...thankful for a big family…

Cute. The PNP director is missing as of this writing. News said he was supposed to have landed at the airport yesterday (October 20) at 4PM, but there is no trace of him as of yet. Airport director Angel Atutubo (the guy with a million answers about Uncle Jun’s “VIP treatment”) claims that the PNP does not have any reason to make his arrival hidden.

 

Backtrack. The PNP director is packing in a lot of heat right now, as he and several others were detained in Russia after some discrepancy with the money they have, I think. No, I don’t have full details, I’ve been reading through some of the articles and watching some of the news, but I can’t say I have full authority on knowledge about this one. What I know is this: PNP retirees and soon to be retirees can’t get shit for their benefits and retirement funds, but these people in the higher echelon of the PNP, including the newly appointed chief/director, get to go out of the country for God knows what with their wives and God knows who. Now, again, government is trying to dispel it. They’re giving crappy reasons like its “private money”, or someone “gave money to buy an expensive watch”, and stuff like that. One day it’s this reason, the next is this reason. If yesterday’s reason wasn’t good enough, someone comes up and the next day to try to make up a “better reason” which makes it all the more intriguing, as they’re trying to justify that the funds that they had there, which was 3 times the supposed actual value they were supposed to bring there, was actually legal and should have no issues surrounding it.

 

Miriam Santiago made another brilliant (being sarcastic here) comment last night in a news program: “We should know where the money came from because if that came from public funds, then that is a crime. If that came from a private entity, then it also is a crime of extortion.”

 

Talk about wanting to make it in the news. Hey, she did get it though, a spot in the news.

 

That’s why I’m thankful for having a big family. If we didn’t then Uncle Jun might be in the spot that PNP director is in right now: lost in anonymity. Who the heck knows if Gen. Atutubo hadn’t slipped him out of the tarmac yet yesterday? Who the heck knows if he was already taken yesterday and silenced? Who the heck knows if he was brought some place to be bitched-slapped around for getting caught, and then given a full-detailed story of what they were trying to say here while he was detained so that they could have a cohesive story? Who the heck knows if he’s going to be tortured to take all the blame for himself, so that everyone else is acquitted and he gets to get all the burn?

 

Oh I know, the puppet master herself.

 

 

Movies on Theatres and in Google

 

If only you have two hours, or if you have a PSP or an IPOD which can accommodate a 2-hour movie, search for a downloadable version of the Zeitgeist movie in Google. Google has google video which has an interface similar to youtube, so you can watch it on your computer for better resolution. On the same site, one of the versions offer a downloadable file for your PSP or IPOD. The movie’s title is “Zeitgeist”. As far as I can remember, it is one of the most used terms by the phenomenological philosopher Martin Heidegger to describe his philosophy. Literally meaning “spirit” (geist) and “time” (zeit), it describes what is “here and now”. (Salamat kali sa literal term. Xenxa philo friends if mei mali. Matagal nang mei kalawang utak ko, so sue me. Haha)

 

The movie’s not for the fickle-minded. I say this because if you don’t have enough faith (if you’re Christian/Catholic), you’d end up denouncing your religion. The first part talks about religion and the role of politics in religion. It’s a good intro, as it really lays a foundation for what the movie is about: political and institutional manipulation. The next 2 parts, I don’t really care about what you think anymore after watching it, I’m just concerned with your faith.

 

But I have this feeling that we might have the same reaction after you watch the last 2 parts: “F*ck Bush. F*ck institutions. F*ck Federal Reserve.”

 

And it’s hard not to notice where Gloria patterns her government to.

 

Movies in theatre: watched Eagle Eye and The Strangers. The former is disturbing in the sense that there is a possibility that every move you make is being watched. The latter is just plain disturbing.

 

Eagle Eye is a great movie that makes you think all the way to the end. While watching the whole film, trying to put yourself in the protagonist’s position, all you can say is “how the hell do you know what I’m doing?” You’d want to look around you to look for anyone watching you. I was really tempted to ring up Che while we were exiting the cinema… hehe…

 

The Strangers is a suspense movie that’s freakishly disturbing. Everyone in the movie becomes a stranger to you, except James, whose name you’d hear repeatedly in the movie. There are only 3 faces you’d get to see in the whole movie. OK, 5, as there were 2 extras. Suspense, you’d get here, story, not too much. Hey, what good is a story if you don’t know who’s who, right? Anyway, The Strangers is filled with just that, “strangers”.

 

Heck, even the end credits name the antagonists as “pin-up girl” and “hooded man”…

 

If I were to describe The Strangers in a single phrase, it would be:

 

 “Are you sure?”

 

 

On Blogging

 

Nasa panahon na tayo ngayon kung saan napakaraming salita ang ating ginagawa. Sa panahon natin naglilitawan ang mga salitang tulad ng “jologs”, “epal”, at ibang kahulugan sa mga katagang “in fairness”, “whatever”, at mga salitang bakla tulad ng “chorva”, “lafang”, at kung anu-ano pa. Ito rin ang panahon kung saan maraming tao na ang gumagawa ng sarili nilang pagbabaybay sa mga salita sa layuning mapaganda itong tingnan, o di kaya’y mapaiksi pa lalo. Para sa akin, “chaka” ang ipinalit ko sa “tsaka”, dahil pareho sila ng tunog kapag binibigkas ito (pero sa mga baklang tulad ni Peter, iba ang ibig sabihin ng “chaka”. Oo, ikaw Peter. Ilang dosenang tao na ang nakakachat at nakakatext ko gamit ang pagbabaybay na yan pero ikaw lang ang nagkomento ng ibang kahulugan sa salitang yan). “Seio” naman sa katagang “sa iyo”.

