Alexander's Dream Lives On

Since the time of Alexander the Great, who marched east into Asia after uniting the then civilised Europeans [ie the Greek world], Europe has always looked towards a unity amongst its people. Unlike Alexander the Great and his vision of "one world, one people", attempts to unite Europe have been through one race and its beliefs dominating the others.

Whether it was Napoleon or Hitler, whether it was through political ideology [Communism] or religion [Christianity or Islam], the past attempts to unite Europe has always been at the expense of the various races within the continent.

Alexander the Great's vision was to unite the then known world under one ruler. Nothing different from any other conqueror before or after him. What was different was his belief that by inter-marrying the various races, one would eventually create one race. By inter-marrying and by blending the best [and worst] of each culture into one huge melting pot, Alexander the Great envisaged what was loosely labelled as "one world, one people". His vision, to some extent, died with his own death and the lack of a nominated successor to take over.

However, even though his empire collapsed as a single entity, his dream continued to live on. First through the succeeding four empires that emerged, but also through the eventual rise of the Roman Empire and its successor the Byzantine Empire. What has been labelled as "Hellenistic" by historians, was the ongoing vision of merging the Greek culture and beliefs with those of the locals [Egyptians, Indians, Persians etc]. Although officially, the Hellenistic Era ended with the Roman conquest of Egypt in 30BC, the Hellenistic philsophy survived through the rise and fall of the Roman and Byzantine empires in 1453AD - nearly 1800 years after Alexander the Great's reign.

Today, the vision of Alexander the Great's "one world, one people", has emerged in what is known as the European Union. From the debris left behind from World War 2, six countries founded the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952. Initially just a trade body, it transformed itself into the European Economic Community in 1958, and finally into the European Union in 1993. In 2004, the European Union encompassed 25 countries with a population of over 450 million [more than the USA and Russian populations combined]. A further four countries are going through the formalities of becoming members of the European Union, and several others are also waiting for membership.

If all the potential new members become part of the European Union, the membership by 2020 would have ballooned to over 33 nations with a population in excess of 600 million. Its borders stretching from Portugal in the west, to Sweden in the north, Cyprus in the south, Ukraine and Turkey in the east.

Whereas Alexander the Great attempted to create the "one world, one people" via conquest, the European Union is achieving this through democratic processes. Where Greek language and culture was used as the central pivotal focus of Alexander's dream, the European Union is a truly mixed cultural and racial group where no one culture is predominant.

Alexander the Great's attempt to unite the world begun at the age of 20 when he became King of Macedonia and died in Babylon in 323BC at the tender age of 33. The path of unity of Europe has taken a lot longer, over half a century, and still evolving.

The road to a united Europe is a long and tedious one, filled with progress and setbacks. But the unity is one of choice rather than force. Whereever the road may lead for the European Union in the future, one thing is for certain. Whether as individuals we agree or disagree with the development of the European Union, is irrelevant. Peace and prosperity can be achieved in one of two ways - through co-operation or through conquest.

Alexander the Great's vision of "one world, one people" is coming to fruitition.

James

Where Are They All?

Depending on who you listen to, the gay community makes up anything between 5% and 20% of the overall population with the general consensus seeming to be around 10%. In Adelaide, where I live, the general population is just over a million people, so using the above average, there should be around 100,000 gays. [And by gays, I am including gay men and lesbians.]

Even if we work on 5%, that still makes the gay population some 50,000 individuals. And, if we make one further assumption that the split is 50/50 between men and women, that makes 25,000 of each sex. In the last census [2001 report], 24.1% of the population was over 55, whilst 32.6% were under 25. This leaves 43.3% of the population being between 25 and 55, or roughly 430,000 people.

You are probably wondering where I am heading with this. But please bare with me.

Ignoring the extremes, if 430,000 people are between 25 and 55, and we work on 5% of the population being gay, that means that gay population of Adelaide is 21,500. If we assume 10%, then it balloons to 43,000 and if we go further to 20%, its a whopping 86,000.

That is a large and sizeable gay community regardless of which percentage you use.

As someone who used to go out on the [gay] scene quite regularly, I can honestly say that the total gay people that go out would be no more than about 500. To be totally honest, a large portion of these people are also under 25, but we can ignore this for the time being.

The question I want to find an answer for, is this.

If there are 21,500 gay people in Adelaide aged 25-55, and only 500 go out, where the hell is everyone else? Even if half of them are partnered off, that would still leave over 10,000 who are single. Sure, a lot go to straight venues - but 10,000 of them? Surely they can't all be closet celibate gays. Even going one step further and assuming that 75% of them are closet gays who either live a straight life and/or are married to someone of the opposite sex, that still leaves 2,500 single people.

Where does one go to find them? To meet them? I can hear you saying "you already answered that ... they go to straight venues", but honestly, if they are closet gays in straight venues, picking them out isn't an easy task. My gaydar only works 90-odd percent of the time. Is there any other way of meeting up with these non-scene gay people, other than the chatrooms, beats and straight venues?

And further to that, how do they end up "hooking up" with others?

I have taken a very conservative figure here, but even on this, there are a lot of gay people who simply don't go out.

Any thoughts anyone?

James

Why Don't I Dream?

Christmas Day has come and gone, and unlike all my previous years this one was a sombre one. With my mum having passed away suddenly six weeks ago, the gathering of the family was more of a "Sunday lunch" rather than a Christmas festivity. None of us had expected anything different other than the way it had turned out.

Yet what stuck in my mind was the conversation we had. Over lunch and later at the cemetery, dad made the comment that he dreamt of mum every night since she passed away. About the conversations they have, the advise she has been giving, and believe it or not, where the paperwork is that we have been looking for but have been unable to find. These conversations are a nightly event for dad.

My brother sees her every couple of nights, sometimes asking him if he wants a coffee, or just idle chit chat. Even my sister in law, who in many ways had become one of mum's closest friends, dreams of her on a regular basis. In the dreams, they still do their "tug of war" over the grandchildren and their meals, just like they did in a playful way in real life.

Yet, to date, I have not dreamt of mum at all. Even though I dream on a regular basis, not once has she appeared in my dreams either to tell me off or simply to say "hi". When the others asked me if I dreamt of mum and I replied "no", no one believed me even though its the truth. And that saddens me, for why is it that the others see her in their dreams yet I don't?

Is it because I didn't love her enough? Or that she didn't love me? Is it simply that I have subconsciously blocked her and her memory out of my mind to avoid bringing up the feelings of loss? Further, why is it that since the actual funeral five weeks ago, have I not cried whereas the others seem to have tears well up simply by mentioning her?

I don't consider myself to be a heartless person. If anything I am quite the opposite.

So the question is - why don't I dream of her? I don't think I ask for much, just one night for her to come into my dreams, just like she does with everyone else.

James

An Open Letter

To the Honourable Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard.

Firstly, let me wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope that you, your wife and children enjoy the festive season.

Secondly. I was quite disheartened by your comments that you would never allow gay unions in Australia. I feel very saddened that you believe that only a man and a woman can have enough love for each other to not only make a long-term commitment to each other, but also have that commitment acknowledged by the state.

Yes, various religious documents like the Bible state that a union is between a man and a woman, but the same documents also state that one should love one another regardless of who or what they are.

I find it hard to fathom how in the eyes of the law and yourself, a heterosexual couple - whether married or in a de facto relationship, are superior to that of a gay couple. All parties bleed when they are cut, hurt when in pain, love from the heart, show the same feelings and emotions as each other. So how are we different? Is it because instead of being a male/female couple, we are in some manner inferior? Is our love for our partner not worth as much as a straight couple's? Or is our love different?

