Imbak para sa Hunyo, 2011

Evangelicals, evolution and atheism: the 2011 Pew Foundation survey (via Why Evolution Is True)

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , on Hunyo 30, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

This is a guest piece by reader Sigmund, who read the entire 100-odd page Pew survey. My thanks for his written take on it. Compared to most developed nations, the proportion of evangelical Christians in the USA is far higher. In 2004 they comprised 26.3% of the population. At the same time, the level of acceptance of the theory of evolution is significantly lower. The question of whether there is a direct connection between evangelicals and the … Read More

via Why Evolution Is True

Open letter reply

Posted in Gulo ng buhay on Hunyo 29, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

This is a (fictional) reply to the open letter posted in burskys blog post “Save thwe Philippine Dragon Boat Team”

Dear Kurt Ubanozo,

I have received your open letter to address your concerns about the Philippine Dragon Boat Team and would like to thank you for directing my attention to your concerns to which I am replying with my answer on the subject.

As I have extemporaneously repeated in my speeches during the campaign period and the one year duration of my administration “Kayo ang Boss Ko” however, I have made it very clear during the last twelve months that this is sorely untrue and your opinions cannot mean less to me.

I only have disdain for any kind of reproach or rebuke to my “governing style”and all types opposition are methodically discarded from my scope of relevant events as nothing more than efforts of the allied powers of the past administration to derail my overly-touted “straight path”.

Because the past administration is the only reason there is anything wrong with my administration. Every anomaly, problem, gaffe, fallacy, negative, and wrongdoing is and only can be the result of the past administrations corruption. Even though I’ve already had more than enough time to correct or at the very least initialize the reverse of the Arroyo governments adverse effects or build upon its positive aspects is beside the point. In fact I may find a reason to blame your problem upon them as well.

I cannot reassign the rights of the PDBF back to it from the PCKF because, as I have already stated, I will not listen to any valid argument that does not conform with my own neurosis. In addition, I probably have one of my KKK’s in the PCKF making their designation irreversible and concrete.

I have little interest in sports or anything that brings this country “honor” if it doesn’t carry much media mileage. As I have repeatedly demonstrated my attentions are more focused on expensive cars, videogames, and women who are so young if I were not the President I would be labeled as a pervert or a dirty old man. Any topic falling outside of this spectrum like economics, social security, healthcare, national defense, international relations, environmental rejuvenation and preservation, power generation, and calamity preparedness are out of my touch.

Once again I thank you for your letter and directly addressing your concern to me though I cannot help and you may have been better served if you pointed your query to someone more competent than I.

Respectfully Yours,

Benigno Z. Aquino III

Presidente ng Republika ng dilaw na Pilipinas

Reading the divroce bill and the idiots who fight it for the wrong reason

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , , on Hunyo 28, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran
Taking a break from face-palming and debunking theistic creationist claims and homophobic assertions that same-sex lifestyles are a medical threat I’ve come back to the issue of divorce in the Philippines. I have finally managed to get my hands on a copy of the bill itself and have read through it.
The Bill I have below is House Bill 1799 first authored and presented to Congress July 27, 2010. And no amendments have been made to it as far as I know.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Title II of Executive Order No. 209, amended, otherwise known
as The Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 2. Articles 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62) 63, 64, 65 and 66 of
Executive Order No. 209, as amended, otherwise known as The Family Code of the
Philippines, are also hereby amended to read as follows:
“Art. 55(A). A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of
the following grounds:
Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against
the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change
religious or political affiliation;

Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;

Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more
than six years, even if pardoned;
Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
Lesbianism or homosexuality-of the respondent;
Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage,
whether in the Philippines or abroad;,
Sexual infidelity or perversion;
Attempt by the respondent against life of the petitioner; or
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for
more than one year.
For purposes of this Article, the term “child” shall include a child
by nature or by adoption.






“Art. 56. The petition for legal separation OR DIVORCE shall be denied
on any of the following grounds:
[(1) When the aggrieved party has condoned the offense or act
complained of;
(2)Where the aggrieved party has consented to the commission of the offense
or act complained of;]
[(3)] [1] Where there is connivance between the parties in the commission of
the offense or act constituting the ground for legal separation OR DIVORCE;
[(4) Where both parties have given ground for legal separation;]
[(5)] (2) Where there is collusion between the parties to obtain the decree of
legal separation OR DIVORCE; [or
(6) Where the action is barred by prescription.]”
“Art. 57. [An action for legal separation shall be filed within five years from
the time of the occurrence of the cause.] AN ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION
“Art. 58. An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before six
months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition.THE SAME RULE SHALL


“Art. 59. No legal separation OR DIVORCE may be decreed unless the Court has taken steps towards the reconciliation of the spouses and is fully satisfied, despite such efforts, that reconciliation is highly improbable.”

