thoughts du jour

  • "Spend some time alone every day."- His Holiness the Dalai Lama
Showing posts with label News and current affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News and current affairs. Show all posts

Tuesday, 14 July 2009

Where are the women?

It was brought to my attention by Bellsg at the end of the countdown that not one single female artist made it into the hottest 100 of all time. NOT ONE. In 100 songs, NOT ONE OF THEM WAS FEMALE. While there were a handful of female band members and featured vocalists, there were no females whose own songs made it to the hottest 100.

What does this mean? Is it simply that all the great rock gods are just that, gods and not goddesses? But surely there are some female artists out there that warrant that coveted hottest 100 of all time title? What about Stevie Nicks? Tori Amos? Bjork? Janis Joplin? Not even Carole King?
I find it very hard to believe. But also very eye-opening.

After this discovery, I went through my music collection to see what were my favourites, what I listened to the least, and what I listened to the most. And while female artists were high up there on the number of times listened, all my favourite songs are sung by male artists. The ones I voted for in the top 100 were Riders on the Storm (Doors), All Along the Watchtower (Jimi Hendrix), Throw your Arms Around Me (Hunters and Collectors) and Smells Like Teen Spirit (Nirvana). No females there.

And when you think about it, the biggest bands of all time are all males: The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Nirvana. So what's the message behind this?

I think it has to do with society's obsession with rock stars. That classic leather pants, scruffy hair, smoldering sexiness, all revolve around that iconic rock god look, beginning, of course, with the one and only Jim Morrison, who was likened to the Greek god Adonis during his time at the top. And let's face it. Rock gods are idolised. Women want to be with them, men want to be them. The power, the money, the fame, the whole bad-boy persona (maybe not in the case of The Beatles...but that's an exception) that surrounds the rock god type.

And while there are plenty of females to idolise, the psychology isn't there. Men might think they're hot, but that doesn't separate them from any other hot female. Women might think they are successful and great musicians, but that also doesn't separate them from the rest of the successful, great female musicians. Male rock gods are elevated by society as exactly that-unattainable gods who we admire from afar.

So while it's disappointing to know that really, there are no female artists out there that have made as strong an impression on us as their male counterparts, perhaps it's a chance to redeem ourselves. Think about your favourite female artists and make sure you vote for them next hottest 100 of all time!

You can see the full list of the hottest 100 of all time here; more info on the lack of females in the charts here; and what The Age had to say about it here

Thursday, 9 July 2009

You're not needed anymore...

If there was ever a time for men to feel redundant in the reproductive department, now is the time. A story in The Age today describes how scientists in England have managed to create sperm from embryonic stem cell. The major breakthrough is thought to help mend the problem of male infertility. But does anyone else find this slightly alarming? First, the physical act of male and female copulating to breed has been made unnecessary with the introduction of IVF and sperm donors, so that now women don't need a man at all (in the physical sense) to have children. And now? It turns out that men aren't even needed to donate sperm anymore! All those stem cells that we've been convincing people to store safely away is really an elaborate plan to rid the world of any need for men, so that women can rule...
...Not really. But I'm sure there are some men out there, somewhere that are secretly thinking "well...I'm not needed anymore."

Australians for Ethical Stem Cell Research director, Dr David van Gend, sums up my thoughts on the issue well:

...The "abuse of embryonic humans had reached a sinister new low".

He said the researchers could have created sperm from non-embryonic stem cells.

"This is an abuse both because of its implications, namely, that scientists can now exploit a dead embryo as a source of sperm, but also because it was entirely unnecessary to use embryos as the source of stem cells," he said.

Of course, it is great news for those who have been deemed infertile. But I can't help but think of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection...

Monday, 1 June 2009

Definition of hypocrisy and irony: pro-life extremists willing to kill to make their point.

Finally, a news story I can get angry about. It has been a long time since a piece of news has made me this angry, and here it is.


According to UK Times online website, 67 year-old Dr George Tiller was shot in his church while performing his duties as an usher. That's right. IN. HIS. CHURCH. Tiller was known for his work on performing late-term abortions at his clinic in Witchita, Kansas. Obviously abortion is a controversial issue without adding to it the taboo of it being a late-term one. Tiller was aware of how many locals felt about his work, having been the victim of a shooting in 1993, where a woman shot him in both arms, and had his clinic bombed in 1986, causing serious damage but, fortunately, not injuring anyone. Los Angeles Times says the police arrested a 51 year old man, who could be charged today with murder and aggravated assault (they obviously don't have the same laws over there with regards to what the media can talk about before being charged).