 

Pero ndi ako nag-iisa. Alam ko ikaw din marahil na nagbabasa nito na mei sariling cellphone ay gumagawa din ng sarili mong pagbabaybay. Kailangan kasing magkasya sa 160 na letra ang mensahe mo para ndi sumobra sa piso ang gusto mong sabihin sa text.

 

Hindi na tuloy malayong isipin na marami nang tao ang hirap bumaybay ng maayos. Hindi na bago ang makitang mali mali ang pagkakasulat ng mga salita lalo sa mga sulat-kamay na artikulong ipinapasa sa eskwelahan. Hindi rin bago ang makarinig ka na lang sa isang lugar ng magtatanong ng tamang spelling ng “Wednesday” o di kaya’y “beautiful”. Idagdag na natin ang salitang “bureaucracy”. Kung walang spellcheck ang MS Word, malamang durog din ang mga thesis sa tamang baybay ng mga salita.

 

Text lingo. Marami ang nakakaintindi, pero hindi wastong pagsulat.

 

Nauuso na ang blog. Marami nang tao ang may sariling blog. Pero may ilan ilan na text lingo ang gamit sa pagbblog. Kadalasan, hindi naman kailangang 160 na letra lang ang blog mo. Kadalasan, libre naman magblog. Dahil dyan, ating sanayin ang ating sarili na magblog gamit ang wastong pagbabaybay ng mga salita. Siguro darating din ang panahon kung saan katanggap tanggap na sa resumé mo ang “im hrdwrkng nd dtrmind nd wud lyk to wrk 4 ur co..:)” pero habang hindi pa dumarating ang panahon na yun, sanayin naman natin na buo at tama ang pagbabaybay natin sa blog.

 

Wala lang. Pakialamero ako eh. Tapos kahit naiinis akong hindi ko maintindihan ang binabasa ko, binabasa ko pa rin.

 

 

On Talking and Listening and Being Aware

 

Countless times, you’ve heard of people saying that there’s a big difference between hearing and listening; the former merely an act of the sense, while the latter is a conscious effort of making sense of that what you hear.

 

Talking is, well, talking. Firing away on topics you want to talk about.

 

Put them together, and you get a conversation. A conversation works when one acts as a receiver, and one acts as somewhat of a sender.

 

Now, as a “talker”, I always try to spark interest with the person I’m talking to, especially if that person is a new acquaintance. I do that because if I don’t think of something of interest to him/her, we fall into dead silence, which I hate, loud as I am. If you get to that interesting topic, the “receiver” will eventually become the “speaker” and you will have a fruitful interaction.

 

With people whom you are normally close with, you want them to be interested in what you’re saying, and not so much of you trying to think of something that they’re interested in. You want them to feel the frustration you feel if you’re stressed, you want them to feel the exhilaration you feel if you’re excited, you want to them to feel mad if you’ve been burnt. It’s sort of a de-stressing mechanism.

 

As a listener, then, you set aside your own thoughts, as this is his/her time to unload. You must act interested, and you actually must genuinely be. You’ll have your time, but at that moment that the speaker opens up to you, it’s his/her time. I mean, speaker wouldn’t open that up with you if he/she isn’t burdened by it. But if you’re really not interested, don’t act that you are. It just gets more frustrating that you keep on talking but the other person’s mind is in his/her cellphone or radio or any other distraction.

 

I’ve felt that. I think I may have made people feel that. And for that, I’m sorry. Thinking of the principle of the golden mean, that is “do unto others what you want others do unto you”, I have to apologize to people whom I may have not paid attention to that much because of the distractions surrounding me. And I have to promise to be a better listener. I’m not stressed with work, but I do want someone who would listen to me. And I mean really listen. I do listen to others a lot too, but I’m not obliging them to listen to me as much. As I said, listen if you want to, but if you’re not interested, don’t act like you are. It makes it that much more frustrating with you trying to act like you want to listen when in fact you can’t wait to share something of your own experience.

 

Now, adding a third person in the mix, it gets more complicated. Person A and person B have been talking for quite a while now. Then person C comes up. If you are one of the 2 persons talking before the third person comes up, you should make a conscious effort that there is another person, and you shouldn’t let him/her be left out. For example, A and B are talking about basketball, as both are guys. Then person C comes up, who is a girl, and wants to talk about her new haircut. You guys have to deviate from your own topic and find a common ground so that everyone can be in on it. If you keep on talking about basketball, girl will feel left out and unwanted. And feeling unwanted is never a good feeling. Being person A, you shouldn’t anymore be fixated on person B, rather, be aware that person C is there and he/she wants to talk about something that happened to him/her.

 

I seem like a self-help book here (thank you Abbie Kwe for the inspiration of being one) talking about blogging and conversation ethics, and its not like its that much of a big deal for me. It’s just that I, being talkative as I am, have seen the faces of people being left out or people who felt “unwanted” when in conversations or in group interactions. And at times I actually felt that feeling. Hence, not wanting it to be done to me, I want people around me to be better listeners and speakers too, that we might not leave people feeling “unwanted”.