Jessica Zafra suggests giving plastic bags back to the establishments that gave them to us in the hope that they reuse them. I say (well, she does, too) it's better if we just refuse them unless absolutely necessary.
I understand needing huge bags for groceries or for a number of tiny things, but a small plastic bag to place a bottle of, say, alcohol is just a waste of plastic. For those purchases I just tell the cashier to give me the bottle and the receipt. "Huwag mo nang isupot" is a solution to too much plastic clogging the landfills.
Some stores are trying to implement solutions but they're missing the point. SM sells reusable canvas bags for groceries but they're hardly enough to contain all the groceries I buy (I do mine weekly). And instead of being progressive and allowing a shopper to bring any bag, SM insists on using the canvas bags they sell.
It's faux environmentalism at its tackiest on par with their faux moral stance of not allowing R-rated films in their cinemas.
Besides, I reuse those huge grocery bags. They're big and yellow and perfect for lining trash cans. What I find wasteful are National Book Store's handle-less bags that they heat seal (presumably to keep pencils from slipping out), which doubles the waste since it renders the plastic useless.
As with any environmental advocacy, what's needed is a change in mindset. We have to start thinking in terms of what we can reuse and what will be wasted instead of what we think we need or worse, what the stores insist we do.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Because I can
Music site pulse.ph lists the "Top Ten Rock Hairstyles" and, sure enough, plain old long hair is number one. Which reminds me of an old mailing list post.
* * * * *
Because I can
15 January 2003
Q: Why do you grow your hair long?
A: Because I can.
I've concluded that this is the best answer I can give to a question I get asked every time I meet someone whom I haven't seen for over five years, during family reunions, or even just at home. My dad always gives me this slightly irritated / disappointed look while saying "ang haba na ng buhok mo" while my mother keeps asking "kailan ka magpapagupit?" Friends' reactions range from slightly surprised to very impressed. It's the guys who are usually impressed, women's reactions usually fall under the "mas maganda nung maikli ang buhok mo" category or the simple "bakit?" (Of course there are those few who keep saying "Tara, sabay tayong magpa-rebond")
Most guys my age like my long hair because most of them can't grow theirs long. "Because I can" just says that I've the means, motive, and opportunity to do it. There's a sense of accomplishment in that answer. You'd be surprised at the number of reasons other men have for not being able to do it ranging from work (been there) to peer/parental/girlfriend pressure.
Men who want to grow their hair long (but can't) are often employed in industries that frown on slightly eccentric behavior. Weird, but in a post-feminist age where machismo is said to be dead, there are still holdovers who think that it's un-masculine to have long hair. I experienced this right after college when, while applying to teach in high school, I was told to have my hair cut before the school year starts.
Others are pressured into getting haircuts by girlfriends and/or parents. The moment your hair gets scruffy (about four weeks after your last haircut) you're bombarded with hints and suggestions. Postpone your haircut for a week or two and you have friends asking if you've been extremely busy lately (or if you have money problems).
Growing long hair for men is difficult. Apart from the hindrances mentioned above, one also faces what I call the 3-7 month problem. (Yes I have names for the stages of growth, I've done this thrice) When your hair is halfway between slightly shaggy and pony tail length you inevitably run into problems of keeping it away from your eyes (not to mention keeping it from looking like a mop top) while avoiding the "girl look."
Hair accessories are ok in private but try wearing them in public and you'll get weird stares. Apparently, long hair is acceptable but hair bands, clamps, and clips (even those in basic black) are looked upon as weird or gay (or both) so anyone who can stand looking bad for a few months in addition to the pressure to get a haircut (which grows in direct proportion to your hair length) deserves his long locks.
I grow my hair long because I can. That's the best answer anyone can give. Saying "wala lang" makes the whole thing seem trivial, citing trends (F4, anyone) just makes you a fashion victim, and rationalizing it too much makes it seem like it needs justification (it doesn't). Not every guy can do this, so just the fact that I can makes me feel special.
* * * * *
Because I can
15 January 2003
Q: Why do you grow your hair long?
A: Because I can.
I've concluded that this is the best answer I can give to a question I get asked every time I meet someone whom I haven't seen for over five years, during family reunions, or even just at home. My dad always gives me this slightly irritated / disappointed look while saying "ang haba na ng buhok mo" while my mother keeps asking "kailan ka magpapagupit?" Friends' reactions range from slightly surprised to very impressed. It's the guys who are usually impressed, women's reactions usually fall under the "mas maganda nung maikli ang buhok mo" category or the simple "bakit?" (Of course there are those few who keep saying "Tara, sabay tayong magpa-rebond")
Most guys my age like my long hair because most of them can't grow theirs long. "Because I can" just says that I've the means, motive, and opportunity to do it. There's a sense of accomplishment in that answer. You'd be surprised at the number of reasons other men have for not being able to do it ranging from work (been there) to peer/parental/girlfriend pressure.
Men who want to grow their hair long (but can't) are often employed in industries that frown on slightly eccentric behavior. Weird, but in a post-feminist age where machismo is said to be dead, there are still holdovers who think that it's un-masculine to have long hair. I experienced this right after college when, while applying to teach in high school, I was told to have my hair cut before the school year starts.
Others are pressured into getting haircuts by girlfriends and/or parents. The moment your hair gets scruffy (about four weeks after your last haircut) you're bombarded with hints and suggestions. Postpone your haircut for a week or two and you have friends asking if you've been extremely busy lately (or if you have money problems).
Growing long hair for men is difficult. Apart from the hindrances mentioned above, one also faces what I call the 3-7 month problem. (Yes I have names for the stages of growth, I've done this thrice) When your hair is halfway between slightly shaggy and pony tail length you inevitably run into problems of keeping it away from your eyes (not to mention keeping it from looking like a mop top) while avoiding the "girl look."
Hair accessories are ok in private but try wearing them in public and you'll get weird stares. Apparently, long hair is acceptable but hair bands, clamps, and clips (even those in basic black) are looked upon as weird or gay (or both) so anyone who can stand looking bad for a few months in addition to the pressure to get a haircut (which grows in direct proportion to your hair length) deserves his long locks.
I grow my hair long because I can. That's the best answer anyone can give. Saying "wala lang" makes the whole thing seem trivial, citing trends (F4, anyone) just makes you a fashion victim, and rationalizing it too much makes it seem like it needs justification (it doesn't). Not every guy can do this, so just the fact that I can makes me feel special.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Investing in Fantasies
missingpoints classic: Investing in Fantasies
26 March 2003
Seeing a great number of people lining up for Lotto tickets got me thinking. Why do they bother to plunk down money for the infinitesimal chance of winning millions? It really doesn't make sense if you look at the statistics, which will tell you that you have one in five million chances to win. You stand a greater chance of winning P10,000 playing Bingo at the mall since you're only playing against the other people in the room (and one of you is assured of winning). Yet people still line up for Lotto or Jueteng or Masiao.
From an investment perspective, playing poker or betting on horses (or other sports) is more lucrative as you have some sort of control over the outcome. Poker (or tong-its or pusoy dos) is dependent not only on luck but also on skill. In other betting games, the chances are determined by statistics and past wins. More importantly, in other games of skill and chance, you are assured that someone will win and that someone could be you.
In Lotto there is no such assurance; weeks could go by with no one hitting the jackpot. So why do people bother?
Let's take the cue from our ancient brethren and look to the stars for answers. Asteroids abound in space and there exists chances that an asteroid will enter our atmosphere and collide with us. In fact, science textbooks will tell you that asteroids hit our planet everyday but that these are the size of dust particles and burn up before reaching the ground. Those that do reach the ground are too small to be of any great consequence.
Great, how about "planet killers" like those shown in the movies? Will an asteroid large enough to cause massive destruction ever have a chance of hitting us? Like in Lotto, the chances are small, perhaps even smaller that one in five million. And just like in Lotto, there is also the chance that no asteroid would ever hit us in our lifetime.
But that doesn't stop governments from spending huge amounts of money on projects to monitor these asteroids. It makes some people ask why people even bother. If the chances are small, then we go with the Lotto argument.
