Amici Forever, supported by Cello Diva
Sydney Opera House Concert Hall (22nd Feb, 2006)
The tickets were a Christmas present to my mum. I expected my dad to go with her but recently he's been incapable of sitting still for more than 10 minutes at a time so I ended up taking his place.
The support act began promptly at 8pm. Cello Diva consisted of a female cellist and a male pianist who bantered amusingly throughout their set (even stopping to take a picture with the crowd for the grand 'playing at the Opera House' occasion). The playlist consisted of recognisable classical, folk and easy listening tunes, which pleased most of the crowd, though the duo were probably better suited to a more intimate venue as the instrument + accompaniment sounded a bit thin from U row (in the dress circle), where we were sitting. Unfortunately there was a 30 minute break between the support and Amici Forever. After mum and I had trudged up so far, so deep into the rafters it seemed a waste to try and battle our way out again (plus we didn't know how long the intermission was) and we had no reason to leave our seats.
I wasn't sure what to expect. Amici is one band that seems to have jumped on the popera bandwagon started by young Charlotte Church and populated by the likes of Il Divo, Patrizio ('The Italian'), Anthony Callea and even Katie Noonan. I liked their debut album 'The Opera Band' but not being classically trained, wasn't sure where it stood in the credibility stakes. That said, they all sung beautifully and, most importantly, with passion so I'm happy to say that my $90 per ticket was well spent.
The set list was a mix of all their albums; opera, musicals, anthems and mainstream ballads, which sounds rather predictable, but they mixed it up with fantastic ensemble work, taking turns to lead and providing interesting backing vocals and harmonies when not. It is also important to note that they can't dance to their vocals, largely because the songs don't have the right tempo, but also because of the lung work needed to hit the high notes. Instead the visual element is cleverly choreographed by fluid movement between the four of them, almost in a walking dance. It also helps that the two sopranos are stunning, highlighted by their glamorous wardrobe and the boys aren't bad-looking either.
My favourite part was when they sat on stools and each sung a personal song not on any of their albums, which we were told is a regular part of their live performances. It was great to hear each of their voices solo but, much more than that, it reinforced my view of their passion in an appropriately vocal manner. Most touching was Geoff's rendition of 'My Way' after he explained that he was going to spend some time with his recently diagnosed autistic daughter but also recounted a story about an incident eight years ago when, as an investment banker, everyone laughed at him when he claimed he was one day going to sing at the Opera House.
All in all a positive opera experience - rich but without the decadence that can often make opera boring. Not too much pandering to plebs but not too high falutin either.
*** 1/2 - a balanced performance brimming with confidence and dedication
28 February, 2006
25 February, 2006
Instructions
There should be a device for tech savvy people where you can load instruction manuals and recall them at will. This would rid the world of the piles of paper that goes into instruction manuals (many in six different languages, wasting even more paper) and also be a saviour for people who tend to lose instruction manuals.
I notice that a lot of products now have "quick start" guides when you buy the product and then have more detailed instructions on a CD or online, which is a start. I reckon it would be great if we could have all the instruction manuals in one place without having to save them on our computers, maybe a handheld device like the e-books that have just been trialled. The e-book-like device should enable you to load all your instruction manuals into it via your computer (CD or website) or at the point of sale. Then, when you need to look at the instructions for any device in your possession, you'll know where to find the manual.
I notice that a lot of products now have "quick start" guides when you buy the product and then have more detailed instructions on a CD or online, which is a start. I reckon it would be great if we could have all the instruction manuals in one place without having to save them on our computers, maybe a handheld device like the e-books that have just been trialled. The e-book-like device should enable you to load all your instruction manuals into it via your computer (CD or website) or at the point of sale. Then, when you need to look at the instructions for any device in your possession, you'll know where to find the manual.
24 February, 2006
Multiculturalism in Australia
In a lunge for publicity Liberal MP Peter Costello has come out with this:
"There are countries that apply religious or sharia law - Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind," Mr Costello told the Sydney Institute. "If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia."
"Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don't come to Australia."
Fair 'nuff. Sounds good, even to a leftie like me. However, on the same topic he criticised the view that "[attaining Australian] citizenship did not mean having to give up culture or language or religion or opinions or love of their native country" as "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism". Hmm.
When a migrant comes to a country - any country, not just Australia - it follows that they accept the laws of that country and the consequences that breaking those laws entail. A recent example is the objections over death sentences of Australian drug traffickers abroad the past few months that tend to skim over the fact that it is clearly stated (in English) on immigration cards and airport signage that there are harsh consequences for drug trafficking in countries like Singapore and Indonesia. Whether or not you believe in the death penalty is irrelevant to your understanding of what could happen if you committed certain crimes.
Culture is another thing altogether and is often closely linked to religion. I have a couple of friends from Hindu families who don't necessarily believe in the Hindu gods but attend ceremonies which are synonymous with Indian culture. Another is Muslim and doesn't eat pig or drink alcohol but doesn't wear a burqa either. My own family practises a lot of Chinese customs. At the recent Chinese New Year celebrations, Dixon Street played audience to the traditional lion dance which included firecrackers being let off in the open, which is not usually allowed so close to the public. Exception is made for Muslims and Sikhs who are allowed to wear headdresses at school and at work which might otherwise contravene dress codes. I would say that Australia is a pretty tolerant country with no reasonable cultural exception denied.
Religion is tolerated to the extent that it does not contravene law, for example, religious practices such as "an eye for an eye" cannot be enacted as it is illegal; Australia does not practice corporal punishment. In a country like Australia, where the law is separate from religion, every person is bound by the law. Whether or not you choose to be bound by a religion as well is up to you, but you must obey the laws of the country first and foremost - it is the agreement you intrinsically make for remaining free in this country.
Language is important. While I'd emphasise that migrants learn to speak English, it is also important that they retain their native tongue as being bilingual is a real skill in a country that doesn't actively encourage the acquisition of another language. This helps with trade, tourism and indirect linguistic education. Opinions, well in a country that supports free speech, everyone is entitled to those. Love of a native country is only natural for some people but it would be foolish to think that affinity with another country would diminish their dedication to Australia. It's like being able to love your parents and love your spouse at the same time.
So, for Costello to suggest that retaining culture, religion, language, opinions and love of a native country is "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism" is a unfortunate choice of words. Diversity is what makes a society dynamic, it's what educates us to other worlds. Meeting someone from another country is usually an interesting experience, especially if they've retained some of the customs of their country that enables us to see how things are done elsewhere. From that we have the opportunity to take on board methods and behaviour or observe how an Australian upbringing might just be the best way to go.
Yes, new migrants should observe Australian law and consider whether coming here suits their way of life. But they must also be encouraged to retain their culture so we can learn and become a richer society. Law is not culture, Mr Costello. Never get them confused again.
"Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don't come to Australia."
Fair 'nuff. Sounds good, even to a leftie like me. However, on the same topic he criticised the view that "[attaining Australian] citizenship did not mean having to give up culture or language or religion or opinions or love of their native country" as "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism". Hmm.
When a migrant comes to a country - any country, not just Australia - it follows that they accept the laws of that country and the consequences that breaking those laws entail. A recent example is the objections over death sentences of Australian drug traffickers abroad the past few months that tend to skim over the fact that it is clearly stated (in English) on immigration cards and airport signage that there are harsh consequences for drug trafficking in countries like Singapore and Indonesia. Whether or not you believe in the death penalty is irrelevant to your understanding of what could happen if you committed certain crimes.
Culture is another thing altogether and is often closely linked to religion. I have a couple of friends from Hindu families who don't necessarily believe in the Hindu gods but attend ceremonies which are synonymous with Indian culture. Another is Muslim and doesn't eat pig or drink alcohol but doesn't wear a burqa either. My own family practises a lot of Chinese customs. At the recent Chinese New Year celebrations, Dixon Street played audience to the traditional lion dance which included firecrackers being let off in the open, which is not usually allowed so close to the public. Exception is made for Muslims and Sikhs who are allowed to wear headdresses at school and at work which might otherwise contravene dress codes. I would say that Australia is a pretty tolerant country with no reasonable cultural exception denied.
