EQ "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means."

t is often thrown around as a truism, "People need more than IQ to succeed, EQ is more important at determining success."

However the "Emotional" in EQ gives the wrong idea. They think IQ and EQ are ends of a spectrum of heart and mind and that somehow a balance must be struck. The often cited marshmallow test which is foundational to the concept of EQseem to think that the children that could wait are better behaved in the sense that they are good boys and girls and therefore obedient. So high EQ must mean a good person. Right?

Wrong. The marshmallow test demonstrated delay of gratification. The children who succeeded in the test are better in the future not because their goodness is rewarded, they are better in the future because they have the strength to focus on a goal, at the expense of personal pleasure at the present. What high EQ means is a higher mastery of one's emotions.

It is a metacognitive ability to be aware of one's goals and one's emotional state and has the ability to function without interference from emotion. It is not to say the people who succeed the marshmallow tests are unfeeling, but they are aware that there is greater satisfaction to be had by focusing on the task at hand.

Those who were impatient were actually those who did what their heart desired. They did the honestly human thing to do. So actually EQ is also a head function as well not heart as most people think it is.

So that said. Are you living a "richer" human experience by mastering your emotions or being freely emotional?

Sexual Harassment Naivete Ticks Me Off

change of focus yes, abrogation of responsibility no.

First off if you forget anything you read here this is my bottomline. Rape is the fault of the rapist not the victim.

Now, that said, among the arguments i find most irritating is the naive one. "we should be safe from rapists no matter what we do. we should change society so there will be no more rape." Good luck with that.

As for any crime not just rape, the criminal is out there, that's the given. Taking measures to maintain your safety is not putting the burden on yourself, it is being practical.

While rapists are equal opportunity offenders they rape any body type and any sex rapists still take visual cues before they select their targets. I'm no longer talking about "dressing sexy means you're asking for it." I'm saying offenders profile their victims and weigh things like, perceived vulnerability, physical prowess, alertness plus whatever fetish they're into. As said earlier the criminal is already out there you cannot wish them away. What you wanna do is not be in their sights when they're scouting for a victim. If you give advice not to wear excessive jewelry when shopping in divisoria and think it's good. Why is "dress modestly in crowded places" shifting the blame on the victim?

Downgrade rape to groping and you will see the logic that when you feel up a person, bare flesh is a premium. Of course the girl in daisy dukes, is a better groping target than a nun. Well of course nuns get groped too but when there is a choice who would they logically rather?

Oh don't be naive and say clothes have nothing to do with it! Of course it does. We do it all the time. We do what's called preening moves to get the attention of the opposite sex or even colleagues consciously or not.We dress for effect.We dress to impress. We power dress for business to be taken seriously. We dress down to be more approachable. There's the little black dress for elegance and the high heels to lengthen the legs to make you look sexy. And guys wear muscle shirts to announce "I work out." Then all of a sudden how we dress isn't supposed to say anything? We judge people by the way they dress why shouldn't rapists?

I'm all for "down with rape and the objectifying of women." But somewhere down the line the would be victims should recognize the need for personal responsibility.

I Hate Filipino Pride for the Sake of Filipino Pride

Detective Del Spooner: Human beings have dreams. Even dogs have dreams, but not you, you are just a machine. An imitation of life. Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a... canvas into a beautiful masterpiece? 
Sonny (The Android): Can you? 

I, Robot 2004 Interrogation Room Scene

August being National Heroes' Month for the Philippines, and our Department of Education promoting a, "Proud to be Filipino Campaign," I can imagine classrooms wherein the teachers list reasons for students to be proud of their nationality. Probably they will begin with virtues like, ingenuity, perseverance, and patience and give examples of famous personalities like Rizal or Pacquaio, or Jessica Sanchez. After the "Can a robot...?" mini-speech of Detective Spooner as portrayed by Will Smith the android simply asks, "Can you?" In the end, that's what it all boils down to. Can you? Can you do all the stuff that you say your kind, your species or your race can do. Or are you associating with their ability to compensate for your inability?




Just to make things clear, I am Filipino and proud to be Filipino. By that I mean I'm not ashamed of my nationality and heritage even if inept cops caused the death of the hostages in the Manila hostage crisis, even if our Air Force can mount no credible defense of our airspace if China decides to attack, even if our elected officials can't remember the rules of citing one's sources, even when one religous order sets our progress backwards because of the imposition of its morality for the rest of the countrythat does not belong to its fold. I do not renounce my connection  to my Nation just because someone gives the Philippines and the Filipinos a bad name.

Conversely my pride does not come from listing prominent Filipinos and bask in the glory of their acheivements. I'm not proud to be Filipino just because Manny Pacquiao is the holder of 7 or 8 World Titles in Boxing. I'm not not proud to be a Filipino because some Filipina who hits high notes becomes discovered by some American talkshow host and becomes a recording artist. I'm not proud to be a Filipino because Jessica Sanchez made it to second place of American Idol. I'm not proud to be Filipino because Jose Rizal is  a paragon and polyglot and sparked the Philippine Revolution or that a Filipina who shares my family name is a supermodel or that my grandfather is a National Artist for literature.

The above reasons like are what what make typical Filipinos say they are proud to be Filipinos. It's pride by association. I'm proud to be Filipino because this and that Filipino did this and that or can do this and that. To that I ask the android's question, "Can you"?

Can you box? Can you sing? Can you write? Can you even do anything productive? Can you do anything that you can be proud of, let alone your country? Or are you a drunk who gets wasted before the sun even hits noon and makes a nuisance of yourself in the neighborhood?

What is there for you to be proud of as a Filipino if there's no cause to be proud of you as a person? A graduate has cause to be proud of his diploma because he's earned it. An athlete has cause to be proud of his medals because he worked for it. A writer has cause to be proud of his byline because he got published. And now you're proud to be a Filipino just because you were born one? Proud to be Filipino even though you speak the language ineptly, know nothing of Philippine history, and know more about Hollywood than Filipino society?

Proud to be Filipino?

Are you someone that your family can be proud of or are you a freeloading son or daughter who does nothing but waits for the hard earned money of your parents?

Are you someone your school can be proud of or are you a student that gets by through cheating, asking your friends to write your paper for you and cutting classes and getting mediocre grades?

Are you someone who will get promoted at work, someone your colleagues can affirm and be proud of because of your outstanding performance or does your pay raise simply come because you are one of the employees who managed not to get fired and it just came on schedule?

In this global environment, there is no particular acheivement that can be monopolized by any nationality. Pacquiao is not a reason to declare that great boxers come from the Philippines. Nor Jessica the reason to declare that great singers come from the Philippines. Great boxers, singers, artists, scientists, athletes, inventors come from everywhere, and statistically more from other places than from the Philippines. For every "great something" that a Filipino can be proud of there are other great somethings that another nationality can be proud of.

