Women, as every body knows, talk among themselves. Sometimes they talk about what special thing their boyfriend/husband did for them, or what present he gave them. Then one day, your wife picks a tantrum at you because you did not do the same for them.
Another of the problems of being married for years is you drop your guard on what you say to your wife. When your wife asks you your opinion, and you reply the honest truth, and she will get angry with you because you do not tell her what she wanted to hear. Worse still if you state your opinion without being asked. Never tell your wife that what she is telling you is not interesting, nor she is boring you, nor what she just cooked doesn’t taste good. Never tell her the truth in those circumstances. She can’t handle the truth. As for me, I remind myself, speak the truth with love, that is sensitivity.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Friday, October 28, 2005
Pozieres (2000)
Yesterday was my documentary night. Besides what was already on ABC, I borrowed the documentary “Pozieres” from the local library. Pozieres was where the Australian soldiers were fighting on the Western Front during the Somme Battle of World War I.
It was an excellent documentary and good history lessons for me. There were a lot of facts that stirred my emotions.
Some example: of the 60,000 who attacked on the first day of the Somme Battle 40,000 died that same day. General Haig considered it was a reasonable lost, and ordered for the the attack to continue the next day with what was left, and the next day for the next 6 months.
Aboriginal soldiers who volunteered to fight were citizen of no country.
During the war, towns with German names in Australia were renamed.
John Curtin who was against conscription during WWI introduced conscription when he was prime minister during WWII.
The prime minister Billy Hughes created the AFP (Australian Federal Police) because the Queensland police refused to obey his order to arrest someone who threw an egg at him.
Australians of German origin were kept in detention during the war and deported after the war.
Etc.
It was an excellent documentary and good history lessons for me. There were a lot of facts that stirred my emotions.
Some example: of the 60,000 who attacked on the first day of the Somme Battle 40,000 died that same day. General Haig considered it was a reasonable lost, and ordered for the the attack to continue the next day with what was left, and the next day for the next 6 months.
Aboriginal soldiers who volunteered to fight were citizen of no country.
During the war, towns with German names in Australia were renamed.
John Curtin who was against conscription during WWI introduced conscription when he was prime minister during WWII.
The prime minister Billy Hughes created the AFP (Australian Federal Police) because the Queensland police refused to obey his order to arrest someone who threw an egg at him.
Australians of German origin were kept in detention during the war and deported after the war.
Etc.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Australian Television
The more I watch Australian commercial television the more frustrated I get with it. There are so many things I don’t like about it.
There are too many noisy low quality commercials, actually wasting my time just to watch them.
The news is too Australian-centric. If anything happens in the world, if there are no Australian involved, it is not news worthy. E.g. Hurricane Wilma hits Mexico, all the news talks about is the number of Australian that were in Mexico. Why don’t they talks about the locals? This is something I would like to hear your views on.
Australian Idol is unashamedly wasting our time: Everything after the break. I don’t watch Australian idol anymore. Australian idol lost a lot with the departure of Dicko. I’ve lost my respect for Mark Holden, he is so un-entertaining.
Current affairs are just gossips. I wish they were more of the investigative television type programs like “Four Corners” on ABC.
I think a solution to this is to tape what you want to watch and watch it afterward, where you can fast forward though the commercials.
However, ABC and SBS are different. There are so many interesting documentaries worth watching these days, especially on Mondays, Thursdays, and Sundays.
Yes, I love to watch documentaries, I hate soaps and police-detective shows.
Documentaries worth watching are “Fact or Fiction”, “Auschwitz” (Thursday on ABC), “The history of Gold” (Sunday on SBS). If you’ve missed the first parts of those documentaries, make such you don’t miss the final parts. I also liked “The life of Nat King Cole” on ABC yesterday.
There are too many noisy low quality commercials, actually wasting my time just to watch them.
The news is too Australian-centric. If anything happens in the world, if there are no Australian involved, it is not news worthy. E.g. Hurricane Wilma hits Mexico, all the news talks about is the number of Australian that were in Mexico. Why don’t they talks about the locals? This is something I would like to hear your views on.
