Was watching TV the other day and they were talking about herpes. An incurable sexually transmitted disease and I realised that I couldn't remember any other except for HIV. So I went to Gay Health to check it up and realised that I REALLY have forgotten a number of STDs.
There are a lot of things that you can catch by having sex with someone. Talk about high risk activity. It seems people (both LG and heterosexuals) seem to forget about the other STDs except HIV. HIV has so much 'air-time' in the media all around the world that the other STDs have been almost forgotten.
I find it really scary that there are STDs out there that you can contact just via touch, it is more scary than getting HIV. So any sexual encounter, even if just touching, can transmit some of the STDs, I do believe that herpes is one of them. And herpes in incurable, you live with it for life. Imagine having the fear that you'll pass it to your partner every time you want to get intimate and intimate in this context is not only about sex, even hugging or kissing might be dangerous.
That is why I wonder if the people (heterosexual or gay) know that there are other diseases you can get via causal contact besides HIV and for some of these STDs, condoms is not a barrier. Hopfully they do and are taking all precautions.
This might be a reason why I'm a one man's man. :P
30 June 2006
29 June 2006
Chiam's $80M-request rejected
Am I surprised? Not at all.
As the saying goes, some citizens are more equal than others.
Reference: Good grief!
Today
29 June 2006
CHIAM'S $80M-REQUEST REJECTED
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has rejected Mr Chiam See Tong's request for $80 million in upgrading funds for his Potong Pasir ward.
The Potong Pasir Member of Parliament wrote to Mr Mah last Wednesday asking how he could get access to the funds for improvement works.
But in his reply to Mr Chiam, which was copied to the media, Mr Mah explained that the $80-million upgrading package was proposed by People's Action Party candidate Sitoh Yih Pin as his plan for the constituency if he was elected.
Since the majority of Potong Pasir voters rejected Mr Sitoh and his plan, Mr Mah said the issue of funding no longer arises. He added that as Mr Chiam claimed during the election campaign that his Town Council had enough funds to do lift upgrading for all the blocks over the next five years, he should therefore proceed to do so. - Channel NewsAsia
As the saying goes, some citizens are more equal than others.
Reference: Good grief!
Today
29 June 2006
CHIAM'S $80M-REQUEST REJECTED
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has rejected Mr Chiam See Tong's request for $80 million in upgrading funds for his Potong Pasir ward.
The Potong Pasir Member of Parliament wrote to Mr Mah last Wednesday asking how he could get access to the funds for improvement works.
But in his reply to Mr Chiam, which was copied to the media, Mr Mah explained that the $80-million upgrading package was proposed by People's Action Party candidate Sitoh Yih Pin as his plan for the constituency if he was elected.
Since the majority of Potong Pasir voters rejected Mr Sitoh and his plan, Mr Mah said the issue of funding no longer arises. He added that as Mr Chiam claimed during the election campaign that his Town Council had enough funds to do lift upgrading for all the blocks over the next five years, he should therefore proceed to do so. - Channel NewsAsia
28 June 2006
Problems...
When I woke up this morning, I really wanted to write about the Catholic church and what the world would be like if they were still in power (i.e. controlling the gahmens). I was really excited about it but then I received an email from a close friend of mine telling me about her marital problems.
It was really sad to know about it and my planes to write about the Catholic church was pushed aside and I tried my best to convey my thoughts and support via email.
It is always sad to know that when you friends are having problems, whether money problems, relationship problems, health problem, marriage problems, they all are very sad things. How can you as a friend try to be supportive but not judgmental or critical? It sometimes become even more difficult (if it is a relationship/marriage problem) if you only know one of the parties involved, it becomes doubly difficult if you didn’t like their partners. I don’t know my friend’s husband very well but he’s a nice guy. Friendly and not pretentious. The best part about it, was when I came out to them, he accepted it more easily than she did, but then again maybe it was because she knew me for a longer period.
So I was trying to console her and to tell her that ending the marriage is not an option that should be taken until all avenues to ‘salvage’ the marriage has been exhausted. Not an easy thing to do.