This is what I fear thenew DepEd "Proud to Be Filipino" campaign is going to do. It will make being proud to be Filipino and end to itself. "I'm proud to be Filipino because this and that person has acheived these things. I'm proud to be Filipino because these places and animals can only be found in the Philippines."  That kind of delivery of instruction will make it a matter of memorization and inspire a very shallow sense of pride that does nothing to inspire better action.

In years past there were programs like "Proudly Philippine Made" and "Yes the Filipino Can." I believe that these campaigns were better because it focused on acheivement and example. It focused on inspiration that results in action. It tells us, "That's right I can do it to, Filipinos have the SAME amount of talent, the SAME opportunity and the SAME potential."

Like Japanese Technology, French Cuisine, German Craftsmanship, those who have the bragging rights to them are the Japanese inventors, French chefs, and German craftsmen and the people that patronize these products.

Proud to be Filipino...are you really? Do you patronize Filipino products that are not simply localized versions of a multinational brand? Shoes from Marikina? Coffee from Batangas? Dirty Ice Cream? Puto? Kutsinta? Komiks? Local brands of Sports and outdoor equiment? Clothes? In no way am I proposing support of mediocre products (whether Filipino or otherwise). But I'm proposing the purchase and use of Filipino products that value quality not simply patronizing it for the sake of wearing the Filipino label. But if you can't even do that, (i.e. patronize Filipino products) how dare you say you are proud to be Filipino?

I'm proud to be Filipino because a lot of what I am was nurtured from things Filipino.  Filipino movies and martial art has convinced me to take up Arnis and learn that it is a fighting art that can stand toe to toe with the best the world has to offer and I know unlike many Filipinos that it can be applied without a stick. My college teacher in Philippine history has made me appreciate that our history, with it's good and bad, is best used to understand our cultural identity and it is not meant to explain or make an apology for ourselves to the world. I'm proud to be Filipino because Filipinos trained in our own Universities are qualified to work and teach and compete in other countries. I'm proud to be Filipino because given the same amount of training and opportunities Filipinos can achieve what others can.

I'm proud to be a Filipino because I'm holding an executive post that used to be held by an American. It's not a job that only they can do. I'm not better (maybe I will be) but my point is I'm just as qualified. It's not "Filipinos are better at it or Filipinos are the best." To me it's, "Anything anyone can do, a Filipino can do just as well." If a Filipino does his job better it's because he's better at the job and not because he's a Filipino.

What's Filipino about you? What have you done that will make the word Filipino something to celebrate?

Science Has Spoiled My Supper

by Phillip Wylie

I am a fan for Science. My education is scientific and I have, in one field, contributed a monograph* to a scientific journal. Science, to my mind, is applied honesty, the one reliable means we have to find out truth. That is why, when error is committed in the name of Science, I feel the way a man would if his favorite uncle had taken to drink.

Over the years, I have come to feel that way about what science has done to food. I agree that America can set as good a table as any nation in the world. I agree that our food is nutritious and that the diet of most of us is well-balanced. What America eats is handsomely packaged; it is usually clean and pure; it is excellently preserved. The only trouble with it is this: year by year it grows less good to eat. It appeals increasingly to the eye. But who eats with his eyes? Almost everything used to taste better when I was a kid.

For quite a long time I thought that observation was merely another index of advancing age. But some years ago I married a girl whose mother is an expert cook of the kind called “old-fashioned.” This gifted woman’s daughter (my wife) was taught her mother’s venerable skills. The mother lives in the country and still plants an old-fashioned garden. She still buys dairy products from the neighbors and, in so far as possible, she uses the same materials her mother and grandmother did—to prepare meals that are superior. They are just as good, in this Year of Grace, as I recall them from my courtship. After eating for a while at the table of my mother-in-law, it is sad to go back to eating with my friends—even the alleged “good cooks” among them. And it is a gruesome experience to have meals at the best big-city restaurants.

Take cheese, for instance. Here and there, in big cities, small stores and delicatessens specialize in cheese. At such places, one can buy at least some of the first-rate cheeses that we used to eat—such as those we had with pie and in macaroni. The latter were sharp but not too sharp. They were a little crumbly. We called them American cheeses, or even rat cheese; actually they were Cheddars. Long ago, this cheese began to be supplanted by a material called “cheese foods.” Some cheese foods and “processed” cheese are fairly edible; but not one comes within miles of the old kinds—for flavor.

A grocer used to be very fussy about his cheese. Cheddar was made and sold by hundreds of little factories. Representatives of the factories had particular customers, and cheese was prepared by hand to suit the grocers, who knew precisely what their patrons wanted in rat cheese, pie cheese, American and other cheeses. Some liked them sharper; some liked them yellower; some liked anise seeds in cheese, or caraway.
What happened? Science—or what is called science—stepped in. The old-fashioned cheeses didn’t ship well enough. They crumbled, became moldy, dried out. “Scientific” tests disclosed that a great majority of the people will buy a less-good-tasting cheese if that’s all they can get. “Scientific marketing” then took effect. Its motto is “Give the people the least quality they’ll stand for.” In food, as in many other things, the “scientific marketers” regard quality as secondary so long as they can sell most persons anyhow; what they are after is “durability” or “shippability.”
‘
It is not possible to make the very best cheese in vast quantities at a low average cost. “Scientific sampling” got in its statistically nasty work. It was found that the largest number of people will buy something that is bland and rather tasteless. Those who prefer a product of a pronounced and individualistic flavor have a variety of preferences. Nobody is altogether pleased by bland foodstuff, in other words; but nobody is very violently put off. The result is that a “reason” has been found for turning out zillions of packages of something that will “do” for nearly all and isn’t even imagined to be superlatively good by a single soul!

Economics entered. It is possible to turn out in quantity a bland, impersonal, practically imperishable substance more or less resembling, say, cheese—at lower cost than cheese. Chain groceries shut out the independent stores and “standardization” became a principal means of cutting costs.

Imitations also came into the cheese business. There are American duplications of most of the celebrated European cheeses, mass-produced and cheaper by far than the imports. They would cause European food-lovers to gag or guffaw—but generally the imitations are all that’s available in the supermarkets. People buy them and eat them.

Perhaps you don’t like cheese—so the fact that decent cheese is hardly ever served in America any more, or used in cooking, doesn’t matter to you. Well, take bread. There has been (and still is) something of a hullabaloo about bread. In fact, in the last few years, a few big bakeries have taken to making a fairly good imitation of real bread. It costs much more than what is nowadays called bread, but it is edible. Most persons, however, now eat as “bread” a substance so full of chemicals and so barren of cereals that it approaches a synthetic.

