... RJ na.
Is there no official news report on Howlin' Dave's passing? I don't want to link to other blogs who got their news from texts and phone calls. The guy is a true pioneer, holding the fort while RJ was abroad and turning his station into the coolest thing on air. He will be missed.
EDIT: Ah here we go. Eric Caruncho on the Inquirer blogs.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
But guns aren't banned yet
Hooo boy. I was waiting for this.
Cabuyao robbery debunks gun ban rationale
The idiot who wrote this is probably one of those who think that turning a modern city into the wild west is the solution to crime and violence. Of course if he spent more time studying logic instead of dreaming of gunfights he'd have been able to make a better argument. He says
without considering that banks require everyone who comes in to deposit firearms with the guard. Allowing customers to come inside with concealed weapons is suicide for any bank, even in his wild west fantasy land.
He then parrots the pro-gun line:
But he missed a crucial point: someone is lobbying FOR a gun ban. People ARE allowed to own and carry guns today and what good did that do?
Cabuyao robbery debunks gun ban rationale
The idiot who wrote this is probably one of those who think that turning a modern city into the wild west is the solution to crime and violence. Of course if he spent more time studying logic instead of dreaming of gunfights he'd have been able to make a better argument. He says
Had there been a legally armed citizen carrying a weapon that was concealed, it might not have been so easy for the robbers to commit the murders.
without considering that banks require everyone who comes in to deposit firearms with the guard. Allowing customers to come inside with concealed weapons is suicide for any bank, even in his wild west fantasy land.
He then parrots the pro-gun line:
I think we all agree that criminals shouldn’t have guns. But what’s the advantage of disarming the good people?
But he missed a crucial point: someone is lobbying FOR a gun ban. People ARE allowed to own and carry guns today and what good did that do?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Gnosis
Just to clarify something:
Agnosticism is NOT “atheism without balls.” It is not a middle ground between believing and not. It is not something you say when you're on the fence and trying to “weigh the arguments” for either side. Agnosticism isn't straddling the fence; it is a valid epistemological position.
An agnostic is someone who is NOT a gnostic*. Being agnostic means you maintain the position that one CANNOT truly know if there is a god or not. One can be an agnostic theist, believing that one cannot know but taking god's existence on faith. One can be an agnostic atheist, believing, too, that one cannot know while not believing in the existence of god.
I've been reading through various religion related posts in blogs and I've noticed that many people make the mistake of equating non-theism or implicit atheism with agnosticism. There is a huge difference.
==========
* The wikipedia entry is kinda muddled, but basically they're people who believed they can know the mind of god. “The Golden Compass” and the sequels have elements of gnosticism in them.
Agnosticism is NOT “atheism without balls.” It is not a middle ground between believing and not. It is not something you say when you're on the fence and trying to “weigh the arguments” for either side. Agnosticism isn't straddling the fence; it is a valid epistemological position.
An agnostic is someone who is NOT a gnostic*. Being agnostic means you maintain the position that one CANNOT truly know if there is a god or not. One can be an agnostic theist, believing that one cannot know but taking god's existence on faith. One can be an agnostic atheist, believing, too, that one cannot know while not believing in the existence of god.
I've been reading through various religion related posts in blogs and I've noticed that many people make the mistake of equating non-theism or implicit atheism with agnosticism. There is a huge difference.
==========
* The wikipedia entry is kinda muddled, but basically they're people who believed they can know the mind of god. “The Golden Compass” and the sequels have elements of gnosticism in them.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Selling Candidates
I found myself in the First Campaigners-Media Interface at the Hyatt last Tuesday despite not being a campaigner anymore and not being officially part of any media outfit. When they opened the floor for questions I wanted to introduce myself as “Hello, I'm from the Internet.”
Which would've been cute and true. However, the relevance of the internet to winning elections isn't that clear. Tony Gatmaitan has stated that 15% of the votes will be determined by cyberspace but he seems to be referring only to text messaging. There was no mention of blogs, social networking, and other stuff we in the interwebs are so used to. MLQ3 (scroll to the middle) thinks he's dismissive of these other aspects of cyberspace but dismissing something implies awareness. For all we know he may not even be familiar with how the other parts of cyberspace work.