Religion is tolerated to the extent that it does not contravene law, for example, religious practices such as "an eye for an eye" cannot be enacted as it is illegal; Australia does not practice corporal punishment. In a country like Australia, where the law is separate from religion, every person is bound by the law. Whether or not you choose to be bound by a religion as well is up to you, but you must obey the laws of the country first and foremost - it is the agreement you intrinsically make for remaining free in this country.
Language is important. While I'd emphasise that migrants learn to speak English, it is also important that they retain their native tongue as being bilingual is a real skill in a country that doesn't actively encourage the acquisition of another language. This helps with trade, tourism and indirect linguistic education. Opinions, well in a country that supports free speech, everyone is entitled to those. Love of a native country is only natural for some people but it would be foolish to think that affinity with another country would diminish their dedication to Australia. It's like being able to love your parents and love your spouse at the same time.
So, for Costello to suggest that retaining culture, religion, language, opinions and love of a native country is "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism" is a unfortunate choice of words. Diversity is what makes a society dynamic, it's what educates us to other worlds. Meeting someone from another country is usually an interesting experience, especially if they've retained some of the customs of their country that enables us to see how things are done elsewhere. From that we have the opportunity to take on board methods and behaviour or observe how an Australian upbringing might just be the best way to go.
Yes, new migrants should observe Australian law and consider whether coming here suits their way of life. But they must also be encouraged to retain their culture so we can learn and become a richer society. Law is not culture, Mr Costello. Never get them confused again.
16 February, 2006
Abort embryo? Retry? Fail?
Well, the debate on RU486 has become more than a political bunfight (which reminds me of a rather funny remark my history teacher once made "'2nd Mess War' stands for the second Messinian war, not a bunfight in the syssition"). I just want to start by defining the issue, which is whether the Minister for Health (currently Tony Abbott but extending to future MPs) should be able to override decisions made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). An MP is elected by members of the voting public, though his/her portfolio is assigned by the Prime Minister and the TGA is a government body consisting of a number of health professionals who assess and regulate the availability of products for use by the general public.
Hmm, MP and TGA. One of these has medical qualifications, the other has a political agenda. I really don't see how an MP should suddenly be able to override a body like the TGA, which has been set up precisely to monitor the administration of therapeutic goods and deal with its availability to the Australia public. The TGA are specialists in their field, an MP is a specialist in theirs - politicising. If we see politics over health, or even just expertise, then we are in danger of becoming slaves to agenda, which makes us no better than the sheep than the government thinks we are. (I, for one, will not stand for it... etc etc).
The issue has been taken further with the drug in question, RU486, which can be used for abortion among other things. The other things being treatment of Cushing's syndrome, endometriosis and a number of cancers (thanks Wikipedia). Abortion is a touchy issue all around the world. For the record, I am both pro-choice and pro-life. Very Trainspotting - Choose Life. Let me explain; I believe that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body and that she must be able to accept the consequences of her choice. Bringing a child into the world is no easy task, not just physically but mentally and emotionally and these aspects must be considered when a woman is pregnant. Of course the best case scenario is that the woman chooses to become a mother, whether she is to raise the child or pursue options such as adoption. Sometimes her choices lead her to conclude that her pregnancy is better terminated.
The biggest problem with the pro-life movement is that they do not take into account different circumstances, they believe in birth in any situation. Pro-choice campaigners are much more liberal, they do not say all embryos must die, rather they present options for the pregnant woman. That's what choice is, opportunity to decide. I wish that every choice would result in a pro-life decision, but I also understand that not all women feel capable of bringing a child into the world and respect her decision if she chooses otherwise. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion and pro-life shouldn't be about anti-abortion - after all, you are also taking to account the life of the pregnant woman. Presented correctly, both should be about informed decisions and the ability to pursue options.