Most bakers are interested mainly in how a loaf of bread looks. They are concerned with how little stuff they can put in it—to get how much money. They are deeply interested in using chemicals that will keep bread from molding, make it seem “fresh” for the longest possible time, and so render it marketable and shippable. They have been at this monkeyshine for a generation. Today a loaf of “bread” looks deceptively real; but it is made from heaven knows what and it resembles, as food, a solidified bubble bath. Some months ago I bought a loaf of the stuff and, experimentally, began pressing it together, like an accordion. With a little effort, I squeezed the whole loaf to a length of about one inch.

Yesterday, at the home of my mother-in-law, I ate with country-churned butter and home-canned wild strawberry jam several slices of actual bread, the same thing we used to have every day at home. People who have eaten actual bread will know what I mean. They will know that the material commonly called bread is not even related to real bread, except in name.

ii
For years, I couldn’t figure out what had happened to vegetables. I knew, of course, that most vegetables, to be enjoyed in their full deliciousness, must be picked fresh and cooked at once. I knew that vegetables cannot be overcooked and remain even edible, in the best sense. They cannot stand on the stove. That set of facts makes it impossible, of course, for any American restaurant—or, indeed, any city-dweller separated from supply by more than a few hours—to have decent fresh vegetables. The Parisians manage by getting their vegetables picked at dawn and rushed in farmers’ carts to market, where no middleman or marketman delays produce on its way to the pot.

Our vegetables, however, come to us through a long chain of command. There are merchants of several sorts—wholesalers before the retailers, commission men, and so on—with the result that what were once edible products become, in transit, mere wilted leaves and withered tubers.

Homes and restaurants do what they can with this stuff—which my mother-in-law would discard on the spot. I have long thought that the famed blindfold test for cigarettes should be applied to city vegetables. For I am sure that if you pureed them and ate them blindfolded, you couldn’t tell the beans from the peas, the turnips from the squash, the Brussels sprouts from the broccoli.

It is only lately that I have found how much science has to do with this reduction of noble victuals to pottage. Here the science of genetics is involved. Agronomists and the like have taken to breeding all sorts of vegetables and fruits—changing their original nature. This sounds wonderful and often is insane. For the scientists have not as a rule taken any interest whatsoever in the taste of the things they’ve tampered with!
What they’ve done is to develop “improved” strains of things for every purpose but eating. They work out, say, peas that will ripen all at once. The farmer can then harvest his peas and thresh them and be done with them. It is extremely profitable because it is efficient. What matter if such peas taste like boiled paper wads?

Geneticists have gone crazy over such “opportunities.” They’ve developed string beans that are straight instead of curved, and all one length. This makes them easier to pack in cans, even if, when eating them, you can’t tell them from tender string. Ripening time and identity of size and shape are, nowadays, more important in carrots than the fact that they taste like carrots. Personally, I don’t care if they hybridize onions till they are as big as your head and come up through the snow; but, in doing so, they are producing onions that only vaguely and feebly remind you of onions. We are getting some varieties, in fact, that have less flavor than the water off last week’s leeks. Yet, if people don’t eat onions because they taste like onions, what in the name of Luther Burbank do they eat them for?

The women’s magazines are about one third dedicated to clothes, one third to mild comment on sex, and the other third to recipes and pictures of handsome salads, desserts, and main courses. “Institutes” exist to experiment and tell housewives how to cook attractive meals and how to turn leftovers into works of art. The food thus pictured looks like famous paintings of still life. The only trouble is it’s tasteless. It leaves appetite unquenched and merely serves to stave off famine.

I wonder if this blandness of our diet doesn’t explain why so many of us are overweight and even dangerously so. When things had flavor, we knew what we were eating all the while—and it satisfied us. A teaspoonful of my mother-in-law’s wild strawberry jam will not just provide a gastronome’s ecstasy: it will entirely satisfy your jam desire. But, of the average tinned or glass-packed strawberry jam, you need half a cupful to get the idea of what you’re eating. A slice of my mother-in-law’s apple pie will satiate you far better than a whole bakery pie.

That thought is worthy of investigation—of genuine scientific investigation. It is merely a hypothesis, so far, and my own. But people-and their ancestors—have been eating according to flavor for upwards of a billion years. The need to satisfy the sense of taste may be innate and important. When food is merely a pretty cascade of viands, with the texture of boiled cardboard and the flavor of library paste, it may be the instinct of genus homo to go on eating in the unconscious hope of finally satisfying the ageless craving of the frustrated taste buds. In the days when good-tasting food was the rule in the American home, obesity wasn’t such a national curse.

How can you feel you’ve eaten if you haven’t tasted, and fully enjoyed tasting? Why (since science is ever so ready to answer the beck and call of mankind) don’t people who want to reduce merely give up eating and get the nourishment they must have in measured doses shot into their arms at hospitals? One ready answer to that question suggests that my theory of overeating is sound: people like to taste! In eating, they try to satisfy that like.

The scientific war against deliciousness has been stepped up enormously in the last decade. Some infernal genius found a way to make biscuit batter keep. Housewives began to buy this premixed stuff. It saved work, of course. But any normally intelligent person can learn, in a short period, how to prepare superb baking powder biscuits. I can make better biscuits, myself, than can be made from patent batters. Yet soon after this fiasco became an American staple, it was discovered that a half-baked substitute for all sorts of breads, pastries, rolls, and the like could be mass-manufactured, frozen—and sold for polishing off in the home oven. None of these two-stage creations is as good as even a fair sample of the thing it imitates. A man of taste, who had eaten one of my wife’s cinnamon buns, might use the premixed sort to throw at starlings—but not to eat! Cake mixes, too, come ready-prepared—like cement and not much better-tasting compared with true cake.

It is, however, “deep-freezing” that has really rung down the curtain on American cookery. Nothing is improved by the process. I have yet to taste a deep-frozen victual that measures up, in flavor, to the fresh, unfrosted original. And most foods, cooked or uncooked, are destroyed in the deep freeze for all people of sense and sensibility. Vegetables with crisp and crackling texture emerge as mush, slippery and stringy as hair nets simmered in Vaseline. The essential oils that make peas peas—and cabbage cabbage—must undergo fission and fusion in freezers. Anyhow, they vanish. Some meats turn to leather. Others to wood pulp. Everything, pretty much, tastes like the mosses of tundra, dug up in midwinter. Even the appearance changes, oftentimes. Handsome comestibles you put down in the summer come out looking very much like the corpses of woolly mammoths recovered from the last Ice Age.

Of course, all this scientific “food handling” tends to save money. It certainly preserves food longer. It reduces work at home. But these facts, and especially the last, imply that the first purpose of living is to avoid work—at home, anyhow.

