low grades... ugh...
Hell of a non-academic kind. On Wednesday, I have to teleport from UPCM to my home for an online meeting. Of course, I wouldn't be having this kind of problem if upmnet will be allowing Skype.
Friday will be the most horrifying day where I have to rehearse at 12AM, trans for the morning lecture and then perform three times (2 dances and 1 song) then on Saturday I have to go teach my chem tutee in order to have money to spend for the Christmas celebrations. Then I have to study for two exams the following week.
And something important will probably pop up and I'll even have more stuff to cram into my self.
Have I mentioned I already lost the weight I gained last sembreak? I already see my too prominent cheekbones making me look more skull like than ever.
Through all this personal mess, I find myself less attached to social issues such as the Maguindanao massacre, injustice to the LGBT community and the presidential race.
And I've just heard a retired professor on a religious radio talk show (not that the nature of the program is to blame... or maybe it is?) about how climate change is caused by water vapor, changes in sun radiation and other non-carbon factors. Really irresponsible and unethical for that professor. You've not been teaching for 9 years and probably hasn't kept with the times (or you follow some dubious sources). Regarding fields where you are not or no longer an expert, please shut up or provide a disclaimer at the very least. Last thing the Philippines need is the emergence of a climate change skeptic community. Fortunately, we are at the mercy of climate change and the skeptics would really have a hard time convincing people not to worry and just accept what is happening.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The comments on a certain PhilStar Article makes me want to vomit. How come there are still people who think that being part of the LGBT is a mental disease? How can they not see the LGBT as a legitimate marginalized sector in our society? Actually, the LGBT is one of the best examples of a marginalized sector needing dire representation.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
It is true that the State (actually, everybody) should protect the youth from moral and spiritual degradation.
As such we have the minimum drinking age law, laws that prevent them from being jailed and institutions that offer counseling to victims of abuse to prevent a downhill spiral to becoming sociopaths. The COMELEC, however; seems to have forgotten to check the definition of the words "moral" and "spiritual." They should realize that moral, spiritual and religious are not synonyms. Nor is it right (in every sense of the word) to use Catholic and Islamic doctrine to justify their claim that LGBTs can cause moral degradation. The scientist in me is shouting that they should have atleast cited a study wherein children raised by homosexual couples are more immoral (or atleast exhibit deviant behavior) than conventionally raised children. They could also show that schools who accept LGBT teachers have higher rates of juvenile delinquency. Raising the Bible and Qu'ran just doesn't cut it. They may offend you but that doesn't mean it is immoral. Bad breath is offensive but it is certainly not immoral. And they shouldn't even dare to claim the homosexuality is a transmittable disease because its not. It is not a disease period.
Returning to morality and spirituality, the government being a secular institution (we are not in the Unitied Catholic and Muslim States of the Philippines, right?) should use secular ethics and principles or at the very least use it in adjunct to their arguments citing dominant religious ethics. They should allow for an environment where the youth are allowed to make their own decisions. They shouldn't be an environment censored and controlled by the ruling class. The COMELEC has no right to impose their beliefs on everyone especially if those beliefs can only be supported using supernatural beings and religious texts.
Let us expand their argument a bit to LGBTs are harmful to the youth. As far as the current evidence shows, LGBTs are not a separate human species which can carry but not be harmed by diseases that can kill the youth. They are equally capable of gaining and sharing skills and knowledge. They are equally capable of contributing to society. Nor are they the sole carriers of the sins of society such as alcoholism and polygamous relationships because straight people are capable of those things and may even exhibit them at proportions greater than the LGBT. It bothers me that the only harm I could think of is the nauseated feeling some homophobic people get from seeing LGBT couples... wait, seeing LGBT people just breathing make them sick. Unless this brand of nausea has caused massive deaths and disabilities or calamities the level of Ondoy, I see no reason to mark the LGBT as a harmful agent (in terms of health and morals) to society thus the youth shouldn't even be protected from them.