I wanted to liveblog the event but the Hyatt didn't have free wifi. Riding dem intertubes is expensive, which is probably why we don't factor into elections yet.
* * * * *
Klaus Preschle, country representative of event sponsor Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in his opening remarks noted that during one of his early visits to the Philippines he was surprised to find that “...boring speeches did not prevent people from having fun during campaigns.” Which I found funny because it's true; election campaigns here are circuses meant to entertain instead of enlighten, with “boring speeches” being the “relevance” that all entertainers try to inject. In TV viewing jargon, they're the stuff we zip and zap.
* * * * *
The morning session launched a book called “Selling Candidates” by Pulse Asia Director Ana Maria Tabunda and Newsbreak writers Carmela Fonbuena and Aries Rufo, which chronicled the 2007 senatorial elections. The book focuses on political ads, which in 2004 was predicted to be crucial in winning future elections. Back then Mar Roxas (the dancing surfboard) got the number one spot through sheer number of ads despite being a relatively unknown department secretary.
The highlight of the launch was the panel discussion moderated by Cheche Lazaro, which featured exceptions to the rule: Alan Peter Cayetano, who didn't spend much for TV ads yet won, and Prospero Pichay who spent the most yet lost spectacularly. Yoly Ong of Campaigns and Grey represented the ad people / image makers, Charie Villa of ABS-CBN and Marichu Villanueva of the Philippine Star were there too.
Cayetano claims he didn't have much to spend for ads and, apparently, didn't need to. He had a lot of what is called “earned media” thanks to his tussle with the first gentleman, which meant free airtime on news channels. The news reports also reinforced his image as someone against the president, which was crucial as midterm elections also serve as a referendum on the current administration.
Pichay was the opposite, spending close to 100 million on TV ads which sent a simplistic message based on a pun and looked as though it was aimed at kids. Plus his reputation as the president's attack dog didn't help. He also admitted that he was unprepared and was only forced to run to complete the slate.
Yoly Ong says she chooses which candidates to help (she isn't a gun for hire) having worked only for the two Rocos since 2004. She says the image a candidate projects needs to be based on “basic truths;” it isn't a costume one can wear and take off.
Charie Villa, who heads news gathering for ABS-CBN, says that the challenge for them is to differentiate legitimate news from staged events. Ads are one thing but the stuff that appears on the news needs to be actual news.
* * * * *
Observations/Impressions:
1. Everyone despises (or is mildly irritated by) Pichay. He's the Dr. Zoidberg of the panetl, the butt of jokes and the one who seems like he's out of his intellectual league. He's the trapo who makes the boring, repetitive speeches Klaus was probably referring to.
2. Cayetano doesn't strike me as especially brilliant but speaks clearly and (for a politician) concisely. He enumerates his points and answers the actual question without pandering to the crowd. Unlike Pichay he understands that this is a pretty well-educated crowd. He also gets points for the best comeback. In one exchange Pichay says this is the only country where an endorsement from an ex-president convicted of corruption helps a candidate win. Cayetano replies that this is also the only country where an endorsement from a sitting president is the kiss of death. (Oh snap!)
3. Ichu Villanueva looks simultaneously bored and nervous and constipated. Billy Esposo would've been the better representative for The Star (if they could literally haul his ass over). His insights from the media bureau of the Cory campaign would've made a great comparison to Yoly's current methods.
4. People listened intently to Yoly Ong partly because she's a good speaker (all successful ad people have mastered the art of the pitch) but mostly because most everyone in the audience (mostly journalists and political staff members) really wanted to know how an “image maker” works. She was the one providing practical information.
5. The panel discussion wasn't nearly long enough. Perhaps Cheche could do several episodes of her “Media in Focus” on the various aspects of this topic. By the time it got interesting time was up and everyone was hungry.