Without thinking, we are making an important confession about ourselves as a nation. We are abandoning quality—even, to some extent, the quality of people. The “best” is becoming too good for us. We are suckling ourselves on machine-made mediocrity. It is bad for our souls, our minds, and our digestion. It is the way our wiser and calmer forebears fed, not people, but hogs: as much as possible and as fast as possible, with no standard of quality.

The Germans say, “Mann ist ivas er isst—Man is what he eats.” If this be true, the people of the U.S.A. are well on their way to becoming a faceless mob of mediocrities, of robots. And if we apply to other attributes the criteria we apply these days to appetite, that is what would happen! We would not want bright children any more; we’d merely want them to look bright—and get through school fast. We wouldn’t be interested in beautiful women—just a good paint job. And we’d be opposed to the most precious quality of man: his individuality, his differentness from the mob.

There are some people—sociologists and psychologists among them—who say that is exactly what we Americans are doing, are becoming. Mass man, they say, is on the increase. Conformity, standardization, similarity—all on a cheap and vulgar level—are replacing the great American ideas of colorful liberty and dignified individualism. If this is so, the process may well begin, like most human behavior, in the home—in those homes where a good meal has been replaced by something-to-eat-in-a-hurry. By something not very good to eat, prepared by a mother without very much to do, for a family that doesn’t feel it amounts to much anyhow.

I call, here, for rebellion.

 ______________________________________

definitely not my output the author's name is right on top, Phillip Wylie. I've seen this in my father's old college textbooks and it has stuck to me ever since. This one essay has gotten me thinking over the years. It has influenced me to say what I want to say and write what I want to write about passionaltely and I can do so in a very opinionated manner so as long as it is lucid and intelligent.

I Hate "People"

I hate people when they think as a mob. I hate people when they are led by hype, marketing, and popular opinion. That's when I hate people.

Agent K in Men in Black said, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.” Which is why they can't be trusted with the truth.

In a world where Google has made information ubiquitous, people are still to lazy to look up information. One unfounded accusation becomes a rumor and a smear campaign and any defense by the person is judged as a cover up.

One person's inane comment is suddenly thought of as bigotry. Take Pacquiao's comment on same sex marriage (I didn't vote for the guy), he was naive or brave enough to speak his mind about same sex marriage as a sin. While that statement was of course offensive to the LGBT community and Christians applauded him, he was specifically addressing the marriage issue and he was not promoting LGBT hate as big a disconnect as that might seem.

Turns out the report was a bad piece of journalism, it was sensational tabloid reporting made to look credible because it was posted on the web and not some two bit paper. But the Old Testament quotes weren't uttered by Manny.

Risking the anger of the LGBT community, opposing same sex marriage is not equal to LGBT hate. Double standard might be a closer monicker but hate isn't. And besides isn't it true that there are members of the LGBT community NOT clamoring for same sex marriage and some even oppose it. Almost in the same vein as Catholics for RH.

Interpreting Manny's statements are best viewed through the lens of Hanlon's Razor (remember what I said about information and Google...). It does not have to be viewed as malicious.

The next day after Anti-Manny hate speech and clamor for his sponsors to drop him the news article explaining his side was of course received less than half as well. Comments range from, "Of course he'll say that," to, "Whatever, I still think he's a bigot." Who's close minded now?

Manny's case is just the latest example. But time and again when "people" unite in a nationwide/planetwide knee-jerk reaction considering the possibility that they could be wrong is such a hard pill to take.

That goes for Manny or Gaga or Rowling or Dan Brown or who ever dares get spotlighted. Haters will always find a way to get public consensus to legitimize their hate. Send a text brigade invoking God, National pride and primal fears and you've got the seed, ready to replace intelligent thought with a "cause for action", to be spread by "people" who let others do the thinking for them. No one dares be an individual in the face of such popularity.

But don't think that getting lost amongst "people" only applies to the majority, counter culture has it too. You find a people of somewhat like mind but you find that they too can be extreme. Strangely enough people do the same thing, they conform to the thought of the minority group. Hoping not to be seen as part of the majority the, unthinking masses, one becomes unthinking themselves to accommodate the cool minority ideology. In that set up it feels weird to counter the counter culture. But if you see yourself as a rebel, aren't you also free to rebel against the rebellion?

In a world where a concept can be searched and have 10,000,000 hits, why can't people take the effort to view at least five of those? All this information is available but ignorance still abounds. It used to be that people are ignorant because only the elite could access information. Today it's worse, people are stupid because they're too lazy to find the information. And worse still, people are ignorant because of the admission that they don't want to think.

That's why I hate "people" but I love persons.

I hate it when people say they have a secret and don't intend to tell you anyway.

I hate it when people tell you they have a secret that they never intend to tell you.

I don't only hate it I find it downright stupid. It's as stupid as a kid who wants to play silent treatment and says, "I'm not talking to you." If you mean to not talk to someone, then you don't talk to them. It's as moronic as saying, "I'm ignoring you."

Tip, if you wanna keep a secret you keep its existence a secret. You don't announce its presence. The best way to keep a secret is to keep your trap shut in the first place.

I Hate it When People Mutter and are Offended When You Ask Them to Repeat What They Said

I hate it when people don't talk clearly enough and then when you ask for a repetition they go, "It's nothing." It's irritating especially if they try to use a word different from what they said and insist it's what they said.

"It would be good if we had a ... here."

"A what?"

"Nothing."

"You said it would be good if we had a...?"

"A little cheer in here"

"That's not what you said. If we had a...?"

"Nothing."

"A what?!"

"I said it would be good if we had a beer in here."

"Yeah I agree I think we need 2 cold ones."


Was that so hard?

If it wasn't supposed to be heard don't mutter it at all. And if you want it heard, then for crying out loud speak up. And if by some circumstance like loud music, static on the phone line or wax in the ears prevent you from being heard properly, don't go on feeling hurt for not being heard in the first place.

If I wasn't paying attention I wouldn't be having this conversation with you. If I wasn't paying attention I'd answer you in a lame or off tangent manner like, "Uhuh that's nice." Instead of repeating your sentence word for word except the misheard one.

I Hate How Current Events are Made to Fit Religious Beliefs Out of Context

Well we’ve seen the tsunami hit Japan and how its effects threaten the country with an impending nuclear disaster (at the time of this writing).

Hours later and days later tweets and social networking statuses change to reflect how the disaster has affected them in actuality and vicariously. Many thank God for sparing their own countries from the disaster. That is all and fine as a believer would be the first to admit that every breath is a gift from God. What got me writing in this blog regarding this matter at the risk of sounding callous is the juxtaposition of God sparing people’s lives, to God is good.

First of all, I’m a believer, and God is indeed good. Make no mistake about where my faith stands.

But in putting them together in one sentence, “I thank God for sparing the Philippines God is indeed good. While I believe God is good, and that yes your country was spared. Running them together in the same sentence has serious implications.

