The French have a point- Full veil violates human rights.

Every time I see someone in a  full Burqa, I get alarmed. I can't help it. There's something about not being able to see someone's face that makes me very uncomfortable.

Recently in Auckland, there's been two cases of people in full face veils denied entry onto buses. The bus drivers have been reprimanded after complaints were filed against them. My sympathies are with the drivers. There have been many cases where bus drivers have been assaulted by passengers and there has even been a case where a taxi driver's been killed. I think drivers have a right to be able to see the faces of their passengers.

All Taxis in NZ now are required by law to have cameras for the safety of the drivers. Wouldn't that be a direct conflict to these laws to allow Burqas to be worn in public? There is a real security reason to ban Burqas. The New South Wales police has just been granted the right to ask for the removal of veils. Also, Banks do not allow entry to anyone concealing their faces (bike helmet, balaclava, burqa etc).

The primary reason I'm against Burqa is that it takes away a persons ability to communicate effectively. Facial cues are naturally a big part of communicating; a smile, a frown speaks volumes. It is detrimental to the quality of life for those behind the veil if they are not able to build relationships to their full capabilities. I'm surprised that proponents of women's rights haven't said a thing yet; burqas are a huge step back for women. Many would argue it's a woman's choice, I would argue it is not a choice when there's family and community pressure on women to wear burqa. It is also not a choise if a person grows up in that expectation and doesn't know it is even a choice.

Also, not being able to see someone's face automatically builds mistrust. Imagine your own reaction if someone wearing a balaclava knocks on your door or comes into a shop where you are; it is a natural human need to want to be able to identify the people sharing your space.

We must have an open debate on the burqa's imposition on human rights. We can not let political correctness and cultural or religious sensitivities rail road us into a lesser society.

Greece- what went wrong?

I have not seen a country go bankrupt before. It would be interesting to see one happen but I wouldn't wish that on any one. It would mean that foreign creditors would grab what was owed and the infrastructure like power plants, roads, water supply would not belong to the Greeks any more. How sad!

Wait a minute! Isn't that what the NZ National government is wanting to do? Sell off our assets! But we're far from bankrupt!!! It just doesn't make sense! Our state owned enterprises generate hundreds of millions a year for the government; selling it off is like killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Quoting from UK's Telegraph on Greece:
Currently, tax collection is a bad joke. The self-employed systematically dodge taxes, and since they account for around 35pc of the workforce, and include many doctors and lawyers as well as a plumbers, Greece simply doesn't raise enough taxes to finance its bloated public sector.

NZ has the same problem although no where near Greece's extend. The NZ Inland Revenue Department released in a report saying that for every 100 million they spend on tax investigations, they recover 400 million tax dollars. You can imagine the amount of tax dodging that goes on even in this supposedly honest country.

I am about to embark on self employment; why on earth would I want more tax investigations on the self employed? First of all, I'll only be a small fish in a sea of sharks. Second of all, most of my friends and family are salary and wage earners who are not able to dodge any taxes. I am sick of the middle class bearing the brunt of the tax burden.

A Greek on the street of Athens was interviewed just a couple of days ago, saying "Apart from Tourism and a few Olive trees, Greece doesn't produce anything else". Why is that? The government of Greece has neglected the importance of development on their economy. From 2005-2010, Greece had only spend 0.6% of their GDP on Research & Development. This is far below the average of 2% for OECD countries.

NZ spend just 1.2% of GDP on R&D. Although much better than Greece, NZ is at only 60% of average. All OECD countries with at least 2% of R&D spending had economic growth of 2% or more.Only exception being Iceland because their financial system fell over during the global financial crisis.

The above graph is from an R&D magazine. NZ with its number of scientist and engineers should be spending at least 2% on R&D; that is 67% more than what we're spending now. I know so many scientist and engineers that are under employed, Phds who are only teaching secondary schools, etc. With an increase in R&D spending, we could fully employ these people to create innovations that'll bring us much better economic growth.

Well, if Greece really does fall over; let it be a warning on the importance of tax collection and adequate R&D spending.

Not doing too bad, could be doing much better too!

The New Zealand economy is almost stagnant. Our GDP has only grown by 1.5% in 2010. In comparison to China (10%), Singapore (14%) and Australia (2.7%); our growth has been miserable. However, it is doing much better than Spain, Ireland and Greece which are experiencing negative growth.

NZ is smack in the middle of all OECD countries in terms of growth. Obviously we have done a few things right to be way ahead of Spain, Ireland and Greece but have been inadequate in many ways to lag behind South Korea (6.1%), Japan (3.9%) and Australia.