Why is it that various Federal government departments [eg the Australian Defence Force] acknowledges us gay couples and gives us the same benefits as straight couples, yet under your government, we are not able to show that commitment to the rest of the nation by having a piece of paper which says "married"?

In Australia the state and religion are seperated for a good reason. Yet by passing a legislation which defines a marriage as being one between man and woman, you are also drawing religion into the state. Or am I reading this wrong? I pray that you are not so anti-gay by your actions and your words, for then I feel sorry for you Mr Howard.

I sit back and wonder how much love you really have and how you would react if one of your own children or grandchildren turned out to be gay. Would you love them any less? And if one did turn out to be gay, how would you defend your actions to them when they ask "Why can't I marry my partner?", considering it is you who changed the law to define what a "marriage" is? When they look overseas to countries like your beloved UK, where gay unions are now acceptable, how will you defend your actions? Will you pull out the Bible and say "God says only straight couples can marry"?

Mr Howard, today is Christmas Day when Jesus was born. He came into the world preaching peace and love to all humanity. He accepted everyone - whether Jew, Roman, prostitute etc - as an equal and loved them with all his heart. I know you won't read this blog of mine as you have more important things to deal with. But I do pray that today you find it in your heart to look beyond your confines, re-consider, and in the new year you show that being gay does not mean being inferior. That in the new year, you allow us to feel as equals within our great nation by allowing gay unions.

On that note, I will leave you to your Christmas Day and your family.

Regards

James
A gay man who believes that miracles can happen.

Merry Christmas

To everyone who reads my blogs, I would like to wish you all a very Merry Christmas. Drive safely, enjoy the festive season and take care.
Remember - its a time to be with family and friends, so even if you don't get along during the rest of the year, put aside any ill feelings and enjoy the time together.
Otherwise, I won't ask these gorgeous reindeer boyz to come over and visit you :-)

with love, James

Google and AOL - Where Is Google Going? Pt 2

Ok. Since my last article on Monday December 19th, Google and AOL have officially announced their partnership. True to the rumours, Google is buying into AOL a 5% stake for US$1billion plus providing a "credit" for US$300million so AOL can buy advertising.

What is interesting is some of the things I hinted at in my previous article. Whereas most were looking at the advertising side, I was looking at the added benefits that Google would obtain from a Google-AOL partnership.

Under the Google-AOL partnership just announced, Google Talk will obtain interporality with AOL's IM thus allowing users from the two services to communicate with each other. Plus, the two companies will collaborate on video search "which will help increase consumer awareness of Time-Warner AOL video content on the web". [click here and here for news reports on the deal]

As predicted, the reason Google pursued the AOL partnership is and was for more than the advertising side. As more and more details are released in the near future, Google's vision of its future will become even more evident.

On a side issue, it is interesting to also note that Google has also made available to the public the ability to obtain a Gmail account by subscribing to the service with a mobile [similar to what was been offered in the USA]. I haven't checked to see how many countries this new rollout has occured for, but is available for the first time to Australians [here].

With their other "soft" launches like music search and gmail for mobiles, expect to see a new Google portal being launched within the next 6 months or so, similar to Yahoo, AOL and the rest. A portal that will not replace the current www.google.com homepage, but compliment it, providing news, weather, video clips etc. Just like the personal homepage Google currently offers, but expanded and updated. I would not be surprised to find that Google announces the launch of an online Office service [via their partnership with Sun and the Open Office Organisation] in the near future.

And the purpose for all this?

As stated in previous postings on Google, their aim in the long term is to establish a customer base through their portals and alliances to begin bringing together their various offerings and thus generate income from outside their normal advertising streams. In addition to all this, provide an alternative to their main "enemy" - Microsoft. Whether we like it or not, Google will over the next 12 months become an even bigger integral part of the Internet community.

Whether the "do no evil" philosophy is still valid, is another issue. But we are in for interesting times ahead.

Yes, it is sheer speculation on my part, but hey, what would I know? I could be totally wrong. Time will tell.

Celibacy - A Gay Man's Life

Sex and being gay goes hand-in-hand within our community, and this is the perception within the general community as well. If you are gay, then sex has to be the number one thing that is always on your mind. If you don’t get laid, then people automatically assume that you are either lying or there is something [medically] wrong with you.

Come on – one is gay and does NOT have sex? You have to be kidding! Right? Wrong! Not everyone is driven by that desire to off-load with someone else. Believe it or not, some people place sex very low on the list of priorities, for various reasons.

Take me for example. Having been in and out of long-term relationships, and having had my share of one-night stands and flings, I have for the last twelve months followed a life of celibacy. No, not because I can’t pick anyone up or find a partner – far from it. I know enough people who are interested in me that I can be ‘married off’ within a week.

I am celibate for several reasons., none of which has anything to do with the ability to pick up or medical reasons. My decision to be celibate was based on several things.

Firstly – the main one being that over the last 20 years I have been in four relationships during which I had been single for only 3 years in total. Anyone who goes from relationship to relationship tends to lose, to a certain degree, a sense of individuality. After my last relationship ended after 6 years, I went through my period of one-night stands till one morning I woke up, and took a hard look at myself and the life I was leading.

What I saw was something I had not expected, although subconsciously, I always knew. Within me were merged my ex partners - their mannerisms, speech patterns, attitude and more. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as we all tend to pick up things from others. What worried me the most was that the “me” was now part of a collage of several people.

Secondly – my own direction in life of where I wanted to be and what I wanted had somehow fallen by the side somewhere over the last 20 years. My dreams of living in Europe, of owning my own business and other dreams, had been put on the backburner with “I’ll do that next year”. My life had become one of drifting between partners – both long term and short term – and all of them, whether I wanted to admit it or not, revolved around sex.

And finally, I started to open my eyes as what was really happening out there in the gay scene. Seeing people on the hunt for sex, people being emotionally hurt by others purely for fun, and people taking advantage of others. One image still haunts me. My previous partner and I were at a local nightclub, where we saw this older guy ply a young man with alcohol, and once he was drunk, took him into the toilets and raped him. Now this isn’t an everyday occurrence, but similar less “violent” events occur around us on a daily basis.

The decision to be celibate can be seen as one where I need to find myself. To find the ‘true’ me within this collage of people, to find those lost dreams and try to at least fulfill some of them, and to use my energies into providing some good to others. Yes, sex is still important to me, and eventually I do want to go back out on the hunt for one-night stands and a partner, but that isn’t my main goal at present.

Over the last twelve months, I have been celibate despite what people may think or believe. And during this time, my closest friends have seen a transformation in me that they find it hard to believe. I am happier, more content with myself, and my life has finally got a direction. But most importantly, the collage that I was is still there, but my own individuality is now more at the fore than it was.

So celibacy to me is one of control without the distractions. And as some wise person said ages ago – to be happy one has to be happy with one’s self first.

James

[Originally written in 2003, I have re-published it in my blog as a "kind reminder" that being gay does not necessarily mean we are all sex starved :-)

Google and AOL - Where Is Google Going?

Back in November, I wrote an article entitled "Google - the new Skynet?" inwhich I questioned where Google was heading with it's ever increasing new products, services and partnerships. In the last 48 hours, Google succeeded in beating Microsoft in partnering with AOL via a 5% acquisition for US$1billion. Many commentators are somewhat mystified as to why Google would spend so much to acquire so little of AOL. Most focus on the value of "Search" where AOL provided some 10% of Google's revenue during the first 9 months - or approximately $430million. Had Google failed to win, they would have lost a reasonable chunk of their revenue to Microsoft and also seen a AOL-Microsoft alliance competing with them in the lucrative Search field.

However, one thing that many have failed to focus on is what AOL has to offer Google.

Google is currently the leader in Search, and has a wide number of products and services available to the general public. Products like Google Talk, Gmail, Google Video etc etc. What they lack though is an established customer base which Google can tap into. Sure, one could claim that the entire internet community is their customer base, but there is no "loyalty" in this respect.