If God is god for sparing your country, is God therefore evil in allowing or, in the minds of some people, sending the tsunami? While yes I believe in the principle of Sowing and Reaping, is it correct to generalize the calamity of a country due to a specific wrongdoing? “Oh that country was hit because it has these practices, oh that country was spared because this group has done a lot.”

Making such statements to me does not actually put God on the witness stand or shift the burden of proof on Him, rather it tells me that the person making such statements presume to know the mind of God and his reasons and the exercise of his divine prerogatives.

How do such people answer godly people that were swept away with the calamity of the tsunami? “There’s a reason for everything.” Is that the cop out answer we will give this people? “If you’re good you’re blessed if you’re bad you’re smitten,” is the exact kind of reasoning Job’s three friends had. “Job you must have been a bad boy to have all these things happen to you, c’mon now fess up and say sorry.” And Job’s replies might seem to be so arrogant but he correctly answered, “I did nothing wrong but still I got these things.” And while at the end of the story God put Job in his place for uttering things to which he had no clue, in the end God declared Job’s statements as correct and his friends as the erring ones.

Why? Simply put Job kept asking, “I don’t know what goes in your head God it can’t be as simplistic as rewarding good actions and punishing bad actions, but I wish you’d tell me what’s going on because my suffering doesn’t make sense to me. How I wish we had an arbitrator who can cross examine you because surely I can’t.”

And his “righteous friends” were told to go to Job and have him apologize on their behalf before they get forgiven for assuming to put God in a box, by simplifying God’s mind into simplistic rules made by their finite minds.

My Take on Philippine Reproductive Health Issues

I was a Catholic, not a just a pews type of Catholic, I was an altar boy and memorized the mass.

Even at 1st grade I was confused at the logic of why I needed to go to confession for the forgiveness of sins. If it was to God that I sinned then it is from him I ask forgiveness.

And the whole “go to the mother” politics of Marian doctrine was really weird to me. Even as a Catholic I found the pantheon of saints superfluous as I believed in a personal God.

This is what brought me over to becoming a Protestant.

Sure there are egoists and megalomaniac personalities in our side of the fence but every member is encouraged to read our own bibles, study it ourselves and make it personal. Truth lay in a personal relationship and scholarly study of God’s word.

That decentralization made me a whole lot freer.

The Church (i.e. the Catholic Church) has been meddling too much in state affairs. They presume too much that the Philippines is Catholic, and as such would like to control the Philippines like, as so aptly pointed out by this site, we were still in the time of Padre Damaso.

There is no Biblical precept that supports their stand on contraception. The oft quoted story of Onan is presented in the wrong context. His punishment was not due to the withdrawal of his semen, but due to his selfishness not to fulfill his brotherly duty of continuing his brother’s family.

To further justify their stand they accuse all other forms of contraception to be abortifacient. Not even to discuss masturbation, if they believe that the spilling of semen is sinful then every adolescent whose experienced nocturnal emissions is guilty of genocide.

Which is more economical: a pack of condoms to prevent pregnancy or a supply of formula to feed that baby?

While, as they are religious leaders, they have every prerogative to spiritually blackmail, and brainwash their constituents, everyone else outside their religion IS NOT fair game. Turn every Catholic woman to Maria Clara for all I care, but non-Catholics should be exempt from this.

I live in a province which I say is more Catholic than Filipino — Bohol. Every 3pm and 6pm the 3 o’clock habit and the Angelus never fails to play in every radio station and every mall on this little island. Time stands still and all services stop when prayer begins and non-Catholics who ignore the call to prayer are seen with very dirty looks as if you are a spawn of Satan himself.

But in flag ceremonies no one cares to stop and respect the flag.

I am not Atheist or Agnostic but I wish for a secular state, if only one can be free to practice or not practice his religion.

There is a separation of Church and state to be respected and our nation is not a diocese. They should realize that.

20. Oct, 2009

originally posted in: http://rationalhero.com/2009/10/20/keats-ronquillo/

I Hate the term “Self Expression” and "Style" as an Excuse for Bad Form: Music and Performance

Style, is a mode of expression. It describes clothes, art and music genres, writing and speaking, and performance.

Styles are preferences; it's a set of aesthetics, tendencies and predispositions which lead to certain results. Surrealists differ from realists to impressionists, ballroom is different from ballet and jazz is different from heavy metal, Karate is different from Kung fu, FMA is different from English Longsword fighting. The resulting styles differ based on the circumstances that lead to their development, culture, resources, social pressures etc.

This issue on style is so big that I've decided to tackle it in three parts. This one is on music and performance because it irks me the most these days (the excuses on style that is).

Okay I said music and performance but my brain is itching to tackle performance first especially dance. Ah dance, it is such a broad discipline, there's the ever strict and form intensive ballet to the highly energetic moves of hip hop and break dancing.  And reality shows have tried to encompass this broad variety by giving an outlet to various kinds of dancers, and an opportunity to show everybody else that there are different forms of dance.

Okay, first of all dancing is a mode of self expression. While there are techniques and steps to follow, it is not performed the same way twice unless choreographed and even then variation exists. It's a living art form, emotions and rapport between dancer and partner and audience affect the performance. And dancers (I mean live, eat, breathe dance kind of people, that silly jig on your uncle's birthday when your mom forced you to doesn't count) express their heart through their movement. When done with an honesty of performance and self expression everyone feels what you're doing. And people are moved by the performance.

So, why do so many people think they can dance when many sure as hell can't? Self expression is one thing but convulsing like a tazed perpetrator is not dance. Oh please don't say you were just Krumping. Krumping is a discipline in itself (and I can't Krump, but I know what a convulsion looks like) and if you are Krumping it is intentional.

And intent – ah that's the key word, intent is what makes what you're doing self expression. Expression is an outward manifestation of what one experiences inside. If you didn't intend to do that and you're just riding a nervous tick, or suffering from a grand mal seizure don't call it you're style of dancing. To call it your style of dancing would require you to do more than one step of the dance.

For example, don't say you dance like Michael Jackson if all you can do is grab your crotch. If that were the case then many baseball pitchers can claim that. Don't say you're a break dancer just because you can do a single hand handstand. Don't say you're a ballroom dancer just because you slow danced in the prom. More importantly if you're a one trick pony, don't say that's just the way you like it.

If it's a matter of like then you have to show yourself to be able to do things you don't like.

This brings us to music, like dance the musician (live, eat, drink...you get the idea) expresses himself through his music. His feelings and thoughts can be made known by his playing or singing.

People who do covers and nothing else can be very technically excellent but unless you make your own music (even a cool jam will do you don't need a record label to call it your music, or rearrange other compositions at least) you're just the musical equivalent of an art forger.