6. My being “from the internet” is still just a notch above inconsequential. Perhaps a similar event featuring emerging technologies and media for political campaigns is in order. (More on this in another post)
* * * * *
I'll write about the afternoon session next.
Which would've been cute and true. However, the relevance of the internet to winning elections isn't that clear. Tony Gatmaitan has stated that 15% of the votes will be determined by cyberspace but he seems to be referring only to text messaging. There was no mention of blogs, social networking, and other stuff we in the interwebs are so used to. MLQ3 (scroll to the middle) thinks he's dismissive of these other aspects of cyberspace but dismissing something implies awareness. For all we know he may not even be familiar with how the other parts of cyberspace work.
I wanted to liveblog the event but the Hyatt didn't have free wifi. Riding dem intertubes is expensive, which is probably why we don't factor into elections yet.
* * * * *
Klaus Preschle, country representative of event sponsor Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in his opening remarks noted that during one of his early visits to the Philippines he was surprised to find that “...boring speeches did not prevent people from having fun during campaigns.” Which I found funny because it's true; election campaigns here are circuses meant to entertain instead of enlighten, with “boring speeches” being the “relevance” that all entertainers try to inject. In TV viewing jargon, they're the stuff we zip and zap.
* * * * *
The morning session launched a book called “Selling Candidates” by Pulse Asia Director Ana Maria Tabunda and Newsbreak writers Carmela Fonbuena and Aries Rufo, which chronicled the 2007 senatorial elections. The book focuses on political ads, which in 2004 was predicted to be crucial in winning future elections. Back then Mar Roxas (the dancing surfboard) got the number one spot through sheer number of ads despite being a relatively unknown department secretary.
The highlight of the launch was the panel discussion moderated by Cheche Lazaro, which featured exceptions to the rule: Alan Peter Cayetano, who didn't spend much for TV ads yet won, and Prospero Pichay who spent the most yet lost spectacularly. Yoly Ong of Campaigns and Grey represented the ad people / image makers, Charie Villa of ABS-CBN and Marichu Villanueva of the Philippine Star were there too.
Cayetano claims he didn't have much to spend for ads and, apparently, didn't need to. He had a lot of what is called “earned media” thanks to his tussle with the first gentleman, which meant free airtime on news channels. The news reports also reinforced his image as someone against the president, which was crucial as midterm elections also serve as a referendum on the current administration.
Pichay was the opposite, spending close to 100 million on TV ads which sent a simplistic message based on a pun and looked as though it was aimed at kids. Plus his reputation as the president's attack dog didn't help. He also admitted that he was unprepared and was only forced to run to complete the slate.
Yoly Ong says she chooses which candidates to help (she isn't a gun for hire) having worked only for the two Rocos since 2004. She says the image a candidate projects needs to be based on “basic truths;” it isn't a costume one can wear and take off.
Charie Villa, who heads news gathering for ABS-CBN, says that the challenge for them is to differentiate legitimate news from staged events. Ads are one thing but the stuff that appears on the news needs to be actual news.
* * * * *
Observations/Impressions:
1. Everyone despises (or is mildly irritated by) Pichay. He's the Dr. Zoidberg of the panetl, the butt of jokes and the one who seems like he's out of his intellectual league. He's the trapo who makes the boring, repetitive speeches Klaus was probably referring to.
2. Cayetano doesn't strike me as especially brilliant but speaks clearly and (for a politician) concisely. He enumerates his points and answers the actual question without pandering to the crowd. Unlike Pichay he understands that this is a pretty well-educated crowd. He also gets points for the best comeback. In one exchange Pichay says this is the only country where an endorsement from an ex-president convicted of corruption helps a candidate win. Cayetano replies that this is also the only country where an endorsement from a sitting president is the kiss of death. (Oh snap!)
3. Ichu Villanueva looks simultaneously bored and nervous and constipated. Billy Esposo would've been the better representative for The Star (if they could literally haul his ass over). His insights from the media bureau of the Cory campaign would've made a great comparison to Yoly's current methods.
