hear of another marriage that has fallen apart, sometimes after many years. In a way, I can understand those kind of break-ups more – especially if the husband or wife has been “putting up” with a terrible relationship for 10, 15, 20 years and suddenly decides that’s enough. What really baffle me are the stories I hear of people splitting up after a couple of years, months, weeks and even more bizarrely, straight after the honeymoon.

What could possibly have happened on that honeymoon to make someone head straight for their lawyer the minute they landed back in Malta? The most obvious answer is sexual incompatibility but I don’t think anyone is still that naïve these days to get married without knowing that everything is OK in that department.

I hear people saying things like, “I realised I didn’t love him any more”...after about 18 months, and I wonder if people are just entering marriage simply to try it out, to see if it fits, you know, like the latest trend in shoes. Then after they have spent thousands on the wedding, the honeymoon and the house, it’s “oh well, too bad, that didn’t work out, time to move on” while the caterers, the photographer and video guy chase them desperately to get paid.

As an innocent bystander, one who has never recited those solemn words, “for better, for worse, in sickness and in health... till death do us part”, it just seems to me that for many people, these really are mere words. They don’t really mean them. Or perhaps they vaguely mean them at the time, but don’t really understand their full implication. Or it’s because (in the case of women, especially) all their friends are getting married, the big three-0 is staring them in the face and they are panicking. So, a guy they perhaps would have snottily turned down five years ago, now starts looking like potential husband material. They start dropping heavy hints about the Weddings Fair and buying a flat...and maybe we should be thinking about signing up for the Cana course?

I find it wryly amusing that in a devout Catholic country where everyone gets married in church because otherwise “people will talk”, separations are happening so fast couples are barely having time to flaunt their expensive new dinner set. It seems that at the first sign of trouble, or lack of agreement, someone bolts. The wheels are set in motion to separate or, if you have a good enough “excuse”, you might even apply for an annulment.

Another marriage bites the dust, the former husband and wife are soon out hitting the singles scene and the whole merry-go-round starts all over again.

And then they lecture people who live together about commitment.

[email protected]