TaraElla and the New Multiculturalism Platform - Opportunity for All

Official Website - TaraElla Music - MySpace Profile - Official LiveJournal

I will be on holiday for the next three weeks (until late December), and will be back after that.

Adam Lambert defended his recent sexual performance at the AMAs by saying that he is out there to correct a double standard. He claims that since female celebrities have been performing sexualised acts in public, why can't male performers?

I see his point, but I suggest an alternative: since performing sexualised acts in public is potentially offensive to a large number of people anyway, why not make it unacceptable for everyone?

I wish that the children of our generation will have a healthy culture to grow up in. After all, this is the wish of many thinking adults across the world.

As to what is 'a healthy culture' - well, we can argue endlessly and we will not get an answer. So I think, for the sake of peace, we should agree to disagree - for now. There is no need to conclude the argument right now. The best solutions will be clear when at least two generations have passed from now.

What we need to do is to build the culture that we want our next generation to grow up in. We need to lend our help to bring to the culture out there justice, peace, equality and compassion. Sometimes we do that by movements to bring the world forward together. But then, sometimes, you cannot change everybody, and you should just build your culture from within a group of like-minded people and do your best to promote it.

The culture that I want to build is four-fold: a culture of equality and justice for everyone, a clean living lifestyle away from substances of abuse and sexualisation, a culture of achieving spiritual progress and moral living through interfaith goodwill and pluralism of religious backgrounds, and a culture that allows an individual to express themselves and be whoever they want to be. The first I would aim to bring to the whole world on a movemental basis - for example, through my support of the welfare state, good working conditions for all, marriage equality and the like. The latter three, however, I don't believe we can force onto everybody just yet. Therefore, I am striving to build a community with these values, still connected to the greater world, but definitely committed to these values beyond what is mainstream out there. I believe time will vindicate us - maybe in two or three generations' time - and people from other lifestyles and cultures will start to follow our example.

Adam Lambert has come under fire for his sexually-charged performance at the American Music Awards. He has, however, refused to apologise, saying that he is not here to please everybody.

I have supported Adam throughout his bid to get a music career, but I really cannot agree with his actions here. The AMAs are a family friendly event, and to sabotage it by doing this is plain irresponsible. Gay or straight.

1(New) Miranda Cosgrove - Raining Sunshine (1wk #1)
2(2) Cherine Nouri - Forever Faithful
3(1) Taylor Swift - Jump Then Fall (2wks #1)
4(3) Taylor Swift - Untouchable
5(4) Allison Iraheta - Friday I'll Be Over U (1wk #1)
6(7) Owl City - Fireflies
7(6) Taylor Swift - Fifteen (2wks #1)
8(8) Katharine McPhee - Say Goodbye (1wk #1)
9(13) Miley Cyrus - Party in the USA
10(5) Britney Spears - Three

11(14) Sabrina Batshon - Earth Song
12(17) Carrie Underwood - I Told You So (2wks #1)
13(15) Colbie Caillat - Falling for You (3wks #1)
14(9) Carrie Underwood - Cowboy Casanova (1wk #1)
15(10) Katharine McPhee - Had It All
16(11) Amanda Jenssen - Happyland
17(12) Cheryl Cole - Fight for this Love
18(19) Taylor Swift - Love Story (2008) (3wks#1)
19(16) Leona Lewis - Happy
20(18) Kelly Clarkson - A Moment Like This (2002 #1)

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. This must change if we are going to have any chance of winning over people from the religious right.

In the fight against conservative fundamentalists, I have always focused my attention on what's happening in the USA since early this decade. However, as the conservative fundamentalists begin to show signs of losing and retreating in the USA, they are bringing their battle to a new battleground - Africa.

Recently, the Ugandan parliament is considering tough laws against gay people, including possible use of capital punishment. And there is well documented research that anti-gay US conservative fundamentalists are behind this. Yes, the very same people who, in the West, claim that they are only against gay marriage and not gay people themselves.

I think we should all raise awareness of this problem, by talking to our friends, family and colleagues about what's happening here.

It was revealed today that the Oprah Winfrey show will end in 2011.

Over the years Oprah has done a lot of good to the world, by preaching tolerance and acceptance, as well as a healthy lifestyle, to all.

I wish that we will be able to see a new Oprah for the new generation, or even many new Oprahs, soon.

Many people say climatic change is the #1 issue of our time. I really have to disagree - not because climate change is not important, but because there is one bigger, overarching issue that is the #1 issue of our time.