The key here is consequence: what follows after. The consequences of a large enough asteroid hitting us are enormous and are well worth the investment in observatories and tracking stations (it also gives astronomers practical jobs). If we could see it coming, then we could probably do something to stop it or blunt its effects. Either way, it's better than dying in our sleep.
Winning 100 million in Lotto is also enormous and may be considered a worthy investment by a lot. Imagine how an amount like that can change the life of a minimum wage earner. The consequences of betting are potentially enormous and it is what the bettors are hoping for.
Call it investing in fantasy. Asteroid research makes sure that we stave off our worst nightmares while betting on Lotto gives us a slightly better chance of achieving our dreams.
26 March 2003
Seeing a great number of people lining up for Lotto tickets got me thinking. Why do they bother to plunk down money for the infinitesimal chance of winning millions? It really doesn't make sense if you look at the statistics, which will tell you that you have one in five million chances to win. You stand a greater chance of winning P10,000 playing Bingo at the mall since you're only playing against the other people in the room (and one of you is assured of winning). Yet people still line up for Lotto or Jueteng or Masiao.
From an investment perspective, playing poker or betting on horses (or other sports) is more lucrative as you have some sort of control over the outcome. Poker (or tong-its or pusoy dos) is dependent not only on luck but also on skill. In other betting games, the chances are determined by statistics and past wins. More importantly, in other games of skill and chance, you are assured that someone will win and that someone could be you.
In Lotto there is no such assurance; weeks could go by with no one hitting the jackpot. So why do people bother?
Let's take the cue from our ancient brethren and look to the stars for answers. Asteroids abound in space and there exists chances that an asteroid will enter our atmosphere and collide with us. In fact, science textbooks will tell you that asteroids hit our planet everyday but that these are the size of dust particles and burn up before reaching the ground. Those that do reach the ground are too small to be of any great consequence.
Great, how about "planet killers" like those shown in the movies? Will an asteroid large enough to cause massive destruction ever have a chance of hitting us? Like in Lotto, the chances are small, perhaps even smaller that one in five million. And just like in Lotto, there is also the chance that no asteroid would ever hit us in our lifetime.
But that doesn't stop governments from spending huge amounts of money on projects to monitor these asteroids. It makes some people ask why people even bother. If the chances are small, then we go with the Lotto argument.
The key here is consequence: what follows after. The consequences of a large enough asteroid hitting us are enormous and are well worth the investment in observatories and tracking stations (it also gives astronomers practical jobs). If we could see it coming, then we could probably do something to stop it or blunt its effects. Either way, it's better than dying in our sleep.
Winning 100 million in Lotto is also enormous and may be considered a worthy investment by a lot. Imagine how an amount like that can change the life of a minimum wage earner. The consequences of betting are potentially enormous and it is what the bettors are hoping for.
Call it investing in fantasy. Asteroid research makes sure that we stave off our worst nightmares while betting on Lotto gives us a slightly better chance of achieving our dreams.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Of course it is
Here's something for your irony meters: Malacanang says "Let People Be Judge of Arroyo."
They seem to forget that what started this whole plunge in GMA's popularity is the allegation that she didn't let the people judge her, preferring instead to rely on Garci's judgment.
Ermita says "running and managing a country is not a “popularity contest.”
Duh. But of course it is. That's the whole point of elections. It's to find out who the majority likes. An election is a stupid way of judging competence (Exhibit A: The Philippine Senate), but it's a great way of gauging who people like.
They seem to forget that what started this whole plunge in GMA's popularity is the allegation that she didn't let the people judge her, preferring instead to rely on Garci's judgment.
Ermita says "running and managing a country is not a “popularity contest.”
Duh. But of course it is. That's the whole point of elections. It's to find out who the majority likes. An election is a stupid way of judging competence (Exhibit A: The Philippine Senate), but it's a great way of gauging who people like.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Defensive Driving
That Lagman bill has been wallowing for quite some time now. I wrote something about it three years ago.
* * * * *
Defensive Driving
19 March 2005
The problem with the debate over population control, especially concerning Edcel Lagman's reproductive health bill, is that either side will be arguing based on different premises. According to the bishops, who were challenged to a public debate, they would argue based on Scripture and Church doctrine while the bill's proponents would talk economics and practicality. Nothing would be settled.
I agree. I automatically skip over any supposed argument against family planning that starts to quote the Bible or includes the words "natural law." It's bunk for people like me who don't believe any of it. What I now find interesting are the arguments of Bernie Villegas (of Opus Dei) and some liberation theologists (imagine that) saying that there is no overpopulation and that the real problem is inequitable distribution of wealth. Poverty, they say, is not due to the lack of resources to be shared by all, it is because most of the resources are hoarded by the rich.
I believe them.
I see all these rich people (congressmen included) who drive around in gas-guzzling American SUVs and think that for every five kilometers they travel they're spending the equivalent of a simple meal for a poor household. I see people buying foreign-made signature clothes and imagine the number of people that money can clothe. I see ads for "The Children's Hour" and stop to consider the fact that what I earn in an hour is more than what some people earn in a day.
I also agree with them when they say that having many children is not a crime; that families should not come with restrictions or quotas; and that an aging population or the Chinese phenomenon of "little princes" is a cause for worry.
However, I still support family planning efforts (and the reproductive health bill) despite their arguments because I am a firm believer in defensive driving.
Defensive driving – taught in all driving schools, except the ones
where jeepney drivers learn – is not so much a technique as it is a philosophy. It's a way of driving that emphasizes safety and caution over speed and right of way. It's a philosophy that says "I don't really care if those other drivers are wrong, what's important is I get to where I'm going in one piece."
And most of the time it makes sense. It's stupid to assert one's right of way when an 18-wheeler truck with a driver on shabu comes barreling down the highway. Sure you'll win the lawsuit and claim insurance but your car, if not you and your passengers, will have already been totaled. While a green light does mean "go," it helps to slow down at an empty intersection just to see if some drunk driver or pedestrian is crossing.
The idea is to protect oneself first before asserting one's rights.
The bishops can complain all they want about inequity and general unfairness of a capitalist system but that doesn't help these poor folks with eight kids who live on less than 50 pesos a day. They can shout bloody revolution all they want (although somehow I don't think Villegas and his ilk would approve) but unless it really happens (which I seriously doubt, the CPP has been trying in vain for over 30 years), we'll be stuck with couples who can barely feed their large
brood.
The logic is simple. A janitor who lives on minimum wage can probably afford to have only two children (and even that is pushing it). One needs a higher monthly income in order to provide adequate (and this is key) support. Of course the guy can believe Bernie Villegas and the bishops and say that he has the right to have more kids and that he deserves a bigger salary because his employers are not sharing the wealth enough but in the end he still gets run over by the raging truck.
Right of way is irrelevant if it puts you in harm's way.
Access to family planning methods, both natural and artificial, coupled with proper education, will help people like my janitor make sure he only has the right number of children he can adequately support. The problem of inequitable distribution of wealth will still be present, just like drunk and reckless drivers, but at least people will stand a better chance of living more decent lives within their current incomes.
* * * * *
Defensive Driving
19 March 2005
The problem with the debate over population control, especially concerning Edcel Lagman's reproductive health bill, is that either side will be arguing based on different premises. According to the bishops, who were challenged to a public debate, they would argue based on Scripture and Church doctrine while the bill's proponents would talk economics and practicality. Nothing would be settled.
I agree. I automatically skip over any supposed argument against family planning that starts to quote the Bible or includes the words "natural law." It's bunk for people like me who don't believe any of it. What I now find interesting are the arguments of Bernie Villegas (of Opus Dei) and some liberation theologists (imagine that) saying that there is no overpopulation and that the real problem is inequitable distribution of wealth. Poverty, they say, is not due to the lack of resources to be shared by all, it is because most of the resources are hoarded by the rich.
I believe them.
I see all these rich people (congressmen included) who drive around in gas-guzzling American SUVs and think that for every five kilometers they travel they're spending the equivalent of a simple meal for a poor household. I see people buying foreign-made signature clothes and imagine the number of people that money can clothe. I see ads for "The Children's Hour" and stop to consider the fact that what I earn in an hour is more than what some people earn in a day.
I also agree with them when they say that having many children is not a crime; that families should not come with restrictions or quotas; and that an aging population or the Chinese phenomenon of "little princes" is a cause for worry.