4. People listened intently to Yoly Ong partly because she's a good speaker (all successful ad people have mastered the art of the pitch) but mostly because most everyone in the audience (mostly journalists and political staff members) really wanted to know how an “image maker” works. She was the one providing practical information.
5. The panel discussion wasn't nearly long enough. Perhaps Cheche could do several episodes of her “Media in Focus” on the various aspects of this topic. By the time it got interesting time was up and everyone was hungry.
6. My being “from the internet” is still just a notch above inconsequential. Perhaps a similar event featuring emerging technologies and media for political campaigns is in order. (More on this in another post)
* * * * *
I'll write about the afternoon session next.
Monday, May 12, 2008
If contraception is murder...
...is masturbation mass murder?
* * * * *
My problem with those arguing for the Catholic Church's archaic stance on contraception is that they're trying to use economics to prop up their arguments in much the same way creationists grossly misinterpret geology and biology to convince the gullible. Armchair economists (or proud non-economists) use the science the same way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support instead of illumination.
They “study” the issue with a conclusion firmly in mind and shoehorn the facts to fit, making sure to concoct excuses every time something doesn't quite sound right. You hear them claiming that a bigger population leads to bigger productivity without anything to show for it – the countries with the largest populations are also the poorest. You hear them blaming everything – from the greed of capitalists to laziness to lack of faith – except their stance against contraception.
It's intellectual dishonesty to claim that the Church's stand against contraception isn't relevant or that contraceptive use is rising without citing any evidence. Remember: making stuff up may be allowed in your religion, but not in civilized society.
* * * * *
The order to “go forth and multiply” was supposedly given by God to Noah AFTER HE KILLED EVERYTHING ON EARTH. Of course they needed to reproduce, they were starting from scratch.* The idea that more children is good is based on the conditions of a pre-agricultural society that still needed a lot of people to hunt and gather and, eventually, tame the land. Having more children is good only before the advent of modern medicine, when infant mortality was high and you needed a bigger litter to ensure a good number of them survive to adulthood.
Given limited resources it's plain stupidity to argue that a large population is good, especially since raising a kid to function properly in today's society requires more than making sure the kid grows up strong enough to till the land. The times have changed but the Church is desperately trying not to in order to maintain that veneer of infallibility, parroted by its defenders in the media like Antonio Montalvan II, who misses a lot of points, the most important being: you can believe whatever the hell you want, just don't get in the way of those who don't.
The problem isn't the middle class cafeteria catholics who can afford and will use contraception regardless what their priest (who has no experience in these matters) says. It's the really poor who barely have enough money left over to buy a pack of condoms who would benefit from free ones from the Department of Health. These couples, who may not even be Catholic, should have the option to have sex without worrying about having a baby they can't afford.** But the Church lobby prevents this, citing doctrine that they claim is “timeless.”
But that's just it. It can't be timeless if it's constantly being proven wrong. Something timeless would still be relevant today, the Church's stand on contraception isn't just archaic, it's just plain wrong from an economic perspective.
Of course that's beside the point. The doctrine against contraception wasn't formulated in order to increase economic productivity. It is based on a silly assumption that sex should always be more than just for pleasure.
And while people like Montalvan can choose to believe that, the rest of us who value life here on earth will continue to think otherwise and call him and his ilk for their intellectual dishonesty. Being "pro-life" should include caring for the quality of life, not just quantity.
============
* Of course this raises a lot of questions about inbreeding (and answers some, too), but that's another story.
** And if God really wanted them to get pregnant, would a piece of latex really stop him? He's supposed to be omnipotent.
* * * * *
My problem with those arguing for the Catholic Church's archaic stance on contraception is that they're trying to use economics to prop up their arguments in much the same way creationists grossly misinterpret geology and biology to convince the gullible. Armchair economists (or proud non-economists) use the science the same way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support instead of illumination.
They “study” the issue with a conclusion firmly in mind and shoehorn the facts to fit, making sure to concoct excuses every time something doesn't quite sound right. You hear them claiming that a bigger population leads to bigger productivity without anything to show for it – the countries with the largest populations are also the poorest. You hear them blaming everything – from the greed of capitalists to laziness to lack of faith – except their stance against contraception.
