Synthesizing the rational with the emotional:

School is trivial--mostly

2007-11-22T06:14:26Z

As many of you know, I've been going through a sort of crisis as of late. I'm debating whether to continue my studies or to just bag the whole idea. After all, institutionalized education is not real. Think about everything that you've ever 'learned' from a class and you will find that most of the material which is presented to you is nothing more than trivia.

In fact, the only thing you ever learn from school is normally not from the class, per se, but rather from the teacher. It is only through people do we ever actually learn anything about the world and life! The rest of it is all just for the “gee, ain't that swell?” value. On the surface, this trivial information shouldn't pose too much of a problem. There's no harm in studying four years of useless, but interesting, information. Making friends, having parties, expanding your social horizons—what harm could possibly come with that?

If that's all school is, then there is no harm. Where it becomes dangerous is when the abstractions of reality, the trivial information, starts to serve as representations of actual reality. This is seen time and time again in mainstream Economics, where the imaginary mathematical worlds inhabited by Economists (which are used to apply policies in the real world) are one of the principle reasons for the dysfunctional, nearly Autistic, economic systems the world sees today (further readings). Many things in mainstream Economics are interesting but they are not applicable to real world situations. The same is true almost everything that students are exposed to in college.

That information is harmless until it is taken to be anything more than trivia.

School, by its nature, is distracted from reality. Students are herded together in artificial groupings, through a curriculum designed to make them “holistic.” To make a student well-rounded is already an unnatural state of being! The world has never been well-rounded, except in the literal sense, and it never will be. This is why many students lament the fact that, once they're in the workplace, seldom do they ever utilize the tools they were given in school. The world is not structured, there is no dropping of classes, there are no prerequisites—things are simply not clean cut. The only way that people learn how to deal with different people is not by grouping them into peer groups but by being exposed to different people!

School becomes a dangerous tool for continuing dysfunctional social systems when the realities of society are forced to adhere to the strict “ivory tower” ideals propagated in the education centers of the world.

It is important to note that this is not an indictment against the ideals peddled by the academics and scholars of the world. While most of the information in school is trivial, they do come from people and can be appropriately synthesized with other ideas. Instead, this post is a ridicule the dangerous habit of taking these ideals at their surface value, that is to say their trivial value, and attempting to apply these ideals as uniformly as they were in academic scenarios. This is missing the real point of education, which is to determine what kind of world is desirable and to equip the students with the critical thinking necessary to manipulate real world conditions in order to achieve these aims. You can never simply apply ideals, you need to work at it and try to give it real-meaning within the world.

Ideals cannot stand alone.

In conclusion, there is nothing taught in school which cannot be learned outside of it. The only redeeming value of school is to give you a venue wherein you can be exposed to other people who may think similar to you and together you can try to rationalize and legitimize the ideals which you are exposed to. Most of the information in school may be trivial, but that simply means you absorb it and decide whether or not it has any, or ever could, have any practical value. Once you've sifted through the information, then your responsibility to become educated enough to use the information you've acquired for the greater good.

Sadly, it seems that often times it is that last part is where institutionalized education fails us the most.

The myth of Filipino acceptance of homosexuality

2007-11-13T04:44:28Z

A common statement I hear from classmates and friends is that "The Philippines is accepting of homosexuals." Sometimes the statement is modified to indicate that Filipinos may not approve of homosexual behavior but they're respectful of homosexuals. I think this is a categorical lie. This lie is propagated by ignorance and refusal to acknowledge the basic tenants of Filipino mentality. But, before I clarify that, let me illustrate an anecdote:

A few weeks ago I was having coffee with a friend. We were discussing the state of homosexuality in The Philippines. My friend's position was that homosexuals (and, by extension, almost all minority groups) are no longer being persecuted. They are given plenty of leeway to behave as they will. In fact, my friend claimed, homosexuals get away with too much. Their lifestyle is radically out of control and society merely tolerates it.

That there, is the key word. Society tolerates homosexuals and their behavior but society does not accept it. Unfortunately, we are a long way from that. I understand my friend's sentiments. Any juxtaposition of a minority group with the majority group will yield substantial differences in behavior. The minority group usually exhibits more overt, definite traits while the majority is commonly perceived as being more "conservative" or "reserved." Doesn't it ever occur to people the reason why minority groups behave more radically, more abnormally, than the mainstream majority is precisely because they are NOT integrated into that mainstream society?

By merely tolerating their behavior, their behavior is still seen as something which is deviant! It is only by the good graces of the majority which they're allowed to flourish at all. Of course they're going to be more self-assertive! It would be suicidal not to be! Society continues to isolate them as a variation of the norm. Given this situation, the minority groups will have little incentive to in any way adhere to the code of conduct dictated by society at large. This dynamic, in turn, leads to increasing polarization of minority groups from the majority.