Other than that I can only offer my support in whatever decision she makes and be a 'listening ear' now as she rants and tries to get it out of her system.
God bless her and her husband.
It was really sad to know about it and my planes to write about the Catholic church was pushed aside and I tried my best to convey my thoughts and support via email.
It is always sad to know that when you friends are having problems, whether money problems, relationship problems, health problem, marriage problems, they all are very sad things. How can you as a friend try to be supportive but not judgmental or critical? It sometimes become even more difficult (if it is a relationship/marriage problem) if you only know one of the parties involved, it becomes doubly difficult if you didn’t like their partners. I don’t know my friend’s husband very well but he’s a nice guy. Friendly and not pretentious. The best part about it, was when I came out to them, he accepted it more easily than she did, but then again maybe it was because she knew me for a longer period.
So I was trying to console her and to tell her that ending the marriage is not an option that should be taken until all avenues to ‘salvage’ the marriage has been exhausted. Not an easy thing to do.
Other than that I can only offer my support in whatever decision she makes and be a 'listening ear' now as she rants and tries to get it out of her system.
God bless her and her husband.
24 June 2006
22 June 2006
Condoms proven to protect against virus
This is a wonderful proof. But then again, the religious wrongs will think of other ways to counteract this or use the same old tired 'proofs' that condom usage is not effective.
Condoms proven to protect against virus
By LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 21, 7:28 PM ET
For the first time, scientists have proof that condoms offer women impressive protection against the virus that causes cervical cancer.
A three-year study of female college students "all virgins at the start" found that women whose partners always wore a condom during sex were 70 percent less likely to become infected with the human papilloma virus, or HPV, than those whose partners used protection less than 5 percent of the time.
"That's pretty awesome. There aren't too many times when you can have an intervention that would offer so much protection," said Dr. Patricia Kloser, an infectious-disease specialist at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who was not part of the study.
Condoms have been shown convincingly to prevent pregnancy and AIDS. But conservatives who want to see abstinence
taught in schools have long argued that condoms do not protect well against diseases such as HPV, because men can spread the virus to women from sores on their genitals outside the area covered by a condom.
However, the researchers at the University of Washington found that the chances of HPV being spread that way appear to be small.
Human papilloma virus (which can cause cervical cancer, genital warts and vaginal, vulvar, anal and penile cancers) is the most common sexually transmitted disease, infecting about 80 percent of young women within five years of becoming sexually active. An estimated 630 million people worldwide are infected.
The virus is spread during sex from contact with the sores, or lesions, that develop around infected cells.
Often, the virus is killed by the immune system, but in some people HPV can take hold and cause lesions that can turn cancerous years later. Cervical cancer strikes about 10,520 American women and kills about 3,500 each year. Worldwide, about 500,000 women develop cervical cancer and nearly 300,000 die from it every year.
In the HPV study, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, none of the women who reported that their partners always used condoms developed lesions during the three-year period. Fourteen women whose partners used condoms less regularly got lesions.
Twelve of the 42 women who said their partners always used condoms became infected. Rachel Winer, a researcher in the university's epidemiology department, said it could be that the couples did not use the condoms correctly or had some sexual contact before putting on a condom.
Recent medical advances might someday render the condom debate moot: Earlier this month, the government approved the first vaccine against HPV, and public health officials are urging that girls be routinely vaccinated before they become sexually active.
The study comes as the Food and Drug Administration is revising rules for the claims that manufacturers can make on how well condoms prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
Packages now must state: "If used properly, latex condoms will help to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV infection (AIDS) and many other sexually transmitted diseases." But revisions were ordered by Congress in 2000 amid pressure from conservative groups demanding "medically accurate" claims as to condoms' effectiveness.
Safe-sex advocates warn that changing the wording would undermine public confidence in, and use of, condoms.