However, I still support family planning efforts (and the reproductive health bill) despite their arguments because I am a firm believer in defensive driving.
Defensive driving – taught in all driving schools, except the ones
where jeepney drivers learn – is not so much a technique as it is a philosophy. It's a way of driving that emphasizes safety and caution over speed and right of way. It's a philosophy that says "I don't really care if those other drivers are wrong, what's important is I get to where I'm going in one piece."
And most of the time it makes sense. It's stupid to assert one's right of way when an 18-wheeler truck with a driver on shabu comes barreling down the highway. Sure you'll win the lawsuit and claim insurance but your car, if not you and your passengers, will have already been totaled. While a green light does mean "go," it helps to slow down at an empty intersection just to see if some drunk driver or pedestrian is crossing.
The idea is to protect oneself first before asserting one's rights.
The bishops can complain all they want about inequity and general unfairness of a capitalist system but that doesn't help these poor folks with eight kids who live on less than 50 pesos a day. They can shout bloody revolution all they want (although somehow I don't think Villegas and his ilk would approve) but unless it really happens (which I seriously doubt, the CPP has been trying in vain for over 30 years), we'll be stuck with couples who can barely feed their large
brood.
The logic is simple. A janitor who lives on minimum wage can probably afford to have only two children (and even that is pushing it). One needs a higher monthly income in order to provide adequate (and this is key) support. Of course the guy can believe Bernie Villegas and the bishops and say that he has the right to have more kids and that he deserves a bigger salary because his employers are not sharing the wealth enough but in the end he still gets run over by the raging truck.
Right of way is irrelevant if it puts you in harm's way.
Access to family planning methods, both natural and artificial, coupled with proper education, will help people like my janitor make sure he only has the right number of children he can adequately support. The problem of inequitable distribution of wealth will still be present, just like drunk and reckless drivers, but at least people will stand a better chance of living more decent lives within their current incomes.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Break muna from the religion / civil rights thing.
Everybody check out "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog," perhaps the first internet musical starring Neil Patrick Harris ("Doogie Howser," "How I Met Your Mother") as a second-rate supervillain applying for the Evil League of Evil while trying to impress a girl he likes at the laundromat.
Nathan Filion ("Firefly," "Slither") is his nemesis, Captain Hammer while Felicia Day ("Buffy," "The Guild") is the girl, Penny. Simon Helberg ("Studio 60," "Big Bang Theory") plays Dr. Horrible's henchman.
The songs are catchy, the lyrics are priceless, and the way the actors play their parts is just several shades of win. There's a cheesy sincerity (or sincere cheesiness) in the way they deliver their lines. The first two acts are up with the final installment due online in a couple of days.
* * * *
"It's curtains for you Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains."
Is it just me or does Neil Patrick Harris always play bloggers? Doogie Howser had that blue screen. Barney Stinson supposedly has an awesome blog. And Mark from "Rent" was doing the late 90s equivalent of video blogging.
Everybody check out "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog," perhaps the first internet musical starring Neil Patrick Harris ("Doogie Howser," "How I Met Your Mother") as a second-rate supervillain applying for the Evil League of Evil while trying to impress a girl he likes at the laundromat.
Nathan Filion ("Firefly," "Slither") is his nemesis, Captain Hammer while Felicia Day ("Buffy," "The Guild") is the girl, Penny. Simon Helberg ("Studio 60," "Big Bang Theory") plays Dr. Horrible's henchman.
The songs are catchy, the lyrics are priceless, and the way the actors play their parts is just several shades of win. There's a cheesy sincerity (or sincere cheesiness) in the way they deliver their lines. The first two acts are up with the final installment due online in a couple of days.
* * * *
"It's curtains for you Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains."
Is it just me or does Neil Patrick Harris always play bloggers? Doogie Howser had that blue screen. Barney Stinson supposedly has an awesome blog. And Mark from "Rent" was doing the late 90s equivalent of video blogging.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
On that fracking cracker thingy...
In high school we had a bonus question in one of our Chemistry exams that went something like this: During the consecration of the Holy Eucharist, when it turns into the body of Christ, is that change physical or chemical? Seriously.
The answer of course, is neither. The host is not physically or chemically altered in any way. Transubstantiation is trickier than that and is beyond the ambit of Chemistry. So my answer was something like: Neither. It is a symbolic change.
Which earned me full marks and convinced me that my brilliant Chem teacher (who passed away a few weeks after that exam) wasn't really a religious kook. It was a trick question since anyone who said that the host physically or chemically changed into flesh was wrong.
And that's why I find the case of Webster Cook so baffling.
The kid went to Mass, took communion in his hands, and kept the host for his non-Catholic friend to see. He was accosted by other people in the church, was physically assaulted and threatened. He then returned the wafer (in a ziploc bag) but still has problems with campus authorities and people accusing him of "hate crimes." (Persecution complex, much?)
Then PZ Myers writes about it in his usual sarcastic manner and all hell explodes. Bill Donohue exhorts his Catholic League to write to Myers's boss at the University of Minnesota to have him fired for hate speech. Which his lemmings -- few of whom have read Myers's' blog before and are only dimly aware of the facts of the case -- did in droves.
Myers (and then Dawkins, after) then tells his pharynguloids to send letters of support just to see how his university president would react (he's tenured so he needn't worry). Now they're breaking the internet and setting a world record on blog comments (6,500 and going on a single topic).
It's not about desecrating the host (which PZ threatened to do), it's about the overreaction over what in reality is just a piece of bread. All by Christians who supposedly follow the rule set by their founder, "love thy neighbor." At worst Cook pulled a tasteless prank, but threatening his life over it is just crazy. Myers was just being his usual self (and maybe trying to take heat away from the boy) and threatening his life over it is way over the top.
Blasphemy is not a crime, it's a quaint leftover of the times when we really believed in gods and that these gods actually cared what we lower beings thought. It's a reminder that religion was developed and used to explain things (it's since been supplanted by science and philosophy) and control the populace (still in effect).
Which leads me to this statement by Philippine bishops, saying they'd deny communion to "anti-life" politicians.
Cool. They legally have the right to enforce the rules of their organization. Don't any of these politicians (who listened to experts and to their constituents ) pander to them in any way. They're relics of a bygone age.
The answer of course, is neither. The host is not physically or chemically altered in any way. Transubstantiation is trickier than that and is beyond the ambit of Chemistry. So my answer was something like: Neither. It is a symbolic change.
Which earned me full marks and convinced me that my brilliant Chem teacher (who passed away a few weeks after that exam) wasn't really a religious kook. It was a trick question since anyone who said that the host physically or chemically changed into flesh was wrong.
And that's why I find the case of Webster Cook so baffling.
The kid went to Mass, took communion in his hands, and kept the host for his non-Catholic friend to see. He was accosted by other people in the church, was physically assaulted and threatened. He then returned the wafer (in a ziploc bag) but still has problems with campus authorities and people accusing him of "hate crimes." (Persecution complex, much?)
Then PZ Myers writes about it in his usual sarcastic manner and all hell explodes. Bill Donohue exhorts his Catholic League to write to Myers's boss at the University of Minnesota to have him fired for hate speech. Which his lemmings -- few of whom have read Myers's' blog before and are only dimly aware of the facts of the case -- did in droves.
Myers (and then Dawkins, after) then tells his pharynguloids to send letters of support just to see how his university president would react (he's tenured so he needn't worry). Now they're breaking the internet and setting a world record on blog comments (6,500 and going on a single topic).
It's not about desecrating the host (which PZ threatened to do), it's about the overreaction over what in reality is just a piece of bread. All by Christians who supposedly follow the rule set by their founder, "love thy neighbor." At worst Cook pulled a tasteless prank, but threatening his life over it is just crazy. Myers was just being his usual self (and maybe trying to take heat away from the boy) and threatening his life over it is way over the top.
Blasphemy is not a crime, it's a quaint leftover of the times when we really believed in gods and that these gods actually cared what we lower beings thought. It's a reminder that religion was developed and used to explain things (it's since been supplanted by science and philosophy) and control the populace (still in effect).
Which leads me to this statement by Philippine bishops, saying they'd deny communion to "anti-life" politicians.