What AOL offers Google is just that - a captive customer base which it can easily tap into. Take for example Google Talk. Currently the three main IMs are AOL, Yahoo and MSN Messenger, none of which have interporality with GoogleTalk. So, although Google Talk is a great product, people are not flocking to it as people do not have family and friends on it. And many people are not willing to dump their current IM for Google Talk if they can't chat to anyone.

The same applies with Google Video. A great service but mainly made up of home videos provided by the public. What Google Video doesn't have is the movie and tv studios to provide the content to make Google Video a success.

With the new AOL- Google partnership, do not be surprised to find that in the next 12 months, Google Talk will have interporality with AOL's IM, and that movies and TV shows are suddenly part of Google Video.

Further, AOL operates not only in the USA but also in Germany, Argentina, Australia, Mexico, Japan, Canada, Brazil, France, UK and Puerto Rico. AOL has a customer base that Google can easily tap into to provide its services in conjunction with AOL's own products. In all these countries, AOL has paying internet customers - a readymade customer base for Google.

With AOL being part of the Time Warner group, Google will have access to CNN, Time, HBO and Warner Bros and their content.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that simply because they now own 5% of AOL, Google will automatically get access to all this. However as part-owner, they will have a foothold and leverage to obtain access. Paying US$1billion for a 5% stake in AOL is a lot of money, but the side benefits Google will obtain from this partnership far outways the cost. Its cheaper paying US$1billion and gaining access to a large international customer base and "rich" media content, than setting it all up by itself.

And that is what Google is eyeing for, not the money that AOL is generating for them via the "search" service.

James

Gay, Bi, Straight - Does It Matter?

One of the movies that I am looking forward to watching is the much-acclaimed "Brokeback Mountain". Not because of the supposed sex scenes nor the fact that two really cute guys are the main actors, but because it is "different" to the run-of-the-mill movies that have been coming out of Hollywood over the last few years.

Sure, there have been some exceptions like "Saw" and "Lord of the Rings", but generally once you have seen one, the others seem to be a different version of the same thing.

What has me excited about "Brokeback Mountain" is the fact that two "straight" guys discover that love is not necessarily bound by the male/female relationship stereotype. Love can and does transcend genders because us humans are by nature, bisexual in orientation - not straight nor gay. In pre-Christian Europe and in the current non-Jewish/Christian/Islamic countries, bisexuality was and is generally the norm and/or acceptable. [You may wonder why I clustered Jews, Christians and Muslims into one category, and that is because each has developed from the other, carrying on some of the "beliefs" of its predecessor.]

Which brings me to the issue of bisexuality versus being Gay or Straight. Does it really matter in the scheme of things, who one actually sleeps with? Does it really matter if an actor [or actress] is gay or bisexual? Why does it need to be a "secret" from the main public? Throughout cinematic history, many leading actors and actresses have been gay or bisexual in real life, whereas the Hollywood PR people actively portrayed them as being straight.

Some examples include James Dean, Tab Hunter, Liberace and more. Actors and singers nowadays play up on the ambiguity of their sexuality, and a good example is the former Take That member Robbie Williams. He has been always playing up on his sexuality, dropping comments and hints that he is gay, yet taking the newspapers to courts when one of them publicise it too much.

What are they afraid of? Do they believe that by being honest about their sexuality - whichever one it is - that they will lose public support, and thus lose out on lucrative recording or movie contracts?

Take Jake Gyllenhaal who stars in "Brokeback Mountain". He is one stunning guy and can honestly say that many of the guys I know, would love to take him to bed - even if for only one night [including yours truly].

But he has denied being bisexual, yet when questioned, he has stated the following:

"You know it’s flattering when there’s a rumor that says I’m bisexual,” the actor — who stars in “Brokeback Mountain,” which some are calling the gay cowboy movie — tells the December issue of Details. “It means I can play more kinds of roles. I’m open to whatever people want to call me. I’ve never really been attracted to men sexually, but I don’t think I would be afraid of it if it happened.”

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9916519] 21/11/2005

Now, you will notice that he doesn't deny he is bisexual but he also doesn't confirm he is straight either! What is of interest in his last comments, which are "... never really been attracted to men sexually, but I don't think I would be afraid of it if it happened". What does he mean "never REALLY been attracted"? And why does he think he wouldn't be afraid if it happened?

Is he saying that he has been attracted to guys but not to the point of taking them to bed? But if the right one came along, he would? If he is straight, why not simply come out and say "I am straight"? Why do the "Robbie Williams" game playing?

To be honest, I really don't care whether he [or anyone] is gay, straight or bisexual as long as they are honest about it. And that, to me, is the crux of the issue - why not be honest?

It won't change my mind about seeing the movie because his sexuality is irrelevant to me seeing it. I will enjoy the movie for the sheer purpose of it being a different kind of movie from Hollywood. The fact that I will also sit there wondering if he is gay, straight or bisexual will only be a side issue :-)

James

Ignorance Is Bliss

I generally try to not raise issues of a political nature, mainly due to the fact that people are generally very set in their minds. Having also studied International Politics and Classical History at High School and University, I also am mindful of the fact that humanity evolves in cycles.

Take for example, classical Athens. After the Persian Wars, Athens became the main power within the Greek world, establishing the Delian League to keep the Persians at bay, and later evolving into the Athenian Empire. During this era, Athens became the powerhouse of thought and development within the Greek world, and its influence extended way beyond its own borders and that of it's empire. Yet despite all this, it's greed for more and more gradually led it to it's downfall. Many claim the turning point was it's defeat at Syracuse.

The reason I raise this is simple. Today the main power in the world is the United States of America. Although it doesn't have an empire, it's economic and military capabilities allows it to literally dictate what and when things occur. It's foray into Iraq - whether one agrees or disagrees with this is irrelevant - is one example of the USA flexing its muscle on the rest of the world. In turn, now that Saddam Hussein has been overthrown, the USA is trying to bring it's form of democracy and economics into an environment that finds these as alien.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that what the USA is doing is right or wrong. That is a matter of personal opinion. But now that it has achieved its goal of ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and bringing some order within Iraq, it is now flexing its muscle with the other Middle Eastern countries. In an ideal world, it would be great if every country had democracy and a free economy, but this isn't going to happen.

The USA has to be very careful as to how and where it uses its power, for like every other superpower in the past [Greece, Rome, Byzantium, Turks, Egyptians, British, French etc], their power will reach a climax and gradually will fade away, to be replaced by another. If one looks at the world stage at present, there are already other nations like the European Union, India and China which are seeing their power and influence increasing. These three nations today account for over 50% of the world's population. With time, these will be the new superpowers of the world, replacing the USA.

How the USA is dealt with in the future, will largely depend on how the USA has treated the rest of the world during its superpower era. In other words, the USA of the future may be nothing more than what Athens was under Alexander the Great or Rome - nothing more than just a past relic of a "has been power".

There would be nothing more shameful than a great nation being reduced to a third world power whose claim to fame in history is that of a bully. And let's face it, the USA has taken on the role of superpower rather quickly without also developing the necessary skills to handle that role. It's past actions talk for themselves.

Ignorance of the past is bliss, but history does teach us one thing - everything goes in cycles. Today's super power is tomorrow's third world country; and vice versa. Think about it.

James

Alter Egos - Who Needs Them When You Have Chat Rooms?

If I could have another job in life, it would be that of a psychologist specialising in multi-personalities and alter egos!

As someone who frequents the chat rooms on the net, I am continually amazed at how people have two or more nics, and the personas they portray to reflect them.