At the time, there was solid evidence only on how well condoms prevent pregnancy, HIV and, in men, gonorrhea. Recent research has produced strong evidence condoms protect well against gonorrhea, chlamydia and herpes in both men and women, said Dr. Ward Cates Jr., president of the Institute for Family Health at Family Health International. This study adds HPV to that list, he said.
"This will help clinicians to counsel their patients about the effectiveness of condoms to reduce another of the sexually transmitted infections if condoms are used consistently and correctly," Cates said.
The researchers invited 24,000 female students ages 18 to 22 at the Seattle university to be in the study.Starting in 2001, they followed 82 from before their first vaginal intercourse, testing the women for HPV with swabs of the cervix and other genital areas every four months. The women kept online diaries detailing each act of intercourse, including condom use and whether there was any genital contact without a condom.
Winer said previous HPV studies either showed no protection from condoms or were inconclusive. This one included only virgins and collected more details, and the computer diaries helped women be more honest about condom use than those in studies where people are interviewed about their sexual behavior, she said.
"This is about as ideal a study as you can get," said Dr. Tom Fitch, a San Antonio pediatrician and board chairman at the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which stresses abstinence and monogamy as the only sure ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections.
Nevertheless, Fitch noted that some consistent condom users still were infected with HPV. Fitch and Kloser also suggested that the results in the real world (say, among poor, inner-city women) might be different from those with college women.
Fitch said several studies have shown that at most, 50 percent of people reported using a condom every time they had sex.
Condoms proven to protect against virus
By LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Wed Jun 21, 7:28 PM ET
For the first time, scientists have proof that condoms offer women impressive protection against the virus that causes cervical cancer.
A three-year study of female college students "all virgins at the start" found that women whose partners always wore a condom during sex were 70 percent less likely to become infected with the human papilloma virus, or HPV, than those whose partners used protection less than 5 percent of the time.
"That's pretty awesome. There aren't too many times when you can have an intervention that would offer so much protection," said Dr. Patricia Kloser, an infectious-disease specialist at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who was not part of the study.
Condoms have been shown convincingly to prevent pregnancy and AIDS. But conservatives who want to see abstinence
taught in schools have long argued that condoms do not protect well against diseases such as HPV, because men can spread the virus to women from sores on their genitals outside the area covered by a condom.
However, the researchers at the University of Washington found that the chances of HPV being spread that way appear to be small.
Human papilloma virus (which can cause cervical cancer, genital warts and vaginal, vulvar, anal and penile cancers) is the most common sexually transmitted disease, infecting about 80 percent of young women within five years of becoming sexually active. An estimated 630 million people worldwide are infected.
The virus is spread during sex from contact with the sores, or lesions, that develop around infected cells.
Often, the virus is killed by the immune system, but in some people HPV can take hold and cause lesions that can turn cancerous years later. Cervical cancer strikes about 10,520 American women and kills about 3,500 each year. Worldwide, about 500,000 women develop cervical cancer and nearly 300,000 die from it every year.
In the HPV study, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, none of the women who reported that their partners always used condoms developed lesions during the three-year period. Fourteen women whose partners used condoms less regularly got lesions.
Twelve of the 42 women who said their partners always used condoms became infected. Rachel Winer, a researcher in the university's epidemiology department, said it could be that the couples did not use the condoms correctly or had some sexual contact before putting on a condom.
Recent medical advances might someday render the condom debate moot: Earlier this month, the government approved the first vaccine against HPV, and public health officials are urging that girls be routinely vaccinated before they become sexually active.
The study comes as the Food and Drug Administration is revising rules for the claims that manufacturers can make on how well condoms prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
Packages now must state: "If used properly, latex condoms will help to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV infection (AIDS) and many other sexually transmitted diseases." But revisions were ordered by Congress in 2000 amid pressure from conservative groups demanding "medically accurate" claims as to condoms' effectiveness.
Safe-sex advocates warn that changing the wording would undermine public confidence in, and use of, condoms.
At the time, there was solid evidence only on how well condoms prevent pregnancy, HIV and, in men, gonorrhea. Recent research has produced strong evidence condoms protect well against gonorrhea, chlamydia and herpes in both men and women, said Dr. Ward Cates Jr., president of the Institute for Family Health at Family Health International. This study adds HPV to that list, he said.