Cool. They legally have the right to enforce the rules of their organization. Don't any of these politicians (who listened to experts and to their constituents ) pander to them in any way. They're relics of a bygone age.
Worst. Episode. Ever.
missingpoints classic: Worst. Episode. Ever.
17 March 2003
Worst. Episode. Ever.
Read that aloud in the Simpsons' Comic Book Guy voice. That's how a lot on Internet geek fanboys sound like. Well, at least that's how I imagine them when they diss their favorite TV show. It's really an interesting phenomenon to observe. It probably was already happening during the early days of television but it is only now, with the advent of the Internet that it has grown to such a large extent. Web-based message boards and mailing lists have democratized the process and made it so easy that anyone who has the potential to be a fanatic can be one online.
"Star Trek" started it all with fans discussing the merits of each episode and character in specially published "fanzines" and in conventions they organize for the purpose. Other genres with "cult" followings followed soon after and the whole thing boomed with modems and BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems). The early text-based newsgroups like alt.fan.starwars and alt.rec.allmychildren fostered virtual communities of people with similar passions for cartoons and soaps and science fiction.
The Web, with its ease of use, helped spread the phenomenon. Now anyone, even non-fans, can access boards and egroups for free. Websites managed by fans dedicated to particular shows sprang up and tried to outdo each other. A simple Google search will yield dozens of sites with transcribed "Buffy" or "Angel" episodes (complete with vidcaps), complete chronologies of the events in "Alias" or "Babylon 5," or a heated discussion on whether Janeway and Seven-of-Nine had a lesbian thing going on.
The ardor is unbelievable and leads to astounding feats of voluntarism. The first cancellation of "Star Trek" led to a massive letter-writing campaign that brought the show back for another season (this was pre-Internet). The recent non-renewal of "Farscape" resulted in fans putting their money where their mouths are. Internet-based fan groups funded several print ads encouraging other networks to pick up the show and are currently studying the possibility of fan-funded episodes (yes, they're that serious).
But while such enthusiasm is admirable, it can also be unhealthy (and not just because fans lose sleep reviewing episodes). The admiration turns into mania and into real fanaticism. Some fans feel that they "own" the show more than the writers, producers, and actors.
The fanaticism ranges from the idiotic to the erudite. Die hard starwoids go to great lengths defending "The Phantom Menace" even though everyone over 10 who has seen it think it's a fun, mindless romp at best. One fan even declared "Attack of the Clones" brilliant, stilted dialogue and all. (What was he smoking and can I have some?) "Simpsons" die hards on the other hand spend hours dissing the latest episodes prefacing almost every review with "Worst. Episode. Ever."
This despite critics' continuing praise of a show that still manages to entertain and poke fun at modern society. "Futurama" is better in my opinion but "The Simpsons" today isn't really a show that is a "faint shadow of its former glory."
The trouble with this overzealousness is that it desensitizes TPTB (the powers that be) in TV shows. While at first they may appreciate comments from loyal viewers, they will eventually get tired of constant ranting. Like my favorite US Embassy protesters, uber-fans who have nothing good to say about every episode will be dismissed. "Star Trek's" Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, much reviled by fans, generally do not mind the comments anymore. This is bad because in not paying heed to the "extremists" they lose out on real insights and are now churning out "McTrek" franchises like "Enterprise" and "Nemesis."
"The Simpsons" writers on the other hand, strike back occasionally. In one episode, Lisa suggests that they get their message on the Internet. Bart responds by saying, "No, we've got to reach the people who matter."
I guess it's not what they're saying nor is it the manner with which they say it. The sheer volume of things that are being said tends to down out the people and the opinions that really matter. In calling every episode the worst ever, these critics/fanatics miss out on the really bad ones.
17 March 2003
Worst. Episode. Ever.
Read that aloud in the Simpsons' Comic Book Guy voice. That's how a lot on Internet geek fanboys sound like. Well, at least that's how I imagine them when they diss their favorite TV show. It's really an interesting phenomenon to observe. It probably was already happening during the early days of television but it is only now, with the advent of the Internet that it has grown to such a large extent. Web-based message boards and mailing lists have democratized the process and made it so easy that anyone who has the potential to be a fanatic can be one online.
"Star Trek" started it all with fans discussing the merits of each episode and character in specially published "fanzines" and in conventions they organize for the purpose. Other genres with "cult" followings followed soon after and the whole thing boomed with modems and BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems). The early text-based newsgroups like alt.fan.starwars and alt.rec.allmychildren fostered virtual communities of people with similar passions for cartoons and soaps and science fiction.
The Web, with its ease of use, helped spread the phenomenon. Now anyone, even non-fans, can access boards and egroups for free. Websites managed by fans dedicated to particular shows sprang up and tried to outdo each other. A simple Google search will yield dozens of sites with transcribed "Buffy" or "Angel" episodes (complete with vidcaps), complete chronologies of the events in "Alias" or "Babylon 5," or a heated discussion on whether Janeway and Seven-of-Nine had a lesbian thing going on.
The ardor is unbelievable and leads to astounding feats of voluntarism. The first cancellation of "Star Trek" led to a massive letter-writing campaign that brought the show back for another season (this was pre-Internet). The recent non-renewal of "Farscape" resulted in fans putting their money where their mouths are. Internet-based fan groups funded several print ads encouraging other networks to pick up the show and are currently studying the possibility of fan-funded episodes (yes, they're that serious).
But while such enthusiasm is admirable, it can also be unhealthy (and not just because fans lose sleep reviewing episodes). The admiration turns into mania and into real fanaticism. Some fans feel that they "own" the show more than the writers, producers, and actors.
The fanaticism ranges from the idiotic to the erudite. Die hard starwoids go to great lengths defending "The Phantom Menace" even though everyone over 10 who has seen it think it's a fun, mindless romp at best. One fan even declared "Attack of the Clones" brilliant, stilted dialogue and all. (What was he smoking and can I have some?) "Simpsons" die hards on the other hand spend hours dissing the latest episodes prefacing almost every review with "Worst. Episode. Ever."
This despite critics' continuing praise of a show that still manages to entertain and poke fun at modern society. "Futurama" is better in my opinion but "The Simpsons" today isn't really a show that is a "faint shadow of its former glory."
The trouble with this overzealousness is that it desensitizes TPTB (the powers that be) in TV shows. While at first they may appreciate comments from loyal viewers, they will eventually get tired of constant ranting. Like my favorite US Embassy protesters, uber-fans who have nothing good to say about every episode will be dismissed. "Star Trek's" Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, much reviled by fans, generally do not mind the comments anymore. This is bad because in not paying heed to the "extremists" they lose out on real insights and are now churning out "McTrek" franchises like "Enterprise" and "Nemesis."
"The Simpsons" writers on the other hand, strike back occasionally. In one episode, Lisa suggests that they get their message on the Internet. Bart responds by saying, "No, we've got to reach the people who matter."
I guess it's not what they're saying nor is it the manner with which they say it. The sheer volume of things that are being said tends to down out the people and the opinions that really matter. In calling every episode the worst ever, these critics/fanatics miss out on the really bad ones.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Question
When we give our opinion we always say we're giving our two cents. But when someone wants to know our thoughts they offer us a penny. Does that mean our ideas are only worth half what we think they are to others?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
They haven't even finished the organ yet...
... because some notes won't be needed for decades. John Cage's "As Slow aS Possible" has been slowed down to 639 years. They just played the sixth note since the concert started in 2001. The next chord change is scheduled this November.
And you thought Grateful Dead songs can get tedious. I kid you not.
And you thought Grateful Dead songs can get tedious. I kid you not.
A line we don't want them to cross
This proposal by the city of San Juan to institute random drug testing among students reminded me of a similar proposal five years ago.
* * * * *
missingpoints classic: A line we don't want them to cross
7 June 2003
The trouble with protecting civil liberties is that people often don't "get" it. Civil libertarians, whether in government or in the streets, have a hard time convincing people without resorting to horror scenarios. This earns them the moniker of doomsayers, pessimists, or worse, rebels or "agents of destabilization." The last one being the most dangerous as this brand has often led to arrests or summary executions by paramilitary forces, especially in the provinces.