There's more to music than hitting the high notes (for singers) or getting that riff or that drum beat or that baseline. There must be variety, intensity and most of all purpose. Like dance, if all you know is one song, play around with three chords or have only one adlib, you're not a musician.

People who actually learned to play and sing in a structured manner (note I didn't say schooled). Know the basics that lead up to the good stuff. There's understanding of music principles why this note comes together with this one and why we do this rhythm and not that one.

To simply scream and say one is imitating Chester Bennington of Linkin Park displays his ignorance of what kind of screaming is required to sing rock music and screamo songs. To sing until you break glass is not what defines Mariah Carrey (she has outstanding low notes too). To thump your chest does not make you Celine Dion and having buck teeth and being gay does not make you Freddie Mercury.

The people mentioned above have more range and what they are known for in their hits. Their other songs can show you that they can do fast slow, high and low, smooth and wild. They break the rules of singing because they know when to break it and how to break it. To follow them requires the understanding they gained. Robbing the rich does not make you Robin Hood. Robbing the rich and giving it to the poor, being loved by the poor and being hated by the corrupt that you rob from because they actually stole the money you're stealing from them as well. That makes you Robin Hood. The green tights and bow just won't cut it (he probably didn't wear green anyway).

On the performance side, I just had to put this in, there are so called dancers/performers following an irritating practice these days and that is splicing several  musical tracks in one song. I don't mean medleys I love medleys. I mean performance who play two measures of one song, stick in a beatbox sound and shift to an entirely new and usually disjoint song. Intro guitar riff for Black and White by Micheal Jackson awwww, scratch scratch...laser sounds, cut in Insomia by Craig David. It's soooo irritating!

It was a novelty at first but everyone else has done it into more and more ridiculous proportions. At first it was like a medley of two songs or one song spliced between two halves of the same song. Usually it was shown to contrast dance steps and to showcase what the performers can do.

But these days performers don't have the creativity to craft their choreography into a story to match the music. That is part of the dancer's discipline

Rather they pick and choose cool sounds to augment their lame steps. Everyone with free audio mixing software volunteers to splice MP3 for their crew. And the beatbox noise is evidence that the sound mixers don't have the skill or the patience to cut and splice the music seamlessly. It's one sensory assault after another.

To qualify as self expression, the one expressing must have knowledge of the rules and the style he is breaking or making his own. Picasso could make realistic paintings, he later chose to paint his way. Artists can make cartoons but not all cartoonists are artists.

If the wrong way is the only way you know how to do it then you're not self expressing you don't know squat.

I Hate the Mindset That New Means Better.

I miss the romance of old school technology. Some things that were pretty straightforward get complicated by features.

Features, cram our everyday gadgets from cellphones to digicams to software.


Case in point, digicams: I admire the photographer who still has the instinct to look though the viewfinder of an SLR camera. I admire the photographer who understands, shutter speed, f-stop, ISO/ASA ratings and point of infinity. Leaning back with an arched back to view an LCD screen to me is so counterintuitive. Don't get me wrong I love digicams, they have taken the unnecessary expense of film and developing out of the equation. You get to view your pictures before you print them and immediately see the results of the shot.


But some cameras have done away with the viewfinder altogether. Sometimes I really need a steady shot in low lighting and I don't want to use the flash. Photographers know that the face acts as a tripod when using a camera and it's easier to brace for a shot. But without the viewfinder, holding cameras at arms length becomes a chore. Sure some cameras have anti-jitter features to steady the shot. But that I believe is an example of superfluous tech.

Just to show you how lazy has made us let me ask you this. What use is the eject button on your remote? I know what it does. Again, why is it on the remote? Does that actually eject the disc and set it in its case and file it? No. After it automatically opens you still stand up approach your player and take the disc. Sony was smart enough to take the eject button out of the remote. And that educated me into, "They're right that button doesn't need to be in the remote since you approach the player anyway."


Tape, I miss tape. I miss audio tape, old tapes, tapes that you can store shabbily for 20 years and still faithfully make music despite their age. CDs on the other hand are the most fragile of objects, a scratch renders your songs unlistenable. Format is a fast paced game, MP3, WMA, DVD-r, DVD+R sheesh it's hard to keep up. But tape, good old magnetic tape, play and dub away.


Tapes are a good long term medium between Vinyl (also prone to scratching and broken needles) and CDs (sensitive to vibrations) but hey the tape is a technological has been now. As music players go higher and higher in the storage category people will keep thinking that 12 songs in a cassette simply isn't enough music.


Mimeograph, argh no one seems to make them anymore. It's now the digital age so you get digital copiers that does what the mimeograph cannot. But hey, the mimeograph can run on hand power. In third world countries prone to power failure (or voices of the underground) it's still fast cheap and reliable. It can use old diesel engine oil as ink. How's that for consumables?

Mimeograph is the partner of the dot-matrix (impact) printer, that sturdy little workhorse that can print as much as you can give it. Of course it's low-res and not much good for pictures but for miles and miles of text it has little issues regarding broken parts, getting out of commission because of paper jams and it works with carbon and carbonized paper.


Still one of my greatest peeves is the move from Microsoft Office 2003 to the 2007 format. First time I saw it I was thinking "What the heck is all this crap!" I didn't know where everything was. And everyone kept sending files in the new incomprehensible docx (unless you were one of the proud owners of the 2007 - 2010 version). 

I've been using that interface for more than 15 years and then all of a sudden things aren't where they used to be. Not even the option to revert it to the old mode. Well the saving grace was that 2007 preserved the time honored hotkeys. Ha! Score one more for old school!

If I don't know where to point the mouse, then don't need to use it. Something many in this point and click generation have no idea how to use. Provided you know what they are, hot keys can be done on the fly without your fingers leaving the key board and stop to click your mouse or touchpad. All you do is tag-type-tag. The tag happens works as fast as capitalizing your letters instead of, type..highlight..look for the button..click, remove highlight.

Another thing I did was look for a 2007 update patch for my 2003. Ha that did it. I no longer needed to upgrade (at least not for now) my office and yet I can read and save in the 2007 format (which I don't since 2007 reads 2003 automatically anyway). So I had the layout I wanted and yet stay in the loop.

On another computer I,m familiarizing myself with the 2007 version. And it still saves in the 97-2003 format (I set it that way) as a courtesy to the people I share files with me who may have not yet upgraded.

But what has happened? Why are they fixing what ain't broke?


Manufacturers seem to be cramming more and more features to create a timed obselence from the things we buy. I have a feeling that RnD labs actually figure out dozens of applications for new technology but release them in trickles so we keep coming back for more. Evil conspiracy theory? Hardly.

That thing that you want for Christmas and been saving up for months becomes yesterday's news come March. And you suddenly envy the guy who's been envying you when you got your cool gadget becomes the guy you envy, simply because his doodad has a few hundred gigabytes more storage, a few megahertz more speed, a quarter of an inch larger screen 300 grams lighter and has Blue ray as opposed to your now obsolete HD-DVD. Like they couldn't cram all that in 6 months ago?