Nobody should be allowed to bully a pregnant woman into a decision about her body; it is her body. And I must say that this has a lot to do with the 'pregnant body as public' conundrum. I mean, have you ever seen strangers stop a pregnant woman in the street to fondle her belly? People at parties tut-tutting about what Ms Pregnant is or isn't eating/drinking? Since when did being pregnant give anyone the right to invade a private body? Denying choice that could be available is well, fascism, really. And if you want to include the availability of RU486 in an abortion context, then essentially disallowing RU486 is just narrowing the choices available.
One point that poiliticians seem to be skimming over is that women are sentient beings who are fully capable of deciding for themselves. Just because RU486 is available doesn't mean there's going to be any more unwanted pregnancies. Having sex is a health risk. Getting pregnant is a health risk. Giving birth is a health risk. Terminating a pregnancy is a health risk. The onus should fall back on basic health education; ie "one of the consequences of sex is pregnancy and if you don't want to get pregnant have you considered contraception? abstinence?" If abortion is required, then unbiased information should be provided about the health risks of termination, whether termination takes place surgically or medically (RU486). The sooner as we all know and understand the risks, the sooner we'll realise that education beats politics hands down.
Now, get out of this abortion debate and see the RU486 issue for what it really is - a politician looking for power over the TGA.
Hmm, MP and TGA. One of these has medical qualifications, the other has a political agenda. I really don't see how an MP should suddenly be able to override a body like the TGA, which has been set up precisely to monitor the administration of therapeutic goods and deal with its availability to the Australia public. The TGA are specialists in their field, an MP is a specialist in theirs - politicising. If we see politics over health, or even just expertise, then we are in danger of becoming slaves to agenda, which makes us no better than the sheep than the government thinks we are. (I, for one, will not stand for it... etc etc).
The issue has been taken further with the drug in question, RU486, which can be used for abortion among other things. The other things being treatment of Cushing's syndrome, endometriosis and a number of cancers (thanks Wikipedia). Abortion is a touchy issue all around the world. For the record, I am both pro-choice and pro-life. Very Trainspotting - Choose Life. Let me explain; I believe that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body and that she must be able to accept the consequences of her choice. Bringing a child into the world is no easy task, not just physically but mentally and emotionally and these aspects must be considered when a woman is pregnant. Of course the best case scenario is that the woman chooses to become a mother, whether she is to raise the child or pursue options such as adoption. Sometimes her choices lead her to conclude that her pregnancy is better terminated.
The biggest problem with the pro-life movement is that they do not take into account different circumstances, they believe in birth in any situation. Pro-choice campaigners are much more liberal, they do not say all embryos must die, rather they present options for the pregnant woman. That's what choice is, opportunity to decide. I wish that every choice would result in a pro-life decision, but I also understand that not all women feel capable of bringing a child into the world and respect her decision if she chooses otherwise. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion and pro-life shouldn't be about anti-abortion - after all, you are also taking to account the life of the pregnant woman. Presented correctly, both should be about informed decisions and the ability to pursue options.
Nobody should be allowed to bully a pregnant woman into a decision about her body; it is her body. And I must say that this has a lot to do with the 'pregnant body as public' conundrum. I mean, have you ever seen strangers stop a pregnant woman in the street to fondle her belly? People at parties tut-tutting about what Ms Pregnant is or isn't eating/drinking? Since when did being pregnant give anyone the right to invade a private body? Denying choice that could be available is well, fascism, really. And if you want to include the availability of RU486 in an abortion context, then essentially disallowing RU486 is just narrowing the choices available.
One point that poiliticians seem to be skimming over is that women are sentient beings who are fully capable of deciding for themselves. Just because RU486 is available doesn't mean there's going to be any more unwanted pregnancies. Having sex is a health risk. Getting pregnant is a health risk. Giving birth is a health risk. Terminating a pregnancy is a health risk. The onus should fall back on basic health education; ie "one of the consequences of sex is pregnancy and if you don't want to get pregnant have you considered contraception? abstinence?" If abortion is required, then unbiased information should be provided about the health risks of termination, whether termination takes place surgically or medically (RU486). The sooner as we all know and understand the risks, the sooner we'll realise that education beats politics hands down.