The trouble with "selling" the idea of civil liberties to the normal unaligned masses is that it doesn't solve problems. At times it even makes problem-solving for the government a bit more difficult. Like, say the current civil liberties issue of mandatory drug testing in school.
Your average Juan would wonder what all the fuss is about drug testing. At first glance, the ones protesting against it seem to be making a big issue over a move that will be a big step in identifying users (and supposedly pushers). If you're not doing drugs, then it would seem that there's nothing to worry about. You shouldn't be afraid of a drug test (random or not). Unless of course you're going to force me to fork over 300 bucks to test myself, I'm supposed to be just fine with it right? All this talk of protecting rights just makes things more difficult for the authorities.
That's true. Civil liberties do make things more difficult for government but – and this is what blows the average Joe's mind – that's exactly the point.
You want to be efficient, try fascism, or dictatorship, or absolute monarchy, or a Taliban-like theocracy. Governments like these have powers the likes of Bayani Fernando haven't seen and, for the most part, they're very orderly. But I'm not sure you'd want to live there.
An efficient government is not the end goal of democracy. Those who argue that "too much freedom" for the people leads to inefficiency have got it ass backwards. The appeal of democracy lies in its respect for individual rights. The idea that even the government can't (unless in extreme circumstances) interfere with how a person lives his personal life is a cornerstone of this form of government.
Constitutional law scholars will even tell you that the whole rights issue is a tug-of-war between the amount of independence citizens have and the amount of control a government can exercise. One extreme (fascism, right) calls for total control by the authorities while the other (anarchy, left) is pure individual rights and no central government.
For those of us whose systems of government lie somewhere in between, the question is how far left or right we're supposed to stay is decided by how the whole tug-of-war balances out. Just like in the game, there are markers that tell us how far in either direction we've gone.
The mandatory drug testing issue is one of those markers.
The reason civil libertarians often make a big deal out of simple things like Miranda rights is that they're markers. Crossing them sometimes leads to irrecoverable ground gained by one side, usually the government. It's more difficult to regain freedoms, especially if curtailing them makes the authorities' jobs easier (like the curfew for minors).
I'm sure a lot of people -- kids and adults alike – must be wondering what liberals are crowing about. Is mandatory random drug testing in schools really a violation of human rights? Or is it a good way to catch users and get them to lead us to the pushers and dealers?
It's all of these things and more. It's a notch that separates
How would you like it when someone just stops you on the street and frisks you? That's the basic idea. It's the idea of being harassed unnecessarily by agents of the law. Unlike SARS, this is not a contagious and deadly disease (though some would argue otherwise) that requires draconian measures like quarantine.
There are other arguments against random drug testing, not least of which are its cost and the effectiveness. I leave it up to them though. My concern is the bigger civil liberties issue, this line in particular. I'll try to make sure no one crosses it.
* * * * *
missingpoints classic: A line we don't want them to cross
7 June 2003
The trouble with protecting civil liberties is that people often don't "get" it. Civil libertarians, whether in government or in the streets, have a hard time convincing people without resorting to horror scenarios. This earns them the moniker of doomsayers, pessimists, or worse, rebels or "agents of destabilization." The last one being the most dangerous as this brand has often led to arrests or summary executions by paramilitary forces, especially in the provinces.
The trouble with "selling" the idea of civil liberties to the normal unaligned masses is that it doesn't solve problems. At times it even makes problem-solving for the government a bit more difficult. Like, say the current civil liberties issue of mandatory drug testing in school.
Your average Juan would wonder what all the fuss is about drug testing. At first glance, the ones protesting against it seem to be making a big issue over a move that will be a big step in identifying users (and supposedly pushers). If you're not doing drugs, then it would seem that there's nothing to worry about. You shouldn't be afraid of a drug test (random or not). Unless of course you're going to force me to fork over 300 bucks to test myself, I'm supposed to be just fine with it right? All this talk of protecting rights just makes things more difficult for the authorities.
That's true. Civil liberties do make things more difficult for government but – and this is what blows the average Joe's mind – that's exactly the point.
You want to be efficient, try fascism, or dictatorship, or absolute monarchy, or a Taliban-like theocracy. Governments like these have powers the likes of Bayani Fernando haven't seen and, for the most part, they're very orderly. But I'm not sure you'd want to live there.
An efficient government is not the end goal of democracy. Those who argue that "too much freedom" for the people leads to inefficiency have got it ass backwards. The appeal of democracy lies in its respect for individual rights. The idea that even the government can't (unless in extreme circumstances) interfere with how a person lives his personal life is a cornerstone of this form of government.
Constitutional law scholars will even tell you that the whole rights issue is a tug-of-war between the amount of independence citizens have and the amount of control a government can exercise. One extreme (fascism, right) calls for total control by the authorities while the other (anarchy, left) is pure individual rights and no central government.
For those of us whose systems of government lie somewhere in between, the question is how far left or right we're supposed to stay is decided by how the whole tug-of-war balances out. Just like in the game, there are markers that tell us how far in either direction we've gone.
The mandatory drug testing issue is one of those markers.
The reason civil libertarians often make a big deal out of simple things like Miranda rights is that they're markers. Crossing them sometimes leads to irrecoverable ground gained by one side, usually the government. It's more difficult to regain freedoms, especially if curtailing them makes the authorities' jobs easier (like the curfew for minors).
I'm sure a lot of people -- kids and adults alike – must be wondering what liberals are crowing about. Is mandatory random drug testing in schools really a violation of human rights? Or is it a good way to catch users and get them to lead us to the pushers and dealers?
It's all of these things and more. It's a notch that separates
How would you like it when someone just stops you on the street and frisks you? That's the basic idea. It's the idea of being harassed unnecessarily by agents of the law. Unlike SARS, this is not a contagious and deadly disease (though some would argue otherwise) that requires draconian measures like quarantine.
There are other arguments against random drug testing, not least of which are its cost and the effectiveness. I leave it up to them though. My concern is the bigger civil liberties issue, this line in particular. I'll try to make sure no one crosses it.
Jologs
Ateneo reacts to something Rina Jimenez-David claimed about their behavior in UAAP games. I agree David was a tad irresponsible but a picture of a placard in a game should suffice. Ateneo is trying to prove a negative, which is difficult at best, especially outside math and symbolic logic.
What irks me is Dalandan's statement that the term "jologs" is derived from Jolina Magdangal. Of all the possible etymologies, this one is the most improbable. I distinctly remember encountering the term in 1990, during the first year of high school. We used it to describe a classmate who had his uniform dress pants modified to flare out; the kind of flare where you sew a triangle (of a different hue/fabric) between the seams. "Ang TV" (and Jolina's popularity) did not happen until the mid-90s.
What irks me is Dalandan's statement that the term "jologs" is derived from Jolina Magdangal. Of all the possible etymologies, this one is the most improbable. I distinctly remember encountering the term in 1990, during the first year of high school. We used it to describe a classmate who had his uniform dress pants modified to flare out; the kind of flare where you sew a triangle (of a different hue/fabric) between the seams. "Ang TV" (and Jolina's popularity) did not happen until the mid-90s.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Hacking daw oh!
First cybercrime case for 2008 filed at DOJ.
So kinopya nya sa flash disk yung information. Paano naging cybercrime yun? Dahil lang gumamit siya ng USB? So kung gumawa sya ng hardcopy nung information simpleng theft na lang yun? Pero teka...
A ballpen is technology, so is a lock and key. Strictly speaking, anything more complex than a lever is technology (or does the definition extend even to simple machines?). And if this is just a case of lazy use of language (which it probably is) then they probably mean electronic technology, which includes electronic locks and Xerox machines. So someone using a stolen ID card to bypass a door and then photocopying documents is guilty of "cybercrime." too.
What I find silly is that they charged the accused with "hacking" when all he did was copy files onto a USB drive. Call it what it is; it's just plain theft.
* * * * *
Check out Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" for a great read on the early days of cybercrime.
Claro is accused of stealing company secrets from VMC using a universal serial bus thumb drive, which was used to copy proprietary company information.
So kinopya nya sa flash disk yung information. Paano naging cybercrime yun? Dahil lang gumamit siya ng USB? So kung gumawa sya ng hardcopy nung information simpleng theft na lang yun? Pero teka...