This is an update of an older blog post of mine. I believe this is a rant belongs to this blog.

I Hate Know-it-alls That Don’t Know-it-at-all. (on the Manila Hostage Crisis of 2010)

The Philippines is a democracy patterned after the United States. It has three branches of government the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch approves the law, the Judiciary branch enforces the law.

That is basic civics. This is an oft forgotten fact when one criticizes any president in office. As much as the president wants to do things, he cannot make laws except those he declares by Executive orders and those orders do not rival powers of the legislative body. Yes he has powers to veto any law, and make recommendations, but he cannot write the laws.

In running the day today functions of positions in government like those handled by his cabinet, he does not inspect their work day by day like a principal checks lesson plans. He assigned these secretaries to work with a level of autonomy so that he can focus on the most pressing matters that require him to preside over (thus the word President). You ask who holds the officials accountable?  The ombudsman.

What people ought to realize is that the President is not the end all and be all of the country. When bridges collapse who works on it? Public works, not the president. When an epidemic breaks out who do you gonna call? The Germ Busters at the Department of Health. Not the President. Unjust labor practices? Department of Labor. Not the President. Kidnapped daughter of a rich politician? Call the police (why is there any other recourse?) and not the President.

How many people did you vote into office this year? I’m sure there were more names after Benigno Aquino III.

Three words people: Chain of command. In any organization and in government, the local official closest to the scene handles it first. It escalates as it leaves his jurisdiction and goes to higher authorities in which the President is the last person to pass the buck to.

With regards to the hostage taking of the 8 Chinese tourists in Manila, that operational mess was not the president’s fault, not the president’s fault, not the president’s fault. Even if the president was (dare I say it?) Gloria, it still wouldn’t be her fault. The president, is not a qualified police negotiator or SWAT operative. At most he can give the order to fire or ceasefire but does he have the training to determine that?

What can the president do then? What he has already done. Play the diplomat and apologize to the people of Hong Kong. Order inquiries and investigations.  Do the cliché thing and form a task force to investigate. But it will not be the president’s job to scour the crime scene, dust for prints, make a psychological profile of the deceased. If he did that he would be a cop not the president. What else do people want from him when they tell him to do his job?

I’m not being political, I didn’t even vote for the guy. But just because CNN cameras and Chinese tourists in the bus at Quirino Grandstand made the incident “International” it didn’t require the UN security council to resolve the incident. Granted, the cops were lousy at their jobs, but nonetheless it was their job not the president’s. They messed up negotiations and the neutralization of the perp. But it was THEIR job that they messed up not the president’s. If you want to point fingers point to the cops. The president was nowhere near the crime scene and it wasn’t his job to be there.

Tekken for a Ride

Hasn’t Hollywood learned yet? Game to movie, anime to movie, comic to movie, book to movie adaptations become popular because of the fans. Of course Hollywood knows enough to pick up the story with enough following and capitalize on the name. And then we, the fans, are betrayed.

Fans stay glued to their sets because of something intrinsic, something quintessential and that thing has to be captured before anything else, before artistic license, before creative expression. That is the least anyone taking on an adaptation should do to respect the work and the fans. Anything less is an insult.

Tekken, that game series from NAMCO that started in 1994 (1995 for the Playstation) had a continuing story line of father to son struggles (not just for the Mishimas). Story lines and fighting styles have been part of why Tekken has such a following; it’s part of the quintessential thing that we’ve come to love about Tekken.

These things have been taken away from the fans, Marshall Law has lost his Jeet Kune Do, Paul Phoenix did not even appear in the movie, just a passing mention, Kazuya’s gloves were worn by Jin and came from Steve. Jin’s game rival Hwoarang was nowhere in sight. These changes just threw what I liked about Tekken out of whack. It felt as bad as seeing Batman’s nipples. The only thing so Tekken about it is Heihachi’s hair.

Over the years such “creative license” has ruined many good titles like the Mario Brothers (no mushrooms, and fireflowers), Disneyfied fairytales (Hera is not supposed to be a good mom to Hercules), Shumacher Batmans (no Bat-credit cards please and why was Bane stupid and minor?), and Dragonball Evolution (the Kamehameha is not an airbending technique!!! Goku can use it in space for crying out loud).

We need more film makers who are actual fans of the work they are adapting. See LOTR, the Chris Donner Superman, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the first one) the Chris Nolan Batmans, Narnia (one of the few things Disney did right) and the A-Team, they were made by people who know what it means to be a fan and will feel disappointed as a fan if things go bad.

Tekken (and other games) need players, Anime franchises need Otaku, novels need readers. We don’t need fashion challenged, spaced out, surreal artistes, who can’t dream up their own creative work and so mess up another’s and put their “personal mark” on the movie ahead of the intended image by the person who made it lovable in the first place, the author.

I Hate Pop (culture)

I hate pop (culture).

I generally hate pop. Pop as in popular, you know the in thing. Not the thing itself but what happens to the thing when it gets to pop status.

Hmmm… this is kinda iffy and I may end up putting my foot in my mouth, but whatever, let’s roll.

Let’s start with the effects of pop that I hate, super saturation. I hate that. In chemistry that’s when your solvent can no longer normally take in the solute and you force it to take in more by like say, applying heat to it so that it takes in more. That’s the difference between syrup and sugar water. Sugar water when you put sugar into it and stir, stir, stir, until sugar stops dissolving and you see granules drop out. That’s saturated. It’s full of sugar. Now apply heat to it and it boils and then you can add even more sugar. When that thing cools down it becomes sticky and overly sweet, syrup. That’s super saturated. You may like a drop, or two or an entire spoonful, but chugging it down wouldn’t be the little taste of heaven that you thought it would be. You’ll be sick of it or if not you’ll be sick because of it.

Nothing kills a concept, a song, or an art from faster than super saturation. (If there is one and I’m wrong be sure to let me know). Take a hit any TV series. Take CSI for example. Now that was a great show, it’s geeky and cool and riveting all at the same time. But I don’t know after three seasons of smash cuts into someone’s guts, underwater audio and zillions of scenes of the crime lab processing prints and gun shot residue later, it became old, fast. I didn’t even bother following Miami and New York, because each team looks like a Japanese Sentai Team. With leader and subordinates in parallel with each other, minus the costumes and the mecha (giant robots).

Songs are even more irritating when they supersaturate. Why? Everyone listens to the same stuff on what ever radio station. K-Pop, J-Pop, Craig Davis sounding like K-Pop, whiny boys singing, all the other Mariah, Celine, Whitney copy cats, dudes that just picked up guitars and decided to go for a record label but can’t jam anything else so they make one hit wonders or no hit blunders, and cutsey, sexy bombshell recording artists (not singers mind you) that can’t write their own songs. Thank goodness for MP3 players and noise cancelling earphones, now there’s no need to hear all that if you don’t want to.

