Wednesday, March 21, 2007

where polar bears fear to tread

Berlin Zoo's baby polar bear must die: activists

This artcicle found on todays 9msn explains that: 'Berlin Zoo has rallied to the defence of Knut, a three-month-old polar bear cub, rejecting demands that the animal be allowed to die after being abandoned by its mother.'

An animal rights activist explains that "Hand-rearing a polar bear is not appropriate and is a serious violation of animal rights[...] In fact, the cub should have been killed," It seems that animals are being humanised through contact with people, and this is a bad thing.

The animal rights activist says the humanisation of animals is wrong. At worst the arguement draws on the notion that animals are part of nature, and we as humans are not. We can only interfere with nature. We overide the intristic programing of life to reload our own ways for animals to follow.

At best he suggests that the nature of polar bears & humans are vastly different with no common meeting ground. In his view animals 'animalise' - thats normal. Humans 'humanise' thats normal. Anything in between is not normal, its un-natrual.

For the most part the arguement fails. The dog lovers, cat keepers, bird in park feeders & zoo keepers tend to believe that animals & humans mix. So why not polar bears? Whats more important? the survival of an animal with a little bit of humaisation or its death? Is humanisation so bad? Not really - it just means the animal would have to wear a cute little ribbon in its fur.

Of course its a different story for a child reared by wolves or other forest critters. While a pet is tolerated, & sometimes loved, a wolf boy is the subject of contraversy & is quite often intolerable. I guess there is a little animal rights activist in us all, but only when we want to see it our own way.

Enter Gay Adoption

This entire situation has some parrallels for issues around gays rearing children, and in particular adoption. To explain, indulge this personal anecdote. I once met a woman who told me she was agianst gay marriage. She explained to me that she was ok with gay people, and she didnt mind gay marriage so much either... But the idea that they should be allowed to raise a child seemed wrong. For her gay marrige was a step in the direction toward gay child rearing so she couldnt really support it either.

So its ok to be raised by straight parents & turn out gay, but not the other way around. Why? what would a gay parent do so different? Well the answer is gay parents would 'homosexualise' the child. We would raise the child & socialise them in some other way than the prefered & natural 'human' way.Is this a sugestion that homos are not quite human? or just that the way that they raise children is not quite the same?

Well thats one perspective, held by zoo keepers. What about the perspective of animal rights activists? would they dig gay parents? I'd assume yes - provided the child was gay too.

Monday, March 19, 2007

how r u going to vote this election?

The recent edition of the gay pres come with a primer on the political opinions of the local polititians running in the state election. The SSO election survey, Has asked 7 questions to a range of candidates. The questions are easy. They beg to be answered positively, and for the most part they do, to varying degrees that is. After all would any politician responding a survey by the gay press respond with a flat out no? Hardly. Instead we are left with the half said, the unsaid, and the unmeant.

It is a situation of ensconce, in both senses of the word. Politicians structure their discourse so as to position themeselves safely, & also conceal themselves as need be. They opt against a clear position. To understand this situation is to make sense of individual resposes posed so coyly in in the press.

At first glance of the survey, we can see a pattern emerge. No one responds with a no. the majority of all answers begin with a Yes (in some form or another). Of the Non-Yes responses the most typical response given begins with the comment 'i believe...', or to a much lesser extent a question is asked or a fact is stated. This Non-Yes is a place where n o is not an option but nether is a yes, is the space where politicians need to ensconce themselves, they need a safe opinion, an opinion that hides from the word yes.

The one liberal surveyed ensconces himself 6 times. He can only answer yes to the question of supporting gay equality. Everything else ne needs to be unclear about. He is the all out winner for using this tactic, no surprises there.

Next up, is Labor. 3 of the 5 labor candidates are unable (or unwilling) to reply with a definitive positive statement to 3 of the questions. Questons 3, 4 & 6 are approached with a creased brow. Of the other 2 laborites only one sucmbs to answering with a yes-no yet again. it is to question 4. thus Q4 becomes the most contentious issue.

The Greens, Democrats & Independents have no problem with agreeing with the idea of equality for gays & lesbians what so ever. Yes all the way. No problem here, so lets go back to where the problem is - Q 3, 4, & 6.

In 3rd place is Q6, it relates to same sex unions. The laborites typically defer this question. for them this is an issue they support, but only in so far as it is to be discussed in caucus. Responsibility is deferred to caucus, individual ethical responsibility is rendered transparent. They do not condemn the internal workings of labor, or reiterate the simple dismissal offered by fellow members that it is 'not on the agenda'.