It's intellectual dishonesty to claim that the Church's stand against contraception isn't relevant or that contraceptive use is rising without citing any evidence. Remember: making stuff up may be allowed in your religion, but not in civilized society.
* * * * *
The order to “go forth and multiply” was supposedly given by God to Noah AFTER HE KILLED EVERYTHING ON EARTH. Of course they needed to reproduce, they were starting from scratch.* The idea that more children is good is based on the conditions of a pre-agricultural society that still needed a lot of people to hunt and gather and, eventually, tame the land. Having more children is good only before the advent of modern medicine, when infant mortality was high and you needed a bigger litter to ensure a good number of them survive to adulthood.
Given limited resources it's plain stupidity to argue that a large population is good, especially since raising a kid to function properly in today's society requires more than making sure the kid grows up strong enough to till the land. The times have changed but the Church is desperately trying not to in order to maintain that veneer of infallibility, parroted by its defenders in the media like Antonio Montalvan II, who misses a lot of points, the most important being: you can believe whatever the hell you want, just don't get in the way of those who don't.
The problem isn't the middle class cafeteria catholics who can afford and will use contraception regardless what their priest (who has no experience in these matters) says. It's the really poor who barely have enough money left over to buy a pack of condoms who would benefit from free ones from the Department of Health. These couples, who may not even be Catholic, should have the option to have sex without worrying about having a baby they can't afford.** But the Church lobby prevents this, citing doctrine that they claim is “timeless.”
But that's just it. It can't be timeless if it's constantly being proven wrong. Something timeless would still be relevant today, the Church's stand on contraception isn't just archaic, it's just plain wrong from an economic perspective.
Of course that's beside the point. The doctrine against contraception wasn't formulated in order to increase economic productivity. It is based on a silly assumption that sex should always be more than just for pleasure.
And while people like Montalvan can choose to believe that, the rest of us who value life here on earth will continue to think otherwise and call him and his ilk for their intellectual dishonesty. Being "pro-life" should include caring for the quality of life, not just quantity.
============
* Of course this raises a lot of questions about inbreeding (and answers some, too), but that's another story.
** And if God really wanted them to get pregnant, would a piece of latex really stop him? He's supposed to be omnipotent.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
FOTC
The most awesome comedy duo that no one's ever heard of despite BBC, HBO, and Comedy Central specials is Flight of the Conchords. The self-proclaimed 4th most popular folk-parody group in New Zealand (overtaken by their tribute band, Like of the Conchords) and inventors of hip-hop (in 2001, with Steve), FOTC combine deadpan delivery, witty dialog, and brilliant songs into a performance that elicits a continuous chuckle punctuated by guffaws and LOLs.
A combination of in-character performance a la Tenacious D and the well-crafted lyrics of Stephen Lynch, FOTC routines are like Monty Python sketches, with the faithful audience knowing what's coming next and giggling in anticipation.
"Jenny" -- a conversation between two strangers in a park
"The Humans Are Dead" -- Binary solo!
"The Most Beautiful Girl..." -- speeded up for Dave
A combination of in-character performance a la Tenacious D and the well-crafted lyrics of Stephen Lynch, FOTC routines are like Monty Python sketches, with the faithful audience knowing what's coming next and giggling in anticipation.
"Jenny" -- a conversation between two strangers in a park
"The Humans Are Dead" -- Binary solo!
"The Most Beautiful Girl..." -- speeded up for Dave
Friday, May 09, 2008
On Speed
Is it a good thing if I understood every single minute of "Speed Racer?" I "got" everything: from the initial race where he's chasing his brother's ghost to the weird, comic-book-y backgrounds to the back room stock market manipulations necessitating race-fixing.
People are dissing it online for being a plasticky, colorful, music video. I'm praising it for exactly the same reasons.
* * * * *
The problem with translating a silly cartoon (or comicbook) to a live-action film is in deciding what parts to keep. With a premise like "Speed Racer's" the task becomes more difficult. How do you explain a world where car racing is the most important thing there is, short of characterizing the Racer family as psychopaths?
