I started blogging in February 2003 and have made it habit to blog almost everyday. This page is where I note down my thoughts, opinions and critique of almost everything. Please note that this is an adult blog and would require the reader to be thick-skinned. Oh, and some of the stuff here may be gay related so proceed at your own risk. No refund given for offence taken.
...thrills, spills & flatliners
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
WEBLOGS I READ
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Same-sex marriages have finally become a reality in California on Monday. Two solemnisations were the focus of media attention, but the one that moved me most was that of octogenarian lesbian couple Phyllis Lyon (83) and Del Martin (87) in San Francisco.
They met and fell in love five decades ago when being seen as queer was dangerous and holding hands in public was unthinkable. What a journey it must have been for them: from forming the Daughters of Bilitis, considered the first lesbian rights group in the United States, to witnessing the gay liberation movement that transformed the city and now this, marriage.
What a sight it must have been: Phyllis Lyon pushing Del Martin in a wheelchair into the office of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom who had the honour of marrying them (again).
This is actually the second time Mayor Newsom married them. The first was in 2004 after the mayor ordered that marriage licenses be given to same-sex couples who requested them. They were however nullified by the California Supreme Court on 12 August 2004. In May this year, the same court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and this set the stage for Monday's celebration.
What remains unknown is whether Californian voters will overturn the court's decision in November's election. I hope not. In Phyllis' words after the August 2004 nullification, "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time."
This one is set in Decatur Georgia where a school brings together American children and those of refugees from 40 or so war-torn countries and works darn hard to educate them. The cultural exposure that all of them get and the friendships they develop are nothing short of amazing.
All this in a formerly white-only suburb that was historically one of the bastions of the Ku Klux Klan.
A lot of these kids have seen or experienced things that no kids should ever have to go through. And this brings more challenges to the ever patient teachers who have to coax and comfort them. And I guess it helps that some of the staff also had first hand experiences of living as refugees or escaping war situations, like for example the lunchroom lady from Srebrenica who was driven from the town during the Serbian massacre of some 8,000 Bosnian men and boys.
Do read the story and watch the video of Dante Ramirez, a white American boy and his Burmese refugee friend Soung Oo Hlaing.
I guess this is one of the things that still make America a beacon of tolerance and diversity despite many current evidences to the contrary. Yes, it is still capable of opening its heart and arms in an amazing way.
My friend brought my attention to two rather interesting things to read on the web today.
One is an article in the New York Times about how the conservative evangelical churches and lobby group in the US seem to be changing directions. Among some of the reasons put forward is the retirement or passing on of the politically inclined leaders like Falwell and Dobson, while at the same time the evangelical congregants have grown tired of the endless political tirade of their spiritual leaders at the expense of their personal faith and growth.
...In the past, Hybels has scrupulously avoided criticizing conservative Christian political figures like Falwell or Dobson. But in my talk with him, he argued that the leaders of the conservative Christian political movement had lost touch with their base. "The Indians are saying to the chiefs, 'We are interested in more than your two or three issues,' " Hybels said. "We are interested in the poor, in racial reconciliation, in global poverty and AIDS, in the plight of women in the developing world"...
..."I thought in my enthusiasm," he (Rev. Gene Carlson) told me with a smile, "that somehow we could band together and change things politically and everything will be fine." But the closing of Dr. Tiller's clinic was fleeting. Electing Christian politicians never seemed to change much. "When you mix politics and religion," Carlson said, "you get politics."
In more recent battles, Carlson has hung back. On the Sunday before the referendum on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Carlson reminded his congregation that homosexuality was hardly the only form of sex the Bible condemned. Any extramarital sex is a sin, he told his congregation, so they should not point fingers.
"We wouldn't want to exclude some group because we thought their sin was worse than ours," Carlson told me with a laugh...
It's a pretty long article, but worth the read to get a sense of how the religious-political landscape of the US is changing. And though some might argue otherwise, it also has possible political ramifications in Singapore considering how some churches here seem to be aping the political stance of their co-religionists in the US.
Another article (or rather a blog post) I read is this "Reverse Redacting Thio Li Ann" which attempts to draw parallels between her speech in parliament and her article in the Straits Times with "The Homosexual Rights Agenda: Reframing the Debate" published on "The Road to Emmaus: A School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics".