The Department of Justice and the Commission on Information and Communications Technology are working with various stakeholders on a cybercrime bill that aims to strengthen existing laws related to high-tech crimes or crimes committed using technology. [emphasis added]
A ballpen is technology, so is a lock and key. Strictly speaking, anything more complex than a lever is technology (or does the definition extend even to simple machines?). And if this is just a case of lazy use of language (which it probably is) then they probably mean electronic technology, which includes electronic locks and Xerox machines. So someone using a stolen ID card to bypass a door and then photocopying documents is guilty of "cybercrime." too.
What I find silly is that they charged the accused with "hacking" when all he did was copy files onto a USB drive. Call it what it is; it's just plain theft.
* * * * *
Check out Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" for a great read on the early days of cybercrime.
Reinvention
missingpoints classic: Reinvention
9 May 2003
I remember the first Globe Telecom commercials advertising text messaging. It featured a pair of lovers about to meet at a restaurant. The guy was late and was frantically texting the girl who was getting impatient. When the two finally meet, they talk in sign language. Aside from building recall, it piqued viewers' interest in the new text messaging feature.
The next series of commercials featured a group of architects presenting to a demanding client. As the meeting progressed, they were texting the last-minute revisions to their office. When they got to the site, the revisions were already implemented, showing us the wonders text messaging is capable of.
Those early commercials are a far cry from today's cellphone ads that promise everything from better mother-daughter relationships to fulfilling multi-media addiction.
The introductory phases of new technology always focus on two things: (1) the technological innovation itself and (2) its practical applications. The money however, usually comes from the entertainment / social use (addiction?).
The two earlier commercials were quickly made out of date as the newer, more profitable uses of texting emerged. While a number of us were really utilizing text as a discreet means of communication as in the second commercial, majority were discovering its social applications. From spreading "chismis" to saying "hello" while on the road, texting followed the cyberpunk-posited curve of the street, appropriating new tech for its own purposes. In this case, what was initially conceived as a cute (perhaps-useful) add-on became the single selling point of cellular phones.
The funny thing is, until recently it's still a cute and useful add-on for Americans and Europeans. For them perhaps, the practical (and social) applications do count but are overshadowed by the relative ease and low cost of voice calls or email. Not so here where calls are at least eight times as much and email is not as prevalent. The commercials emphasized the "quick" and "easy" and "innovation" aspect while the (potential) consumers picked up on the "free, unlimited" part. (Yes, boys and girls, we had free unlimited texting back when there was only post-paid)
Necessity is the mother of invention and we Pinoys, who desperately "need" to connect with one another socially, have invented text messaging as the world knows it now.
Thing is, the telecoms had to cash in on this. I still remember the minor uproar the new texting rates caused. The small number who have already been hooked on free texting had to contend with the imposition of charges. This started the multi-million peso text industry that is still reaping cash. What was initially a fun and cheap and easy way to connect has become a necessity for everyone, from CEOs to teenagers.
This is where the problem comes in. Smart's new "Addict" service sums it up for us nicely: we have become addicts to a feature that we initially appropriated for our own use. Now our entire society is built on texting. Deals are discussed through text, appointments set and re-set, and relationships made and broken all in the cyber domain of text. Everyone from government officials to CEOs to high school kids absolutely "needs" to have a cellphone. The very thing we discovered has totally changed our lives.
We have reinvented it and it has reinvented us in return.
9 May 2003
I remember the first Globe Telecom commercials advertising text messaging. It featured a pair of lovers about to meet at a restaurant. The guy was late and was frantically texting the girl who was getting impatient. When the two finally meet, they talk in sign language. Aside from building recall, it piqued viewers' interest in the new text messaging feature.
The next series of commercials featured a group of architects presenting to a demanding client. As the meeting progressed, they were texting the last-minute revisions to their office. When they got to the site, the revisions were already implemented, showing us the wonders text messaging is capable of.
Those early commercials are a far cry from today's cellphone ads that promise everything from better mother-daughter relationships to fulfilling multi-media addiction.
The introductory phases of new technology always focus on two things: (1) the technological innovation itself and (2) its practical applications. The money however, usually comes from the entertainment / social use (addiction?).
The two earlier commercials were quickly made out of date as the newer, more profitable uses of texting emerged. While a number of us were really utilizing text as a discreet means of communication as in the second commercial, majority were discovering its social applications. From spreading "chismis" to saying "hello" while on the road, texting followed the cyberpunk-posited curve of the street, appropriating new tech for its own purposes. In this case, what was initially conceived as a cute (perhaps-useful) add-on became the single selling point of cellular phones.
The funny thing is, until recently it's still a cute and useful add-on for Americans and Europeans. For them perhaps, the practical (and social) applications do count but are overshadowed by the relative ease and low cost of voice calls or email. Not so here where calls are at least eight times as much and email is not as prevalent. The commercials emphasized the "quick" and "easy" and "innovation" aspect while the (potential) consumers picked up on the "free, unlimited" part. (Yes, boys and girls, we had free unlimited texting back when there was only post-paid)
Necessity is the mother of invention and we Pinoys, who desperately "need" to connect with one another socially, have invented text messaging as the world knows it now.
Thing is, the telecoms had to cash in on this. I still remember the minor uproar the new texting rates caused. The small number who have already been hooked on free texting had to contend with the imposition of charges. This started the multi-million peso text industry that is still reaping cash. What was initially a fun and cheap and easy way to connect has become a necessity for everyone, from CEOs to teenagers.
This is where the problem comes in. Smart's new "Addict" service sums it up for us nicely: we have become addicts to a feature that we initially appropriated for our own use. Now our entire society is built on texting. Deals are discussed through text, appointments set and re-set, and relationships made and broken all in the cyber domain of text. Everyone from government officials to CEOs to high school kids absolutely "needs" to have a cellphone. The very thing we discovered has totally changed our lives.
We have reinvented it and it has reinvented us in return.
Monday, July 07, 2008
A lack of ambition
Interesting post. mlq3 asks why few Filipinos reach top management positions in multi-national companies. He gets responses saying that we lack ambition, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. He then relates this to cargo cult mentality and then mentions "gaming the system."
* * *
Lack of ambition is generally bad. But the problem with being tagged "not ambitious enough" is when the people who judge us fail to realize that we want different things in life. It's not a matter of scaling lesser heights, it's a question of which mountain to climb. A Pinoy in the rat race who rises to a mid-level position in his forties might choose to stay there to spend more time with his family or pursuing his other dreams.
I have friends my age in the corporate world who plan to retire in 5 years to do consulting work or run a restaurant. It's not lack of ambition per se, we just have a different definition of achievement, as some of mlq3's commenters have pointed out.
* * *
But I think he misses the point on cargo cults. Cargo cults are small, isolated tribes given aid by soldiers during world war 2. When the cargo failed to arrive (the war was over), they reconstructed landing strips, complete with bamboo air control towers, in an effort to replicate the initial circumstances. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Of course the aid never came but they never lost faith despite this.
The lesson we take from cargo cults is one of rationality. When a superstition doesn't work, stop doing it. When prayers don't get answered, the best explanation is because they don't. The sheer number of lucky charms and feng shui orientated buildings should've made our country prosperous but we're still stuck here without losing faith.
That's the cargo cult mentality we need to get rid of.
* * *
Then he mentions "gaming the system," which is interesting. Defined as using the the rules of a system to for purposes outside what those rules were intended for, he concludes that gaming, not politics, is our national pastime. And I agree.
In colloquial Filipino we call it pagiging wais (wise) or pang-iisa (putting one over). It's goes beyond declaring your "home office" (i.e. a desk with a PC used mainly for porn and WoW) tax deductible. Quezon links to a blogger whose rich uncle uses his house help to buy rationed NFA rice, gaming the system para makalamang.
* * *
Which brings us back to the cargo cult mentality.
Superstitious rituals meant to bring luck or, in the case of the cults, something more tangible like crates of rations, are simply means of gaming the system. They may not succeed like the house help scheme but the intention is there. I wouldn't be surprised if, deep down, most Pinoys think of praying to saints as a giant game of palakasan in heaven.