"This will help clinicians to counsel their patients about the effectiveness of condoms to reduce another of the sexually transmitted infections if condoms are used consistently and correctly," Cates said.
The researchers invited 24,000 female students ages 18 to 22 at the Seattle university to be in the study.Starting in 2001, they followed 82 from before their first vaginal intercourse, testing the women for HPV with swabs of the cervix and other genital areas every four months. The women kept online diaries detailing each act of intercourse, including condom use and whether there was any genital contact without a condom.
Winer said previous HPV studies either showed no protection from condoms or were inconclusive. This one included only virgins and collected more details, and the computer diaries helped women be more honest about condom use than those in studies where people are interviewed about their sexual behavior, she said.
"This is about as ideal a study as you can get," said Dr. Tom Fitch, a San Antonio pediatrician and board chairman at the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which stresses abstinence and monogamy as the only sure ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections.
Nevertheless, Fitch noted that some consistent condom users still were infected with HPV. Fitch and Kloser also suggested that the results in the real world (say, among poor, inner-city women) might be different from those with college women.
Fitch said several studies have shown that at most, 50 percent of people reported using a condom every time they had sex.
Commitment
I was introduced to The Reader's Eye not long ago. I like his works. It was so inspiring that I thought I'd share one of my works too, the one that I'm most proud. It's amateur poetry, definitely not as good as Gilbert's.
It is a long winding road
Lots of steep slopes and drops
Hand in hand we looked
Towards the endless horizon
“A journey of a thousand miles
Begins with a single step”
We took the first step
And never looked back
It is a long winding road
Lots of steep slopes and drops
Hand in hand we looked
Towards the endless horizon
“A journey of a thousand miles
Begins with a single step”
We took the first step
And never looked back
21 June 2006
Good grief!
Gosh, this statement by our PM is so full of arrogance that I really have no more respect for him and the party he represents. The way he puts it, it's as if the opposition wards pay taxes towards their ward only. Can the people in opposition wards have their tax dollars channelled to their wards? No and yet, our tax dollars is ONLY for the 'PAP'. This is so bad. So many Singaporeans are so unhappy with this policy since it is a common pool of money that we are drawing from. The gahmen just don't get it, do they?
Furthermore, talking about Australia not allowing Singapore Airlines to have flight routes to USA. Is it due to Australian's way of government or the fact that there are other 'national interest' factors? Has he thought of the fact that most countries do not look that economic benefits as the only way to run a country or create policies? A concept that seems to be lost in our gahmen, where economics is the only driving force in the creation of policies, anything to do with individual rights or freedoms or national interest (at the expense of economic gain) would be placed 'on hold' indefinitely.
Why is it the PAP think that they are the best thing for Singapore and the only party that can run it? Why is it they think that if they don't hold majority of the seats in parliament, Singapore is just going to fall from grace. They have this attitude that it is their divine right to govern.
*sigh*
When can Singapore politics mature? We can never be, until the PAP (or the gahmen in general) can accept constrictive criticisms without thinking it is a personal attack and that their word is not the end all and be all. Their attitude is that if you criticise, it means you think you can run the country better and thus, you should form your own party and stand for elections. But that is such an ill conceived notion and I don't know who started that thought. Criticising a policy doesn't mean that we think the gahmen is doing a bad job. It is our opinion and being Singaporean, it is our right to do that. So what is their problem? I really don't get it.
Other comments:
Lee Hsien Loong not impressed by democracy in Australia
Comical Ah Lee
More Comical Ah Lee
I am no Politician, just an Economist
Political Cyanide, Anyone?
------
Today
21 June 2006
'EXCITING' POLITICS NOT ALWAYS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE: PM LEE
----------------------------------------------------------
Loh Chee Kong in Auckland
cheekong@newstoday.com.sg
HIS visit to Australia and New Zealand has reinforced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's belief that the one-party system in Singapore must continue - and the same goes for the policy of placing Opposition-held wards at the end of the lift-upgrading queue.