Pretty interesting I must say. I think it helps people see where she is coming from and where she gets (or who she shares) some of her ideas (with).
Which brings to mind what I wrote about her in my post dated 19 January 2007:
..."There're a whole myriad of factors, from the treatment of maids to education issues, to political liberalisation, free speech issues, human rights and women's rights."
Promote human and women's rights but deny equal treatment to gays and lesbians? How schizophrenic is that. Or has reactionary and conservative religion contaminated her more progressive and liberal views towards such basic rights as equality of everyone regardless of sex, age, race, sexuality, religion, economic class, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if she'll use this new platform to sprout and pursue her homophobic agenda. Or maybe that was the PAP's idea when they selected her as a new NMP. Then again, those who make the loudest noise usually have something to hide. Remember the former Pastor Ted Haggard from the Nov 2006 scandal?...
Thank god for people like NMP Siew Kum Hong and the PAP MPs who spoke up against the retention of 377a. At least there's some people in the house who could speak in opposition to her.
I don't know, but maybe I might have been wrong about it being PAP's idea to have her chosen as an NMP because of her homophobia. Then again, that was pure speculation on my part.
The quagmire he predicted in '94 is the reality now. All that he said would happen have happened. So why did Dick the VP forgot what he said as Dick the former secretary of defence? Amnesia brought on by advancing years?
Iraq has always been the Balkans of the middle-east. It was a quagmire for the Ottoman Turks, then the UK and now, the US. And I doubt America can quit it within the foreseeable future. I guess very soon, they will have to bring back the draft to get more troops into Iraq and to support future operations in hot spots that may spring up suddenly in the rest of the world.
Well, the Democrats have gotten the majority in the House of Representatives and are on the way to taking over the Senate if their slim lead in Virginia is confirmed.
So what does this mean? The country is obviously not too happy with the way Republicans have been leading the country (both domestically and externally) and the first casualty is Donald Rumsfeld who resigned yesterday.
As I am not an American, what I am concern about is their foreign policy; especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The question everyone will now ask is whether the Americans will stay put in Iraq or will they take the first plane out.
The way I see it, a withdrawal is impossible at the moment. The mess created there is almost impossible to sort out within a short period of time and there is no way for them to get out without having Iraq sinking deeper into chaos.
This is a quagmire that no one, not even the democrats can pull out of. More troops may have to be committed and more of them as well as ordinary Iraqis will have to die on a daily basis. Even a change in the presidency cannot reverse whatever has happened.
Of course if they do pull out, no more Americans will have to die. But if they do that, then the whole country will become a hellhole where hundreds of thousands more Iraqis will die. And in the end, become a black hole that will pull the US and the rest of the world in.
I think the Democrats are in a "damn if you do and damn if you don't" situation with regards to Iraq. I can't see how they are going to change things there and hopefully extricate the US while leaving a thriving democracy and peaceful country in its place. This is a problem that will need more than the leadership of both parties working in concert to solve. It may even require the complete cooperation and assistance of the international community.
Then again, that may not cut it either. If the US and the rest of the world haven't been able to solve the Israel-Palestine issue until now, what makes us so sure that they will be able to solve the new problem of Iraq?
Much as I do not want to say this, regardless of the fact that Saddam is a megalomaniacal dictator and mass-murderer, his iron fist was the thing that held the country together; no doubt at great cost to the Iraqis. But like the former Yugoslavia, after the iron fist is gone, the country fragments into a literally bloody mess that gets worse on a daily basis.
So does the resignation of Rumsfeld help? Nope. A new secretary of defence in the person of former CIA director Robert Gates may bring about a new direction, but I strongly doubt it will help much.
I hope I am wrong. I do hope that the US can solve the Iraq question and exit gracefully. And at the same time, bring new focus and direction to solving the long-running Israel-Palestine issue. If not, the new president after Bush's term ends in 2008 is going to have his or her (if Hilary gets the vote) hands full. And let's not forget about the nuclear ambition of Iran and North Korea as well as any new international shit that hits the fan in future.
But you know, regardless of which ever party wins, I think things are not going to change that much. I mean both of them are practically alike that they could be Siamese twins with slightly different temperament and perspective. The only hope may lie in the formation of a credible alternative third party. Ralph Nader, where are you? Even so, the Middle-East may still be beyond him.