It's a "gaming the system" mentality when someone prays a novena to help them pass board exams. If one thinks about it, a board exam is supposed to test one's fitness to hold a certain profession. Bringing god in would, if you think about it, be cheating. I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor whose sole reason for passing the medical boards is supernatural intervention; I want someone who succeeded on his own merits.
* * *
Which brings us back to lack of ambition.
Most of us are happy with having god rig board exams or the lotto for us so we can get steady income.
* * *
Lack of ambition is generally bad. But the problem with being tagged "not ambitious enough" is when the people who judge us fail to realize that we want different things in life. It's not a matter of scaling lesser heights, it's a question of which mountain to climb. A Pinoy in the rat race who rises to a mid-level position in his forties might choose to stay there to spend more time with his family or pursuing his other dreams.
I have friends my age in the corporate world who plan to retire in 5 years to do consulting work or run a restaurant. It's not lack of ambition per se, we just have a different definition of achievement, as some of mlq3's commenters have pointed out.
* * *
But I think he misses the point on cargo cults. Cargo cults are small, isolated tribes given aid by soldiers during world war 2. When the cargo failed to arrive (the war was over), they reconstructed landing strips, complete with bamboo air control towers, in an effort to replicate the initial circumstances. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Of course the aid never came but they never lost faith despite this.
The lesson we take from cargo cults is one of rationality. When a superstition doesn't work, stop doing it. When prayers don't get answered, the best explanation is because they don't. The sheer number of lucky charms and feng shui orientated buildings should've made our country prosperous but we're still stuck here without losing faith.
That's the cargo cult mentality we need to get rid of.
* * *
Then he mentions "gaming the system," which is interesting. Defined as using the the rules of a system to for purposes outside what those rules were intended for, he concludes that gaming, not politics, is our national pastime. And I agree.
In colloquial Filipino we call it pagiging wais (wise) or pang-iisa (putting one over). It's goes beyond declaring your "home office" (i.e. a desk with a PC used mainly for porn and WoW) tax deductible. Quezon links to a blogger whose rich uncle uses his house help to buy rationed NFA rice, gaming the system para makalamang.
* * *
Which brings us back to the cargo cult mentality.
Superstitious rituals meant to bring luck or, in the case of the cults, something more tangible like crates of rations, are simply means of gaming the system. They may not succeed like the house help scheme but the intention is there. I wouldn't be surprised if, deep down, most Pinoys think of praying to saints as a giant game of palakasan in heaven.
It's a "gaming the system" mentality when someone prays a novena to help them pass board exams. If one thinks about it, a board exam is supposed to test one's fitness to hold a certain profession. Bringing god in would, if you think about it, be cheating. I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor whose sole reason for passing the medical boards is supernatural intervention; I want someone who succeeded on his own merits.
* * *
Which brings us back to lack of ambition.
Most of us are happy with having god rig board exams or the lotto for us so we can get steady income.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Wasted Weights
missingpoints classic: Wasted Weights
8 May 2003
A: Pare, tumigil na 'ko mag-"weights."
B: Bakit?
A: Mabigat, eh.
* * * * *
I tried it once and gave up because it was, well, "mabigat." Not just literally but "mabigat" in terms of the time and discipline required. To really get that buff bod one needs to wake up early, do warm ups, do the weight training, and then get down to your actual job. It's also "mabigat sa bulsa" as the gym equipment does not come cheap. Whether you buy your own stuff or pay membership dues, working out can put a dent in one's pocket.
Being the typical "pilosopo," I started to wonder whether it was all worth the time and money. While a lot of people (based on the number I see in various gyms) seem to think that it is worth all the effort, I do not. Being healthy and fit is one thing, being vain to the point of spending more than what (I feel) is proper just to look good is quite another. (Of course what is "proper" depends on the individual)
What gets to me is the effort wasted. And by "wasted" I mean that the energy expended repeatedly lifting and putting down weights could be put to greater use. Imagine the superfluous nature of weight lifting and jogging in place. Calories (i.e. food) are burned and heat is generated but the person exerting the effort just stays in the same place accomplishing nothing. The heat isn't even put to good use. It just gets processed by an air-conditioner, which in turn emits ozone-damaging gases.
I'm probably not the only one who sees the irony in seeing "high society" types pedaling away on stationary bikes after being driven to the gym by their chauffeurs. It's funny the way we spend money on various things to make life easier then spend more money trying to get tired because our lifestyle doesn't allow for physical exertion.
My dad just set-up a beer and soft drink wholesale outfit and is raving about the effect the new business has on his health because instead of letting his workers do all the work, my dad also putters around lifting bottles and cases. He calls it his gym but I think it's actually better. The "weightlifting" he does actually accomplishes something and is not a mere waste of time, money, and energy.
Not all of us, though, are blessed with a job that is physically demanding. While stevedores and bellboys lift weights as part of their jobs, the rest of us spend all day on a desk in front of a PC or a phone. While the former get more than enough exercise, we pencil-pushers need to pay gym membership fees just to stretch our limbs.
This is inefficiency to the highest degree. The system which evolved this set-up needs to be reevaluated and re-engineered to give everyone a better chance to flex and exercise their muscles while at the same time doing something useful. What I find ironic is that there is a group of people (the stevedores and bellboys) who are not paid enough for the work they do and another group of people (pencil-pushers) living alongside them who would pay just to be able to lift heavy things.
Why not even things out?
Instead of wasting their time at the gym, the gym-goers can organize a system where they can put the muscles they're so eager to flex to good use. "Habitat for Humanity" does this wonderfully. College kids with spare time and energy get to help those who can't afford to pay for the construction of their homes. Instead of logging in gym time, we can log in actual work time. We not only get to exercise, but we help someone other than the gym owner.
The gyms can even be the ones to spearhead this. Sports physicians can even help design equipment and prescribe techniques to maximize the workout. ("Lifting hollow blocks has never been this easy! But wait, that's not all…")
Imagine a society where no effort is wasted. Where the energy expended to lift weights actually serves a purpose. Where weights actually need to be lifted in order to get them somewhere. Where people can build both their bodies and something useful for others.
Where no weights get wasted.
8 May 2003
A: Pare, tumigil na 'ko mag-"weights."
B: Bakit?
A: Mabigat, eh.
* * * * *
I tried it once and gave up because it was, well, "mabigat." Not just literally but "mabigat" in terms of the time and discipline required. To really get that buff bod one needs to wake up early, do warm ups, do the weight training, and then get down to your actual job. It's also "mabigat sa bulsa" as the gym equipment does not come cheap. Whether you buy your own stuff or pay membership dues, working out can put a dent in one's pocket.
Being the typical "pilosopo," I started to wonder whether it was all worth the time and money. While a lot of people (based on the number I see in various gyms) seem to think that it is worth all the effort, I do not. Being healthy and fit is one thing, being vain to the point of spending more than what (I feel) is proper just to look good is quite another. (Of course what is "proper" depends on the individual)
What gets to me is the effort wasted. And by "wasted" I mean that the energy expended repeatedly lifting and putting down weights could be put to greater use. Imagine the superfluous nature of weight lifting and jogging in place. Calories (i.e. food) are burned and heat is generated but the person exerting the effort just stays in the same place accomplishing nothing. The heat isn't even put to good use. It just gets processed by an air-conditioner, which in turn emits ozone-damaging gases.
I'm probably not the only one who sees the irony in seeing "high society" types pedaling away on stationary bikes after being driven to the gym by their chauffeurs. It's funny the way we spend money on various things to make life easier then spend more money trying to get tired because our lifestyle doesn't allow for physical exertion.
My dad just set-up a beer and soft drink wholesale outfit and is raving about the effect the new business has on his health because instead of letting his workers do all the work, my dad also putters around lifting bottles and cases. He calls it his gym but I think it's actually better. The "weightlifting" he does actually accomplishes something and is not a mere waste of time, money, and energy.
Not all of us, though, are blessed with a job that is physically demanding. While stevedores and bellboys lift weights as part of their jobs, the rest of us spend all day on a desk in front of a PC or a phone. While the former get more than enough exercise, we pencil-pushers need to pay gym membership fees just to stretch our limbs.
