Mar Roxas, in his pre-mature campaigning teevee spot, sez we should nag the government some more for cheap medicines.
Why the government?
Why not nag the drug companies?
18 January 2009 • 10:07 pm 2
Mar Roxas, in his pre-mature campaigning teevee spot, sez we should nag the government some more for cheap medicines.
Why the government?
Why not nag the drug companies?
13 January 2009 • 2:19 pm 5
When I was a kid, one of the things I remember being reminded of most often was that I should never judge a book by its cover. ‘Course, being a stubborn kid, I had a little difficulty accepting that. The way I figured it, if a book didn’t look like it was worth my time, then it wasn’t. If a book looked ugly, then the contents couldn’t be much different.
In one of my many smart-ass moments, I took a butt-ugly book to my teacher and asked her if she thought the book would be a good read. Sensing a trap, she goes: “I know it looks like it might not be good, but you can’t judge – “
“Yes Sister Ernestine,” I reply. “So please read the book and tell me if my judgement was wrong.”
She laughed. Having convinced myself that I had come up with an airtight argument, I stamped my foot in frustration.
“Romany,” she said, “it doesn’t matter if your judgment turns out to be right. The point is that you should give the book the chance to prove you wrong. If it doesn’t, so what? What matters is that you gave it a chance. Being right in the end doesn’t mean that you were right to judge the book without first trying to read it.”
I pouted the rest of the day. It just didn’t make sense. I could see how the situation would be different if you turned out to be wrong, but what if you were right?
Apparently, Noemi Dado and my 12-year old self agree with each other.
(Edit:Placed original sentence for comparison. Incidentally, Valley Golf Club suspended DAR Chief’s membership for two years because he “was held liable for allegedly allowing the actions of his two sons” Those people who love to nitpick on my usage of words above and how they claim my stand is softened and so with my “pre-judgment” , really now, the Valley Golf findings affirm that the DAR chief just looked on. It’s what you call a mother’s gut feeling. So nitpick all you want, the truth will come out in the end.)
The lesson being: if you turn out to be right in the end, it doesn’t matter if you didn’t give someone the benefit of the doubt that was due him. Or to look at it from another angle, it’s perfectly alright for a person to be considered guilty until proven innocent.
Yay, momblogger! Yay, 12-year old me!
Now if only I could figure out when exactly I turned into such a nitpicker.
Oh, right. That was in the fourth grade when I learned that if something was worth doing, it was worth doing well.
13 January 2009 • 1:06 am 2
Funny things, words. Lots of words mean, at first glance, the same thing. Like want means pretty much the same thing as desire. The difference is in the degree. Where wanting is a candle flame, desire is a forest fire. Other synonyms on the other hand, differ in nuance. Like tired and exhausted. Both words mean the same thing to us, but if you look closely, you can see that tired is as close to generic as you can get for the concept of being overtaken by fatigue. But exhausted. Ah, there’s a word.
Exhausted doesn’t just mean tired. It carries the sense of being used-up: like a candle is exhausted when all the wax and the wick are gone; like how I’ve got nothing left to give to you. I’m not just bone-dead tired, I’m exhausted.
12 January 2009 • 2:10 am 28
Yesterday – or yesternight … whatevs – Noemi Dado plurked about Manuel Viloria’s post: Obliterated with the invitation to everyone to be the judge. Since that plurk appeared on my timeline, it meant that either Dado was a Friend or I was a Fan of hers. Or at least that’s what I understand about the way Plurk works. Certainly, I’d requested to be Dado’s plurk Friend out of a degree of admiration for her.
In short order, responses started piling up on Dado’s plurk, all of which revolved around practically the same theme: don’t mind him, he’s just jealous of you/your success/whatev.
Now me, I have someone very close to me who has this terribly chronic case of persecution complex. Her mother, for want of a better way to deal with her daughter’s neuroses, has taken to replying “inggit lang yan sa’yo” every time her daughter starts rampaging about some slight or insult.