“Art. 60. No decree of legal separation OR DIVORCE shall be based upon a
stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment.
In any case, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.”
“Art. 61. After the filing of the petition for legal separation OR DIVORCE, the
spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other.

The court, in the absence of a written agreement between the spouses, shall designate either of them or a third person to administer the absolute community or conjugal partnership property. The administrator appointed by the court shall have the same powers and duties as those of a guardian under the Rules of Court.”

“Art. 62. During the pendency of the action for legal separation OR DIVORCE, the provisions of Article 49 shall likewise apply to the support of the spouses and the custody and support of their common children.”

My thoughts

Below is a link to a blog that published the “Explanatory Note” that Gabriela Representative Luzviminda Ilagan and Emerenciana De Jesus wrote along with bill (I did not include it here because it would have made the post too long).

It’s a relatively short bill and not such a bitch to read or to understand. I’ve already made my stand known on this issue and after reading the bill I’ve found that it was actually pretty conservative.

When you read back to Section (B) you’ll see that the divorce we’re talking about here is only applicable to couples who for all intents and purposes are already apart. The only possible objections I can see are on the (B)(5) and that’s already after I was purposely looking for bad points.

The possible question will arise: who,what,when,and how will be differences deemed irreconcilable causing irreparable breakdown of the marriage? And it is neatly answered in Art. 59.

So basically no one can get divorced right off the bat. A couple has to be legally or de facto separated for a number of years first before even being able to file for divorce after which it’ll take another six months before it goes to trial (barring special circumstance such as safety). And the court is compelled to take steps to reconcile the couple and can only give the divorce a go-ahead after they are thoroughly convinced that there is no other solution.

That is a lot of hoops to jump through and if you really want a divorce you must need it badly to invest this much time and effort just to legally get away from a person.

But then I saw this neat little article from (Is disciplers even a word?)

After reading it I was sure that none of them even bothered to read the bill or else they would have realized that the stand they are fighting so staunchly against is nothing like the imagined monster they make it out to be.

The first red flag was his mention of God. Ok, you’re religious but that’s not a valid argument. (I say again) The Church, the Bible or whatever they say has and should have no influence on state legislation just as the government has no right to interfere with religious affairs, that is the separation of Church and State (I can’t believe how many times I have to say it).

The next four topics he raises gives credibility to my assumption that he has not or has no intention of actually reading the bill. If he did then he would know that the divorce talked about in the proposed Bill is only an extension of legally or de facto separated couples, or applies the same principles to legally separated couples. But lets discuss them anyway.

He does not see divorce as a solution to wives and children being abused. Really? Does he provide a better solution? No, but let’s put that aside for a moment. He goes on to say that divorce will actually “extend to the growing problem of immorality and sexually related diseases and problems such as unwanted pregnancies and sexually related diseases.” *cough*Non-sequitur*cough*

In the next paragraph he says “Simply because people were given the so-called choice and chance to change while the fact is, it is where the so-called “rights” is abused. It is where many people make use of the right and abuse it for their own self-centered selfish quest for happiness and will only bring them to the same situation again and again and again. That’s why you will see people divorced not just once, nor twice, but multiple times.”

I invoke once again the amendment to Art. 59 where a dissident couple will have to convince a court that the union is irreparable before a divorce could be decreed. It will take a lot of money, time, effort, and money to go through the task of a divorce trial convincing an entire court that your marriage is a failure. I doubt anyone outside the circle of politics, big business, and entertainment will have the resources to go through it “multiple times” and let’s face it they’re already doing it anyway *cough*Kris Aquino*cough*

We do have agreements though. I have stated that the reason for my stand against divorce is based on the observable immaturity of the so-called “Filipino family”. Filipinos as a people do not have the responsible backbone to follow through on something as important as a marriage when given an easy way out because they do not think with their brains but with their ‘hearts’ (as if the heart could ever think of anything).