Australian Idol is unashamedly wasting our time: Everything after the break. I don’t watch Australian idol anymore. Australian idol lost a lot with the departure of Dicko. I’ve lost my respect for Mark Holden, he is so un-entertaining.
Current affairs are just gossips. I wish they were more of the investigative television type programs like “Four Corners” on ABC.
I think a solution to this is to tape what you want to watch and watch it afterward, where you can fast forward though the commercials.
However, ABC and SBS are different. There are so many interesting documentaries worth watching these days, especially on Mondays, Thursdays, and Sundays.
Yes, I love to watch documentaries, I hate soaps and police-detective shows.
Documentaries worth watching are “Fact or Fiction”, “Auschwitz” (Thursday on ABC), “The history of Gold” (Sunday on SBS). If you’ve missed the first parts of those documentaries, make such you don’t miss the final parts. I also liked “The life of Nat King Cole” on ABC yesterday.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
What's Behind the "No Animal Testing" Claims
There is an interesting discussion going on about environmentally friendly products and products that hasn’t been tested on animals on Hammy’s blog.
There is also that new ad with some celebrities to promote products that does not use animals for testings.
I believe that ad is misleading. It shows animal in pitiful state, but how do we know those are animals used for testing. They could be pictures from an animal pounds.
The claim found on some products that mentions “Not tested on animal” can be misleading or false. This is because the company selling the product may not have conducted any test on animals itself, but some other companies many have tested on animals the ingredients the product is made up of.
Is there any regulating body to check the claim?
Then what does no testing on animals mean? No test at all was conducted, tests were conducted on human only, tests were conducted on non-living things only. How do we test for allergic agents and reactions on non-living things?
If a product hasn’t been tested on living organisms, how can we be sure it is perfectly safe? All its potential adverse effects are actually unknown. The company is actually selling a potentially unsafe product. The company is judging it is better to put humans at risk rather than the animals. If any adverse effects is discovered the product can always be recalled. In this case the market has been used as guinea pig.
“No animal testing” claim is just another marketing ploy to get the money of a segment of the customers. It is a marketing strategy that relies on emotions, and misinformation.
Why should we think that any testing on animal is always animal cruelty? Why should we think that animals used for tests are poorly treated or kept in uncomfortable cages? Why should we think that animals that are used for testing are going to suffer enormously and have an agonizing death? Why should we think test on animals are conducted in poorly lit unhygienic laboratories? That’s what the advertisement is trying to convince us of. They are just trying to enforce the stereotype of animal testing which is not totally accurate.
Personally, I’ll be cautious about using new products with the label, “no animal testing.” It is safer to use products that has been around for years or using generic ingredients known to be safe.
There is also that new ad with some celebrities to promote products that does not use animals for testings.
I believe that ad is misleading. It shows animal in pitiful state, but how do we know those are animals used for testing. They could be pictures from an animal pounds.
The claim found on some products that mentions “Not tested on animal” can be misleading or false. This is because the company selling the product may not have conducted any test on animals itself, but some other companies many have tested on animals the ingredients the product is made up of.
Is there any regulating body to check the claim?
Then what does no testing on animals mean? No test at all was conducted, tests were conducted on human only, tests were conducted on non-living things only. How do we test for allergic agents and reactions on non-living things?
If a product hasn’t been tested on living organisms, how can we be sure it is perfectly safe? All its potential adverse effects are actually unknown. The company is actually selling a potentially unsafe product. The company is judging it is better to put humans at risk rather than the animals. If any adverse effects is discovered the product can always be recalled. In this case the market has been used as guinea pig.
“No animal testing” claim is just another marketing ploy to get the money of a segment of the customers. It is a marketing strategy that relies on emotions, and misinformation.
Why should we think that any testing on animal is always animal cruelty? Why should we think that animals used for tests are poorly treated or kept in uncomfortable cages? Why should we think that animals that are used for testing are going to suffer enormously and have an agonizing death? Why should we think test on animals are conducted in poorly lit unhygienic laboratories? That’s what the advertisement is trying to convince us of. They are just trying to enforce the stereotype of animal testing which is not totally accurate.
Personally, I’ll be cautious about using new products with the label, “no animal testing.” It is safer to use products that has been around for years or using generic ingredients known to be safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)