Over the last nine days, Mr Lee met various leaders from the two countries, including Prime Ministers John Howard (Australia) and Helen Clark (New Zealand), as well as their respective opposition leaders, Mr Kim Beazley and Dr Don Brash.
And after having a more intimate look at their political systems, Mr Lee is convinced that while their no-holds barred arguments make for "more exciting" politics and "compulsively-viewable interviews", they do not necessarily result in more sound policies.
The end-product of rigorous parliamentary debates might not necessarily be for the good of the country, as such "endless debates are seldom about achieving a better grasp of the issue but to score political points", he commented.
Speaking to reporters as he wrapped up his visit, Mr Lee said: "I think when you look at Australia and New Zealand and other countries with two-party systems or parliamentary democracies like us and elections in our politics, you will understand how different and unique the Singapore experience is.
"You look at their politics in Australia between Howard and Beazley. All the time, Howard says something, Beazley says he got it wrong. Beazley says something, (Howard) says: 'You said something different last week or three years ago'.
"So ceaselessly, back and forth, whatever you do, I'll say you've done it wrong. If I can't find some (way) to be different from you, I will look for something else so as to establish my own brand name."
Mr Lee also said that such party politics might lead to policies that are detrimental to the nation. He pointed to the Australian government's decision to deny Singapore Airlines access to the trans-Pacific as an example.
"The National Party (Mr Howard's party's rural-based junior coalition partner) has certain interests - to look after the rural populations, to look after the towns and far-flung outbacks - and one of their interests is to have air services fly to all these places. It's not economical for airlines which provide those air services, (among which) includes Qantas.
"So, when you say you want to open the trans-Pacific route and run an open competition because it is good for Australia, Qantas then says: 'Well, if you do that, we are going to have to cut back on all these non-economic routes. We are doing you a favour, doing national service.'"
But while the system might work for Australia because it is a diverse country with many different interest groups, Singapore's society is more homogeneous, with the Government also having "made sure that all the constituencies are mixed and integrated".
"In Singapore, we have 84 constituencies, but basically they are all more or less the same. You don't have a rural area, a city area. You don't have a very working class area versus a very upmarket area. We have made sure you don't have a Malay area or Indian constituency or Chinese constituency."
Because the People's Action Party (PAP) sees the whole of Singapore as a "natural constituency", it fights for all 84 seats during every election.
But the party's dominance in the political landscape has caused Singaporeans to "lose the perspective that party politics is party politics" - that people vote for a party not just because of national reasons, but because "it benefits himself or his community", said the Prime Minister.
"If we only talk about national interest and put it above party politics, in theory, that is ideal - but in reality, that's impossible," he said. "And that's why you end up having HDB priority (for lift upgrading) and a difference between the PAP and Opposition wards. It's necessary. Without that, the system cannot work.
"Because if we treat everybody the same ... the first thing the Opposition will say and has been saying is: 'It doesn't matter. They'll have to take care of you anyway. Vote for us, you will still have a PAP government' - which was what (Workers' Party candidate) Sylvia Lim said during the elections.
"And that becomes a real problem because if everybody believes that, where are you going to produce that PAP government?"
But what about PAP supporters who stay in Opposition wards?
Said Mr Lee: "We have no choice but to respect the wishes of the majority of the voters. We know that there are PAP supporters in Opposition wards. In PAP wards, there are also Opposition supporters. If you voted for an Opposition MP, you have to depend on him to work for you."
Furthermore, talking about Australia not allowing Singapore Airlines to have flight routes to USA. Is it due to Australian's way of government or the fact that there are other 'national interest' factors? Has he thought of the fact that most countries do not look that economic benefits as the only way to run a country or create policies? A concept that seems to be lost in our gahmen, where economics is the only driving force in the creation of policies, anything to do with individual rights or freedoms or national interest (at the expense of economic gain) would be placed 'on hold' indefinitely.