Don't celebrate too much yet Dems, you've got a hell of a job ahead of you; a job that may even cost you the presidency and both houses of Congress when elections come round again.
Good luck boys. The ball is in your court. Play it well or you may lose the serve.
I had read this from an old Djimon Hounsou interview (February 26 1998) about his role in Amistad some years back that was quite disturbing. But unfortunately, I didn't bookmark it and promptly lost it. Luckily for me, I just found it again. It talks about the present migration patterns of sharks in the Atlantic was altered because of these slaver ships in the 1800s.
...There are things that I learned in shooting this film that we didn't tell, like how the migration patterns of sharks in that part of the Atlantic, the ones that still exist today, began as a result of slavers throwing slaves overboard because they'd run out of food or were being chased. We didn't show this because we didn't think people would believe it... - Djimon Hounsou
SINGAPORE (AFP) - Singapore has inflicted enormous damage to its reputation because of its reluctance to admit 27 activists accredited for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings, bank president Paul Wolfowitz has said.
"Enormous damage has been done... A lot of that damage has been to Singapore and it's self-inflicted," Wolfowitz said at a meeting with non-governmental organizations.
Singapore said it had security concerns about 27 of the hundreds of activists whom the World Bank and International Monetary Fund had already accredited to attend the institutions' meetings in Singapore as part of a formal dialogue.
"I would certainly argue that at the stage of success they've reached they'd be much better for themselves if they (took) a more visionary approach to the process," Wolfowitz said, adding that he raised the issue in a Thursday night meeting with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong .
"Last night the prime minister said that based on Bank and Fund vouching for these people that they would look at each case individually and open the door to let them in. I hope that will happen expeditiously and completely and we're waiting for further developments," Wolfowitz told an earlier news conference.
Since independence in 1965, Singapore has grown from a Third World country to an Asian economic powerhouse.
See lah. How like that? Was an agreement made three years ago breached? Was there any agreement to allow these accredited CSO and NGO to attend and demonstrate made in the first place?
But I also understand our government's predicament (not that I necessary agree with it) in this situation. If they allow this, they will be setting a precedent. And in that case, it would be easier for Singaporeans to publicly (and peacefully) demonstrate their discontent or grievances in future. If they clamp down on that, it will reflect badly on them. After all, if they allow it during the IMF/World Bank meeting, they would be guilty of double-standards if they disallow their citizens from doing so.
But in any case, I find it a bit extreme that they view such things in an extreme manner. To them, all public demonstrations will result in violence and damage. But is that always the case? It may seem so in the media because such drama makes for better news while most of the peaceful ones are ignored.
In this respect, I think some of these demonstrators may have to take the blame for that. Once you up the drama factor, the news organisations will start to ignore the peaceful ones because of their lack of violence and damage. And to compete for media attention, other groups will soon emulate their examples and go for the full Monty Korean-style demo to attract the journalists' attention so as to get their message across. Where does one draw the line?
But having said all that, there are still a lot of demonstrations and protest which are very peaceful by nature. Look at the Hong Kong example. Remember when they marched peacefully together to demonstrate for more democracy? That was admirable and we can strive for that. Demonstrations do not automatically have to sink to a violent form. After all, that does more damage than good to their cause.
Bush and Olmert are playing a very dangerous game. The longer Bush waits to respond and stop Israel's attack on Lebanon, the more intractable the conflict will become.
Death toll so far: 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians.
Now Bush wants to wait a week for Israel to finish its "job" of "degrading" Hezbollah position before sending Rice in. By then, it might be too late. By then World War III may have already started. I have a feeling that if it goes on for too long, Iran and Syria will join in the fray and then the rest will get dragged in as well.
I have said repeatedly that Bush is a dangerous man to have as the president of the US. He is not cut out for the international/foreign affairs aspect of the role and he will end up making a mess of everything. Just like now.
Anyway, the US has lost whatever "moral authority" they may have had before. No one will buy whatever they say. Their opinions are worth the same as every other country. Their only "authority" left is force and armed might.
Then again, everyone involved in this are villains: Hezbollah, Israel, some of the neighbouring countries, the US and the paralysed international community. There are no good guys. Well, the only innocent parties are the ordinary non-Hezbollah Lebanese and foreigners in Lebanon (both Muslims and Christians) as well as Haifans who are caught like ducks in a cross fire.
CURRENT
TOP