The conservative fundamentalists.

Over the past 50 or so years, it has been shown that racism, homophobia, sexism, and the like has no good purpose in society nor any rational basis, and only serves to create hurt and conflict. Those of us who have listened to this message, the majority of us, eventually backed away from those ideas and came to abhor them. But a small but significant minority of people continued to hold steadfastly to those beliefs. Mostly they have used their religion to justify it, be it whatever religion. Over time they became what they self-describe as the conservative religious, but what I would call the conservative fundamentalists.

Now we are on the verge of erasing the errors of racism, homophobia, sexism and the like, and the conservative fundamentalists really do not like the idea. Hence they have pushed back at our society using tactics from terrorism to opposing equal rights on legislation to prevent us from reaching our goal, once and for all. Sometimes they have succeeded, for example in the Middle East by recruiting youth who are anti-West and turning them into terrorists, or people in the West who harbour a grudge against the mainstream and turning them into foot-soldiers to oppose every bit of equality we need to legislate for.

The real challenge is to put these people back in their place. The way to this is to make sure that the public knows what the real choice is - between enlightened values that lead to justice and peace for all, or archaic values that take us back to the dark old ages of warfare, abuse and unhealthy society.

Generally, I like the idea that kids should be exposed to more ideas to inform them of their worldview. However, to let them come into contact with certain ideas before their thinking is properly formed is plain dangerous. Therefore, I would happily ban all of the following:

Any book that portrays violence in a glorifying way
Any book that promotes racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise discriminatory ideas
Any book that vilifies any religion
Any book that promotes a fundamentalist understanding of any religion
Any book that talks about sex outside of accepted sex-ed curriculum for school students

According to those who work at the Oxford American Dictionary, 'unfriend' is the word of the year for 2009. I really cannot agree.

To unfriend somebody is often a mean act in itself, and a popular bullying tactic used by cyber-bullies. It is something that we do not need to further encourage.

Especially when Netbook, something that I believe is of far greater significance and use, was one of the contenders.

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.

In a recent interview, Sarah Palin told Barbara Walters that she did not know that her daughter was sexually active until she was pregnant.

That is why parents should develop close relationships with their children, who should be unafraid to reveal all to their parents without fear of punishment. This is the only way undesirable consequences can be stemmed before they happen. And while Palin has failed to do that, her story has served to teach parents out there a lesson.

I believe that it's time to make a website explaining my cultural standpoints and where they derive from, since there has been much misunderstanding and malignment of some of the things that I believe in deeply.

You can visit the website here.

1(1) Taylor Swift - Jump Then Fall (2wks #1)
2(3) Cherine Nouri - Faithful
3(8) Taylor Swift - Untouchable
4(2) Allison Iraheta - Friday I'll Be Over U (1wk #1)
5(4) Britney Spears - Three
6(5) Taylor Swift - Fifteen (2wks #1)
7(6) Owl City - Fireflies
8(7) Katharine McPhee - Say Goodbye (1wk #1)
9(9) Carrie Underwood - Cowboy Casanova (1wk #1)
10(10) Katharine McPhee - Had It All

11(11) Amanda Jenssen - Happyland
12(12) Cheryl Cole - Fight for this Love
13(13) Miley Cyrus - Party in the USA
14(20) Sabrina Batshon - Earth Song
15(15) Colbie Caillat - Falling for You (3wks #1)
16(16) Leona Lewis - Happy
17(17) Carrie Underwood - I Told You So (2wks #1)
18(18) Kelly Clarkson - A Moment Like This (2002 #1)
19(19) Taylor Swift - Love Story (2008) (3wks#1)
20(14) Amy Diamond - Up

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.

Many organisations have so-called unwritten rules. These are rules that are not clearly laid out but are obeyed anyway. And I object to their existence.

Why? Because unwritten rules keep things unfair and conservative and stifle creativity. When an organisation only has written, clear and well understood rules, its members know exactly the boundaries on which they can move around clearly - namely, anything that it not prohibited clearly in the rules. However, with unwritten rules people are afraid to tread around in case of violating those rules. Therefore, they tend to keep to the old way of doing things, no matter how unfair, unproductive and crazy it is.

The reason why we have a law-based legal system rather than an arbitrary system of justice decided by whoever is in charge is for the same reason. With clear, laid out rules there can be fairness and freedom. With unwritten rules, there can be none of these things.

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.