The answer: you try your best.
The cleverest bit of "Speed Racer" is in developing a scenario where racing is the most important thing. In the film's universe, racing affects stock prices by driving up demand for the fusion engines used. Sort of like F1 but more direct, as in the result of the Grand Prix is reflected on the following day's trading. And as with anything affecting the economy, the major players try their best to control the outcome.
Which is a damn shame. It puts corporate interests on top of what should be good, clean fun finding out who's fastest. The Racer family lives by (and on) this, treating car racing as a noble sport and an art form. Which is why the slightest whiff of corporate sponsorship turns them off. Speed turns down an offer and gets schooled in the dark side of car racing: a cartel runs everything, the races aren't won by the best but by the sponsors who will benefit most from it.
But he lands a slot in the Grand Prix (by means of an invitation gained by winning a deadly rally in order to expose insider trading) and shocks the racing Illuminati by winning, proving that an honest man can still make it in this (well, that, actually) world.
* * * * *
The best line belongs to Christina Ricci as Trixie, exclaiming “Oh my God! Is that a ninja?” after seeing who attacked them. Delivered both in and out of character, in a manner that simultaneously plays it straight for the kids while winking at the adults. Which is exactly how the cast and crew treated the entire film.
Works for me.
People are dissing it online for being a plasticky, colorful, music video. I'm praising it for exactly the same reasons.
* * * * *
The problem with translating a silly cartoon (or comicbook) to a live-action film is in deciding what parts to keep. With a premise like "Speed Racer's" the task becomes more difficult. How do you explain a world where car racing is the most important thing there is, short of characterizing the Racer family as psychopaths?
The answer: you try your best.
The cleverest bit of "Speed Racer" is in developing a scenario where racing is the most important thing. In the film's universe, racing affects stock prices by driving up demand for the fusion engines used. Sort of like F1 but more direct, as in the result of the Grand Prix is reflected on the following day's trading. And as with anything affecting the economy, the major players try their best to control the outcome.
Which is a damn shame. It puts corporate interests on top of what should be good, clean fun finding out who's fastest. The Racer family lives by (and on) this, treating car racing as a noble sport and an art form. Which is why the slightest whiff of corporate sponsorship turns them off. Speed turns down an offer and gets schooled in the dark side of car racing: a cartel runs everything, the races aren't won by the best but by the sponsors who will benefit most from it.
But he lands a slot in the Grand Prix (by means of an invitation gained by winning a deadly rally in order to expose insider trading) and shocks the racing Illuminati by winning, proving that an honest man can still make it in this (well, that, actually) world.
* * * * *
The best line belongs to Christina Ricci as Trixie, exclaiming “Oh my God! Is that a ninja?” after seeing who attacked them. Delivered both in and out of character, in a manner that simultaneously plays it straight for the kids while winking at the adults. Which is exactly how the cast and crew treated the entire film.
Works for me.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Say what?
Poe's Law says that fundamentalists are difficult to parody because their reasoning and their basic positions are so silly that someone might take them as truth. He is referring to US fundamentalists like the one in the wikipedia photo.
In the Philippines the politicians and cops are so brazen and/or stupid that it's hard to tell if they're joking. A Jon Stewart type of parody show might be moot, the regular news shows are funny enough.
Take for example this article on alleged bribery by Hanjin: PNP Probe clears Hanjin, 2 Mayors; Media blamed.
Tagoloan Mayor Emano said in an affidavit:
Which raises eyebrows already. Choi was implying that the project will benefit the mayor personally. But the idiotic PNP Director Jefferson Soriano claims that the media just misconstrued the mayor's statement. The Director even goes on to say:
EH KUNG HINDI KA BA NAMAN BOBO'T KALAHATI. Isn't that the very definition of a bribe?
In the Philippines the politicians and cops are so brazen and/or stupid that it's hard to tell if they're joking. A Jon Stewart type of parody show might be moot, the regular news shows are funny enough.