Why is it the PAP think that they are the best thing for Singapore and the only party that can run it? Why is it they think that if they don't hold majority of the seats in parliament, Singapore is just going to fall from grace. They have this attitude that it is their divine right to govern.
*sigh*
When can Singapore politics mature? We can never be, until the PAP (or the gahmen in general) can accept constrictive criticisms without thinking it is a personal attack and that their word is not the end all and be all. Their attitude is that if you criticise, it means you think you can run the country better and thus, you should form your own party and stand for elections. But that is such an ill conceived notion and I don't know who started that thought. Criticising a policy doesn't mean that we think the gahmen is doing a bad job. It is our opinion and being Singaporean, it is our right to do that. So what is their problem? I really don't get it.
Other comments:
Lee Hsien Loong not impressed by democracy in Australia
Comical Ah Lee
More Comical Ah Lee
I am no Politician, just an Economist
Political Cyanide, Anyone?
------
Today
21 June 2006
'EXCITING' POLITICS NOT ALWAYS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE: PM LEE
----------------------------------------------------------
Loh Chee Kong in Auckland
cheekong@newstoday.com.sg
HIS visit to Australia and New Zealand has reinforced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's belief that the one-party system in Singapore must continue - and the same goes for the policy of placing Opposition-held wards at the end of the lift-upgrading queue.
Over the last nine days, Mr Lee met various leaders from the two countries, including Prime Ministers John Howard (Australia) and Helen Clark (New Zealand), as well as their respective opposition leaders, Mr Kim Beazley and Dr Don Brash.
And after having a more intimate look at their political systems, Mr Lee is convinced that while their no-holds barred arguments make for "more exciting" politics and "compulsively-viewable interviews", they do not necessarily result in more sound policies.
The end-product of rigorous parliamentary debates might not necessarily be for the good of the country, as such "endless debates are seldom about achieving a better grasp of the issue but to score political points", he commented.
Speaking to reporters as he wrapped up his visit, Mr Lee said: "I think when you look at Australia and New Zealand and other countries with two-party systems or parliamentary democracies like us and elections in our politics, you will understand how different and unique the Singapore experience is.
"You look at their politics in Australia between Howard and Beazley. All the time, Howard says something, Beazley says he got it wrong. Beazley says something, (Howard) says: 'You said something different last week or three years ago'.
"So ceaselessly, back and forth, whatever you do, I'll say you've done it wrong. If I can't find some (way) to be different from you, I will look for something else so as to establish my own brand name."
Mr Lee also said that such party politics might lead to policies that are detrimental to the nation. He pointed to the Australian government's decision to deny Singapore Airlines access to the trans-Pacific as an example.
"The National Party (Mr Howard's party's rural-based junior coalition partner) has certain interests - to look after the rural populations, to look after the towns and far-flung outbacks - and one of their interests is to have air services fly to all these places. It's not economical for airlines which provide those air services, (among which) includes Qantas.
"So, when you say you want to open the trans-Pacific route and run an open competition because it is good for Australia, Qantas then says: 'Well, if you do that, we are going to have to cut back on all these non-economic routes. We are doing you a favour, doing national service.'"
But while the system might work for Australia because it is a diverse country with many different interest groups, Singapore's society is more homogeneous, with the Government also having "made sure that all the constituencies are mixed and integrated".
"In Singapore, we have 84 constituencies, but basically they are all more or less the same. You don't have a rural area, a city area. You don't have a very working class area versus a very upmarket area. We have made sure you don't have a Malay area or Indian constituency or Chinese constituency."
Because the People's Action Party (PAP) sees the whole of Singapore as a "natural constituency", it fights for all 84 seats during every election.
But the party's dominance in the political landscape has caused Singaporeans to "lose the perspective that party politics is party politics" - that people vote for a party not just because of national reasons, but because "it benefits himself or his community", said the Prime Minister.
"If we only talk about national interest and put it above party politics, in theory, that is ideal - but in reality, that's impossible," he said. "And that's why you end up having HDB priority (for lift upgrading) and a difference between the PAP and Opposition wards. It's necessary. Without that, the system cannot work.