NZ balance of payment stands at -3.21% of GDP compared to Spain (-5.23%) and Greece (-10.84%). Before the global financial crisis, the labour government finance minister Michael Cullen made a concerted effort in paying down our debt. Critics said that he should have given tax cuts in those good years but thankfully he didn't. As the saying goes "Make hay while the sun shines", Michael Cullen has put NZ is a healthy position now to weather the current economic downturn.

Ireland has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. It was touted as the Celtic Tiger for this and look where it is now. Constraint by the EU to keep debt under control and with not enough tax revenue, it has cut spending by 6 billion in 2010. This has resulted in their negative economic growth and high unemployment rate (14.6%). I can remember before the financial crisis, many right wing supporters complained that NZ is not emulating the success of Ireland, those people have now suddenly gone very quiet.

NZ and Ireland both have the same population of around 4.5million. NZ had a healthier balance of payments and so we only had to cut spending by about a third of what Ireland did. It is the governments duty to maintain or increase spending during economic hard times when private business cut back on spending. Otherwise, the economy would shrink and unemployment rise. Government spending was how the United states lifted itself out of the great depression. But how is it possible to increase spending given that we have to keep the balance of payment under control?

Tax avoidance is the key issue here. It has been estimated that the government loose 300 million a year just from tax hidden by trusts alone. The government could recover billions if it investigated these trusts and other tax avoidance like GST, property trading etc. The Inland Revenue estimates that for every 100 million it uses to investigate fraud, it has recovered 400million. When the National government came into power in 2008, one of the first thing it did was to downsize the IRDs tax investigation team and stopping many of their high profile cases. Talk about the rich protecting their own, Dodgy!

And now the National government wants to sell our state owned power utilities to pay off our debt. Well, if it allowed IRD to recover those taxes avoided, it wouldn't need to sell our assets. The National government is simply letting the filthy rich buy up our public assets with avoided tax that should belong to the public, no wonder the rich are getting richer and the middle class is just floundering.

It is simply unfair to let the middle class salary and wage earners shoulder most of the tax burden.

May is National Masturbation Month!

Happy Masturbation Month! The Kinsey report found that 98% of all men masturbated. The joke goes that the other 2% are liars!

Sex is something we rarely discuss about with our friends let alone masturbation. I'll admit that I find it difficult to talk about sex even with my closest friends. Talking about it face to face is a far cry from blogging about it. I suppose we've been brought up thinking there's something shameful about sex and sexuality. It is something I have to work on.

We often tell friends about a delicious dish we've had recently but we hardly ever go into any detail regarding any good sex we've had recently. You may say it's hardly a fair comparison but I beg to defer! Is sex not a human need just like food?

Let me proof my case by using the number 7 as a ball park figure:

• 7 minutes without breathing we die.
• 7 days without water we die.
• 7 weeks without food we die.
• 70 years without sex, the human race dies!

Sex is indisputably a human need. We are evolved to have frequent sex and when that doesn't happen, things start to go wrong! A study of 30,000 men found that those who ejaculated 21 or more times a month had a 33% less chance of developing prostate cancer than those that only had 7 or less ejaculations a month. Below is a link detailing the research findings:
http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20040406/frequent-ejaculation-prostate

For you men readers out there (especially the single ones), if you don't do it for the pleasure, think of your health! For you women folks, next time your hubby or male partner initiates sex, do it for his health even if you're not in the mood; otherwise don't resent it if he does some self loving! It is after all good for his health!

And for you women folks, don't think there's nothing in it for you! National Masturbation Month applies to you too!

There's much anecdotal evidence on the internet that sex relieves menstrual cramps although I have not been able to find any clinical study. If you're not able to find any willing partner to relieve your cramps during menstruation, what better way than to exercise some self love!

It is also proven in a clinical study that sex (including masturbation) in any form lowers blood pressure for both men and women!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation#cite_note-45

Incidentally, there is clinical evidence to suggest that women exposed to semen in their vaginal suffer less from depression:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2457-semen-acts-as-an-antidepressant.html

The study found that women who never used condom scored an 8 on the Beck Depression Inventory while women who normally used them scored a 15. The higher the scale the more depressed one is considered and a scale of 17 is considered moderately depressed. More reason for women to do it even if they're not in the mood as it may lift the spirits! What is also interesting is that women who do not have sex at all scored an 18; whether it is a cause or effect has not been researched.

Public Health Departments in Both UK and Spain have promoted masturbation to teenagers to delay the early onset of intercourse. In this way, they ensure young people have time to mentally mature before trying intercourse:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/12/spain-sex-education

I've only listed a few of the health benefits of sex including masturbation, others are:

- The safest kind of sex, keeping you free of sexually transmitted infections.