So let me get this straight. There are people out there that are so AGAINST abortion that they think it ok to try to KILL someone because of it. Is anyone else scratching their head in confusion, trying to figure out HOW on EARTH this makes any sense? The PRO-LIFE extremists are willing to KILL to get their point across? Doesn't that kind of ruin their credibility and their argument? I mean, they are advocating for unborn feotus's to have the right to a chance at life. Their argument is that unborn baby's are humans and have feelings too. Um, hello? Aren't 67 year old men with a wife, four children and 10 grandchildren humans too? Don't 67 year old men have feelings too? Not only that, but this person who did the shooting was a CHURCH GOER. One word. HYPOCRITE.

I found this sentence in particular to be especially ironic:

Anti-abortion violence has killed at least seven people in the US, including three doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard and a clinic escort.

Anti-abortion has killed at leas seven people.
Can you see why I'm scratching my head?
The Alphamummy blog (one of my favorites) summed up my thoughts perfectly when they summed up the event:

The zealots are out again in America. You know, the ones who are so focussed on the sanctity of life, who so cherish the human condition that they urge harrassment and even violence against doctors who perform legal medical procedures.

Well, this will most certainly shove the whole debate of abortion under the nose of Obama, who, although supports the right to choose, has apparently been avoiding the topic. Until now, that is. But I am loving his statement (I really do love this guy):


Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad at anti-abortion groups. They have as much right to opinion as the rest of us. It's the extremists once again that take it too far. People say religion is the the cause of most of the violence and wars in the world? Well it's not, it's the EXTREMISTS that cause it.

You can read the full story here. I just wanted to point out that the sheer stupidity of some people astounds me. I will be shaking my head about this for a very long time.

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

A memory magically interrupted- by Robert Leleux

I read this story a few months ago on the New York Times website and meant to post it on here but forget. Fortunately it's a timeless one, relevant now as it was then. It's a sad story, impeccably written and quite humorous, about the writer's grandmother who has Alzheimers. 

A Memory Magically Interrupted

“YOUR grandmother has Alzheimer’s, right?” the doctor asked me, scrawling notes into a floppy manila folder.

I hadn’t expected to discuss my grandmother’s Alzheimer’s with him. I was hoping to hear some explanation as to why, apart from her memory, my grandmother’s overall health seemed so mysteriously improved. Her lupus, for instance, had all but disappeared from her blood work.

“Yes, but ...” I began.

“Well, there is a theory,” he said, interrupting, “that people with Alzheimer’s heal themselves of their diseases. Because they forget they have them.”

I glanced across the room at my beautiful grandmother, smiling vaguely in her lipstick-pink trench coat. “But you don’t really believe that?” I asked.

The doctor shrugged with an implicit “Who knows?” which I found irritating because I hadn’t flown all the way from Manhattan to Nashville to discuss fanciful theories. I wanted solid answers about JoAnn’s health, and he’d thrown me with his talk of miracle cures.

But by that evening, after I’d driven my grandparents home, I realized that the real reason this doctor had startled me was that for the first time I’d heard someone confirm my experience of my grandmother’s disease. Alzheimer’s has, in a sense, healed my grandmother, and our family.

Despite my family role of bulldog journalist, responsible for sniffing out facts, I’ve always preferred fairy tales to literal truth. And I wonder if that isn’t a better way (in my family’s case, anyway) to approach Alzheimer’s, a malady that for us has had a decided fairy tale ring to it, one of those stories where a beautiful lady is cast under a wicked spell that makes her lose her whole life — only to get it back again, better than ever, by the closing paragraph.

Five years ago, when JoAnn’s Alzheimer’s was first diagnosed, I couldn’t imagine anything less fair. At the time, I composed a mental list of all the people I knew who could lose their minds without anybody noticing, scores of people whom I’d never heard say one original thing. While my grandmother, on the other hand, was the genius of the cocktail party, a brunette version of our fellow Texan Ann Richards, who always seemed poised with a staggering, stiletto quip.