More often than not marriage is jumped into prematurely even without divorce, and that is my fear. Apparently he thinks the same because he already stated “it could be easily abused” (even though I already provided that it would be highly improbable). However, I, on the one hand, am hoping am wrong about my observation and assertion on the Filipino temperament. There is a small sliver of hope that they may not be jumping the gun, that maybe it is time to trust that the mass populace of the country has gained a more mature way of dealing with society and their peers. He, on the other hand, uses it as an ace in the hole, as if this behavior is cemented into their DNA, irrevocable and cannot or ever be changed.

In the next topic he provides the pros and cons of divorce or at least he tried. The pros were…well, poorly represented is a very polite way of putting it. Saying he dribbled through it with general-isms without putting in much thought or research is a very accurate way of putting it.

My goodness… is there any solid advantages of divorce bill than being self-centered and selfish reasons?”

Yes, if you actually bothered trying to put together a coherent list of advantages you might have been more believable.

He did put together a respectable list of negative side effects (And by that I mean copy-pasted it). The entire list he attributed to another blog post which posted its source as the Michigan Family Law Journal.

Here’s the answer. The studies were conducted on the after-effect of divorce laws IN THE UNITED STATES! Anyone who even bothers to look at any law book or even has a minute understanding of political law would know that no universal rules exist. Laws, though covering the same basic topic vary from one territory to another as per the cultural inclination and economic needs. A study made in the United States cannot apply to the Philippines because of the mere fact that we have different laws.

I have already said that the provisions proposed in the bill are very conservative. They are not the same laws that govern the State of Michigan, they are not the laws of the United States. Therefore the effects you have supplied are not valid.

I also scanned the Michigan Family Law Journal it may be my untrained eyes but I didn’t see the stats you were talking about, just a collection of trial manuscripts but if I’m wrong please inform me I’ve already gone over and beyond checking your source for you.

He goes then to provide a “real answer” and what is this real answer? “Fear of God and teach Morality… Morality… and Morality…. If we have the fear of God and we understand what morality means, then we understand the real answer to the growing problems related to violence against women and children” (of course).

It’s interesting that he mentioned understanding morality because if he actually studied his religion and the book it’s based on he might actually find how amoral it all is.

On a last note he quoted…someone (probably himself) as saying “HWAG PO TAYO MAGING “GAYA-GAYA SA IBANG BANSA”. Nag-approve lang ang Malta na magkaroon sila ng divorce, tayo gusto na rin natin. Wala na bang maisip na batas ang mga Congressman and Congresswomen natin kundi mga gaya-gaya na batas?

It’s a bit idiotic to say since though it may be a divorce law it is no way ‘gaya-gaya’ since the provisions are different. And no, laws are not thought up out of the blue as if lawmakers were professional dream prophets but are based on the perceived need of the populace. And the bill was (as I wrote) was filed on July of last year, way before Malta reached its final decision.

In conclusion, very little research was done in the writing of article that it borders on propaganda. He only has the vaguest idea of what he is talking about it is disheartening that people actually read it. We may find ourselves on the same side of the line for now but I refuse to stand next to you because you are clearly an amateur researcher in verifying your most basic claims and the arguments you proposed were fallacious and opinion-driven.

Gays and what we should do with them

Posted in Gulo ng buhay, Neurotics with tags , , , on Hunyo 26, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

In recent news one of the most explosive articles to come out of the Western world is that New York has become the sixth state in the United States to legalize gay marriage.

Before we get to it I should say that this article has a few goals to achieve:

1. To proclaim my stand on same-sex marriage

2. To proclaim the reasons for said stand

3. To discuss homosexuality and AIDS

4. To discuss homosexuality and families

5. To discuss the word “marriage”

6. To discuss religion and homosexuality

Piggybacking on this report TV Patrol posted alongside it another story of six gay couples getting married in Baguio City. And Rated K covering a unique supposedly gay couple finding love and are about to get married.

First things first, I support the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Oh I can hear the derivative head comments now.

Ah bakla rin yan kaya niya sinusuportahan mga bakla”

Siguro gusto rin niyang magpakasal sa same-sex partner niya


To which my official answer would be: “I do not have the time nor the patience to deal with ad hominems. If there are no other more substantial arguments made against my already proclaimed stand I humbly yet strongly advise my detractors to shut the fuck up lest they once again demonstrate their ill-bred, uneducated, fallacious, narrow-minded, discriminatory bigotry to provide further evidence of their inherent foolishness.”

To clarify, No, I am not a homosexual and I do not particularly approve of their choice of lifestyle. However, I do support the legalization of same-sex marriage on the grounds of equal rights. That’s it. Pure and simple.