As a result, this young woman has ended up with the belief that criticism especially from people she dislikes or don’t know are rooted in envy, hence invalid. In fact, sometimes she considers criticism from friends and family just as rooted in envy as criticism from others.
The problem with that is, with that sort of attitude, she has lost a very important feedback mechanism that would have helped her spot her faults and improve herself. It’s like looking at the mirror and calling it a liar. What the hell is the mirror for?
Ever since I met this woman and her mother, I’ve been exceptionally wary of the “naiinggit lang yan sa’yo” dismissal of criticism. So, when I saw Dado’s plurk getting replies almost completely along those lines, I decided to take a second look at Viloria’s post.
Viloria speaks of
“a high profile blogger earlier referred to Mayor Pangandaman and his father, Sec. Pangandaman as dysfunctional,”
but who, when the Pangandaman’s side of the story started coming out, changed her characterization of the Secretary to a parenthesized (“Peacemaker appointee.”)
Viloria suggested that this change – which he noted was not accompanied by any sort of explanation – might be because Dado was afraid of getting sued for libel. And this is what Dado eventually ended up discussing in her own blog.
But read Vilario’s post all the way to the end and you come across this:
I’m not here to defend or side with either the Pangandamans or the Dela Pazes. I just hope that bloggers and non-bloggers inspired to start blogging (given that even columnists such as Amando Doronila write about the “power” of blogs and bloggers) will think not once, but twice before hitting the “publish” button. But anyway…
What’s the lesson here for bloggers? It’s so easy to jump on a story and take the one side of a blogger, against someone else who is not a blogger, or who is not a friend of a blogger friend. You can always blog that you want to hear the other side, while in the very same blog post categorically label the silent side as “dysfunctional.”
You can later remove such words, and your blog post will appear as if your Dec 27 post were never published any differently from how it looks today.
These passages spelled it out clearly for me: Viloria’s post was trying to make the point that bloggers should not pre-judge situations and then blog about it; especially considering the ‘power’ of blogs. More or less a variation on nearly every pa-cool pundit’s favorite quote from Spiderman. The dig about a possible libel suit was just gratuitous teasing, hardly deserving of a full-blown response.
Viloria’s words also carried an accusatory undercurrent that was never really completely articulated. Nevertheless, since the undercurrent was pretty clear, let me summarize:
Seeing this aspect of Viloria’s post that was being ignored by commenters on her plurk, I wanted to shared the insight with Dado via a comment on her plurk.
SIDEBAR: Later on, when I checked my timeline, Dado’s plurk – and my response with it – vanished. I checked out her profile page (from where I’d originally posted my response to her plurk) had been set to private.
Like I said at the top of this post, I don’t know for 100% certain if we were Friends or if I was just a Fan of hers, but I do remember that we WERE Friends, and that all of a sudden we weren’t; and that at 12 noon of January 9, my karma was at 79.24, and that now, at 12:41 a.m. of January 12, my karma is still at 79.24. Was I un-friended and so took a Karma hit?
Just to clarify, I don’t mind being un-friended or losing Karma – despite the fact that I’ve been obsessing on hitting 81 karma points since before Christmas 2008 LOL! – and I’m certainly not begrudging anyone their right to un-friend me.
Oh, and of course no one is obligated to Friend you or remain your Friend. Just to clarify that I understand and accept that too.
Oh well, excuse me, Mr. Link Baiter, this is my blog and I have every right to edit and change adjectives as I deem fit without changing the essence of the sentence. (Mr. Link Baiter does not deserve a link love but I am sure an anonymous commenter will soon post the link in your blog.) I have also every right to edit, delete and filter comments as I please.
I agree that it is her blog and she does have every right to edit anything about it (I disagree though that the edit Viloria pointed out didn’t change the essence. It didn’t change the sentence’s meaning, sure, but it certainly changed the subtext if not necessarily the context. See SIDEBAR2).