Now, get out of this abortion debate and see the RU486 issue for what it really is - a politician looking for power over the TGA.
13 February, 2006
Audience Prerequisites
At every large venue, including stadiums, theatres and auditoriums - but especially stadiums - there should be sections reserved for people who:
- are under a certain height and girth
- do not wear large headgear
- do not disrupt other audience members with incessant babble
- promise not to leave their seat too often (for beer or bathroom)
- do not obstruct the view in general
Then, and only then, will I be able to watch the cricket in comfort. Mexican waves are okay.
11 February, 2006
Brokeback Mountain (film)
A lot has been written about this film already, mostly due to its controversial content involving two cowboys in a homosexual relationship. However, the film itself is quite another thing to behold not least because it is well-executed and the story arc engages for the entire movie.
In a nutshell: Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist meet one summer, protecting a flock of sheep on Brokeback Mountain, Wyoming. During this period they develop both a physical and emotional affection for each other and then go their separate ways. Ennis marries his sweetheart Alma and has two daughters, Jack marries Lureen and has a son. When Jack drops in on Ennis four years later their relationship is reignited to the detriment of Ennis' and Alma's marriage. They dream about living together but face the cruel reality of a conservative society.
What's outstanding about this film is how the characters interact, bringing to the movie a reality I never thought possible of a 'gay cowboy flick'. Jake Gyllenhall's energetic Jack foils well against Heath Ledger's reticent Ennis and it is the tension between these two that foreground the film not as a 'gay cowboy flick' but as a movie about men and love. Ennis' marriage to Alma is not loveless, but it is made with a love more dutiful than his feelings for Jack. It is her intolerance for this dispassion that leads to divorce rather than solely his affair with Jack; Ennis and Jack's relationship only highlights for Alma what she doesn't have with him. His inhibited relationship with his daughters further illustrates his emotional impotence and even suggests that it is because of his familiarity with male-female relationships that he treats them reservedly.
Jack is a more open character seeming to take love as it comes, which suits his wife Lureen's nonchalance. She is her father's daughter and Jack and Mr Newsome compete not for her affection but dominance. It is Jack's frustration with Ennis' lack of availability (both emotionally and distance-wise) that leads him to seek physical relief elsewhere. His sexual liaisons with other men are not presented as a slight on Ennis but rather Jack's emotion for him overflowing. It is not always clear why Jack loves Ennis so much. Ennis seems to see Jack as an equal, which means their relationship refreshes him of the drudgery of his everyday life, a life which he refuses to change. I think Ennis is the first person who has accepted Jack as he is, unlike his own family and Lureen's family, which is why Ennis remains important, a touchstone to Jack who seeks him for reassurance.
The backdrop of Brokeback Mountain is also a character that cannot be discounted. The vast wilderness is both secretive and unforgiving and illustrates plainly the initial loneliness of the two men when they first meet. Later it comes to represent a certain stability where they return to renew their intimacy. The cinematography and the rich colours of the scenery make this a beautiful film aesthetically while the content provides a subtle depth.
I think it is fair to say that neither character is really actually gay. They love and they love each other and yes there's sex but interestingly there seems to be more intimacy than sex. More than ever I believe their relationship says a lot about loving a person rather than a gender. Two men? Two people who are faced with the impossible task of celebrating their love without jeopardising their safety.
One other remarkable thing is the pace of the film, which is slow but not boring. It's interesting to see Ang Lee, who is a recognised action director (think Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hulk), pare back the scenes and reign in the pace while retaining the tension for more than two hours. In fact, the movie is as slow as it can possibly be without being tedious and that's admirable. The sparseness of the scenes bring forward the power of each moment, whether it's an experience of loneliness, need, desire, love or conflict. Not sure if Ledger deserves an Oscar - while his performance is good it works well within the cast ensemble. A special mention to Anne Hathaway who leaves her cutesy teen roles for a perfect, passive Lureen.