As such we have the minimum drinking age law, laws that prevent them from being jailed and institutions that offer counseling to victims of abuse to prevent a downhill spiral to becoming sociopaths. The COMELEC, however; seems to have forgotten to check the definition of the words "moral" and "spiritual." They should realize that moral, spiritual and religious are not synonyms. Nor is it right (in every sense of the word) to use Catholic and Islamic doctrine to justify their claim that LGBTs can cause moral degradation. The scientist in me is shouting that they should have atleast cited a study wherein children raised by homosexual couples are more immoral (or atleast exhibit deviant behavior) than conventionally raised children. They could also show that schools who accept LGBT teachers have higher rates of juvenile delinquency. Raising the Bible and Qu'ran just doesn't cut it. They may offend you but that doesn't mean it is immoral. Bad breath is offensive but it is certainly not immoral. And they shouldn't even dare to claim the homosexuality is a transmittable disease because its not. It is not a disease period.
Returning to morality and spirituality, the government being a secular institution (we are not in the Unitied Catholic and Muslim States of the Philippines, right?) should use secular ethics and principles or at the very least use it in adjunct to their arguments citing dominant religious ethics. They should allow for an environment where the youth are allowed to make their own decisions. They shouldn't be an environment censored and controlled by the ruling class. The COMELEC has no right to impose their beliefs on everyone especially if those beliefs can only be supported using supernatural beings and religious texts.
Let us expand their argument a bit to LGBTs are harmful to the youth. As far as the current evidence shows, LGBTs are not a separate human species which can carry but not be harmed by diseases that can kill the youth. They are equally capable of gaining and sharing skills and knowledge. They are equally capable of contributing to society. Nor are they the sole carriers of the sins of society such as alcoholism and polygamous relationships because straight people are capable of those things and may even exhibit them at proportions greater than the LGBT. It bothers me that the only harm I could think of is the nauseated feeling some homophobic people get from seeing LGBT couples... wait, seeing LGBT people just breathing make them sick. Unless this brand of nausea has caused massive deaths and disabilities or calamities the level of Ondoy, I see no reason to mark the LGBT as a harmful agent (in terms of health and morals) to society thus the youth shouldn't even be protected from them.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
My parents "accidentally" printed a whole CD of pictures... bad pictures... bad pictures taken by my brother. Think how much that cost! Money wasted just because they can't follow my very simple and clear instructions. Now whenever I look at our pictures from japan, I'll remember this shitload of a mess. I feel angry again.
On the other hand, I finally found evidence that foodies and people at the cooking network are full of BS regarding food. Buy local! Buy freaking local! Like that'll save the world. I was always wondering how efficient it is to transport one crate of tomatoes over a few miles versus a thousand crates over thousands of miles. And shudder at how they romanticize the life of farmers, they should really try going to developing countries and ask farmers how "wonderful" their lives are. NGC also has fault with their food lovers guide to the world series by trying to promote the organic and local only movements. Blegh... ideology over reason. People being brainwashed to buy goods grown the natural way and shunning over processed foods. For that matter, what is the meaning of over processed? Of course, in the environmental sense, consuming foods with less carbon input is indeed better but you have to look at the whole picture. Maybe freezing foods or turning them into long shelf life forms are more efficient than selling them in their original state. Maybe country X needs this fruit grown in country Y. So I'm ranting... I also feel that the local foods only movement is a way of oppressing the agricultural countries whose economies rely on a strong international market.
On the other hand, I finally found evidence that foodies and people at the cooking network are full of BS regarding food. Buy local! Buy freaking local! Like that'll save the world. I was always wondering how efficient it is to transport one crate of tomatoes over a few miles versus a thousand crates over thousands of miles. And shudder at how they romanticize the life of farmers, they should really try going to developing countries and ask farmers how "wonderful" their lives are. NGC also has fault with their food lovers guide to the world series by trying to promote the organic and local only movements. Blegh... ideology over reason. People being brainwashed to buy goods grown the natural way and shunning over processed foods. For that matter, what is the meaning of over processed? Of course, in the environmental sense, consuming foods with less carbon input is indeed better but you have to look at the whole picture. Maybe freezing foods or turning them into long shelf life forms are more efficient than selling them in their original state. Maybe country X needs this fruit grown in country Y. So I'm ranting... I also feel that the local foods only movement is a way of oppressing the agricultural countries whose economies rely on a strong international market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)