As a young artist in New York, I’d spent years trying to find my voice. When I did, it was my grandmother’s. To this day, I’ve never liked anything I’ve created that didn’t somehow remind me of her. So the fact that my clumsy development and slow self-discovery was occurring just as her decline began felt like a tragic bargain. I was finding my voice just as she was losing hers.

The only certainty about Alzheimer’s is that it’s characterized by uncertainty: There is no definitive test, no definitive diagnosis. But in July several years ago, after undergoing a gruesome but unserious operation, my grandmother began to exhibit signs of the disease. It was as if her anesthesia never lifted.

I now believe she suffered a mini-stroke mid-operation — an event that frequently “ignites” incipient Alzheimer’s — but by the time I formed this suspicion, it was too late to test. So throughout that year, as my grandfather and I accompanied her to a legion of new doctors, each of whom mentioned the possibility of Alzheimer’s, my grandmother grew ever more foggy, sometimes hilariously so.

“The wonderful thing about Alzheimer’s,” she would say, unfurling her arm like Bette Davis, “is that you always live in the moment.”

Like many Southern women of her generation, my grandmother had been a stifled lady prone to fits of drape-drawn depression, medicated with Champagne and Streisand.

“Sad lives make funny people,” she told me when I was 16.

At the time, this remark had just sounded like one more zinger. But eventually I came to consider it the distillation of her philosophy. Humor was the way she had coped with every unpleasant thing in her life, from her long estrangement from my mother, her only child, to the onset of a crippling disease.

But while my grandmother was able to laugh at her decline, her husband couldn’t. He didn’t find anything funny about watching her forget their life together. I think all my grandfather ever wanted was to be left alone with his wife — a goal he’d finally accomplished after more than 40 years of marriage, when they retired from Houston to his family’s Tennessee home.

In this way my grandparents reminded me of the Reagans, one of those couples who are so gaga for each other that there is no room for the kids. It’s nobody’s fault. It’s just that perfect couples rarely have happy families. They have to have children, because they love each other too much not to make something of it. But then, the honeymoon never ends, and who brings their children on a honeymoon? It’s like they always say: two’s company, and three’s an angry kid like Patti Davis, desperate for attention, with a complex about being shoved outside the magic circle.

Except that in our case, Patti Davis was my mother — a Scarlett O’Hara for the silicon age, with a chest as big as her mouth and hair. Between these two genteel Southern ladies, our family became an Old West town: It just wasn’t big enough for both of them.

Which meant that my grandfather, Alfred, adoring JoAnn as he did, not only stopped speaking to his daughter, he even stopped speaking about her, at least with me. Until the day when we were finally forced to accept the fact of JoAnn’s Alzheimer’s and its awful progression.

The more JoAnn forgot, the more often Alfred asked me to visit. And at the end of one of these Tennessee weekends, as my grandfather wound his Buick through the dark hills on the way to the airport, he suddenly blurted, “Sonny, I think it’s time your mother came home for a visit.”

I was too surprised to say anything. Then he repeated, “I think it’s time your mother came home.”

“I’ll make it happen,” I mumbled.

“Good,” he said, tapping the wheel. “It’s time.”

Of course, I had no idea how I would make it happen. Fortunately, my mother — who, for many years, had been no stranger to a Bloody Mary — was newly sober, and I took advantage of that narrow window of Alcoholics Anonymous time before making amends becomes a crashing bore. All that summer, I begged her long distance. I swore that if she would only visit her parents one more time, everything would be different. Finally I played my ace: I asked her to visit them in Tennessee for my birthday in September.

“Damn it,” she screeched. “So now if I don’t go, I’ll be ruining your birthday? Fine. I’ll do it. But prepare yourself for disaster.”

“There won’t be any disaster,” I said.

“Oh, really? Give me one good reason why things will be different this time.”

“Alzheimer’s,” I answered.

For my grandfather and me, having to witness JoAnn’s Alzheimer’s had been agonizing — like watching “The Miracle Worker” backward. Every day seemed accompanied by a new limitation. But for my grandmother, the disease had seemed liberating. For the first time in all the years I’d known her, she seemed truly happy.

Imagine: to be freed from your memory, to have every awful thing that ever happened to you wiped away — and not just your past, but your worries about the future, too. Because with no sense of time or memory, past and future cease to exist, along with all sense of loss and regret. Not to mention grudges and hurt feelings, arguments and embarrassments.

And that’s the fantasy, isn’t it? To have your record cleared. To be able not to merely forget, but to expunge your unhappy childhood, or unrequited love, or rocky marriage from your memory. To start over again.