I can't believe how beautiful this movie is. If you can leave your prejudices at the box office then you'll see this movie not as a mere 'gay cowboy flick' but, dare I say it, a masterpiece in film-making.
***** - five f*cking stars, I kid you not
In a nutshell: Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist meet one summer, protecting a flock of sheep on Brokeback Mountain, Wyoming. During this period they develop both a physical and emotional affection for each other and then go their separate ways. Ennis marries his sweetheart Alma and has two daughters, Jack marries Lureen and has a son. When Jack drops in on Ennis four years later their relationship is reignited to the detriment of Ennis' and Alma's marriage. They dream about living together but face the cruel reality of a conservative society.
What's outstanding about this film is how the characters interact, bringing to the movie a reality I never thought possible of a 'gay cowboy flick'. Jake Gyllenhall's energetic Jack foils well against Heath Ledger's reticent Ennis and it is the tension between these two that foreground the film not as a 'gay cowboy flick' but as a movie about men and love. Ennis' marriage to Alma is not loveless, but it is made with a love more dutiful than his feelings for Jack. It is her intolerance for this dispassion that leads to divorce rather than solely his affair with Jack; Ennis and Jack's relationship only highlights for Alma what she doesn't have with him. His inhibited relationship with his daughters further illustrates his emotional impotence and even suggests that it is because of his familiarity with male-female relationships that he treats them reservedly.
Jack is a more open character seeming to take love as it comes, which suits his wife Lureen's nonchalance. She is her father's daughter and Jack and Mr Newsome compete not for her affection but dominance. It is Jack's frustration with Ennis' lack of availability (both emotionally and distance-wise) that leads him to seek physical relief elsewhere. His sexual liaisons with other men are not presented as a slight on Ennis but rather Jack's emotion for him overflowing. It is not always clear why Jack loves Ennis so much. Ennis seems to see Jack as an equal, which means their relationship refreshes him of the drudgery of his everyday life, a life which he refuses to change. I think Ennis is the first person who has accepted Jack as he is, unlike his own family and Lureen's family, which is why Ennis remains important, a touchstone to Jack who seeks him for reassurance.
The backdrop of Brokeback Mountain is also a character that cannot be discounted. The vast wilderness is both secretive and unforgiving and illustrates plainly the initial loneliness of the two men when they first meet. Later it comes to represent a certain stability where they return to renew their intimacy. The cinematography and the rich colours of the scenery make this a beautiful film aesthetically while the content provides a subtle depth.
I think it is fair to say that neither character is really actually gay. They love and they love each other and yes there's sex but interestingly there seems to be more intimacy than sex. More than ever I believe their relationship says a lot about loving a person rather than a gender. Two men? Two people who are faced with the impossible task of celebrating their love without jeopardising their safety.
One other remarkable thing is the pace of the film, which is slow but not boring. It's interesting to see Ang Lee, who is a recognised action director (think Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hulk), pare back the scenes and reign in the pace while retaining the tension for more than two hours. In fact, the movie is as slow as it can possibly be without being tedious and that's admirable. The sparseness of the scenes bring forward the power of each moment, whether it's an experience of loneliness, need, desire, love or conflict. Not sure if Ledger deserves an Oscar - while his performance is good it works well within the cast ensemble. A special mention to Anne Hathaway who leaves her cutesy teen roles for a perfect, passive Lureen.
I can't believe how beautiful this movie is. If you can leave your prejudices at the box office then you'll see this movie not as a mere 'gay cowboy flick' but, dare I say it, a masterpiece in film-making.
***** - five f*cking stars, I kid you not
08 February, 2006
New Water
The recent discovery of two freshwater lakes in Sydney has split me in two minds. One half is saying 'yay Mother Nature loves us! We're not going to die of thirst!', the other is rather sceptically declaring that we can't possibly look after these new water sources to the tune of doomsday music. So why the negativity?