Take one particular person in his mid-20s who is well known [but will remain anonymous for legal reasons]. Under his regular nic, he is the nicest person you shall ever meet. Nice as pie, could even say marriage material. And under this nic you could actually say "yeah, I could see myself falling for this guy".

But when he is in chat under his 'alter ego' nic, well -- what can one say. Do you run for cover? Leave the room and don't come back till he is gone? Or dare take the chance of staying in there and keeping your mouth shut, hoping you won't be spotted! He is the most vicious and cruelest person you can imagine, picking on people from their nic to their race! And even strychnine would do this person no harm!

Now, knowing this person in real life, he is actually not only a blend of these two nics, but more. He has the qualities of "marriage material" crossed with the "devil re-incarnated", with one extra trait which none of his nics disclose - a thief. Many unwary people have fallen for his charm, only to find that they have lost money, property items or worse - their trust - for falling for this guy.

One wonders whether the net allows these people to allow their alter egos loose, or whether the net actually creates them and the person then fine tunes and adopts the traits. That is one of the hardest questions one can try to answer. Maybe some one out there doing a thesis, may want to look at this perplexing question - does the net create alter egos, or do alter egos simply emerge from a dormant state within someone.

Maybe the net is not responsible for any of it at all. No more a catalyst than having alcohol in a liquor store, and blaming it for someone being drunk. Who knows, but alter egos do have a role to play, even if for no other reason than to entertain the rest of us during quiet moments in the chat rooms. Who knows!

James

The Trees From The Forest

Have you ever walked into a forest and kept walking, thinking "this forest goes forever"? Or walked into one of those huge department stores with umpteen levels and gone up and down the escalators but not noticed the products on the shelves? How many times have you walked past that shop down the street and only just realised that they sold your favourite candy?

I raise this because us humans have selective listening and seeing capabilities, whether we wish to admit it or not. We only notice the things we want to notice, and when we do notice something we think to ourselves "how long has that been there?".

Example. I live in the heart of Adelaide and walk practically everywhere, even to work. I always take the same route to work and home, so after six months, one would assume that I would know the buildings in the area quite well. Surprise surprise - no I don't. For the first time in six months I noticed that there is a small business which sells imported car accessories from Japan. Now one would think that with all the auto-stuff in the window, I would have seen it. Out of curiosity, I popped in the other day and asked them how long they have been there. And the reply was "four months". Four months of me walking past it and not noticing it! That is sad.

We do the same with our relationships - whether romantic or friendship. Take my closest friend Chris, who I have known now for thirteen years. The other day he called in for a coffee and a chat after he finished work. We sat there for nearly two hours chatting when I suddenly noticed he has a small mole on the back of his neck. Now, that's nothing major, but one would assume after all this time I would have noticed that. Another friend of mine of four years continually bites his nails - never in public mind you - but his fingernails are well chewed. How can one miss that?

Further, two weeks ago I got introduced to another guy by a friend and we chatted for like an hour. It is strange how he has continually gone out to the Mars Bar [our local gay nightclub] every Friday and Saturday night for over a year now. And yet, when Greg and I were out every Friday and Saturday night last year, we never bumped into him. Looking at him, he is the type of person I could easily fall for - yet our paths never crossed before! Was it because I was too busy looking after Greg that I didn't notice anyone else, or that Jase was too busy to notice me? How many missed opportunities have I passed up without noticing?

So the questions that arise are - does familiarity with a person or place result in us missing all these little things? Do we only see what we want to see and subconsciously block out everything else? And if we do that, then why all of a sudden do they suddenly become so focused? What triggers that off in our minds to notice them?

I know that by realising this, I am now paying more attention to my surroundings and am continually being surprised by what I have failed to notice in the past. It is making my small world look a whole lot different to the way I have seen it in the past.

James

Know Thyself

Two of the most important concepts the Ancient Greeks followed were inscribed in the Temple of Apollo - in Delphi - were "Know Thyself" and "Nothing In Excess". These two concepts so commonly known in today's society that they have become part of every culture. Yet so few people practice them.

"Know Thyself" - we all think we know ourselves quite well, but how much do we really know? How much do we understand who we are and what we want? If we don't know ourselves, how do we expect others to know us? And for that matter - understand us and what makes us tick?

"Nothing in Excess" - well, that one is open to personal interpretation as to how much is too much. But, how do we gauge when enough is enough? How do we know we have gone beyond the level where it becomes excessive?

Take the two together and you have one great ideal in life - Know Thyself with Nothing In Excess. A former partner of mine - Tony - is a prime example of someone who did not follow either of these. We were seeing each other for around six months - one of those relationships which did not last.

In his entire life till about three years ago, the longest he had been single was three weeks - and he was so excited about it, that he had to simply tell everyone. His entire life from around 18 through to his late 30s he went from relationship to relationship, normally finding his next partner before ending his current relationship. But as fate is always around, he ended up being single for nearly a year - and was totally lost! He had no idea as to who the real Tony was - what made him "tick" so to speak. And more importantly, did not know how to survive without having someone around him all the time.

Some of us call it soul searching, but for him, it was more. He spent the year trying to find himself and the more he dug into himself, the more he realised two things. One - he was nothing more than a blend of every partner he ever had, and two, his own self was such a small percentage of who he was, that it scared him. Depression simply set in, and the realisation that his obsession with being in a relationship was the main culprit behind it all. Thankfully, he pulled through and now can survive being alone.

The reason I raise this [and there is always a reason], is because I am looking at how some of my younger friends are today acting. And all I can see is junior Tonys. One of my younger friends in particular is of great concern, for he has given his current other half more and more opportunities to make efforts to keep the relationship going, and it seems to be ignored. How many times must one put out the fires before one says enough is enough and give up? It's like using a bucket full of holes trying to empty a sinking boat. The old saying "nothing in excess" seems applicable - he is using all his energies to try and make something be what it isn't.

The other thing is that he himself only knows or wants one thing - to be in a relationship. Yet, so far, he has succeeded in losing a large part of his own identity, and become a collage of his closest friends and partners [past and present]. I kind of sit back and wonder what he would be like when he is 25? Will he be the same person or will I sit across the table having coffee with him, and all I would see is bits and pieces of his ex's?

Maybe I am trying to latch onto someone I once met and can't come to terms with the changes that every one goes through. Maybe I am scared that he might change so much that I won't want to know him. Maybe I am afraid that one day I will look at him and see myself - for many of my friends say that he is another me - speech, mannerisms, attitude and more.

I do know that he needs to sit back and find himself, for once he knows who and what he is ["Know Thyself"], then and only then can he really be an individual. Someone with the ability to not only live within a relationship, but also live without one too. Only then when he realises when too much effort is being wasted ["Nothing In Excess"] that it's time to say enough is enough and call it either quits or issue the ultimate ultimatum - and stick to it.

But then, in all honesty, how many of us know ourselves and do go beyond the excess bit? I for one know that I don't truly know myself, and that on many occasions I go beyond the point where I should have given up. But then, I also know that about myself too. Catch22.

James

Racism in Australia

Ok. I wasn't going to comment on this subject, but with the events happening in Sydney and elsewhere in Australia over the last few days, something needed to be said.

I am ashamed of being an Australian. Totally and utterly ashamed! The events of Sydney where narrowminded, ignorant and totally "UGH!!!" stupid people running around, smashing other people's properties and attacking "non Anglosaxon" citizens is driving me nuts! When I see and hear newsreports of some people saying "I was born here" and "Australia for whites", my blood begins to boil.

Why?

Well, lets take a 2-minute history lesson. Oh stuff it! Its going to be a 15 minute lecture!

Prior to 1788 when the first British fleet arrived, Australia was inhabited by the Aborigines. When the First Fleet arrived and landed, they brought with them not only convicts from what is now the UK, but also from Madagascar, the West Indies, Holland, France, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Bengal - just to name a few. So the First Fleet was actually a multi-racial mix of convicts.

