TaraElla: Let's Build a Happy Future

If we support the idea of multiculturalism, we should all support legitimate lifestyle choices from everyone.

Sounds easy. But intolerance comes up in many forms. From my experience, my 'fellow travellers' in promoting equal rights and tolerance generally do not discriminate against people whose lifestyles are different from the mainstream. Yet not all diversity is celebrated still. For example, in the very circles that claim to be tolerant, I have still experienced discrimination based on my lifestyle choices and my beliefs.

I know I probably believe in a lot of different things to what constitutes mainstream, progressive generation Y out there nowadays. I believe in lifelong monogamy and the importance of stable family structures. I believe in the idea of clean living, and that in the longer run at least shunning alcohol, drugs and sex outside of committed relationships is the way to bring peace and sanity to life. Although I believe in tolerance of individuals' right to make their own moral decisions and WILL NOT support criminalisation of abortion, I do still personally believe that abortion is morally problematic in some way at least, and hope to really discourage its occurrence in society by my own efforts, mainly by targeting its root cause, sex outside of committed relationships. Although I believe in the right to terminate one's life without interference from the state, I have severe reservations when that consent is not 100% clear - hence I was on the pro-life side in the Schiavo case in 2005.

If I keep silent about all this, then I don't get any discrimination. But if I don't, I get shouted down almost like I am an alternative version of the religious right itself. But to tell me to shut up because I believe differently - is that fair at all? Obviously, if I can live up to the idea of fighting to let you live your lifestyle even though I don't agree with it and have to say something about it, isn't that good enough?

More dangerously, it sends the wrong message to people that actively pursing clean living lifestyles and being against a culture abortion-on-demand is incompatible with living within the equality and diversity movement. This fuels the recruitment and retention of people within the religious right - simply because they feel safer there.

On a recent tour to Australia, Britney has been caught lip-syncing and that caused an uproar of controversy amongst fans. However, I really don't care. Britney has never been about quality pop singing - maybe you should listen to some Katharine McPhee or Taylor Swift instead if that's what you want.

I used to be an avid fan of Britney's work, especially before 2003. It was not that the music was particularly good, but it was a great source of entertainment. And that's all that matters. Some people are great because of their musical value, some people are great because of their entertainment value. And there is nothing wrong with that.

However, Britney's recent development has concerned me a lot. Whereas she used to be somebody that younger teens can look up to and admire, now her public persona has become a tool of meaningless sensationalism. She seems to have given herself over to become a tool of the sensationalist media.

Take her latest song 'Three' for example - I like that song - but only if I don't really hear the lyrics the way they intended it. It is truly sad that somebody who was once one of the greatest stars in the world, admired by teenagers across the globe, is singing about sexual activity between three people, especially in a silly and repetitive fashion. It is all for sensational value that these lyrics were written, and they have chosen one of the most vulnerable yet well known and controversial people in the industry to deliver it.

Recently I saw the government (of where I live) launch yet another ad campaign advising young people not to turn their Night Out into a Nightmare by letting alcohol let them do stupid things or end up in physical danger. Of course this is better than nothing, but I doubt it will have much of an impact.

I guess one of the most important ways to combat alcohol use in society is to introduce alternative social beverages - things that you can drink whilst talking to people and having a good time. I guess we already have soft drinks, and for an even healthier alternative I suggest soya milk or fruit juice. They already exist - we just need to put them in the category of 'cool social beverages' in the cultural imagination.

So many people out there claim to be trying to protect the family, the basis unit of society itself, from forces that will destroy it. Which sounds like a noble cause. But then, who really has been trying to do this? Politicians have been known to start movements in the name of one thing whilst serving the purpose of another.

In Western countries today, one of the biggest groups who claim to be protecting the family unit are those seeking to legislate against gay rights and gay marriage. However, their arguments make no sense at all. Gay and lesbian people comprise of about 2% of society, and any policy to do with a minority this small will not have a noticeable effect in the composition or conventions of society. The only effect gay rights will have on society is to reaffirm its commitment to tolerance and equality for all. Furthermore, the current crisis of family breakdown began long before the gay rights debate, and so far, countries that have attained full gay equality in law have not seen an impact on the health of their families. This just shows that the health of families in society as a whole are mainly the product of the 98% heterosexual population, and to scapegoat gay and lesbian people is just plain wrong.

Obviously, we need to target the solution at where the problem is. In this case, since the problem is not with gay rights, being opposed to gay rights will fix nothing for the health of families. I guess measures to save relationships from divorce (for example by increasing availability of family therapy), to make cheating on a spouse socially more unacceptable (through cultural campaigns), combined with adequate social welfare, and legislation for reasonable working hours for all, will go a much longer way. These are simple answers that have always been there - just not easy ones.

Due to the recent increase in hype about the 2012 phenomenon, I re-read a book about the 2012 apocalypse predictions today.

Well, for one, I don't believe in the 2012 apocalypse theory.

But then, some of you may ask, what if it is true? Let's entertain this for a while. How are we going to save ourselves? Many religious fundamentalists tell us that a good afterlife will await us if we live their lifestyle. They all differ on which diety to worship and what lifestyle to live, however. Which one shall we follow?

I guess we can only do our best then. Which is true regardless of what the fundamentalists say - I don't believe any human being on Earth here has got it all correct anyway, and rather to copy someone else's mistakes, I guess it's better to have a read of all the wisdom and advice out there and try to do your best.

That's what I do anyway.

'It Works Almost as Well as a Luxury Item, and it is Very Affordable'. This is the category of products that I usually do appreciate most in life. Not just that it is a value deal, but that it usually comes about after a lot of fitting around and well-meant compromise, genuine considerations about quality behind it (rather than just an 'I want a bigger house, bigger car and a bigger everything so I can brag' type of mentality), and it brings the benefit of a previously luxurious/exclusive lifestyle to many more people.

Forget about the luxury brands that come with a premium. With the same amount of money, I can get a lot more if I stick to my preference instead.

When I was younger, sometime in the late 90s, I came across an article titled 'A Day in the Life of 2010'. It described things that we have come to known like portable gadgets that can access the internet, computers in cars, ultra-portable laptops, bluetooth enabled home electronics etc. Of course, not every prediction in it came true - like how we should all be wearing internet-enabled watches by now.

However, I hereby suggest another version of a day in the life of 2010 - less technocentric, but more revoulutionary in its core. It uses technology rather than just aim to be surrounded by it 24/7.

"When you wake up in the morning, the first thing you do is to check if any of your friends or audiences to the media you have created (including, but not limited to blogs, videos etc) have anything to say to you. You also do a quick roundup of the news out there, as just by clicking a button you can automatically access news around the world, from Sweden to China. During the day, you ponder on whatever inspiration you gathered, and whilst listening to your favourite music read books about ideas to change the world, and think about what you can do to create whatever small change you can. In the evening you finally think of something that you really want to share with the world, so you do, once again with a few simple clicks and a bit of typing. You also decide to make a video about it, so you turn on your webcam and start recording, and in another few clicks a new part of your revolution is live to the world. With this knowledge, you happily go to sleep."