This is inefficiency to the highest degree. The system which evolved this set-up needs to be reevaluated and re-engineered to give everyone a better chance to flex and exercise their muscles while at the same time doing something useful. What I find ironic is that there is a group of people (the stevedores and bellboys) who are not paid enough for the work they do and another group of people (pencil-pushers) living alongside them who would pay just to be able to lift heavy things.
Why not even things out?
Instead of wasting their time at the gym, the gym-goers can organize a system where they can put the muscles they're so eager to flex to good use. "Habitat for Humanity" does this wonderfully. College kids with spare time and energy get to help those who can't afford to pay for the construction of their homes. Instead of logging in gym time, we can log in actual work time. We not only get to exercise, but we help someone other than the gym owner.
The gyms can even be the ones to spearhead this. Sports physicians can even help design equipment and prescribe techniques to maximize the workout. ("Lifting hollow blocks has never been this easy! But wait, that's not all…")
Imagine a society where no effort is wasted. Where the energy expended to lift weights actually serves a purpose. Where weights actually need to be lifted in order to get them somewhere. Where people can build both their bodies and something useful for others.
Where no weights get wasted.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
West Side Story
Two feuding street gangs – the Jets and the Sharks – are on a collision course in the gritty slums of New York City. Out of the chaos, a passionate romance blooms between Tony and Maria, teenagers caught on opposite sides of the turf war. But can they find a place for their love amid the prejudice and turmoil that surrounds them? Winner of 10 Academy Awards and two Tony Awards, Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story is one of the all-time great American musicals, with explosive dancing and some of the most electrifying music ever written for the Broadway stage, including “Maria,” “Tonight”, "One Hand, One Heart" and “Somewhere.”
Executive produced by Audie Gemora and directed by Menchu Lauchengco-Yulo, West Side Story will be brought to life in Manila with an exciting cast featuring Christian Bautista as Tony, Karylle and Joanna Ampil alternating as Maria, Rowena Vilar and Pam G alternating as Anita, and Gian Magdangal as Riff.
Musical Direction is by Gerard Salonga, and Choreography by James Laforteza.
Email apsalamat(at)yahoo.com for reservations to the September 6, 2008 (Saturday) 8pm show at the Meralco theater. Check the seatplan.
===============
Ticket prices:
Orchestra and Loge Center: P1,200
Orchestra and Loge Side: P1,000
Balcony Center: P700
Balcony Side: P500
Executive produced by Audie Gemora and directed by Menchu Lauchengco-Yulo, West Side Story will be brought to life in Manila with an exciting cast featuring Christian Bautista as Tony, Karylle and Joanna Ampil alternating as Maria, Rowena Vilar and Pam G alternating as Anita, and Gian Magdangal as Riff.
Musical Direction is by Gerard Salonga, and Choreography by James Laforteza.
Email apsalamat(at)yahoo.com for reservations to the September 6, 2008 (Saturday) 8pm show at the Meralco theater. Check the seatplan.
===============
Ticket prices:
Orchestra and Loge Center: P1,200
Orchestra and Loge Side: P1,000
Balcony Center: P700
Balcony Side: P500
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
My irony meter is broken
Sulpicio Lines sues PAGASA for "gross negligence and incompetence" in predicting the course of the typhoon. Yeah right. A shipping company that had four of its ships sink in the last 20 years, causing the death of thousands of people has no right calling anyone else negligent and incompetent.
It's in the hand
For the three of you who watch, my theory for the "Doctor Who" season ender:
The Doctor regenerates into someone new while the hand in the jar grows into #10. Doc #11 is killed and we still get David Tennant in next year's specials and, hopefully, when Moffat takes over.
The Doctor regenerates into someone new while the hand in the jar grows into #10. Doc #11 is killed and we still get David Tennant in next year's specials and, hopefully, when Moffat takes over.
Title-crazy
missingpoints classic: Title-crazy
21 February 2003
Dr. Strange and Dr. Doom, both comic book characters, are not really doctors; the former is a mystic while the latter is a villain who rules an Eastern European country. But they use the title even though I'm pretty sure they did not obtain degrees (even honorary ones) from any university.
Mr. Fantastic and Mr. Freeze on the other hand are (according to the books) real Ph.D. holders. Reed Richards was an astronaut while Victor Frost is a scientist. Yet they just use "Mr." in their aliases. So what gives? Why do those who have the right to use the title don't and those who should just be plain "Mr." flaunt their "Dr?"
Our national hero wasn't a doctor. According to Ambeth Ocampo he never took the board exams for Ophthalmology, yet a lot of people continue to address him as Dr. Jose Rizal. It seems that having a title adds to one person's esteem, even if that title is irrelevant to the job at hand. (Remember Dr. Rey de la Cruz, talent manager of 80s "bold stars?") He would still be a hero even if he were just plain Mr. Rizal but there seems to be a need to adorn an honored man with titles.
I cannot understand this Pinoy penchant for titles; it's so comicbook-like. It's like everyone feels the need to attach something in front of his or her name (or behind). Even the "Mr." title is coveted after a fashion. I knew this teacher who insisted everyone call him "Mr. _____." While it's perfectly understandable if you impose that rule on students but he introduces himself as "Mr. ____" even to parents and other school staff.
Now that's weird.
But then again, I'd rather humor someone who insists on being addressed as "Mr." than someone who insists on putting "honorable" in front of his or her name.
You notice it everywhere, those headstones on curbs that list down the names of barangay officials. It seems that even kagawads and SK chairpersons are supposed to be called "honorable." They're not. If I recall correctly, Philippine "bureaucratese" just requires the honorific attached to Cabinet Secretaries and higher (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm guessing it's a need for affirmation, this penchant for titles. Those who insist on using "honorable" are those who are not perceived so while those who flaunt their "Attys." and "Drs." and "Engrs." are those who feel that their names are not enough and that they need to append that title in order to "be" someone.
But in a country where any two-bit diploma mill can give a doctorate degree, titles really don't mean much. It's the name that comes after the title that's important. The title is not supposed to define you, you are supposed to define that title.
21 February 2003
Dr. Strange and Dr. Doom, both comic book characters, are not really doctors; the former is a mystic while the latter is a villain who rules an Eastern European country. But they use the title even though I'm pretty sure they did not obtain degrees (even honorary ones) from any university.
Mr. Fantastic and Mr. Freeze on the other hand are (according to the books) real Ph.D. holders. Reed Richards was an astronaut while Victor Frost is a scientist. Yet they just use "Mr." in their aliases. So what gives? Why do those who have the right to use the title don't and those who should just be plain "Mr." flaunt their "Dr?"
Our national hero wasn't a doctor. According to Ambeth Ocampo he never took the board exams for Ophthalmology, yet a lot of people continue to address him as Dr. Jose Rizal. It seems that having a title adds to one person's esteem, even if that title is irrelevant to the job at hand. (Remember Dr. Rey de la Cruz, talent manager of 80s "bold stars?") He would still be a hero even if he were just plain Mr. Rizal but there seems to be a need to adorn an honored man with titles.
I cannot understand this Pinoy penchant for titles; it's so comicbook-like. It's like everyone feels the need to attach something in front of his or her name (or behind). Even the "Mr." title is coveted after a fashion. I knew this teacher who insisted everyone call him "Mr. _____." While it's perfectly understandable if you impose that rule on students but he introduces himself as "Mr. ____" even to parents and other school staff.
Now that's weird.
But then again, I'd rather humor someone who insists on being addressed as "Mr." than someone who insists on putting "honorable" in front of his or her name.
You notice it everywhere, those headstones on curbs that list down the names of barangay officials. It seems that even kagawads and SK chairpersons are supposed to be called "honorable." They're not. If I recall correctly, Philippine "bureaucratese" just requires the honorific attached to Cabinet Secretaries and higher (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm guessing it's a need for affirmation, this penchant for titles. Those who insist on using "honorable" are those who are not perceived so while those who flaunt their "Attys." and "Drs." and "Engrs." are those who feel that their names are not enough and that they need to append that title in order to "be" someone.
But in a country where any two-bit diploma mill can give a doctorate degree, titles really don't mean much. It's the name that comes after the title that's important. The title is not supposed to define you, you are supposed to define that title.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)