There are no, I repeat, THERE ARE NO substantial arguments against gay marriage. The loudest and most violent opposers to its legalization is (surprise surprise) the Catholic Church. Thankfully the Church has no influence on what bills can be enacted and what bills can’t, at least that’s how its supposed to work.

The assertion that same-sex unions can result in AIDS is a myth because the only way ANYONE can get AIDS is if they have sex with someone who already has it or if you ingest/absorb an infected persons blood. It doesn’t magically appear without reason merely because you perform anal.

History itself proves the assertion false because AIDS was first reported on June 5, 1981. The earliest known positive identification of HIV-1 was in 1959 and 1960 and genetic studies have shown that it was disease that was passed from chimpanzees to man around the 1900’s.

According to the medical timeline HIV didn’t even exist in humans before the 20th century. However, there are literary and scholarly evidence that proves to us that homosexuality was practiced in society even before the Birth of Christ. If homosexuality caused AIDS then it should logically have existed and discovered centuries before it actually was.

Detractor: “Maybe it already existed during that time and only now do we know what it is. It could have been killing people before only we didn’t have a name for it.”

The answer for that is simple. If AIDS did exist back then the casualty would have been so large that it should effectively wiped out a large fraction of the Earths population, and being such an event a record of that event would have been established. Such examples would include The Black Plague, Polio, Small pox, and the Spanish influenza. And we know that two of these epidemics of the early world are now mild nuisances. If a disease such as AIDS which is classified as a pandemic in the modern world imagine the effect it would have had in the early world. A disease such as AIDS would surely be recorded and no such records exist because like AIDS it didn’t exist back then.

Therefore: Homosexual intercourse does not cause AIDS in two healthy homosexual individuals.

Another myth about homosexuality is that children who grow up being raised by homosexual parents will become confused about their own sexuality and thus live lives crooked and unfulfilled.

Well I can solve this in less than a minute. There have been studies on homosexual couples raising children and real life situations demonstrating that situation. There are no untoward effects on the children that are inherently exclusive to homosexual parents. The problems faced by children raised by homosexual parents (from now on referred to as G) are similar if not exactly the same problems faced by children raised heterosexual parents (from now on referred to as S).

If G would experience teasing in class the same could be said for S. If G is experiencing social ostracism the same could be said for S. If G has suicidal tendencies the same could be said for S. If G is confused about his sexuality (and lets be honest) the same can be said for S.

The only conceivable problem would arise if S would deride and discriminate against G for having homosexual parents. A problem that is not caused by the homosexuality of G’s parents but by the bigotry and discriminatory attitude of S.

Besides these two myths the only argument that can be made would be from the religious point of view. And there is a whole mix of different variations people will go through in whether they accept or reject gay marriage.

There are some people who like to go to the definition of the word “marriage”. In fact this is their most common weapon. Well, if your only argument against something is a definition of a word then it is easily remedied. Change it. Words have definitions but they can (especially in constitutional terms) be changed. Definitions are not carved into stone. This is easily understood once you accept that words are mere representations of objects or concepts. Words don’t really exist, they’re just semantic symbolism created to make communication easier and faster.

Words are flexible and the world won’t collapse if you modify its definition without harming its core meaning. For example:

Revolution can mean a political uprising or the orbit of a planetary object around the sun.

The term “legal voting age” formerly prohibited individuals under the age of twenty-one to vote until it was changed to eighteen.

So to base your entire argument solely on the definition of a word when issues like equality of rights far outstrips it in importance is childish to say the least.

There are the people who reject it because of their religion (that’s the most common). But there are also people who are religious but want to support same-sex marriage and are trying to make the two agree.

Well I’m sorry to disappoint but religion (in this case Christianity) is very clear and making it agree with same-sex marriage is impossible.

I pulled the following example from the Yahoo News comments section of the article I was talking about earlier. And if the person mentioned below would like to have their comment taken out of this article just inform me and I will oblige.

Maria Aragon said: Man created the Bible. God does not discriminate and never will. 🙂

She admits that the Bible is not the inherent and divine word of God which I agree with but at the same time asserts Gods existence when the only proof that the Christian religion has ever provided for the existence of such a being is the Bible. Discounting the Bible is the same as renouncing your faith. So, that doesn’t work.