Take for example this article on alleged bribery by Hanjin: PNP Probe clears Hanjin, 2 Mayors; Media blamed.
Tagoloan Mayor Emano said in an affidavit:
“Noticing my seemingly noncommittal stance at the moment, Mr. Choi may have been prompted to ask if I was interested in the sand and gravel supply contact considering that it would amount to P400 million,” Emano said.
Which raises eyebrows already. Choi was implying that the project will benefit the mayor personally. But the idiotic PNP Director Jefferson Soriano claims that the media just misconstrued the mayor's statement. The Director even goes on to say:
“[It] was not meant as a bribe. It was meant to entice the mayor to support or accept the diversion of the riverbed. It’s in his affidavit,” Soriano said. [Emphasis mine]
EH KUNG HINDI KA BA NAMAN BOBO'T KALAHATI. Isn't that the very definition of a bribe?
Saturday, May 03, 2008
You know there's a problem with UNICEF...
...when their people act more like Family First agents than UN volunteers.
I've been seeing UNICEF people on Ayala Ave. shaking hands (more like futilely trying to) with passers-by. Of course, nobody pays them any attention because in the business district everyone is in a hurry on a weekday lunch hour. Even me. Besides, everyone has encountered those MLM people in malls, wearing a UNICEF shirt doesn't take any of the Stepford-like creepiness away.*
Who was the genius who thought bothering people on their way to lunch in a Manila noon was a good idea?
I allowed one to catch me at the Cubao Art expo. The foreign woman (Malaysian? Vietnamese?) asked for my credit card info and told me that I can sign up to donate P500 a month. What she didn't tell me was where the money was going. I know about UNICEF but I need details, something they conveniently forgot.
The problem with those MLM types is that they're so focused on what they want from you that the whole encounter becomes a sales pitch. You're on guard all the time because they might get you to agree to something that you'd find hard to get out of. And they sound so smooth when they do it; like they eat gullibles like you for breakfast.
Which I half expect with those MLM types. But for a worldwide volunteer organization? It's really disappointing.
==========
*And they're butt-ugly, too. Get some of those Coke Light girls or Coke Zero guys to do it. People WILL stop to talk to them.
I've been seeing UNICEF people on Ayala Ave. shaking hands (more like futilely trying to) with passers-by. Of course, nobody pays them any attention because in the business district everyone is in a hurry on a weekday lunch hour. Even me. Besides, everyone has encountered those MLM people in malls, wearing a UNICEF shirt doesn't take any of the Stepford-like creepiness away.*
Who was the genius who thought bothering people on their way to lunch in a Manila noon was a good idea?
I allowed one to catch me at the Cubao Art expo. The foreign woman (Malaysian? Vietnamese?) asked for my credit card info and told me that I can sign up to donate P500 a month. What she didn't tell me was where the money was going. I know about UNICEF but I need details, something they conveniently forgot.
The problem with those MLM types is that they're so focused on what they want from you that the whole encounter becomes a sales pitch. You're on guard all the time because they might get you to agree to something that you'd find hard to get out of. And they sound so smooth when they do it; like they eat gullibles like you for breakfast.
Which I half expect with those MLM types. But for a worldwide volunteer organization? It's really disappointing.
==========
*And they're butt-ugly, too. Get some of those Coke Light girls or Coke Zero guys to do it. People WILL stop to talk to them.
Sam Jackson's in everything...
What you're hearing is the collective squee of comicbook fanboys as Samuel L. Jackson announces after the "Iron Man" film credits that he is Nick Fury, Director of SHIELD, and is inviting Stark to something called the Avenger Initiative.I'm a DC guy but Marvel is doing a better job at setting up its movies. Jackson and Downey are in, and so's Edward Norton as Bruce Banner. They need to get Grace Park as The Wasp, Jensen Ackles as Hawkeye, Doug Jones as Vision, Milla Jovovich as the Scarlet Witch (Brian Krause as Pietro, how's that for geeky reference? Google away.), and Mark Valley as Cap. Maybe get Jennifer Garner as the Black Widow so we can see Downey bash her head in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)