Fashion is even more unbearable, senseless accessorizing (guy liners, bling, piercings), badly done copycat hair, poser tough guy prints. Copying their supersaturated no hit blunder idols. Trying to shock with their “uniqueness” but since they supersaturate they end up being dull and boring. Funny thing is after 3 months it’s out of style, new song, new craze, new fashion. And craze is right crazey!

Me? What do I think about pop? Pop is not refreshing, it’s old. Pop is a pattern of follow the leader. Me, I make my own choices. Funny thing is, sometimes there are cool ideas in pop that I take (told you this would be iffy). But difference between you and me; if I find it cool I stick to it, pop or not. So yeah I might enjoy a pop song but I don’t become a fan (not immediately). I enjoy it for what ever reason that made me like it, but not because it happens to be playing at the moment or the singer was last season’s American Idol (who cares about that?)

One example, Manny Pacquiao, I like him so does every other Filipino. But I’ve watched Manny since he was a runt with nothing more than a walloping left and nothing else. He used to win with sheer strength, no defense and no endurance. I’ve seen him develop and grow. To those that tuned in late he wasn’t that great of a boxer. I’m a fan but I’m not a Manny worshipper.

Another is the late Filipino Master Rapper FrancisM. I’ve been listening to him since the 90s. And he’d have a hit here and there but many fans have since moved on. He died in March of 2009. And all of a sudden there was a FrancisM surge of fanboys in the bandwagon. The man had more than 7 albums to his name a lot of songs with nice pithy messages, pre-dating the likes of Eminem.

But what burns me up is that the new “fans” jump in to learn "Kaleidoscope World"*. Oh sure it’s a song about unity and brotherhood. But what I really think is that the new people that took notice just picked it up because it’s the easiest to follow. Why? It’s a song where he doesn’t rap. It’s a spoken word song. That saddens me because FrancisM was first and foremost a rapper. So I believe one would be a FrancisM fan if they love rap and love the Philippines because that is what he stood for. Wearing 3 stars and the Sun don’t mean a thing if you don’t actually love the Philippines with a passion. It’s just a cool shirt. Like tribal tattoos on a spoiled pampered brat. Doesn’t make you any tougher

It’s like saying you’re a Queen fan and the only song you know is Princes of the Universe because it was such a cool Highlander soundtrack. “You’re a Queen fan? Do you know Bohemian Rhapsody?” Nope “We Will Rock You?” Nope “Another One Bites the Dust?” Nope “We are the Champions?” Nope. Then heck, you’re a Highlander fan not a Queen fan. (I’m both by the way).

I have an allergic reaction to hype. The more the hype the more I hate it. Twilight comes to mind. I’ve never watched Slumdog Millionaire, or 2012 or High School Musical or follow Lost or watch Glee or listen to Charice Pempemco nor do I give a hoot what’s on Oprah’s book list. Nor do I feel that I’ve been missing out. Because, again supersaturation.  Thank goodness for complete season DVDs I can watch a season of something that I like to blot out a season of something that I don’t like. “Have you seen this show?” “Nope too busy marathoning this one.”

Don’t think that all I watch are high brow artsy fartsy stuff. I have my own “It’s so bad it’s good list.” Things that don’t seem to make sense why I like it. It maybe the worst and most wooden acting but I could like it. It could be the most irritating singing voice but I could like it.

So what’s my criteria for liking something? I just need to like it, on my own. Oh if something really is good, 10 years down the line if it’s good enough to stay noticed I’ll probably pick it up. If, if, if it really is good.

If it’s a flash in the pan, goes out of print and gets sold in a second hand store and priced next to nothing then I’d be really happy we never met. Like all those books on Y2K.

Hail counter-culture.

___________________________________
* Kaleidoscope World - Hit song of late Filipino Rapper Francis Magalona who used the nickname FrancisM. It's the easiest song to sing among FrancisM's hits because it's mostly spoken word and just a few short lines of refrain are sung in a not so vocally challenging melody.

I hate (most) remixed and rearranged covers of good songs.

Everybody else is doing it. When someone does not have enough creative juices to fill in the last few tracks to sell a full length cd, make a cover of a classic from 10 years back or further.


Boy bands (I'm so happy they're no longer in the music scene if they still are don't tell me I prefer to be ignorant of them), have blended and harmonized the feeling out of songs they remake. They sound smooth and cool but the poetry is lost. What everyone will be listening for will be how many curls and slides of the notes one can get away with before proceeding to the next word. I can't imagine a serenade to a lady where there are 5 soloists singing and trying to outsing (or outsuck) each other, how can that be romantic or flattering?


(Bay-ay-ay-ay-e-e-e-e-ey beee!)


RNB is a respectable music tradition, but how much RNB-ing can one song take? Just like the boy bands how many variations can you get away with until you continue singing (A-a-a-ahh-aahmmmmm ehehehey-ziiiiing gre-e-eys- huh-ow suuuweeeeeeet thu---------huhuh saaaaawwwwwnd).


Music isn't like what it used to be. Talent was the selling point to music but indeed "video killed the radio star." A so-so voice with a white bikini can give you an album now-a-days.


That's why I'm all for Simon Cowell. Hard to please but he gives credit when it's due. Gimicks don't get past him. As he once said to Jasmine Trias, "you're the cute smiling girl with the flower, of course they won't vote you out." And she made it to the top 3. No her voice isn't ugly but it's not a wow.


For everyone else, sing your range. Not everyone has the vocal cords of Celine Dion or Aerosmith. Not everyone can whistle with their mouths wide open like Mariah Carey if you can't do it, don't act like you can.


Tracy Chapman now there's a lady with a nice barritone voice. Even on her lonesome Boyzone had nothing on her on "Baby Can I Hold You"


Generally, I don't hate covers. "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" has been done by Elvis and Simon and Garfunkel but there's respect for the work done. There is intent to make a personal rendition, of how the song works in the singer. But to just get any song, to make a blast from the past and immiediately have a wide fanbase due to familarity with nothing positive added or emphasized in an old song just a remix, remake, that's just wrong.


How many James Bond films has there been? How many ways has the theme been rendered? They are all different but each rendition does not take away from the original feel of the first arrangement since Dr. No. Or else it wouldn't be the Bond Theme.


So why is it when new artists (if they can be called that) pick up an old song, they always think an update is in order, without first thinking about what makes that song the song that it is. Respect it's all about respect for the work already done.


This is why I love rock. Rockers have a respect for the history of a song. Rock is always based on emotion or a message. Rockers hold musicality and originality as a virtue.