However, Miss Aragon is on her way. The hardest part in making a Christian see the utter immorality of the Christian religion is to make them see that the Bible is not a book wiped across the brain of God but a collection of fairy tales composed by desert people.

There is no difference between denying a gay person the right to marry and denying a woman the right to vote or denying a black man to sit at the front of the bus. These are inherent rights given to every person regardless and there are no substantial arguments against certain people having them. This is one of the foundations of our Constitution. Denying them any of these rights is an injustice.

If you are against same-sex marriage for no substantial reason then you are treating these people as second-class citizens and don’t even deny it because you are. You are no better than the Nazis were to the Jews. True you never committed genocide and mass torture against homosexuals but your religion (Christianity) tells you that they will suffer an eternity in hellfire for no other reason that they are homosexuals.

And the Christian homosexual community should think about that. The God and savior you subscribe to is condemning every breathe you take as a sin and will send you to Hell after you die. And you didn’t do anything wrong. Is that justice?

Do these “children in Chirst” even realize the hate speech they are spewing against an otherwise benign presence in their society. Gays are commonsight in Philippine society and these people are subtly and not-so-subtly being told their entire lives are a sin and they don’t deserve the same rights as other people.

There are even questions as: “What’s the point of giving them marriage anyway? They could just live together.”

The point is the option should be available to them whether they would opt for it or not. It’s the same stand for the RH Bill nobody’s going to be forced to use contraceptives the option is merely made available to the impoverished classes. They are free to use them or not but the choice is there. No one decides but the people involved, no old withered priests to interfere, and that is how it should be. That is whats called freedom (in the legal sense of course). And there are legal advantages to being married ie. inheritance matters, taxes, emergency response etc.

If a healthy financially stable heterosexual couple decide to get married there’s nothing stopping them. If a healthy financially stable homosexual couple decide to get married they can’t. Why? Because God said so? Not only is that a non-substantial argument it doesn’t apply to everyone. Not everyone subscribes to the same God and that is the wisdom behind the separation of Church and State. Not everyone applies the Christian hate speech against gays to their own lives because they are enlightened enough to see that homosexuals are fundamentally no different from heterosexuals and are no more a threat to society than anyone else.

Sure a lot of Christians will say (as they have for years) that acceptance of homosexuality and homosexuality itself is the devils work and that we must reject all of it as behavior from hell and its integration into society will slowly degrade our morals until the world reaches a pitch black abyss of immorality, ending the world and choking us all into the fiery netherworld eternally void from paradise.

There are simpler allusions like: “The new Soddom and Gommorah ”

“Its an abomination”

“God never intended it that way”

“Victory of the devil”

Try to tell me this isn’t hate speech. If there are no other reasons against same-sex marriage besides “God said so” then I’m afraid you logically have nothing to stand on. Since there isn’t any justification for the belief of God in the first place. The only evidence of which is written in a two-thousand year old book of dubious origin with conflicting texts and amoral virtues.

My only critiques of the Baguio couples is that they shouldn’t have gotten married because the sad fact is same-sex marriage is illegal in the Philippines (something that should be addressed and rectified). And the rated K couple aren’t homosexuals because they were physically and sexually attracted to the opposite sex. I don’t care if the one is gay and the other is a lesbian; One has a dick and the other has a vagina that’s opposing genders ergo heterosexualism.

Things our Children will never see (probably)

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on Hunyo 22, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

The times are a-changin’ and we have no choice but to roll with the punches. With the advancement of civilization and technology it is only natural that we discard uneccessary aspects of our lives that have been either replaced or improved. It is my only regret that when it comes to matters of taste the world is at the mercy of tweens. I hope I die before they take over the world, if not I’ll blow my brains out.

Without any further ado here are the list of things our children will never see (except in a museum):

1. The Post Office

“Get ready to imagine a world without the post office. They are so deeply in financial trouble that there is probably no way to sustain it long term. Email, Fed Ex, UPS, and (LBC) have just about wiped out the minimum revenue needed to keep the post office alive. Most of your mail every day is junk mail and bills.”

It’s gotten so bad that most children born after the turn of the century or even in the late 90’s don’t know how to write a letter, not to mention the different kinds and parts etc. An hour is like an eternity to them let alone the few days needed for a letter to be delivered. Which is a real shame because the Manila Post Office is a really nice building if you ever pass it. I just hope they put it to good use after “snail mail” officially dies.