SIDEBAR2: Part of her response to Viloria, Dado writes that “Whether I changed a word or not, my stand remains. It never changed. I condemn the action taken on the 14 year old boy trying to defend a father. I condemn the abuse of authority.” Fair enough. But her use of the word “dysfunctional” clearly indicated that censure of the Pangandamans, at least, was one of the pillars of her original stand. Her deletion of that word, on the other hand, just as clearly indicates that her ‘stand’ is now missing it’s third pillar.
But … but … she’s momblogger!
Momblogger is a brand – whether you think of it that way or not – and momblogger opinions are pretty persuasive for a lot of bloggers, myself included.
It’s kinda like Cory Aquino leading the charge at Edsa Dos and suddenly apologizing to Erap.
I doubt that I was the only one who was motivated to learn more about the Pangandamans when I read how the momblogger characterized him as dysfunctional; and I admit that that characterization was instrumental in defining my opinion of father and son.
To discover later on that momblogger had apparently softened her stand did leave me feeling stranded high and dry. Now, of course, I’m responsible for my own opinion, and I’m standing by it – not blaming her at all or saying that she mislead me or anything of that sort. But what Viloria said is relevant:
Yes, you can blog and delete, but people will save copies and never forget. And when you materially edit in this manner (without apparent disclosure), you do more than merely erase a dysfunctional word or two.
You obliterate your credibility.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say Dado has lost her credibility, but the brand certainly doesn’t appear as shiny to me as it used to. Not that one person’s opinion is awfully significant; my drama, I know, prolly matters little to her, and much less in the grand scheme of things. But, see this is MY blog, and I can write whatever I please.
And what i want to write is this:
Writers – bloggers included – most especially those who count as shapers of opinion, should be held to higher standards.
Such writers – bloggers included – who find themselves in a situation where they need to modify their previous positions may reasonably be expected to offer at least an explanation of why their positions have been altered. Obviously this isn’t a right demandable by anyone, but I believe that a moral and ethical obligation exists.
Writers – bloggers included – should not dismiss criticism off-hand. When we immediately accept “naiinggit lang yan” as a valid reason, there is the implicit assertion that we are successful enough to be envied and that we are incapable of error: the former is not necessarily true, while the latter is a rank impossibility.
9 January 2009 • 6:55 pm 0
I felt sorry for myself that I had no shoes, ’til I saw a man with no feet.
But I still had no shoes, and no amount of sympathy from me could give the man back his feet.
So I walked on, gathering new blisters for every mile, even as the load on my back got heavier as I tired.
Eventually, bent double from my load and tracking bloody footsteps, I looked back and saw that the man still had no feet.
Then I realized I too still had no shoes.
9 January 2009 • 2:00 am 16
2 January 2009 • 12:58 am 2
Don’t cry, my precious one. I ain’t got no sympathy for you.
26 December 2008 • 3:12 am 2
Alright. It’s prolly too early to write New Year’s resolutions – and I’ll prolly regret it when I realize I have nothing to write about come New Year’s eve – but I think I need the headstart to really be able to percolate these ideas. I don’t want to face 2009 with half-baked resolutions, after all.
So let’s see what I have so far.
First, I resolve to cut down on slack time at work. These past few days weeks, I’ve been a real sloth. While I attribute that to the holiday season, well, I’m an addictive personality and I’m afraid that the slacking off might become a habit. So, I gotta kick it before it gets any further.
Second, I resolve to read at least one book a month. I haven’t done alot of reading for awhile now and I feel like the lack of it has blunted my brain. So, one book a month and to help me stay on course, I will be putting up – starting January – a widget on the sidebar that sez what book I’m reading that month. Remind me if I forget?
Third, I resolve to cut down on the junk eating. I am gaining weight like nobody’s business. Nuff said about that, I think.
Fourth, I resolve to limit my bag purchases to one per month. No, there won’t be a sidebar widget for that, so you’re just gonna have to trust me.
And fifth, I resolve to start working on various projects that I’ve started in the past year but have since mothballed. There are, after all, twenty-four hours in a day.
This isn’t a final list, of course. But these resolutions do represent top-of-my-mind issues that have been bothering me recently.