For starters, despite the average citizen becoming a little more green-minded in the past few years, we still have a long way to go in terms of our resource consumption. The number of times I see reviews of plasma TVs just gives me the shudders because most consumers wouldn't even think to ask how much energy these entertainment beasts consume compared to your average cathode tube or even LCD or DLP technologies. But that's another story. To the average water consumer, the discovery of these lakes effectively gets us 'off the hook' temporarily. This is the last thing I want to happen because we lose the environmental pressure we've built up over the years and we lose momentum with regard to our water saving habits. There are certainly going to be short term-minded people who will resume their water-wasting ways with the belief that the lakes will save us from water shortage.
Secondly, apparently these lakes can sustain us for up to three years if our dams fail us, but they take five years to replenish. Replenish? From where? Wouldn't it be better to go to the source of this replenishment? And how do you know for sure that it can and will replenish? And I hate to point out that there's a two year gap between draining the lakes for our use and its full replenishment. Worst case scenario, we rape this source of water until it is unsustainable, unrenewable.
And finally, there needs to be a careful analysis of the lakes before we take any water from it. No natural water source exists alone; surely these lakes are a part of an ecosystem which needs careful examination before we can step in and claim our 'share' of water. Because even worse than that worst case scenario outlined above (okay, so I lied about it being the 'worst') is that we kill these water sources until it is unsustainable and unrenewable and we take down an entire ecosystem with it. An ecosystem which was probably very happy being hidden from human intervention and let's face it, human greed for resources.
All I can say is be careful, Sydney. You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
For starters, despite the average citizen becoming a little more green-minded in the past few years, we still have a long way to go in terms of our resource consumption. The number of times I see reviews of plasma TVs just gives me the shudders because most consumers wouldn't even think to ask how much energy these entertainment beasts consume compared to your average cathode tube or even LCD or DLP technologies. But that's another story. To the average water consumer, the discovery of these lakes effectively gets us 'off the hook' temporarily. This is the last thing I want to happen because we lose the environmental pressure we've built up over the years and we lose momentum with regard to our water saving habits. There are certainly going to be short term-minded people who will resume their water-wasting ways with the belief that the lakes will save us from water shortage.
Secondly, apparently these lakes can sustain us for up to three years if our dams fail us, but they take five years to replenish. Replenish? From where? Wouldn't it be better to go to the source of this replenishment? And how do you know for sure that it can and will replenish? And I hate to point out that there's a two year gap between draining the lakes for our use and its full replenishment. Worst case scenario, we rape this source of water until it is unsustainable, unrenewable.
And finally, there needs to be a careful analysis of the lakes before we take any water from it. No natural water source exists alone; surely these lakes are a part of an ecosystem which needs careful examination before we can step in and claim our 'share' of water. Because even worse than that worst case scenario outlined above (okay, so I lied about it being the 'worst') is that we kill these water sources until it is unsustainable and unrenewable and we take down an entire ecosystem with it. An ecosystem which was probably very happy being hidden from human intervention and let's face it, human greed for resources.
All I can say is be careful, Sydney. You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
02 February, 2006
Sex Education
When you learn about sex at school I think they should have a booklet available depicting different types of genitalia to give an accurate idea of genital diversity. What you see in the media and even medical textbooks doesn't assuage the general idea that you're not 'normal' when you're probably fine.
(This idea came to me following a visit to the beautician for a brazilian. I kept thinking about how many vaginas this lady must have seen all over the spectrum so she would always be assured that hers was not unusual. Then I started thinking about Sireesha's aunt who is a gynaecologist and Beq who spoke about seeing people's bits while having to do the sponge bath thing as a nurse).
(This idea came to me following a visit to the beautician for a brazilian. I kept thinking about how many vaginas this lady must have seen all over the spectrum so she would always be assured that hers was not unusual. Then I started thinking about Sireesha's aunt who is a gynaecologist and Beq who spoke about seeing people's bits while having to do the sponge bath thing as a nurse).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)