"Because if we treat everybody the same ... the first thing the Opposition will say and has been saying is: 'It doesn't matter. They'll have to take care of you anyway. Vote for us, you will still have a PAP government' - which was what (Workers' Party candidate) Sylvia Lim said during the elections.
"And that becomes a real problem because if everybody believes that, where are you going to produce that PAP government?"
But what about PAP supporters who stay in Opposition wards?
Said Mr Lee: "We have no choice but to respect the wishes of the majority of the voters. We know that there are PAP supporters in Opposition wards. In PAP wards, there are also Opposition supporters. If you voted for an Opposition MP, you have to depend on him to work for you."
18 June 2006
T has gone/going overseas
Well, T should be at the airport now (Changi Airport that is). He's going overseas for a conference.
It is so weird, even though we are apart, I still feel a pinge of missing him if he's not in Sg.
It is so weird, even though we are apart, I still feel a pinge of missing him if he's not in Sg.
16 June 2006
Counter
This is fun, I've just added a counter to this blog. Not that it really matters, I think that nobody reads it, except T.
15 June 2006
Aching butt
My personal trainer killed my yesterday. He made me do leg press with 100kg! And it was using this machine which was already 30kg (or more) before the weights went on, so I was doing 130kg leg presses, 3 sets too. I couldn't believe it. My legs, especially my butt, was aching after I finished 1 set. It is aching today, and knowing my body, it is REALLY going to be sore tomorrow.
But at least I'll have a great butt. :P
But at least I'll have a great butt. :P
14 June 2006
Marriage vs Civil Unions
I had a discussion with T the other day regarding marriage. He asked (via iChat) why I don't like the phrase gay marriage since I do believe that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
I hate the word marriage. It has been hijacked by the religious wrong people and made it into a supernatural phenomenon. Instead of being a union between 2 loving people, it has become a religious word where only the church can use it. Furthermore, the word marriage has been used, in history, for power and wealth, never (or seldom) love. During that time, it was used to bring powerful or rich families together to make them more powerful or/and rich. It is a word so marred with baggage that I believe that we as a new community should never use it. The heterosexual community can keep it and use it all they want, since they just love baggage.
We should use another phrase and I think civil unions is good. We want the legal rights of heterosexual couples, who the hell cares about the ‘religious rights’ if there is should a thing. If unions are between God and the couple then who are the church leaders to dictate who can or cannot be unified? The Church of Christ is a loving Church, the church of the Vatican (notice Church and church) loves power and hate is a word that comes out from them time and time again. All through history, the church have used marriage as a tool to further its selfish cause with no regards for the individual. The good of the church outweighs the good of the individual. And to think that Jesus treated each individual equally and fairly and never once made any individual to conform. To Jesus, his love for the individual is the same as his love for the whole world. Each is loving and precious in his eyes.
We can understand that, too bad the church is so full of itself to realise it.
Tag: gay
I hate the word marriage. It has been hijacked by the religious wrong people and made it into a supernatural phenomenon. Instead of being a union between 2 loving people, it has become a religious word where only the church can use it. Furthermore, the word marriage has been used, in history, for power and wealth, never (or seldom) love. During that time, it was used to bring powerful or rich families together to make them more powerful or/and rich. It is a word so marred with baggage that I believe that we as a new community should never use it. The heterosexual community can keep it and use it all they want, since they just love baggage.
We should use another phrase and I think civil unions is good. We want the legal rights of heterosexual couples, who the hell cares about the ‘religious rights’ if there is should a thing. If unions are between God and the couple then who are the church leaders to dictate who can or cannot be unified? The Church of Christ is a loving Church, the church of the Vatican (notice Church and church) loves power and hate is a word that comes out from them time and time again. All through history, the church have used marriage as a tool to further its selfish cause with no regards for the individual. The good of the church outweighs the good of the individual. And to think that Jesus treated each individual equally and fairly and never once made any individual to conform. To Jesus, his love for the individual is the same as his love for the whole world. Each is loving and precious in his eyes.