This propagates social differences.

Homosexuals and other such groups must be accepted in society and no longer merely tolerated. Without this basic acknowledgment of their human rights, there can be no peace between these groups--only a strained existence.

A wasted weekend; or perhaps not

2007-10-29T04:18:01Z

And no, I don't mean wasted in the alcoholic sense--although that would've been nice.

I got terribly sick Friday night so I spent the entire weekend in bed. So sick, in fact, that I was unable to leave my place and since my refrigerator broke last week (last week SO wasn't good to me) I had no food in the house. Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration. I had food, but that food consisted purely of water and crackers. That's how I spent my weekend. Eating crackers, drinking water and watching films.

Overall, it was quite a pathetic sight to see.

As for the films, I watched quite a menagerie of delightful pieces. Secretary, What Dreams May Come, The Late Porter, Beautiful Thing, Better Luck Tomorrow and Rohtenburg to name a few.

Most of the films were enjoyable but I particularly liked What Dreams May Come. When the final line was uttered I felt myself tearing up. The rest of them were interesting but not quite as touching as I had hoped.

Aside from watching films, and trying to ignore the pain, this weekend was also quite a powerful time for introspection. There's nothing like a crippling virus to force you to face yourself. I wrote a lot and developed a lot of interesting ideas down in my notebooks.

Lets hope something comes out of them.

A simple mental procedure

2007-10-12T08:50:59Z

I know that I've probably harped on the topic of birth control enough in some of my recent entries but I find the following statement morally abhorrent although not entirely surprising:

A proposal by the Philippine parliament to spend 22 million dollars buying condoms and birth control pills has been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, it was reported Monday.

The president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, told the Manila Standard Today that the money would be "better spent on education and poverty alleviation projects." [Emphasis added, source]

Perhaps this is my heathenistic, Godless mentality speaking but I see a direct correlation between lowering the birth rate and alleviating the conditions of the poor. Poverty may not be caused by having children, but it is certainly exasperated by it. Education may be grossly underfunded in The Philippines, but a classroom of 40 in an overcrowded school is going to give higher quality education per student than an underfunded school with 80 students in a class. The Catholic Church, in trying to enforce its dogma, is perpetuating the suffering of the poor.

There seems to be an attempt by religious leaders to paint the issue of contraception along moral lines. There is nothing inherently wrong with this (since there are always two sides to a coin) but there seems to be a deliberate attempt to try and remove the economic implications of their moralistic judgments. I do not believe that contraception should be discussed without also weighing in the economic implications of the debate! Nor do I feel that the moralistic propositions against birth control are valid in the slightest.

Only in the murky world of religious logic could forcing children into the world be considered moral. The actions of The Church to keep abortion legal and to prevent access to birth control all in the name of "God's Plan" conjures up strange mental images. I imagine this giant womb in the sky that's cranking out children infinitely to the awaiting conveyor belts which, in turn, take the children to their prospective families. As if the children are already on their way and if you prevent their birth it's equivalent to throwing a cosmic wrench into God's propagation machine.

Of course, this is an absurd analogy but so are the arguments against birth control. There is no evidence to support the claim that birth control increases promiscuity. A clear look at the sheer massive amounts of illegitimate children in The Philippines, and the world, is a clear illustration of this point. People are having unprotected sex right now and they always have. What sort of fantasy world is The Church living in? Furthermore, how can anyone claim that it is morally right to force a child to be born into a home which will, in all likelihood, mistreat and hurt him/her? While The Church harpers on about "responsibility" and "consequences" the rest of us are crying foul. Perhaps Nietzsche was right when he said that Christianity peddles in guilt, because that's certainly what this birth control argument sounds like. It's not about God's Plan, it's about punishment for wrong decisions.

I have to ask though, who are the true victims here? The parents who didn't utilize birth control (whether they had access or not) or the children who are brought into the world knowing that they were not wanted?

It's a simple exercise in humanity.

Shouldn't it be a simple fix?

2007-10-12T06:14:34Z

I find it categorically absurd that despite having an increasingly globalized and integrated system for exchanging information, coordinating directives and networking computers there is, still, a discrepancy between the time indicated on each individual PC.

I mean, why can't all the computers on a network have the same time indicated by default? Is there really a benefit to having each computer have an individually set clock?

Absurd.

Childlike ways

2007-10-03T09:51:40Z

Recently, I've rediscovered the soundtracks of my childhood. Specifically, these refer to the amazing compilations from such classics as The Land Before Time, The Neverending Story and The Last Unicorn. This experience has been one of much contemplation primarily because I've been forced to remember just how fantastical my childhood was. I was never a child who lived in reality. Up until my late teens I inhabited a world filled with deceptive villains, vile conspiracies, majestic heroes and, in general, make believe! It was a world where everything was always possible.