24 December 2008 • 11:49 pm 3
Whoever you are, whatever you believe in … I love you!
21 December 2008 • 2:00 pm 3
Primer C. Pagunuran – some guy from UP – wrote in ‘An Anti-Climactic Presidency‘ that:
Nothing alters the fact that as soon as votes have been counted, the Americans have spoken – catapulting to power – one Democrat Barack Obama as the 44th US president. And few more days before Obama should assume office come January 20, 2009, a looming question on whether or not he is a natural born citizen to be an eligible president is gathering adherents in the internet by every tick of the hour to the point it is seen to end in a constitutional crisis.
Three things about this seemingly inocuous statement stand out:
First, that we are so addicted to crisis that even the supposedly smart guys among us tend to quickly jump on any ‘crisis bandwagon’ even if it involves other countries. And if it happens to be a ‘constitutional crisis’ as well, oboy. Yummy.
Second, that even the supposedly smart guys among us tend to be swept up unthinkingly into the latest internet fads. I’m surprised this Primer fellow hasn’t written about how George W. is a reptilian.
And third, since he’s basing his claim on what he’s read on the intartubes, shouldn’t Primer have bothered to exit his echo chamber and see what else is on?
Apart from the fact that Federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington state have already rejected challenges against Obama’s citizenship, Primer may want to consider:
First, that Obama was born in Hawaii and not Kenya, as claimed by a lot of conservative bloggers – echoing the ramblings of Jerome Corsi who has “been accused by the American press “of being anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and homophobic, and of exploiting racial prejudices in an attempt to ‘scare white America.’”
Second, the the claim that for a person with mixed nationality parents have to have a parent who has been a US citizen who has resided in the US for at least 10 years, 5 of which had to have been over the age of 16, does not apply to Obama.
To clarify: the claim being circulated is that Obama’s mama was 18 when he was born. This means that although she was an American citizen who had lived in America for more than 10 years, only two of those years had been after she turned 16. Therefore, so the claim goes, Obama doesn’t meet the requirements for being considered natural born.
The thing is, that requirement only applies to people born OUTSIDE the US. And since Obama was born (1961) in Hawaii (which became a State in 1959), then he is – under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution – definitely a natural-born citizen. This jus soli regime is, in fact, the reason why heavily pregnant women have lower chance of getting US visas than single women and why Pacquiao’s wife will be giving birth in the US altho she can very easily make it home before she’s due to pop.
Now, me, I cannot believe that Primer – apparently a lawyer – could have possibly ignored the fundamental doctrine of jus soli simply on the strength of how many people on the intartubes have parroted this ridiculous claim. This fellow can’t be that dumb or gullible, eh?
The idea that confronts every average American is the simple requirement that the truth be revealed since the issue has been thrown in the intellectual landscape. And it does not have to be mired in the realm of pure legalese as when it must compel the Supreme Court to rule over the case. In the end, the internet that is largely responsible for making sure Obama wins in this presidential election might be the same vehicle that could in fact, unmake Obama. But this is full of implications in the higher scheme of things.
Ah. There you go. The reference to Obama’s citizenship troubles is apparently a tortuous way of driving home the message that the Americans might choose not to be ‘mired in the realm of pure legalese’ in pursuit of some ‘higher truth’ that has to be revealed. In other words, let’s reduce the entire question to a yes or no proposition, without regard to how the LAW draws distinctions and qualifications. Now where have we heard that before?
So, if Primer isn’t dumb (I don’t think so) or gullible (god help him if he is), then he must think the rest of us are gullible or dumb. Or both.
That’s the way it is with people like him, see? People who seek the microphone on every issue and frame the discussion for the rest of us as loudly as they can. They trickle out the information necessary to foster a certain point of view, while ignoring all other information to the contrary. And if anyone stands up to contest them, well, often it’s too late because the die has been cast and people think that the contrarians are just covering up.
Posts like the one Primer put up on this page take advantage of the general public’s relative ignorance of the issues involved and offer up a custom made conclusion: one that supports their agenda and can be trumpeted high and low to great effect.