15 minutes of fame...

I've been in the news before, usually connected to Matt Pearce and International Action, but at other times separately (CGO protest, "Andy Lau's Gweilo Fan" and making an agreement between my old company and OUHK).

But yesterday's media exposure was the coolest so far. Matt, myself, Tom Grundy and Tom's friend Angus are featured in this month's issue of Maxim Magazine. It's a four page spread with photos and a fun profile of each of us, together with an article on International Action. Check it out, if you're in Hong Kong. You can find Maxim (a Men's magazine) at 7-11, Circle K or any newsstand for HK$35. We are on page 68.

Old writings...

This is something I wrote in January of 2003, ancient history... I can't even remember writing it -- at all. But when I read my past writing, I am always impressed with my ability. I don't know why I can't use this skill to my advangtage in a very great way. Am I so afraid of failure that I can't even try? Why don't I apply for more positions where I can use my writing skill to my advantage?

In fact, in my current position, my writing gives me the greatest sense of satisfaction, whether it's a simple letter or a report, or even if I'm editing someone else's work. I've got to explore this, even if I do it as a hobby to hone my skills and get something done that's productive with the talent I have.

Anyway, here's the passage:

In many debates there is a hearty faction of people who, when presented with facts, data and analysis supporting freedom of choice, interject with the argument "it's just not right".

What does this mean, "it's just not right"? Why is this in itself a valid argument? And why should this argument supersede common sense and statistical analysis?

We all have a sense of right and wrong. But we have the responsibility not to impose our own values on others. Doing so by legal means would take away the right of others to choose for themselves.

We can always teach others our values, and explain to them why a certain action should be considered harmful to themselves or to others, but we cannot make their choice for them. When presented with a debate about moral choices, freedom should be paramount. No one can expect everyone else to think the same way they do, even after we make our argument clear. To do so would clearly exhibit a certain level of conceit.

But to present the argument "it's just not right" and expect everyone to agree with you is simply arrogant. Explain to us why it's not right. And be open to arguments which explain "yes, it's not right, but there are reasons why we need to accept/tolerate/allow it."

Don't be closed minded based on your own sense of moral values. Ofttimes intolerance leads to much more harm than acceptance. Humankind will never, ever agree on every point. Only by allowing for a difference in opinion will we ever learn to get along, to mature as a society and to make efficient progress toward peaceful solutions.

If you're going to argue "it's just not right", back up that argument with facts, not opinion.

This essay is a simple non-specific study on logical reasoning vs. social conditioning. I first posted this on an online forum and the responses were amazing. All the conservatives immediately jumped in with a knee-jerk reaction accusing me of talking about abortion, and other sensitive political issues for which subjective "morality" may be a major argument, without the support of logical reasoning. Yeah, they knew what I was talking about, basically, but it was still amusing to see that they immediately recognized that they do in fact make such unfounded arguments. Meanwhile, the Liberals, and advocates of tolerance realized that this statement transcended specific issues and meant things such as tolerance for conservative beliefs as well.

On one occasion, when being interviewed about my hunger strike in front of the HK Central Government Offices protesting the Education and Manpower Bureau's decision to hire the Society for Truth and Light, a local anti-gay hate group, to teach human rights issues to Hong Kong's educators, I made an important distinction. I was not protesting the Society for Truth and Light. I was protesting the EMB. While I may not agree with Truth and Light's views, I fully support their right to express such views. But in an official context, no group whose views are radical, either ultraconservative, or ultraliberal, should be in a position to teach about rights issues, so the EMB's appointment of T&L was inapporpriate.

I would not close down the Society for Truth and Light, or pass a law prohibiting them from expressing their views. I would choose logical reasoning and social education to teach people why their views might be harmful to society, in the hope that they will naturally be dismissed as extreme, and their impact would therefore be minimized. That is a strong part of what this essay says. We should all be tolerant, and realize that our "it's just not right" may be as wrong as theirs.

Living with/around others: Some basic ground rules.

I know I'm not a perfect person, and I always aspire to be better. I very freely admit to my faults, which are numerous.

But in the last four years of my life, I've been allowing myself to be taken advantage of in domestic situations. So I feel it's time to stop making promises without very clearly laying out the ground rules realted to practical living arrangements. I had previously thought these ground rules were common sense, so I didn't think it was necessary to say something so obvious. That was a mistake. Not everyone has the same level of common sense. So here I go...

First, there are two very basic principles I think everyone needs to try their best to follow. These are:

(A) Strive for a perfect balance in what each person contributes; and
(B) Live by the golden rule, at all times -- treat others the way you want to be treated!

Without these two principles, any arrangement is bound to be unequal, and therefore will never, never last.

Let's look at (A) first:
Strive for a perfect balance in what each person contributes

Before we can understand this, we need to define what "contribution" means. Here are some of the basic types of contributions in a domestic partnership:

1. Financial (money - compulsory)
2. Domestic chores (time - compulsory)
3. Tangible/quantifiable acts of kindness (generosity - optional)
4. Intangible acts of friendship/love (courtesy/compassion - optional)

To quantify and balance (1) and (2) is a simple task. After all, money is easily counted, and bills can be weighed against one-another. Chores can be shared equally without much difficulty. Either one taks balances another, or the same task is performed on an alternating basis.

When (1) and (2) are balanced fairly, there is no need to calculate (3) and (4) into the equation, because those acts are perfectly voluntary, and are done out of kindness, not obligation. Therefore, the easiest situation to handle, and the one that's most obviously fair, is when each person pays exactly half of everything and does exactly half of the chores. That's equivalent contribution.

Ther problem arises when (1) and/or (2) are not equivalent, i.e. when one person doesn't contribute as much financially, or when one doesn't share in doing the domestic chores.

In such a case, there are two ways to go. Either balance 1 and 2, i.e. one person pays more financially, and the otther person does more chores, or to recognize (3) and (4) as balancing contributions in the equation. Both of these can be tricky, because it can be difficult to put a value on time vs. money and kindness/love vs. time or money.

But sometimes there's a situation that's swo clearly unbalanced, it's simply unacceptable.

For instance, let's say for the most part, the financial situation is balanced. Each person pays half the rent, half the utilities, half the required shopping for necessities and household items, etc.

But then the domestic chores lay entirely on one person's shoulders.

"I do all the chores around the house. I even clean up after your mess -- clothes thrown on furniture, tissues on the floor, drinks left on tables in shared space, . So what do you do to balance that?"

The fact was, I can be comfortable being in a situation where I do more chores around the house if I'm living with a girlfriend, simply because she is my girlfriend and I love her. I was willing to make the sacrifice, because I felt balanced by what she does as a girlfriend, (4). All she needs to do is make me feel good about myself by spending time with me and giving me someone to hold at night, and by appreciating the love we make together. And that's more than I ever need to make up for an unbalanced domestic contribution.

But if I'm with someone who's not my girlfriend, I can't make the same sacrifice, no matter whether I love her or not. To do so would be allowing myself to be used. And I won't do that any more.

I'll stop here and wait for comments and write more later, as this whole subject is exhausting for me.

Ton

Friends and Allies: Bianco e bianco in questo mondo grigio.

A friend has shared something secret, and wonderful with me today.

Perhaps I am not as alone in this world as I had so sadly imagined myself to be.

How wonderful it is to discover that someone already so admired, has the rare, unexpected quality of sincere, unabashed sentiment.

In finding this comrade in arms, I have found a new source of hope in my own self, and a reassurance that my path might actually be the right one.

To my friend (you know who you are): Thank you for reminding me that I can be proud of who I am, and for teaching me how I can indeed use that pride as a source of strength. Thank you.