-A great form of stress relief.

-A mood booster in releasing endorphins.- A natural sleep sedative.

- A mechanism for building stronger pelvic floor muscles, which can lead to better sex.

For a comprehensive list, read:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,401722,00.html

Also, there are many myths about masturbation too. The link discusses the misconceptions many people have:

http://sexuality.about.com/od/masturbation/tp/masturbationmyt.htm

With so many benefits, chuck that guilt away and start enjoying yourselves! I hope you all have a Happy and Satisfying National Month of Masturbation!

Is Monogamy the Norm? Part 2

If you haven't read part 1: http://dualicity.blogspot.com/2011/04/is-monogamy-norm-part-1.html

Yesterday I came across a video on the Mosuo tribe:

I was talking about Bonobo apes, our closest kin and how they are extremely sexual and promiscuous. Are we suppose to draw conclusions about ourselves from Bonobos? Lets look at our anatomy similarities, I'm sure you'll become more convinced.

Amongst our great ape kins; Bonobos, Chimpanzees are polygamous meaning multiple partner for both male and female. Gorilla are polyandrous meaning one male many females. Since Gorilla males are secure in impregnating their harem, they don't require much sperm whereas Bonobos need to produce more sperm in order to compete with other sperm that may already be in a female.

That is reflected in the testicle size of these apes. Gorilla has testicles the size of kidney beans and Bonobos the size of hens eggs. Human testicle size lie somewhere in the middle. In terms of sperm count per ejaculation:
Gorilla- 50 million
Human- 480 million
Bonobos- 600 million

It is obvious that humans seem to be more on the polygamous end of the spectrum when it comes to sperm count. However, when it comes to penis length and thickness, humans trump them all. Why is it so much longer? Twice the length of Bonobos and 6 times that of Gorillas. Humans are the only great apes with a coronal ridge as part of the penis.

Test have shown that it acts as a very effective plunger to remove fluid from the vagina. One plunge can remove 90% of the fluid in there. It is theorised that the ridge was evolved to remove a competitor sperm from the vagina and hence the longer it is, the further it could reach and more competitors semen could be removed.

You women folk who think you're less promiscuous than men can get off your moral high horse now. You're not less promiscuous, just better at concealing it! Liars! Ha ha!

So, you may ask, what are we suppose to do with all this information? I don't know! Neither does the author of the book "Sex at Dawn". The other day at a dinner party, I was introduced to Jack, John and Jason; three lovely elderly gentlemen that from what I can see enjoyed each others company. Jack and John have been together now for over ten years and Jason have just recently moved in with them after his long term partner died. I initially thought how nice of Jack and John to let their friend who have just lost his partner move in with them. Then I was told by Jason that he has a sexual relationship with John but not Jack; and Jack and Jason are very good friends even though they shared John.

I was blown away by their honesty and obviously, they from what I can see have a relationship that works. My respect goes out to them for their honesty. I respect them way more than monogamous couples who are disrespectful to each other or who just put on a facade of monogamy. Also, with so many divorcees and couples coming and going; serial monogamy seems to be the norm these days; isn't it just another form of polygamy?

Below is a chart of the type of relationships that are out there
For a full picture: http://www.xeromag.com/sexualinformatics/nonmonogamy2.5.2.gif

Whatever kind of relationship you're in, provided it's an honest one that works for you, that's the perfect relationship. Do not let ignorant people with religious or cultural biases tell you otherwise. Just because they're unhappy, doesn't mean you should be unhappy too.

Just go out there and love; and love like you've never loved before!

Is Monogamy the Norm? Part 1

I recently finished the book "Sex at Dawn"; the prehistoric origins of modern sexuality.

It is one of the most compelling books I've read in my life and it throws into question the suitability of monogamy for human beings; arguing from the perspective of evolution, anthropology, history, anatomy and zoology.

I come from a conservative upbringing. 11years of Chinese school where Confucius teachings were drummed into me has made me very conservative about sex but this book has definitely got me to look at our sexual relationships from a different perspective.

Divorce rates have been at an all time high for quite some time now in many developed nations. About a quarter of divorces are caused by infidelity and this has resulted in many broken homes and dysfunctional families. Are we actually just too hung up about fidelity and monogamy?

The book argues that marriage and monogamy were self imposed from the onset of an agricultural society when we started defining ownership. One had to defend ones property because of the animals or crops growing on ones land. The same with marriage where ones spouse belonged solely to the other. This was a drastic change from our hunter gatherer past when most things were communal. The forest where one gathered and hunted for food were shared by all and the same went for sexual partners where men and women shared multiple partners.