During our one "civil war" - if you wish to call it that - there were American Blacks, other Americans, Germans, Austrians, Swedes and Italians who all fought at Eureka. As the two world wars begun and ended, and the world plunged into the Cold War, Australia accepted hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world.

During our first 200 years, Australia accepted people from all over the world to the point that today's society is not only a mish-mash of various races but also of religions. It can in fact be described as a mini-UN and 99.9% of the time, we actually do live in harmony with each other. Except when you have idiots like those in Sydney over the last few days.

I have heard and read people saying that "we" should send these "foreigners" back to where they came from. Others have said that with "Australians" being unemployed, we don't need "more foreigners as well". Well, sorry, but I am at a total loss here.

Firstly. What constitutes an "Australian"? Is it the fact that one is born here? Or has taken out citizenship? Or is it because they are not Anglosaxon? If we use the first criteria [born here], then I am an Australian even though my parents were born in Greece. If "citizenship" is the issue, then my parents are also Australians as they took out their citizenship back in the 1970s. However, if we take "Australian" to mean "Anglosaxon", then ok - ship everyone back to where they came from. BUT, where do we draw the "Anglosaxon" line? One generation ago? Three generations ago? Or ... how far back? And what do we do with those who may have a "British" dad but an Irish or Greek or Asian wife? Break up the family?

Secondly, on the issue of jobs and employment. Who's fault is it that there are people who are unemployed for lengthy periods? The "non-Anglosaxon" people here, or those that have set standards for themselves and won't take a job because "I am too good for it"? And before you start having a go at me, I know people who have never been unemployed, both young and old. They get off their backsides, get any job they can and then keep searching. In fact I know a couple of people who have upto 3 parttime jobs simply NOT to be unemployed.

Some people have said that immigration is bad for the country. I really don't see how though. Let me use an example here and if you find faults in my theory, please tell me.

If we allow 100,000 people to set up residence in Australia, it means that these 100,000 people will need clothing, housing, jobs etc. Lets make a further assumption [for the sake of the argument] that these 100,000 people are actually 25,000 families made up of dad, mum and 2 kids.

These 25,000 families will need 25,000 homes to live in. They will also need 75,000 beds, mattresses, quilts, etc to sleep on; 25,000 tables and 100,000 chairs, 25,000 cars, 25,000 jobs etc etc etc. Now, narrowminded and not very forward thinking people will say "they are stealing the stuff we need!!". Okay, yes they will need all these products and services [as well as jobs]. But when you think about it logically, someone has to produce all this stuff. So the factories will need to increase production to cater for this demand, which means they employ more people. These factories need resources, so their suppliers also bump up production [and hiring] to accommodate their own customers.

The end result is that although we need 25,000 new jobs for these new immigrants, they are actually created a lot more jobs simply to provide them with the goods and services they need. Think I am joking? Think about how many people are needed to build and furnish just one house. No, not just the builders, but also electricians, plumbers, the businesses that create the materials for the house construction, the TV manufacturers, bed and furniture makers and so on. Get the jist?

Australia's economic booms have always been when this country has had a high level of immigration. When immigration has been down, we have faced high unemployment. Coincidence? I think not.

Finally. I wonder how many of those "idiots" drive home in their Fords or Holdens after their rampage and sit down to pizza or a yiros and skull their Coca Cola or Scotch and say "we taught those bloody foreigners a lesson".

Our country is built on the back of the immigrants, whether they came from Europe, Asia, Africa or the UK. Take away the immigrants and you really have very little left.

Enough said! I am going to now sit down and enjoy the rest of my night, and hopefully by the weekend, a lot of those "idiots" are not only behind bars with the law throwing the book at them, but also given an education on reality.

James

Send Me An Angel

Enough of the serious stuff here. I am going to be selfish today and all I am going to say is this. "I want one! Right Now!" [oh yeah, scroll down past the picture]

Send Me An Angel by Real Life

Do you believe in heaven above
do you believe in love
don't tell a lie don't be false and untrue
it all comes back to you

Open fire!
on my burning heart
i've never been lucky in love
my defences are down
a kiss or a frown
I can't survive on my own

If a guy walks in and carves his name in my heart
I'll turn and run away
everyday we've all been led astray
it's hard to be lucky in love

It gets in your eyes
it's making you cry
don't know what to do
don't know what to do
you're looking for love
calling heaven above

Send me an angel
send me an angel
right now, right now

Empty dreams can only dissapoint
in a room behind your smile
but don't give up,
don't give up
you can be lucky in love

It gets in your eyes
it's making you cry
don't know what to do
don't know what to do
you're looking for love
calling heaven above

Send me an angel
send me an angel
right now, right now.

[Note: I have changed "girl" to "guy" and "her" to "his" ... after all, I am gay :-) 
Oh ... any takers? Let me know LOL

Dying Is Such A Pain - A Personal Perspective

Believe it or not, everyone is dying from the moment one is born. It is a natural thing – you are born and then you die, and somewhere in between you have a life. For the majority of people, our time on this planet is not known – we simply don’t know when or how we will die.

For some though with terminal illnesses, we know roughly how long we have left. Whether it is a matter of months or several years. In some respects, these people who know, are the lucky ones. Knowing when one will die, allows you to try and cram as many of your dreams into your life as possible. Unlike the rest of the population, knowing when allows one to plan one’s remaining life.

Two of my friends have cancer, and thankfully are in remission. They both know their time is limited, and both are trying to make the last months/years of their lives as fulfilling as possible.

Five of my other friends are HIV+, with one of them having being HIV+ for over ten years now. They too have gone through the rough bit of “why me”, come to terms with it, and now living a full life, even though they all know it’s only a matter of time before they are at the pearly gates.

The disadvantage of knowing is that you are forever aware that time is passing. Don’t know about you, but I am seeing time flying by just a tad too quickly for my liking. Maybe it’s a sign of growing old, or maybe everything is simply speeding up.

What I find most annoying is that knowing how long I have before I too go through [hopefully] the pearly gates, my amount of time left is quickly passing. There are too many things I still want to achieve, and yet as each day passes, I think to myself “will I do everything I want?”.

One thing my dying friends and I have in common, besides knowing we are dying, is the day we do die and how everyone will react. Some of us have told our family and friends, while others have kept it a secret to all but a select few.

I myself made the decision that I would not tell a lot of people, and that has been the hardest thing. The ones that know are my doctor, a close personal [female] friend and my flatmate’s partner. As you probably appreciate, you can’t hide anything from your doctor, and my female friend happened to find out by mistake [I accidentally let it slip one day when talking about cancer].

The decision to tell my flatmate’s partner that I was dying [without telling him how or why], was not taken lightly. Knowing how my flatmate would react to the news based on his previous negative reactions to others dying, I am hoping that his partner may be his sounding board and a sense of understanding. Time will tell. Hopefully our friendship is strong enough for him to take it into account and accept it without feeling let down or betrayed.

I have known for the last twelve months that I am dying, and for that time, I have gradually come to terms with it. I know for a fact that if my family found out, the impact will crush them, and then become an issue of being “baby-sat” to make sure I was okay.

As those that have read my previous articles, my time has been spent enjoying myself and helping others. I suppose in some respects the old saying “what goes around comes around” is something I am hoping will eventuate. By doing good deeds to others, others will in time reciprocate in some form. Not that I have any doubt about this from my close friends.

By letting people know through this article that I am dying, you as the reader, will finally be able to put two and two together and realise that my previous articles were nothing more than building blocks to me fulfilling my dreams.

