Really?

It doesn't matter if the elder De La Paz did start the fight or if the 14 year old kid joined in. The fact is that the armed bodyguards of a public official beat up an old man and his teenage kid while the daughter watched. 

Of course the Pangandamans's belated account of the incident fails to hold water. The old guy hit you with an umbrella, really? The mother, in her duster, attacked a grown man with a posse of bodyguards with an icepick, really? She allegedly showed up after being called to action by her husband. 

Really? All those high-powered weapons and none of you thought of brandishing them to give the attackers pause? You're dealing with golfers, not huramentados. Are we supposed to believe that your huge bodyguards needed to beat a guy and his kid up to neutralize them?

Any trained military type could probably disarm and immobilize an old man and a kid with minimal harm. In fact, that's what real bodyguards are supposed to be trained to do. The only reason for them to beat the De La Pazes up is if they wanted to vent their anger or "teach them a lesson." And while that tactic may work in their turf, the city is another place altogether. 

Here, people (especially the middle class) still cling to the belief that might doesn't necessarily make right. As MLQ3 puts it:

So we have here a clear clash of civilizations: between the entitlement and warlord culture of the provinces, which compels obedience by force, and which doesn’t hesitate to use that force to compel submission by anyone who isn’t part of the ruling clan’s pecking order of enforcers; and the national capital culture which expects self-control of officialdom, which doesn’t think twice about standing up to official bullying; which, even if beaten to a pulp thinks it’s possible to rally support from like-minded people who actually believe in justice and notions of equality -because there are more decent people than the bad.

Commenters in the various blogs wonder about the sudden outrage. There are several reasons, not the least of which is it's the holiday break and most of us are spending a great part of our days online doing, well, stuff. We will jump on anything that sounds mildly interesting.

But the bigger reason is that the incident itself scares cityfolk like me. Urbanites who are aware of, but have never experienced, the impunity with which people like Nasser Pangandaman flaunt their wealth and power in their territories. 

The fact that it happened in a golf course makes it scarier. The De La Pazes were not activists organizing peasants or journalists picking fights; they were playing golf, railing against a breach of etiquette and got beat up for it because they failed to show the "proper deference" to a person they didn't recognize (Oo, hindi ka nila kilala). 

And for that the armed bodyguards of a public official beat up an old man and his teenage kid while the daughter watched. Really.

  

Thunder!...

This fan-made video splicing scenes from various films and TV shows gives us a glimpse of what a live-action, high-budget "Thundercats" movie might look like. He got Brad Pitt(Lion-O) footage from "Troy," Vin Diesel's (Panthro) from "Pitch Black" and "Riddick," Hugh Jackman's (Tygra) from the X-Men films, and Gigi Edgley's (Cheetara) from "Farscape." The Spy Kids are Wilykit and Wilykat while the guardian from Indy 3 plays Jaga. Oh, and Garfield is Snarf.

The sword in the first scene is from the Dolph Lundgren He-Man movie, while the Thundertank looks like the Nolan Batmobile (it's a bit dark). According to websites the "make up" was Photoshopped per frame. 

Anyway, good luck producing something like this. I doubt if they could sign Pitt or Jackman, and while Edgley was picked for the white make up and the "Farscape" fight scenes, I'm kinda warming up to the idea.  

A birthday to celebrate

On December 25th a great man was born. A  man whose revolutionary ideas and their applications showed a new truth that, almost overnight, took the world by storm, making us question deeply-held assumptions and answering questions that have bothered thinkers for ages.

It's only fitting that we celebrate the man who formulated classical physics, invented the calculus, and inproved the telescope, among other achievements. Scientists claim to be standing on the shoulders of giants when credited with feats of ingenuity. This man is one of those giants.

Happy birthday, Sir Isaac Newton. 

A threat stops being a threat...

...when you carry it out.

Yesterday night was taxi heaven in Makati. The last Friday before Christmas is when offices usually hold their parties so you have inebriated office joes carrying gift baskets fighting for cabs at 12am. It was not pretty for someone like me who is used to beating rush hour.

What's more irritating are the taxi drivers who insist on "additional" or expect you to pay a flat rate instead of letting the meter run (kasi po traffic). And then they wonder why no one supports a price increase for them.

I suggest doing this next time: get into the cab and then tell him your destination. If he asks for additional payment or a flat rate just look at him through his rear view mirror and say "Eh kung saksakin kaya kita?"

Why is it...

...that whenever you read a letter to the editor defending Miriam Defensor-Santiago, it's always from her media staff? I don't recall any "ordinary" person defending Miriam's statements or actions against her detractors (de Quiros, usually).

Insulting

The very first missingpoints posts (even before the mailing list) were about "blaming victims" and "punishing the innocent." I absolutely hate it when cops blame a rape victim's boyfriend (for not accompanying her home) or her manner of dressing instead of the actual perpetrator. I hate it when city councils pass curfew ordinances to "prevent criminality." The latter, in particular, assumes preemptively that the youth they want to keep at home will commit crimes. 

Yesterday at Glorietta 1 I encountered a policy that infuriated me. I was accused of being a movie pirate because I had a digital camera. Below is the letter of complaint I wrote to Ayala Cinemas.

I write to express my disappointment at a policy enforced in your cinemas regarding the possession of digital cameras.