2. The Cheque

“Britain is already laying the groundwork to do away with cheque by 2018. It costs the financial system billions of dollars a year to process cheques. Plastic cards and online transactions will lead to the eventual demise of the cheque. This plays right into the death of the post office. If you never paid your bills by mail and never received them by mail, the post office would absolutely go out of business.”

Which is a real kick in the nuts to me personally because I hate the hassle of the ATM lines. I chose not to transfer from cheque to ATM simply because the line is shorter because everyone has an ATM.

3. The Newspaper

“The younger generation simply doesn’t read the newspaper. They certainly don’t subscribe to a daily delivered print edition. That may go the way of the milkman and the laundry man. As for reading the paper online, get ready to pay for it. The rise in mobile Internet devices and e-readers has caused all the newspaper and magazine publishers to form an alliance. They have met with Apple, Amazon, and the major cell phone companies to develop a model for paid subscription services.”

Again, a personal kick in the jowls for me. I’ll give you three guesses where I work.

4. The Book

“You say you will never give up the physical book that you hold in your hand and turn the literal pages. I said the same thing about downloading music from iTunes. I wanted my hard copy CD. But I quickly changed my mind when I discovered that I could get albums for half the price without ever leaving home to get the latest music. The same thing will happen with books. You can browse a bookstore online and even read a preview chapter before you buy. And the price is less than half that of a real book.

And think of the convenience! Once you start flicking your fingers on the screen instead of the book, you find that you are lost in the story, can’t wait to see what happens next, and you forget that you’re holding a gadget instead of a book.”

I disagree and don’t think the book will going the way of the CD, at least not as fast. For one thing, the data difference and digestion between the two is different. CD’s carry an average range of ten to fifteen songs per album, covering non-stop music play of half a day at most. Books (novels) have pages of at least 300, covering a digestion period of three days if you’re a fast reader and neglect sleep.

The second is the availability of the devices used to appreciate the material. Itunes only became possible because of the Ipod and its various incarnations. In the case of the book however, the only device currently capable of replicating the reading experience is the tablet and for the e-book to become practical enough to threaten the existence of the paperback the tablet must first become much more practical as well.

The last thing is management. Unlike the cut-throat sharks prevalent in record labels during the MTV and CD eras the book industry is relatively benign as long as the subject is worth the trouble of publishing.

5. The Land Line Telephone

“Unless you have a large family and make a lot of local calls, you don’t need it anymore. Most people keep it simply because they’ve always had it.”

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the texting capital of the world. In fact, the C and D social classes are practical enough to already opt out of using landlines and just go for cellphones for each family member. It’s cheap if you know where to buy and if you manipulate the right promo you can fully maximize every peso you use on unlimited texts and calls. You can actually see the desperation in companies like PLDT who are trying to salvage the land line by providing it alongside internet service as a set.

Note: the word salvage in the preceding sentence is used in the American definition of the word and not the colloquial opposite.

6. Music

“This is one of the saddest parts of the change story. The music industry is dying a slow death. Not just because of illegal downloading. It’s the lack of innovative new music being given a chance to get to the people who would like to hear it. Greed and corruption is the problem. The record labels and the radio conglomerates are simply self-destructing. Over 40% of the music purchased today is “catalogue items,” meaning traditional music that the public is familiar with. Older established artists. This is also true on the live concert circuit. To explore this fascinating and disturbing topic further, check out the book, “Appetite for Self-Destruction” by Steve Knopper, and the video documentary, “Before the Music Dies.””

Proof of this is the re-emergence of Jennifer Lopez, Mariah Carey, Kylie Minouge etc. I’m not saying the last three examples are bad, it’s just stating a point that new artists can’t afford to push out on their own because their literally being robbed right and left and the only ones that can afford to be creative are the established artists who have already profited from past works.

The only way anyone new can get in is if they void themselves of all intellectual thought in composing their songs and merely echo the popular bubblegum inanities that are prevalent in the largest sub-culture audience they want to sell to. Examples of these are the idiot pop stylings of Justn Bieber and Rebecca Black

7. Television

“Revenues to the networks are down dramatically. Not just because of the economy. People are watching TV and movies streamed from their computers. And they’re playing games and doing lots of other things that take up the time that used to be spent watching TV. Prime time shows have degenerated down to lower than the lowest common denominator (Amen to that!). Cable rates are skyrocketing and commercials run about every 4 minutes and 30 seconds (Speak the truth!). I say good riddance to most of it. It’s time for the cable companies to be put out of our misery. Let the people choose what they want to watch online and through Netflix.”