There had always been an element of existential fury to my grandmother’s barbed wit, concerning her lost time and missed chances. But as her Alzheimer’s advanced, she forgot to be angry. And she seemed healthier, too: her pace quickened, her complexion brightened, her hair thickened. And with my help and her husband’s credit card, even her wardrobe improved. Her transformation was magical and unmistakable.

It was certainly unmistakable to my mother on that bracing September day when my grandparents and I picked her up at the Nashville airport. “Look, JoAnn,” Alfred said, “it’s Jessica.”

“Isn’t that funny,” said JoAnn, before embracing my mother. “That’s my daughter’s name, too.”

My mother forced a smile and shot me a wary look that abruptly softened once we got to the Buick and my grandmother reached for her hand. “Tell me all about yourself, darling,” she said. “I want to know everything about you.”

All through my birthday dinner that evening, JoAnn positively doted on her daughter — beaming sweetly and patting her hand. This behavior unsettled my mother, who afterward made a theatrical production of rooting through the closet in her bedroom.

“What are you doing?” I asked.

“Looking for space pods,” she said. “Who are those people, Robert? And what have they done with my mother? I keep thinking I must be in a blackout. That I must be drunk in a ditch somewhere, and when I wake up I’ll have the hangover of a lifetime. Because believe me, if that nice old lady had been my mother, I’d never have left home.”

DURING the following week, the starchy blue autumn skies remained clear, and so did the irony. Now that my grandmother had, in a way, disappeared, she was fully present to my mother for perhaps the first time in their relationship. Now that she was all but unreachable, she was finally available. Each evening, as JoAnn scooted close at dinner, my mother found the nearness less nerve-racking.

On the last day, as we were leaving for the airport, my grandfather kissed us goodbye. Soft black cows strode serenely on the hillside. Suddenly JoAnn grabbed onto the lapels of my mother’s jacket, as if she were about to shake her.

My mother looked rattled, but then JoAnn said: “Thank you for coming, Jessica. I want you to know how much it means to me. I want you to know that I know we’ve never been close. And I know that’s been mostly my fault. I’m not sure how much time I’ve got. But more than anything, I want to have a shot at spending it with you. It’s so important. I mean, after all, Jessica, we’re sisters.”

I groaned, then looked over to see my tough mother crying.

“Close enough, Mama,” she said.

Robert Leleux, who lives in New York, is the author of “The Memoirs of a Beautiful Boy” (St. Martin’s Press).

Tuesday, 19 May 2009

Today's feel-good story: the banker who saves ducklings

I was watching ABC midday news when they had this story as the final feel-good story of the morning. It made me cry, much like that Sound of Music video in the train station...

Banker Rescues Darling Ducklings
May 18, 2009 5:38 PM

Joel Armstrong is no duck connoisseur. The 43-year-old banker and father of two learned everything he knows about ducks through Google. But this Saturday, none of that mattered as he helped rescue a new family of ducklings.

For the past 35 days, Armstrong watched as a mother duck nested on a ledge outside his office window…two blocks from the Spokane River in Washington state. On Saturday morning, Armstrong arrived in town for the annual Lilac Festival parade. Seeing the newly hatched ducklings nervously pacing back and forth on the ledge, he knew they were stuck. Their mother stood waiting below, but the jump off the ledge was too far for the ducklings.

Armstrong hasn’t played baseball since grade school, but he stepped up to the plate ready to help. Standing below the ledge, he caught each duckling as they leapt into his waiting hands below. By the time it was over, a crowd had gathered for the parade. To the sound of cheers and applause, the mother duck led her ducklings to water.


Banker rescues darling ducklings

Tuesday, 5 May 2009

The Logies sucked, and the media should deal with it

The media has been having a field day, chastising the public about their awful, bitchy, mean comments over Twitter during the Logies. A couple of celebrity blogs, and a few news websites decided to mention all the nasty things that were being said as the Logies was broadcast. The words "bitching" and "cruel" and "mean" were thrown around a lot.

Do you know what I have to say about that? Deal with it. The public are fickle, and of course are going to voice their opinion if they think something is lame. Hell, if we didn't voice our opinions, tv probably wouldn't have changed in the last 20-odd years! And the thing is this: what on earth would we do with social media if we couldn't talk about things that were happening in real time? That's what HAPPENS when you give the masses a voice!