This style of polygamy can still be seen in many hunter gatherer and matriarch societies. The Mosuo tribe in China, Warao in Brazil, Kung San in Botswana and Inuits in the north pole just to name a few. Mosuo women are expected to take whoever lovers she wishes. The children she has is raised in her mother's house with the help of her family and the community. In the Mosuo language, the word Awu means both Father and Uncle therefore a man's sister's children are his paternal responsibility. Their society lacks jealousy and possessiveness because there is no such thing as infidelity.

You may say that these are primitive tribes! But I argue that human beings have been around for 2 million years and agriculture for only 10,000 years; that's only 5% of the human race existence. We ignore our past and our innate biology at our own peril. Our biology has not yet had time to evolve and our sexuality still suits a hunter gatherer past.

Lets look at our closest kin the Bonobo ape. We are very similar to them because:

• They walk upright 25% of the time more than any other animal.
• Bonobos copulate throughout their menstrual cycle, lactation and pregnancy.
• Bonobo infants only socialise with other babies after 1.5years, longer than any other animal.
• Bonobo females have front facing vulvas unlike chimps and other primates.
• They gaze into each other's eyes when copulating and kiss deeply.

Above are just a few examples amongst many. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo tells you more about our peace loving and harmonious kin. Not only are they polygamous, they use sex as a peace making tool and females are frequently observed practising genital to genital rubbing. Sex is almost a daily past time, used to ease tension, stimulate sharing of resources, reduce stress and reaffirm friendships.

This blog is getting a bit long, part two in a couple of days!

Say "NO" to Nuclear!

Much less controversial this time. I am sure many of you already agree! "NO" to nuclear!

What a mess the Fukushima incident is! Radioactive iodine levels reached over 1000 times the safety limit in the sea off Fukushima due to a leak! Thank goodness the half life of Iodine-131 is only 8 days. Now, they are dumping contaminated water into the sea, justifying it by saying that the ocean is going to dilute it down to safe levels. I hope this is going to be one off but chances are, with reactor 1 building up hydrogen gas and 2 and 3 still requiring continuous water cooling, we are going to see more dumping.

Further more. There has been nothing said about the type of contamination in the water they are dumping. Radioactive plutonium, uranium or caesium last for years and could easily be concentrated in the food chain.

The disaster is not as severe as Chernobyl where radioactive fuel rods actually exploded and the material entered the environment. I hope Fukushima never comes to that! The consequences of Chernobyl is highly controversial due to the big difference in opinions. The numbers reported by greenpeace is most likely exaggerated and reports by UN probably downplayed the severity. Therefore, estimated cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl range from 4000 to 50000 depending who you believe.

Many would argue coal fired power plant causes many more deaths. Every year, hundreds die in coal mining accidents. Keep in mind, the coal mined isn't just for power plants. Much of it goes to heating as well as steel smelting. Therefore the numbers are exaggerated. What's even more important is that how does one compared instantaneous death in mining accidents to chronic diseases like cancer? Cost wise, cancer is definitely way more expensive to the health system compared to instantaneous death as patients need continuous care and treatment till they die. So is a cancer worth two mining deaths? three? Four? Is it even sane to compare it like that? The truth is they are like apple and oranges, you can argue to the cows come home and no one can say whether nuclear is safer than coal.

They argue that nuclear plants don't emit any green house gasses. There are also many other methods that do not emit green house gasses; like solar, hydro, wind and geothermal. It is a lame excuse to imply there are no other alternatives. Japan is in a geothermal rich area, therefore it is an even lamer excuse. Currently, only 0.1% of Japan's electricity power supply comes from geothermal, they can definitely do much better!

Everything comes down to cost doesn't it? The Emission Trading Scheme that has been rejected by both USA and Australia because it is claimed too costly. Well, let's look at cost. A 2008 study based on historical outcomes in the U.S. said costs for nuclear power can be expected to run US$0.25- 0.30 per kWh. That is just the cost without any profits. The average US consumer pays US$0.11 per kWh. That just means that nuclear power must be heavily subsidised by the US government for it to be viable! Isn't that stupid? Wind, hydro and geothermal all range between US$0.06-0.14 per kWh, there is really no excuse to be using nuclear.


Putting aside the safety debate which will never be conclusive as well as the green house debate, which there are many alternative choices; we can only argue with cost. Clearly, nuclear is so much more expensive than all the alternative choices! It's really a no brainer at all, say "NO" to nuclear!