As much as I agree on the degeneration on the quality of entertainment presented in television I don’t think the television will disappear from our lives completely. The argument presented is merely a toss up between television and computer internet. The question is simply how you want to put those two things together (because that is the natural next step). As already stated Netflix has put television within the internet (a local version of this is I want tv). However, Sony has already started marketing its opposing cousin, the internet within television. So it becomes a battle of opposing preferences that are equally viable much like the battle between HD DVD and Blu-ray. Only time will tell who the eventual winner will be.

8. The “Things” That You Own

“Many of the very possessions that we used to own are still in our lives, but we may not actually own them in the future. They may simply reside in “the cloud.” Today your computer has a hard drive and you store your pictures, music, movies, and documents. Your software is on a CD or DVD, and you can always re-install it if need be. But all of that is changing. Apple, Microsoft, and Google are all finishing up their latest “cloud services.” That means that when you turn on a computer, the Internet will be built into the operating system. So, Windows, Google, and the Mac OS will be tied straight into the Internet. If you click an icon, it will open something in the Internet cloud. If you save something, it will be saved to the cloud. And you may pay a monthly subscription fee to the cloud provider. In this virtual world, you can access your music or your books, or your whatever from any laptop or handheld device. That’s the good news. But, will you actually own any of this “stuff” or will it all be able to disappear at any moment in a big “Poof?” Will most of the things in our lives be disposable and whimsical? It makes you want to run to the closet and pull out that photo album, grab a book from the shelf, or open up a CD case and pull out the insert.”

As I’ve said before, the proposed cloud service is a very dangerous thing to ponder on. Think SkyNet. Yes I’m not kidding. Self-aware robots link together to destroy all humanity. The big issue really isn’t if you actually own the stuff or if it could all disappear in a big “poof” but private documents may be used against you. This service is a breeding ground for hackers, identity thieves, blackmailers, and terrorists. Ok, I may sound paranoid and insane but there should have been someone saying the same thing when the world decided to go nuclear, and maybe Chernobyl wouldn’t have happened.

9. Privacy

“If there ever was a concept that we can look back on nostalgically, it would be privacy. That’s gone. It’s been gone for a long time anyway (especially if the cloud service pushes through). There are cameras on the street (not here they aren’t or else it would be one really long porn movie), in most of the buildings, and even built into your computer and cell phone. But you can be sure that 24/7, “They” know who you are and where you are, right down to the GPS coordinates, and the Google Street View. If you buy something, your habit is put into a zillion profiles, and your ads will change to reflect those habits. “They” will try to get you to buy something else. Again and again.”

Yeah, our kids might as well just read about this in fairy tales. The only privacy humanity will ever get after maybe fifty years down the road will be after a nuclear holocaust or living in a cave.

A friendly Reminder: Beware the Con!

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , on Hunyo 19, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

The internet is a wonderful tool that has allowed humanity to make the world itself and all the wonders it holds readily available for all. Information from across countries and time are readily shared. But it also a place of danger where fortunes are stolen on a daily basis. Fortunes sometimes translated into the millions.

There are such people who will do anything to gain the upper hand and as long as they cannot see your face their conscience will not burden them. Another wonder made possible through the digital age. They will approach you, of that there is no doubt. It is only a question of when and how.

You must be wary of people whom you do not know especially when you cannot see them.For that is where demons lurk.

Here is an example of one such approach:

Dear Sir / Madam Please read.
It is my sincere pleasure  at this moment to exhibit my total trust bestowed on you in accordance to my Proposed partnership relationship with you  of which I am fully convinced that you will really welcome my partnership with you in this transaction  Being very sceptical about dealing with Africans in such transaction, Ranging from the height of fraudulent activities encompassing the African communities. Now it is my Godly nursed intention to prove myself to you that I am very much different from others which you must have come across.
I hereby attested my accepted conclusion to take upon my gentle self and to join hands together to cover any unforeseen expenses that may be involved here till the Final Transfer of the Funds to our Correspondent Bank before its Final remittance into your Nominated Bank Account.
This is to convince you of my spirited acceptance to have you as a confidant in a business of this magnitude knowing that you will not turn me down come-what-may, regarding this Claim/Transfer to boost my planned establishment of a funding Company out of Africa . In other Words, I went into a more concrete arrangement in couriering to your doorstep, a total of US$10.5Million Dollars through INTER-BANK TRANSFER. This amount of Money belongs to our Deceased Customer as there were no claims over this Dormant Balance Account for a period of many Years.
Therefore, I am in need of a Reliable Partner that would come forward to put claims over the Funds for its Transfer into his/her Foreign Bank Account. This is because I am the Director of Foreign Remittance Department of my Bank for secures Transfer of these Funds without any Hindrances.
All I am expecting from you, as a matter of greatest urgency and importance is your sincerity and Honesty as I have some of the Needed Legal Documents to prove that this Business is Lawful for its onward Remittance.I urgently want you to send all the demanded Personal Information’s below to me as soon as you receive this PROPOSAL in order to show your readiness and Willingness in this Proposed Business.
1) Your Full Name…………………….. …
2) Your Age……………………… …………
3) Your Mobile and Home Phone Number…………..
4) Your Fax Number…………………..
5) Your Country of Nationality…………………………. .
6) Your Occupation……………….. ……..
7) Sex……………………… …………………
8) Alternative E-mail Address/ ……………………
Finally, you have to keep this Proposal confidential and secret from your Relations, Partners and Colleagues for our success in this Transaction as the basis of this Business is Secrecy. I promise you that I would protect your Personal Interest as this Business is 100 risk-free.
Therefore, I want you to express your interest to engage in this Business with me because your share is 40% of the Funds in Question so that I can send to you the TEXT OF APPLICATION which you have to Fill and send to the E-mail Address of the Bank.
I look forward for your immediate Positive response.
My regards to you and the family,

Mr Costa Adama

NEVER give your personal information to ANYONE over the internet. Or you WILL regret it.

This has been a friendly reminder from Blue Dela Kanluran.

Again, I hate kids

Posted in Gulo ng buhay with tags , , , , , , on Hunyo 15, 2011 by Blue Dela Kanluran

Alright, it’s been a while since I’ve posted anything on here that related to the country other than my lit from the past. So, on the occassion of my finally finding something interesting in the news (besides #standuptoChina) I’m posting my thoughts on not one but two articles that have caught my eye today.

The first one is about dealing with the ‘Batang Hamog’. For those who don’t know what that is, they are a gang of street children that are notorious in the streets of the Metro. Their modus operandi is one of the children will distract the driver while the other dirty brats will unlock the doors and steal everything in reach. So usually they are meet with angry words or furious beatings (something they deserve in my opinion).

But according to child psychologist Ali Ng Gui (raise your hand if you don’t think this is a real name) these are not the proper methods in dealing with Batang Hamog or street children in general. They need to treated with understanding because they expect violence which causes their twisted mindsets.

Well, truth be told, it’s a little hard not to try and beat someone to death if that someones trying to rob you blind let alone try to be understanding. I doubt these kids will do any listening since their lack of education, barred by the chance because of the poverty of their parents which is no ones fault but their own, will render them unable to change their indoctrinated mindsets of stealing because of poverty is alright as it is demonstrated to be equally unchangable in biological adults. I say biological because only in body are they deemed to be of age as most of them are callous and immature when dealing with the rest of the world.

But that’s just half of it. Yesterday news broke out that youth group is asking the government for student discounts for the MRT/LRT. Obviously, these youth groups are too busy entertaining their own hubris to notice the situation for the rest of the country. I’ve already said it before in countering a columnist when he said something along the lines of this and I’ll say it again.

Government subsidies are losing billions every year to keep the prices as low as they already are and you want a discount?! Not to mention that the service is only available to Mtero Manila, not even the entire populous of the National Capital Region can use it readily. They say P50 pesos is a big help to the humble student, well a billion pesos will be a very big help to the country for programs all Filipinos can actually use.

If they only pull head from ass once in a while they will understand why such a discount is impossible and that a price hike is only inevitable (hopefully sooner rather than later). I live in Manila and even I can see how this affects the rest of the country.

They used the reasoning that a senior discount is available so why not one for students? Well, as I disagree with the senior discounts as well there is a small reason why one is avaialble and not the other. And that is seniors have spent the last 40+ years of their lives paying taxes and actually contributing to society while students have not event lived half as long as they have worked. So, if discounts are to be given seniors are far more deserving than students.

And don’t give me that children are the future crap. Children have been the future for as long as I can remember and we’re still mired in shit, only going deeper. Yes I was once a student and a child. but as far as I can recall I never stole from somebodys car or asked for discounts when it wasn’t due, especially when thousands of people are losing their tax money over it.