By this stage you are either shocked or about to reach for the phone. But DON’T! I don’t need sympathy or a flood of questions. I still have about 4 to 5 years left [maybe longer], according to the doctors, and I intend living my life to the fullest. The only thing I need to ensure each day is that I get sufficient sleep and as little stress as possible. The impact of these two things have seen me really drained and exhausted, and its something I am trying to control, with some success.

Why this sudden confession?

Simply so that people out there finally realise that what I do is not only for the benefit of others, but also to make my last few years fulfilling. Yeah, ok … selfish as that maybe, it is for me that I do this. Simply so that when the day comes, I can honestly say I did some good. And by telling people now, you may understand the reason for the hugs and cuddles that I sometimes crave – it is for simply to be close to someone without the hang-ups or expectations of sex, at times when I am down.

Cancer is such a bitch … and dying is such a pain … but hey! Everyone dies at some stage, and I am one of the lucky ones that know when and how long.

So my advise to you is enjoy your life, live as if today is your last day, and make sure that you try at least to fulfil some of your dreams and hopes.

James

[Written in the first person on behalf of a friend]

Where Are My Friends Going? Where Am I Heading?

I got back yesterday afternoon from spending some quality time with a lesbian friend of mine. I hadn't seen her since my mum's funeral four weeks ago, not because of her avoiding me, but rather me taking a low profile. One of solitude and reflection at my loss as well as trying to keep my dad, brother and sister in law from going off the deep end, while trying to maintain my own sense of sanity.

We sat and had a late lunch at the beachside suburb of North Haven, just the two of us, catching up and what's happening like any two good friends do. But it was after I dropped her off home, that I sensed another loss. She was leaving that evening for Sydney, first for only 6 weeks to see how she would cope living with her partner, and then if it worked out, permanently.

I looked back over the last 18 months and realised that most of my good close friends have either moved interstate or are about to. By the end of 2006 I will only have 2 close friends left in Adelaide. The rest would have also moved on to Sydney, Queensland and beyond.

My own plans of moving to Canberra for a better paying job in January and a new life, is now on hold due to mum's passing away and having to "train" my dad in the simple things of independent living. Things like how to use a washing machine, how to cook a decent meal, paying bills etc. These were things my mum used to take care of during their 45 years of marriage, and now that role for the time being has fallen on me.

I can hear some of you saying "you'll be okay, he'll get used to being alone" etc., and that I already know. And that is one of the reasons for my holiday plans for 2006. To give myself time away from here as well as foster a situation where he does start standing on his own two feet. However, it's the period between now and then that has me worried and concerned, for till that time I need to be here and I need my close friends around me for the emotional and social support. I know, it sounds selfish but then what are close friends really for? The good times and the parties only? Or are they there for the bad times as well?

And while I am going through all this, my friends are moving interstate and to a new life. In the meantime, I too need to work out where I am heading.

Copyright - The Other Issue

Over the last couple of years or so, the movie and music industry have been targeting peer-to-peer sites and software providers trying to stop people from downloading free of charge. Their argument has been that they lose revenue through these illegal downloads via reduced sales, reduced tickets at movie theatres and more.

Now, they are also targeting sheet music and lyrics that can be found online because they claim that they are also loosing revenue for these products. Google is also in the midst of a legal case over its plans to scan thousands - if not millions - of books and put snippets of the content online.

All this is being done in the name of "copyright" and "loss of revenue".

Now, please do not get me wrong. Artists - whether singers, actors, producers or writers, to name a few - produce their work so they can actually make money. Thus they deserve to earn royalties from their works, just like everyone else who provides a service or product.

However I think they have missed the point as to why people download music, movies etc. It is not for greed or lack of money that people do it. There are a myriad of reasons, however if you ask most people who download these copyrighted products, they will simply tell you that the cost of buying the goods is too high.

Take for example a CD by a popular singer or band. In Australia, the cost is between $25 and $35 per CD which would have between 10 and 12 tracks. Of these, 3/4 of the songs are what most would describe as "Crap" or "fillers". Only 2 or 3 songs are worth buying the CD for, yet why would anyone want to spend that sort of money just for a couple of songs?

The record companies would argue that it costs money to make the CDs and promote them. Yes, no argument out of me on that one, but how can they justify the cost being so high? And, how can they justify that 3-6 months after the new CD is released, one can buy it for only $10-$20 instead of $25-$35? Has production costs decreased, or have they made enough money during the first 3-6 months to subsidise the reduced sales price? I think not.

The same goes with movies. A cinema ticket is around $14 unless you go on a cheap night [normally Tuesdays]. Or one can wait until it is out on DVD and buy it for anything between $30 and $40 upon release, or $15-$25 a few months later. Novels and other books are no different. Buy them when they are released and you pay "an arm and a leg", but wait a few months and you can pick them up from $1 upwards.

Now, if the entertainment industry is really serious about reducing pirating of their goods, then they need to look at the reason behind people downloading their products. The cost is one factor which if they used their ingenuity, would follow in the steps of Apple and it's I-tune store and sell the music online for a nominal price. People would then legally download the music because they can pick-and-choose what they wanted. Same goes for movies, books etc.

The second thing they need to do is make available their entire collections to the public, not just the hit albums, songs and movies. Many people download music and movies that are no longer available for purchase or are too difficult to find.

The thing that the entertainment industry tends to forget and ignore is this. If a CD or movie is not available for purchase, and someone downloads it from someone else who already has it, then there is no loss of revenue for the producer. The purpose of the Copyright laws are to protect the creator from someone else copying it and earning an income from it. However, if the movie or song [or book for that matter] is no longer available for purchase, then the entertainment industry's claims are not valid.

It is interesting to note that the US FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT AND COPYRIGHT ACT OF 2005 states that for one to be punished for Copyright violation, one must do this for commercial advantage or financial gain, must be in excess of $1000 within any 6 month period, and make it available to people who one knows are going to use it for the above reasons. [below is an copy of the actual act].

Finally the third thing the entertainment industry needs to consider. People download music and movies because many wish to "preview" them before forking out their hard cold cash. In these tough economic times, people do not wish to throw money away for a 2nd rate or 3rd rate album or movie. If they like it, they will then either buy the CD or DVD, or go and see the movie at the cinemas.

Enough said.

US FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT AND COPYRIGHT ACT OF 2005 [excerpt below]
(a) Criminal Infringement.--
``(1) In general.--Any person who willfully infringes a
copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of
title 18, if the infringement was committed--
``(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or
private financial gain;
``(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including
by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or
more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted
works, which have a total retail value of more than
$1,000; or
``(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared
for commercial distribution, by making it available on a
computer network accessible to members of the public, if
such person knew or should have known that the work was
intended for commercial distribution.
(2) Evidence.--For purposes of this subsection, evidence
of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by
itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful
infringement of a copyright.
``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `work being
prepared for commercial distribution' means--
``(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion
picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording,
if, at the time of unauthorized distribution--
``(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable
expectation of commercial distribution; and
``(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work
have not been commercially distributed; or
``(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of
unauthorized distribution, the motion picture--
``(i) has been made available for viewing in a
motion picture exhibition facility; and
``(ii) has not been made available in copies
for sale to the general public in the United
States in a format intended to permit viewing
outside a motion picture exhibition facility.''.

Pack Your Bags and Let's Go

A couple of months ago I decided to organise my travel plans for 2006. With pen, paper, a hot cuppa coffee and my nicoteine sticks, I worked out where and when I would go for my holidays in the coming twelve months.

Having been to Europe three times in my life, I decided 2006 would the Year of Australia and go to the cities I have never been before. So Sydney was automatically ruled out as I graced that fair city twice this year. Canberra was left on the list as a "passing through" location mainly to visit family and friends who live there, even though I have been to our nation's capital twice this year already. My itinerary was February on the Gold Coast, May in Perth, August in Melbourne and Christmas 2006 in New Zealand [ok, not part of Australia but it might as well be]. A week away every three months to refresh and recharge these batteries of mine.