We can understand that, too bad the church is so full of itself to realise it.
Tag: gay
05 June 2006
Lesbian superhero
Wow! Found out that DC comics has brough back batwoman and she's a lesbian. This is wonderful, our first lesbian superhero! Yes, yes, yes.
Our first gay superhero was Northstar.
Batwoman returns. as a lesbian
AP
Monday, June 05, 2006
NEW YORK (AP) - Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.
The 5' 10" superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.
"We decided to give her a different point of view," explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC. "We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction."
The original Batwoman was started in 1956, and killed off in 1979. The new character will share the same name as her original alter ego, Kathy Kane. And the new Batwoman arrives with ties to others in the Gotham City world.
"She's a socialite from Gotham high society," DiDio said. "She has some past connection with Bruce Wayne. And she's also had a past love affair with one of our lead characters, Renee Montoya."
Montoya is a former police detective. Wayne, of course, is Batman's true identity - but he has disappeared, along with Superman and Wonder Woman, leaving Gotham a more dangerous place.
"This is not just about having a gay character," DiDio said. "We're trying for overall diversity in the DC universe. We have strong African-American, Hispanic and Asian characters. We're trying to get a better cross-section of our readership and the world."
The outing of Batwoman created a furore of opinions on websites devoted to DC Comics, ranging from outrage to approval. Others took a more tongue-in-cheek approach: "Wouldn't ugly people as heroes be more ground-breaking?" asked one poster. "You know, 200lb woman, man with horseshoe hair loss pattern, people with cold sores."
DiDio asked that people wait until the new Batwoman appears before they pass judgement. "Judge us by the story and character we create," he said. "We are confident that we are telling a great story with a strong, complex character."
DiDio spent most of the morning fielding phone calls from the media."It's kind of weird," he said. "We had a feeling it would attract some attention, but we're a little surprised it did this much."
Our first gay superhero was Northstar.
Batwoman returns. as a lesbian
AP
Monday, June 05, 2006
NEW YORK (AP) - Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.
The 5' 10" superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.
"We decided to give her a different point of view," explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC. "We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction."
The original Batwoman was started in 1956, and killed off in 1979. The new character will share the same name as her original alter ego, Kathy Kane. And the new Batwoman arrives with ties to others in the Gotham City world.
"She's a socialite from Gotham high society," DiDio said. "She has some past connection with Bruce Wayne. And she's also had a past love affair with one of our lead characters, Renee Montoya."
Montoya is a former police detective. Wayne, of course, is Batman's true identity - but he has disappeared, along with Superman and Wonder Woman, leaving Gotham a more dangerous place.
"This is not just about having a gay character," DiDio said. "We're trying for overall diversity in the DC universe. We have strong African-American, Hispanic and Asian characters. We're trying to get a better cross-section of our readership and the world."
The outing of Batwoman created a furore of opinions on websites devoted to DC Comics, ranging from outrage to approval. Others took a more tongue-in-cheek approach: "Wouldn't ugly people as heroes be more ground-breaking?" asked one poster. "You know, 200lb woman, man with horseshoe hair loss pattern, people with cold sores."
DiDio asked that people wait until the new Batwoman appears before they pass judgement. "Judge us by the story and character we create," he said. "We are confident that we are telling a great story with a strong, complex character."
DiDio spent most of the morning fielding phone calls from the media."It's kind of weird," he said. "We had a feeling it would attract some attention, but we're a little surprised it did this much."
Fog
It is so freezing cold today in Melbourne and it is foggy. You can’t see a thing at all. I’m looking out of my window at I can hardly see the beyond 200m. It wasn’t this bad this morning when I got out of the house. It was just misty.
This is rather cool, for this is the first time (since I’ve been here) that I’ve experience fog. I wonder how long it will last.
This is rather cool, for this is the first time (since I’ve been here) that I’ve experience fog. I wonder how long it will last.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