While there were very specific comments about Gretel Killeen being an awful host, with some cringe-worthy moments, I do need to ask this: does the host write their own script? If not, we should probably lay off bagging Gretel and call for the person who wrote the script to be fired. And if she did write her own, then I'm sorry, but she deserves the bagging. We don't watch the Logies to see lame bits of acting (what was with that whole pretending to be shot and heaven bit? Do they think the audience is made up of children who like watching lame pantomimes with bad acting? )

These TV personalities do have feelings, yes we are well aware of this fact. But the television industry is NOT a nice one. The people can be awful, arrogant, demanding little pricks who think they should be treated like royalty. They snipe and bitch at one another about one another. The media is quick to criticize celebs when they put on an ounce of weight, or lose it, or have surgery done, or whatever. But god forbid the little people have a voice.

Good on Wil Anderson telling it like it was during the broadcast! I found his tweets much more entertaining than the show. My highlights of the Logies were Rove, Hughesy, Wil Anderson and Annie Lennox- REAL entertainment. I think the media should lay off paying out Wil Anderson for his brutally honest tweets. Insincerity is getting old and tired. We want honesty. We want the truth. We are not little children who need to be protected from the big, bad world. If something sucks, we will say so, and appreciate the honesty of everyone else who does the same.

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Lesbian kiss censored on Channel 7

Ok. A few weeks ago the Herald Sun decided that Home and Away having a lesbian relationship and lesbian kiss scene was newsworthy. So newsworthy that it made front page headlines (must have been a slow news day). And I thought "Please, how pathetic. That's not news. This is the 21st century. I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner".

However. On inspecting today's The Age I found this. If you can't be bothered reading it, the gist is that Channel 7 have decided to censor the lesbian kiss in H&A:

Protesters are planning to pucker up in a mass 'kiss-off' at Melbourne's Federation Square tonight to rally against Channel Seven's decision to censor a lesbian kiss on teen soapie Home and Away.

Hundreds of people are expected to gather as the soapie airs at 7pm to peacefully demonstrate against the move by the station to reportedly cut scenes from a lesbian storyline.

Policewoman Charlie Buckton, played by actor Esther Anderson, and deckhand Joey Collins, played by Katie Bell, were due to kiss on tonight's episode.

But according to News Limited reports, some intimate close-up shots were cut following complaints from conservative groups and viewers.

St Kilda-based photographer Emma Phillips said it was a shame people still viewed homosexuality as "shocking".

"It's pretty outrageous in this day and age that we have programs still censoring any gay content and something like Home and Away which is on at prime-time, it's pretty mild content that they have generally anyway," she said.

"I'm surprised at their level of conservatism."

Ms Phillips said she was originally pleased that a show marketed towards teenagers had decided to include a lesbian relationship.

"It's a tough time being a teenager anyway, being a gay teenager is doubly difficult and it's something that's never spoken about at school and my experience has been that the majority of gay people were bullied at school so for something like Home and Away to actually have some positive content just would have contributed enormously to their well-being," she said.

A Melbourne lawyer, who because of discrimination fears did not want to be named, said word of tonight's gathering for straight and gay people was spreading through text messages and emails.

The woman said she did not usually "get involved with these sorts of things" but had been appalled that two women kissing on a television show was still an issue in 2009.

" I think it highlights that there is a large proportion of the community who feel they need to tolerate gay people as opposed to accept them and I think people lose sight of the difference between tolerance and acceptance," she said.

The lawyer said she believed a minority of conservative voices were being given an undue level of influence over what was being screened.

"In this case the conservative minority has been able to sway public opinion to the detriment of the majority," she said.

"And certainly when I forwarded this email this morning to 200 people on my email list, maybe less than a third or even a quarter of people on that list are gay.

"You'd struggle to find a straight person today who doesn't have a gay friend, or knows someone who is gay, so what's the big issues? Come on people, wake up."

She said she was worried what kind of message the decision to censor the kiss would send to Home and Away's young audience.

The lesbian relationship follows a kiss between two schoolgirls on the program last month that seemed to escape the controversy surrounding tonight's episode.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/03/31/1238261562800.html


If you couldn't be bothered reading it, the gist is that Channel 7 have decided to censor the lesbian kiss in H&A.