Like all good plans something always crops up which throws a spanner in the works! Not in a bad way, but a spanner anyways. In the last week I have had to re-organise my February trip to now include not only an overnighter in Canberra and four days on the Gold Coast, but also a return stay in Canberra for 3 days before flying down to Tasmania for a four day visit, before finally returning home. My 7 day holiday is turning into a 2 week three-state jaunt! Not that I am complaining by no stretch of the imagination.

What I am though is the total cost of the 2 week holiday. I never really realised how expensive seeing Australia is. By the time I include the airfares [to Canberra, Gold Coast, back to Canberra, Launceston and then home], add in the accommodation and car hire costs [Gold Coast and Launceston], plus spending money, the entire trip is coming to nearly $4,000!

Yep. A sweet $4,000 for economy airfares, 3 star accommodation and a basic 4 cylinder car!

Out of curiosity, I also checked out how much it would cost to go to Greece for 2 weeks, where I also have family. Taking international airfares, accommodation, car hire and spending money, the cost came to $3,500. That's $500 less than seeing my own country! It was even cheaper going to New Zealand for 2 weeks. Total cost there came in at $2,500! No wonder so many Australians prefer to go overseas for their holidays.

I was so tempted to say "stuff it! It's either Greece or New Zealand for 2 weeks". Oh I was so tempted, but I am going to stick to my original plans. 2006 is the Year of Australia, even if it sends me broke! In a worse case scenario, I could always take the advise of a friend of mine and sell my "hot butt" on some corner street :-) Then again, maybe not.

But I am packing my bags come February and seeing this country of ours, even if it is with a dent in the bank balance.

Phishing Scammers Are Performing A Community Service

Here's a question or two for you.

If you received a letter in the mail [regular postal mail] and asked you to post back your bank account details for "verification", would you reply to the letter? Or, would you simply call your bank and ask why they require that information, or alternatively just throw the letter in the bin?

What if someone rang you and said that they were updating your personal banking details, would you sit there and give out your account number, pin number and any other information they requested? Or would you simply say "sorry, but I don't give out my personal information over the phone. I will call into a branch tomorrow" and hang up?

The reason I ask is that the latest AOL/NCSA from the USA has just published a report which indicates that 25% of all Americans are subject to receiving phishing emails seeking personal details. Of these, an astronomical 70% actually believed the emails were from their banks etc! When I read this, I simply shook my head and thought "how bloody stupid are some people!". The second thought that crossed my mind was that if they are gullible enough to fall for these emails, then they deserve to be ripped off. Sorry - but obviously these people don't really have a brain to think with.

Phishing scammers pray on the naivety, stupidity and the "adrenalin rush" caused by "oh my god! something's wrong. I better reply immediately" in people. They also pray on the greed that is a basic instinct in humans. I personally think that these phishing scammers should not be hunted down for punishment, but rather applauded for their efforts. Seriously. They should. And before you post comments abusing me, hear out my reasoning.

I receive phishing emails on a regular basis. Thankfully, my Gmail account is intelligent enough to know they are junk and puts them straight into the spam folder. On occasions I actually read these phishing emails, not because I have "inherited" some astronomical amount from someone I never knew, but because I simply want to see what they say. But one thing I never do, is reply to them. I read them, I chuckle and then click on the "delete" button.

Now, if people are so stupid as to reply to phishing emails, then so be it. The only way they are going to learn is if they become a victim to these scams. If for example, one is stupid enough to reply to a phishing email and give them their credit card details, and in turn, the scammer bleeds them dry of a few thousand dollars, then next time round they won't do it again. Assuming they are not that stupid as to fall for the same trick again.

I can hear people saying "but these are innocent people! they don't deserve to be ripped off". The reply to this is that if they are "innocent", then they shouldn't be let loose in society. Simple as that. This argument simply doesn't wash. Sorry.

Example. If you are driving down the road, and you decide to give a hitchhiker a lift because it's raining. You are being a decent human being. However, if this hitchhiker turns around and says "look, I am going to rob a bank. How about helping me", and you think "oh yeah. That will be fun" and go ahead and do it, get caught and end up in jail, then one has no one to blame but one's self! Stupidity is stupidity is stupidity.

Being a victim of a Phishing scam is simply that - stupidity of the highest degree. People need to start using the same attitude towards these phishing emails as they would if someone knocked on their door and asked for the personal details. If you give out your personal details willy nilly, then you deserve to be burnt.

Adam And Eve Were Black

I have always had a fascination with history, especially from the Classical era covering Egypt, Rome and inparticular that of the Greeks. Their rise to power, their eventual collapse, their discoveries and achievements have always got me curious how such non-technologically advanced races could build such marvels as the Pyramids, the Parthenon and more.

This interest in classical history was in part due to my own [Greek] background where my parents insisted that we be taught not only the English language and Australian history, but also be fluent in Greek and Greek history. My parents would continually buy me books by various ancient Greek writers to feed the fascination I had of my past. Plato's The Republic and Herodotus' Iliad and Odyssey were my three favourite books. Stories on Alexander the Great, the 300 Spartans and Cleopatra were adventures that I knew off by heart and dreamt of how exciting it would be to have lived during those times. Mind you, one always looked at the excitement of the times and never took into account that despite all "those adventures", it would have been a hard life.

One common thing amongst all those ancient cultures was how humanity actually evolved. In some form or another, there was some cataclysm that occured, whether it was Atlantis, The Flood, or simply even Adam and Eve, from which humanity either emerged from or scattered to the corners of the world.

Like every race, the Greeks pictured the first humans as Greeks, the Egyptians as Egyptians and the Chinese as Chinese. To imagine them as any other race - now or then - would imply that the alternate race was somehow superior to one's own. Every culture always sees itself and its own lands as the centre of the world. For the Greeks it was Mount Olympus, for the Jews it was the Holy Lands and so forth.

Yet this ethnocentricity raised - and still raises - a lot of questions about the origin of humanity. Who do you believe? Do you believe your own religion and what its says about the first humans? Or do you believe the oldest culture and their beliefs? Or do we take a realistic and scientific approach and believe that most cultures are wrong, and that the first humans originated somewhere else on the planet?

The latest theory is that the first inhabitants originated in Africa, and because of a very long term drought, forced them to leave their "little paradise" and move into more fertile lands [see BBC News here] thus eventually spreading throughout the world. This theory in conjunction with the theory that we are actually an evolved version of the monkeys, would make Africa the logical place and support previous African-based theories of evolution.

Which brings me to the title of this article. If the latest drought theory is correct, then the first humans were obviously Africans and thus black. For them, the drought would have been seen as a punishment by the Gods for some "wrong doing" and therefore forced to leave their paradise home. As they left in search of more fertile lands, they would have carried with them the stories of their original homeland, and eventually as they settled down in Egypt, the Holy Lands, Europe etc, these stories would have evolved to become local myths.

Thus for the Christians, Adam and Eve's paradise would have been the lands in Africa prior to this initial diaspora. The Apple and the snake would have symbolised in reality the food [or lack thereof] and the wildlife who with humans, would have competed for the small amounts of food. Obviously the battle between the humans and a hungry wildlife would have been one where humanity would have been more the hunted than the hunter. A hungry lion would have found a hungry human easy prey.

With the diaspora of those early humans, the reality of why they left in the first place, would eventually evolve into myths and legends. In a superstituous society, this diaspora would be blamed on the Gods who would in turn take on the "image" of the local society. A flow on of this would have resulted in the local religious leader incorporating these tales into their religion as a means of teaching and controlling the locals.

Thus by the time we arrive to the Golden Era of the classical period, these long-forgotten ancestors of ours from Africa would have been transformed into local dieties and legends, and the actual cause of the initial diaspora would have been erased or transformed in the memories of the people.

So for us Christians [and am not singling out Christians alone in this article], Adam and Eve's paradise was not in the Holy Lands but rather somewhere in Africa. They weren't - as they are currently portrayed as Caucasian - but actually black Africans, and them leaving their paradise in reality had nothing to do with Eve eating the forbidden Apple, but rather a battle between humans and wildlife for the scarce food brought about by a severe long term drought.

Who is right? Who is wrong? That, unfortunately is the $64,000 question. But one thing for certain is that regardless of what the holy books state, the real Paradise was a long long way from where many of us have been led to believe.

Brad is Hot!

I don't often write about friends and partners in my articles, not specifically about them anyway. Generally they are included in the articles because of what's happening in my life or me raising a particular issue. Sometimes, on rare occasions, they will ask "Is this article about me?" to which I would reply "sort of but not specifically". Not because I don't want to include them, but because I respect their privacy.

So it came as a shock when someone I know asked if I would write an article about them. When I gave them a "no, I don't do articles specifically on friends", I expected a simple "ok, not a problem". Boy, was I wrong! The sms' from him included "wont speak to you again", "you are not getting a hug from me", etc etc. You name it, the blackmail sms' were such that I thought to myself - well, if he is so persistant, then why not.

So Brad, this is for you. And don't blame me afterwards because I am not withdrawing it LOL. As the old saying goes "be careful on what you wish for".

As my friends can vouch, I know people who range in age from 18 right through to 60 plus and try to treat everyone the same regardless of who or what they do in life. Some are ex-prostitutes, others are lawyers, all are decent human beings with all their faults and good points. Many I have met through the chatrooms over the last few years, who progressed from online friends to real-life friends.

A couple of years ago, I had a [bad] habit of giving online strangers my MSN Messenger nic without thinking of the repurcussions or outcomes, till earlier this year I had over 200 contacts on my list. Of these, only a dozen were people that I actually spoke to or knew, with the rest being people who I added, spoke to maybe once or twice, and then nothing more. So, in one of those moods, I went through my list earlier this year and culled them all off my Messenger, keeping only my friends. Don't speak to the rest, why clutter my Messenger, was my philosophy at the time.

Back to Brad [otherwise I will never hear the end of it] :-)

Earlier this year, I got a messenge which basically said "You are on my list, but I don't know who you are. ASL". [ASL being Age, Sex Location]. I looked at the email address but didn't register who it was, and despite my rule of never responding to any message that starts of with "ASL", I replied back.

Imagine my shock when he sent me photos of himself. I looked at them and re-looked at them, went got myself a coffee, came back and had another look. And the one thing that kept going through my mind was "Where the hell was he hiding? How come I had him on my MSN and we never met?". No offence, I know a lot of cute guys, but Brad blew me away! I couldn't believe that someone like that simply slipped through my fingers, in a manner of speaking.

At the time of our "re-contact", he was seeing someone which automatically put him out of bounds. I don't believe in chasing someone who is already dating. Don't like it happening to me, so don't like doing it to them.

As the year progressed, Brad became single again, and we progressed from Internet friends to eventually talking on the phone. The more I talked to him, the more I liked him to the point that I can so easily fall for him. Over time, I have fallen for him to the extent that I can't wait to be with him. Sad hey?

The only concern is that Brad is one of those guys who is really good looking, nice personality, wicked sense of humour, that any guy or girl could easily fall for him. In short, he is HOT! if you know what I mean.

To give you an idea, at 5'9" tall, athletic build, blonde hair, green eyes and kissable lips, he would drive anyone crazy! Plus, although gay, he still has that musculine butch voice that makes him a Man's Man, if you know what I mean.

To show you how cute he is, there is a photo posted below. I won't show you his face simply to save myself having to compete with anyone else. Selfish I know LOL
Is there a shortcoming in Brad? Well, unfortunately there is. It's nothing personal or anything I would change. But, its his style of music. We are like chalk and cheese in that respect but hey! Target sells earplugs by the packs of 100. And they aren't that expensive either. :-)

Anyways, I think I have said enough. It will be an experience to spend some quality time with him soon when we catch up.

Maybe it will be good and will allow our relationship to go one step further. Maybe it won't be, but one never knows. But if it does, we both have agreed that this time next year, he is moving back to Adelaide and in with me.

So, am going to take up the suggestion a friend of mine keeps telling me - if you don't make the effort, you will never know what the outcome is.
James

The Law Is The Law

I expect this article to cause as much of a commotion online as it does offline in the discussions I have had with friends, but that's life.

On Friday December 2nd, the Singaporean Government proceeded with the execution of convicted drug trafficker Nguyen Tuong Van despite appeals from both Australia and other nations. A lot of criticism has been leveled against the Singapore Government over Nguyen Tuong Van's execution, with many calling it inhumane, illegal etc. However, despite our own personal thoughts on executing other humans, let's step back and look at the whole situation.

Nguyen Tuong Van was caught with 400 grams of Heroin with a street value of millions of Australian dollars, and the amount he had on him apparently would have been enough for 26,000 "hits". That is a lot of heroin on the streets. The reason for carrying it, was to pay off his brother's A$30,000 debt to money lenders. It was a huge risk he took for so little debt, alternative options existed, but he chose to be a drug courier.

Singapore's laws regarding drug traffickers are well known and publicised, especially in Australia. If you are caught with drugs in Singapore, the penalty is death. No exceptions. So, by going through Singapore en route to Australia, Nguyen Tuong Van knew the risks he was taking.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of the death penalty by any stretch of the imagination. I don't approve of what Singapore did in executing Nguyen Tuong Van nor any other person - whether a foreigner or a Singaporean. The death penalty is one of the cruelest things any nation could impose on a human as punishment.

However, having said that, if one choses for whatever reason, to be a drug trafficker and to take the gamble of landing in Singapore, then Singaporean Law applies if you get caught. For us in Australia and elsewhere to try and convince the Singaporean Government to give someone clemency for breaking Singaporean Law, is something I fail to comprehend. Why? Let's take a different scenario.

Let's assume a foreigner committed a crime and broke our [Australian] Laws. That person would pay for the crime he/she committed based on Australian Law. If the criminal's home country placed pressure on us to not implement our own law, we as Australians, would object to outside interferance. We don't tolerate other countries telling us what we should and should not do, so why should Singapore be any different?

For Singapore to give Nguyen Tuong Van clemency and commute his sentence to imprisonment would also send a signal to the rest of the world that although Singaporean Law says "Drug Trafficking Carries the Death Penalty .... But if you kick up enough of a fuss, we will commute it to imprisonment". This would then see Singapore experiencing more drug trafficking through the city state than is currently happening. A precedent had to be avoided.

One thing though I did feel extremely disappointed with was the Singaporean Government's refusal to allow Nguyen Tuong Van one last chance to hug his mother. That to me, was insensitive and inconsiderate at the utmost level. The dear lady was losing her son. To allow her to hug him one last time would have been not only a very compassionate thing from the Singapore Government's side, but also a chance for her to say her final goodbye with the love that she had for him.

On that, all I can say is "Shame on you Singapore".

Finally, back to the issue of executions. As stated earlier, I am not a supporter of executing people for crimes they have committed, and the main reason is that not only is human life priceless, but there is always the chance that the wrong person is executed or not all the facts are available at the time.

Singapore is not the only country that carries out executions. The world's most powerful nation - the United States - executes people on a regular basis, as do other countries. If we are to stop Singapore from executing drug traffickers, then we need to have a global push to stop executions worldwide.

Enough said. Am off to dinner.