In second place is Q3 about legislation supporting parental rights for both IVF parents. Here we once again see a form of muffled support. There is an agreement to this point - but with in reason. Whos decides what one is reasonable? The answer is given - the community. The public opinion & possible legal issues must be taken into consideration. The question of course is why should the community have more say over the way in which a child is reared rather than the parent? And considering that the term community does not involve actual decision making from the community, but rather from those who represent them (ie the press & politicians) then is it too much of a jump to simply identify this as commitment to nothing but the political game amongst politicians?

In first place is Q4 the issue for gays & lesbians to adopt. This is an interesting one. Some are willing to state their support in 'principle'. But for all it seems there is a need to defer the issue until the review on the Adoption Act is complete. Interesting, first of all, candiates are candidly willing to say they support the gay community but dont want to commit until they get all the details. Gay and lesbian rights can wait. wait for what? what do they think the review into the adoption show? I'd assume not something positive, otherwise why wait? Possibly they are justified. After all those years of homosexuals being linked to pedophilia, S&M, corpophilia bestiality and masturbation - hey even id want to get a character check before i let my kids near them.

Of course they agree in principle. But principles can always wait. Have you ever heard the line 'yeah i like you, but im just a bit drunk, ok?' *nervous smile*

So what is the aim of the review of the Adoption Act? To make sure adoption:

* is characterised by openness, and is no longer shrouded in secrecy;
* conforms with Australia’s international obligations; and
* is brought into line with other areas of child law, as well as with prevailing community expectations and attitudes.

Considering there is little to say about homos in other areas of child law (to my knowledge, only issues about discusing sexuality etc for child carers would be the best i can come up with) Well im sure any reviews response would be based on community expectations and attitudes.

Considering that parties are not willing to take a part in influencing attitudes & expectations of the community, not willing to take a stand, other than in principle, one can hardly expect a positive outcome for the review. At best it will highlight the issue as being in contest. And thus make some stance toward a need for legislative advance... which once again places the issue unanswered.

A negative review can always be challenged, questioned, appropriated or ignored. But this kind of action requires more that something to be in principle. A principle must be attached to an action. The entire sentiment that a principle must wait for a review is a denial of the very principle guiding action itself. It is to ensconce the safety of the speaker. To speak from the safety of the arm chair, the ballot box or the opinion poll, without the formulation of true action is to say a yes & a no in one breath, as one voice in the utmost cynical of tones.

Friday, March 16, 2007

of time

elizabeth grosz, or as i asume she would be affectionately be known as friends EG, has written a book called "the Nick of time"

1. the book focuses on the philosophy of darwin, Nietzsche, and Henri Bergson. She connects the ideas of these thinkers by suggesting they each deal with time in a similar, and complex way. She looks at their concepts of evolution, will, and duration, respectively. Each thinker finds a nick in time, a important delay to time, that is very much a part of time.

2. Sexual difference & desire will always expand. Species always become more complex, they never simplify. there will be more sexes, and genders & sexualities, never less. never reduced.

3. She ends the book with a discussion on politics the future. She is against ideals, against notions of goals to reach per se. these try to draw up a state future, one that condemns itself to death - one that needs no longer evolve. For her we dream the future & think the past in order to change the present alone. Once the present is changed, as it always does so, possibility finds new dimensions, and ideas reform. New memories emerge & others are forgotten.

4. The last two points supose that this is true because cultural & social systems are extensions of the same evolution that lead to the development of life itself. political arguements evolve in much the same way people or languages do.

its an interesting book - its got me thinking. I don t quite agree with all she has to say, but in the same instance i do think that she has hit the nail on the head. My thoughts should follow

Monday, March 12, 2007

bodyrox - yeah yeah (clean)

i can teach you a thing or 2

wake up, pup, wake up. big day ahead. groan & mutter soft curses to the morning sun. im in a mood, im in a particular head space that is somewhere between meloncholy & anger.... and i do think that the anger is wining out.

i go to dance class, and do a reasonably good job consiidering i havent been for a month. my driving lesson is cancelled - but its ok, im not in the mood to travel to campbeltown. im edgy. i feel a bit at lost ends. i get home & i masturbate. second time today. Its also the second time i blow without an orgasm.... god i hate my sexuality some times...

grit & charge. i go out for a beer with a bear. i go out & i tell luke off for saying a nasty comment about me behind my back. I go out & i flirt with a increadably cute boy who sends me at loss for words. I go out, i fuck. I go out i dance. I go out and then i go home....

Saturday, March 10, 2007

holiday photos

hey to all,

here are some more pics from my holiday on the pacific sun. i enjoyed the sun & as well as getting to know mike better. i visited fiji, vanuatu and new caladonia. i quite loved the amazing beaches & the ocean in general. being on a cruise IS like a bogan RSL btw. but kinda worth doing once - its good to see as many amazing islands as possible. sun bake, snorkel, swim & relax.

thanks mike!!

Thursday, March 08, 2007


holidays - done. mardi gras - done. recovering - done. i think im back :)