This is newsworthy. This is not ONLY newsworthy, it is FRONT PAGE OF EVERY PAPER IN AUSTRALIA newsworthy.
As mentioned in the article, I can not believe the conservatism that still exists in a society that allows pre-teen magazines to promote wearing makeup, women's clothing stores to sell clothes labeled xxxs (I mean COME ON), and magazines that allows photoshopped images.

As if it's not bad enough being a teenager. Even more so now than when I was one 8 years ago. How are those teens out there battling with their sexuality supposed to feel? I'd expect such conservatism from the Vatican, for sure. But Australia? Today? REALLY? Censoring something as normal as a lesbian kiss (I repeat KISS, not sex scene) is giving our society the impression that there is something wrong with it. There are so many things wrong with that on so many levels.

This really got up my goat. I don't care if people think it's wrong. The point is that gay people exist. Deal with it. Don't alienate them more by censoring something as low-key as a kiss.

Saturday, 7 March 2009

Nine-year-old rape victim aborts twins

So sad...

A NINE-YEAR-OLD girl who was carrying twins, allegedly after being raped by her stepfather, underwent an abortion today despite complaints from Brazil's Roman Catholic church.

Police said the stepfather has been jailed since last week, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, but judges can make exceptions if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has no chance of survival.

Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the 15-week-old pregnancy posed a serious risk to the 36-kilogram girl, AP reported.

"She is very small. Her uterus doesn't have the ability to hold one, let alone two children," Ms Maia told the Jornal do Brasil newspaper.

But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a cesarean section, AP reported


I found this on another blog site and I have to agree with the guy- how can the church give the unborn fetus's more rights than the girl, who was still a child?

Friday, 6 March 2009

Archibald Prize 2009

I'm not really an art person. I don't really get art. I can't stand there an ponder a piece of art and what it means, or doesn't mean, or how the artist felt at the time of painting, what they are trying to convey. I need to be told. I need it to be obvious. That's why I like things like landscape, and portraits. Cos they're obvious. So I like it when it's time for the Archibald Prize, because it gives me the opportunity to appreciate art without having to pretend to understand it.

Have you seen the winner and finalists for this year's Archibald Prize? OMG there are some AMAZING portraits! God, I wish I could paint...or draw...or even evolve beyond stick figures and 2D stuff...

anyways...

The winner this year was Guy Maestri for his portrait of Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunipingu (the blind aboriginal musucian- amazing). But it must have been pretty tough for the judges, there were so many amazing pictures I don't know how they choose just one (hence why I would never make a good judge, they'd all get 1st prize!).
Here's the winning portrait and some of my fave finalists. Enjoy.


winner











Wednesday, 28 February 2007

Animal rights activists- do they go too far?

I read an article in The Age Education section on Monday 26 Feb that made me really angry. It was about people that conduct animal research on medication that could in the future be used for humans. Now, don't get me wrong, I think scientific research on animals in order to create better make-up or anything else uneccesary is cruel and inhumane. But I just wonder how these animal rights activists (ARA) think we are supposed to use drugs that haven't yet been tested on animals? I mean, what is the problem with testing a possible cancer cure or new, safe vaccine for the flu on animals? Do they suggest that we dimply don't test and act as guinea pigs for our own means? Should we just stop creating more medicines purely because we have nothing to test them on first? Can they justify the death of many humans for the sake of a few rats, mice and whatever else they use?

I'd really love to hear from an ARA if there is anyone out there. Not to get into an argument but simply to gain insight into the reasoning. I love animals, I really do. I wanted to be a vet when I was younger- before I found out how ridiculously smart you have to be. And before I found out it included putting animals down, something I don't think I could handle. But when it comes to testing possible cures, vaccines and immunisations for the possibility of saving thousands of human lives, then I'm all for it. Unless, of course, there is another approach.

You see, I know too many people that have died of cancer, too many people that currently have cancer. Cancer is the sort of illness that EVERYONE has been directly affected by it, whether having it themselves, or knowing a loved one who has it or has died from it. And unless we test them on animals, how can we come up with a cure?

The article mentioned people who have received death threats, had their property vandalised, been physically or verbally abused, received letter bombs and who knows what else, because they work in animal research laboratories. All I say is this: you know that loved one you know who is ill with some sort of disease? Unless these researchers do their job, your loved one will never be cured.

Comments are welcome. I'd love to hear the other side of the story.

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed