Wednesday, May 28, 2003

{{{Boogie on the head of a pin}}}

Here's my *humble* opinion on the issue of animal rights and culling of the stray cats.

I so know I'm going to get flamed/accused of being heartless and amoral again...=) Ah well, here it goes anyway.

First off, animal rights is a load of conflicted mixture of knee-jerk sympathy and really odd logical and philosphical reasoning. Members of the house, yes to animal welfare, but animal rights is simply doing everyone a disservice. With rights come responsibility. One can no more ascribe rights to animals than one can to, say, rocks. Both are simply incapable of fulfilling meaningful (in human terms) responsibilities. Actually, one could ascribe rights more to rocks than animals, at least when you tell a rock to stay put and be a paper weight it will.

Without bringing in religion/theocracy of any from, which in any case is divided on the issue of animal rights, the fact still remains that Humans are in fact and in deed superior to animals. The capacity for rational thinking alone should set us apart from animals and anyone who disputes that has to agree that there's a lot of logical hoops that one has to jump through before animals even look superior to humans. As such, assigning rights to animals on the basis of equality simply cannot work. Instead the most that one can do or achieve in any meaningful/rational fashion is to acknowledge that animals are inferior to humans which gives us at the very least (or most), the duty to care or protect for them should we claim ownership to them. To that end, animal welfare should triumph over animal rights.

Hence, yes to meat. Yes to animal testing. But similarly, only yes to arbatoirs and no to slaughter-houses which needlessly make animals suffer before killing them. Yes to animal testing for medications, at least until better alternatives are available (cellular and virtual systems simply do not cut it as yet, which is why their rightful place is still as a prelude to animal testing) but a qualified no to comestic testing. If w are honest with ourselves, or companies like Bodyshop are, what they mean by against animal testing is that the products are not tested on animals, but the components either are, or are products already previously tested such that they have been proven to have no ill effects on us.

No needless suffering and if we have to kill animals, let it be for a decent rational cause, and let them die with dignity...

p.s. Pity that dignity in death doesn't seem to apply to us does it?

the proxy blogger is highly apologetic that this post is published so late...

{{{A short aside}}}

In case anyone was wondering, yes I'm still alive.

The blog isn't abandoned or dead yet.

And no, I have no plans on culling it...=)

Thursday, May 08, 2003

{{{Dance with Hamsters}}}

Sample of an sms with Her today...

Little airplane circles her head...
Little hamster hoist his parachute and scampers towards the exit...
Takes a hop with a squeak of delight and enters into freefall...
Little chute opens and the little hamster lands on Her shoulder with a little bounce...
Starts humming the Hamtaro song....

Don't ask what was going on in my mind the whole day... SO that should meet the two conditions of cute/funny and irrelavant/irreverant =)

{{{Boogie on the head of a pin}}}

Once again, due to the wonderful thing that is called the world, reality and politics, another motion has yet again been given life.

Today, THW end sanctions in Iraq. And my baseline is, why not?

After all, the worry that the (ex)regime in Iraq would use 'dual use' equipment (equipment with both civilian and military potential e.g. GPS units) to their own nefarious ends is no longer a problem. After all, all the sanctions are really doing now is hurting the citizens of Iraq. And all that's stopping it is legalities and politics.

Lest I get misunderstood, I don't blame the sanctions much for hurting the people of Iraq, the majority of the blame must fall on the dictator who refused to hear their pleas of sorrow and agony, he who could and did manipulate the sanctions, he who chose to enrich himself from the Oil-for-food program while his people starved in poverty. The rest has to fall on the neighbours and the world who could have made this the most effective policing of sanction in the world (a landlocked nation surrounded by other countries) but who turned a blind eye to smuggling in return for cheap oil from the dictator. Similarly, it forced other nations into making horrible choices between hurting the innocent citizens or allowing Saddam access to equipment that would benefit him, his army and his weapons program.

Admittedly, there are already sanctions setting out what is needed to be done before sanctions are lifted, the most important of which is the determination that Iraq possesses no more WMD. But why not allow the concurrent occurance of inspections and lifting of sanctions. Surely in this instance expidency could be implemented. Surely, the saving of lives is more important than the possible perception that the UN had support the original US led attack?

Monday, May 05, 2003

{{{Dances with Hamsters}}}

A request from Her to do more of this column....alas alas, how could one say no?

The only problem is, what the heck is this column suppose to be about? I like hamsters in that Hamtaro sense, in that I like the genre of kawaii anime hamsters, not the real ones. What that says about my psyche and superego, I leave it up to you to decide...=)

At any rate, I've decided that either this column should be about cute/funny stuff, or irrelavant/irreverent stuff.


Friday, May 02, 2003

{{{Boogie on the head of a pin}}}

*Stretch*...*creak creak*...

Ah...the joys of the Internet. The power of the networks of networks with a cable modem. Where else in time would a twenty year old have the ability to reach out to the potential masses out there...=)

Anyway, the topic for today is on US. And no, this is not a comment on the need for unity between the various religions and races of today in order to achieve the harmony needed for a New World Order (and in case you were wondering, I'm not a free mason... Don't believe in an almighty omnipotent and omniscient God...with a capital G).

America the Hegemon is what the topic is on today and here are some of my thoughts on it. Don't worry. It's shorter than the last one.

Regardless of my feelings towards America and towards the people being, the fact is I'll take them over any other pole today. Let's face it, America is hardly pushing an autocratic and authoritarian form of democracy like...*ahem*...certain 'regions' of 'democracy'. In fact they're a lot more benign than most nations would in their position. My stock of goodwill towards the world's most populous nation has dropped like a stone since their SARS cover-up fiasco. The world's largest nation by landmass doesn't seem to have gotten over its autocratic past, and the word is out that organized crime has an incredible amount of influence over the government (and I'm not simply talking about Big Business). The world's largest democracy still needs some work on its Hindu nationalist and populist tendencies. The world's biggest union (or soon to be anyway) is rift with strife and doesn't have a decent military at that. The world's second largest economy is still stuck in the doldrums.

In any case, the importance here is (to quote today's Straits Times article) to be the greeks to the 'roman' American. We need to accept the fact that America's psychology has changed after 911 and feels vulnerable like never before. If one opposes it and doesn't make the world a 'safer' place while one's at it, America will withdraw into the isolation that is almost intrinsic in its psyche (George Washington admonished his nation never to get involved in 'entangling alliances'). America will go at it alone, with the capability to do so. Oppose it if you will but do so on reasonable grounds (for an example of unreasonable, see in particular France's adamant opposition to the war in Iraq).

I firmly believe that multilateralism is the way of the future. Multilateralism will pave the way for a 'post-modern' world. But multilateralism cannot be a mindless nasty byword for opposition to USA on principle alone. Multilateralism cannot disregard America (see the League of Nations for a good example on how not to go at it together). Multilateralism cannot be an excuse for not making and taking hard decision, including ones that involve war.

One does not make the world safer by bringing America down.