A companion and I were supposed to watch the 5:50pm screening of “Four Christmases” at Glorietta 1 last Saturday, 6 December 2008. As our bags were being inspected at the entrance the usher noticed my digital video camera, which was in my companion’s backpack. The usher asked if it was a digicam and we told her yes. We were then informed that it was Ayala Cinema’s policy to disallow digicams and that we had to leave it at the Customer Service counter if we wanted to enter the theater.

I went to the Customer Service counter and told the staffer present that I wasn’t a movie pirate. I had no intention of filming or taking pictures of any part of the film or the theater. I just had the camera with me because I needed it for a prior event. Besides, I didn’t want to leave a relatively expensive gadget with them. The Customer Service representative replied that it was the theater’s policy. I told them I wouldn’t stand for it and asked for a refund instead.

A few minutes later, I texted ________ of your Marketing Department (whom I personally know). She informed me that this is not a new policy and that it is a preventive measure being done in cooperation with the film distributors. I told her that the policy was insulting to your patrons since it preemptively accuses them of being video pirates.

I am aware that taking pictures or videos inside the cinema is prohibited. Your policy assumes that I am too stupid to understand that or that I would willingly flaunt the rules in order to obtain a copy of the film being shown, hence the need to sequester my possessions. I understand that this is a preventive measure on your part but unlike frisking and bag searches at mall entrances (which are inconveniences, too), leaving my camera at your Customer Service counter has NO ACTUAL BENEFIT TO ME. A bag search assures me that everyone else in the mall isn’t carrying a gun or explosives. A “no digicam” policy assures me of nothing.

You are simply passing your film distributors’ problems on to your customers.

In fact you are punishing the very people who are supporting films by watching them in theaters. Instead of treating us with courtesy and respect, your policy automatically ASSUMES WE ARE UP TO NO GOOD by mere possession of a camera.

I would like to suggest that a less insulting policy be adopted. Continue with the bag searches but, upon finding cameras, just have the ushers remind patrons that taking pictures or videos is prohibited. Post signs that the cinema staff has the right to ask anyone caught to leave. This, I believe, is a happy mean that respects the wishes of film distributors while acknowledging that your patrons are law-abiding citizens (unless proven otherwise).

Until such a policy is adopted, I will not patronize Ayala Cinemas and will encourage everyone else I know to do the same.

Anybody else encounter something similar at any other movie theater? I think it's about time we let them know that we should not be treated like potential criminals. 

    

Holy crap that's creepy!

I still can't decide if it's good-creepy or just plain disturbing.

Check out Chris Scarborough's site for real photographs digitally manipulated to look like real-life manga. Found via the wonderful Cabinet of Wonders. 

Manufactured rebellion marketed under a brand

I wince at any mention of “lomography” or “lomographers” that implies they practice a distinct form of art. They're people taking photographs (bad ones) and spending more for various types of cheap cameras and film than your run-of-the-mill bad photographer. And while they do produce something worth viewing once in a while, it only happens (a) once in a while and (b) without being aware of basic photographic principles.

Photography is a skill. No matter how expensive your equipment is, you can't be called a real photographer if you don't know how to focus or set your exposure correctly. You need to master a lot of technical stuff, and even then, if your composition sucks, you’re still not a good one, much less an artist. It takes an innate eye, a developed skill, and years of practice to be considered halfway good.

Lomography espouses the exact opposite. Armed with a credo of spontaneity, “lomographers” take to the streets armed with cheap cameras, pointing and clicking without thought or preparation. Requiring no skill except pressing a button, “lomo” is just one step removed from looking.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Cheap cameras that mess with film (producing random effects) coupled with “shooting from the hip” can result in spectacular shots. Like a Jackson Pollock action painting, the focus could be in the process itself, with the end result being a record of the experiment instead of a planned final product. As a technique for producing art, that's right up there with abstract expressionism and jazz improvisation.

But how many lomographers are aware of abstract expressionism?

In my literature classes students sometimes ask about “artistic license.” I tell them that it's ok to break the rules if you know what you're breaking and why. There's a difference between someone who messes with grammar for effect and someone who doesn't know how to construct a proper sentence. Joss Whedon is aware that he's turning adjectives into nouns while Prince has been using “text” spelling conventions 20 years ago (remember “Nothing Compares 2U?”). Unlike those kids who populate those TV text message boards though, Whedon knows how to write and Prince (we assume) knows how to spell.

Do lomographers know how to take proper photographs?

Some of them do, especially the professionals and hobbyists who keep a lomo cam or two to experiment on. Those who ignore the “don’t think, just shoot” mentality can and do come up with amazing stuff; they’re real photographers using different tools. But the pseudo hipsters who are into it because it’s cool or (worse) because it’s expensive… they’re the ones being marketed to.

And it really is just marketing. It’s not so much an artistic movement as it is a campaign to sell overpriced defective Russian cameras. The reason Pollock’s squiggles command millions is due to history and American pride more than it is about the actual quality of the work. The guys who started lomography deserve to be hailed, not as pioneers of a modern art form or the reinventors of photography, but as brilliant marketers.

But who are we to deny these deluded kids their pretensions at rebellion / art? Go ahead, take your expensive cheap camera and point and shoot. I’ll just point and laugh.

Above: This costs PhP15,000?