Looking back on the last few years of my life—and how substantially I've changed—I find myself being forced to ask: where did the magic go? I'm not merely talking about the delusional occupation of a fictitious world but, rather, a general fascination with the beauty and unknowns of the world. Why is it that when people age they become less impressed with the wonders around them? It doesn't have to be something entirely fictional like Elves or Dwarves but what about something as simple as the beautiful gust of wind—a gust which seems to encompass your entire being which can lift you to new heights of love and admiration for this beautiful thing we call life. What happened to those days?

I had an interesting conversation with a friend yesterday which put this dilemma in a perspective which I find most illuminating. When you're an infant, it's often said that your entire universe is encapsulated by the boundaries of your crib and your mother's arms. When you become a toddler, the universe expands to include the house and a portion of the yard. This process will continue until you're an adult and the entire world is your empirical reality. This process of shrinking the world has only been heightened over the past century, as transcontinental transportation has increasingly become not an option solely afforded to the opulent or daring but available to the majority of the Earth's population. The Earth, my friends, is shrinking. As our reality, our world, extends to the limits of our atmosphere the world is becoming more and more in our grip. However, there is a downside to this expansion.

As children, with our limited and extremely narrow understanding of the universe around us, our explanations for phenomena that adults may find mediocre is nothing short of beautiful. Let me illustrate with an anecdote:

As a child I was always fascinated by the stars. I did not understand precisely what they were (Pumba's comment in The Lion King about the stars being “gigantic balls of gas” certainly confused me at the time) but, after deep contemplation, I figured them out. Obviously, my undeveloped reasoning process concluded, after the Sun sets it explodes in a million bits of light. Those are the stars we see, it takes them the entire night to squish back together to form the Sun which lights out day.

Obviously, that is not a scientific explanation for the existence of stars. But from the innocence of a child, does it matter? That explanation served a completely valid purpose in my exploration and understanding of the world which encircled me. While now I can confidently state that such an observation, while sensible to the mind of a four year old, is definitively wrong based on modern understanding of science and astronomy. What troubles is me is that, although this is correct, I don't see the importance of knowing the objective truth about the existence of stars.

As children, the world is tiny. It only encompasses our immediate surroundings, everything outside of that is unknown—but precisely because it's unknown, it is infinite. There is no limit to the possible explanations for that vast wilderness which inhabits that which is outside of our reality. Conversely, as adults, the world is huge. It covers not only our immediate surroundings but everything which is within the realm of human knowledge and objective truth—but because everything is explained and there exists an objective truth which one cannot deviate from, the explanations and creativity of spirit which people can utilize is stifled.

For children, the universe is small but infinite whereas, for adults the world is vast but restricted.

Does it really matter why the stars are there?

Love: An ideal with no form

2007-09-14T06:41:38Z

I had a conversation with a recently made friend of mine which had quite a profound impact on the way I view romantic literature (or for that matter, art of all forms). Her question, which she may not have posed necessarily to spark such a cascade of self-reflections, was asking why Love exists in so many manifestations of art when they are, in fact, unreal.

This question had no answer, although her and I bickered about it for a few moments, and it became readily apparent that neither of us would be able to either adequately answer her question or, for that matter, provide a definition for that emotion that could be applied universally to other people. We both have our own respective definitions--and I suspect that everyone has their own unique definition of Love--but, yet, Love is constantly the subject of art. Why are there instances or actions which we, almost in a collective clamor, can say is the result of love but no where is there a clear understanding on what Love is? I get a general feeling that most of us are seeking either to love or be loved but we have no clear idea on how to achieve this or, once achieved, what the objective entails.

As such, I have no intention of laying out a universal definition of Love. That's because any such attempt is going to be futile and easily contradicted. Instead, what I intend to do in this entry is to explain why Love is in itself a definition and not a term that needs to be defined. This argument will focus specifically on the emotion of Love for a couple of reasons. First, it was the topic of the conversation which inspired this entry and, secondly, it's an emotion which I feel a particular affinity to. However, and this bears special emphasis, I feel that the method of approaching Love within this entry has near universal application to the vast array of human emotions. With that cleared, lets get started.

What is Love? This is a question which has perplexed humanity for generations. I've been asked this question by friends and, in turn, I've asked this question to people who I thought would know the answer more accurately than I. I've received a diverse range of answers. Some were cliché and somewhat predictable while others were somewhat unorthodox but all of them were valid. How could something which is so clearly represented, have such an elusive definition? First, we need to change the question.

What is the manifestation of Love? Here, the answers start to converge--although not at first. Some people highlight sex, others separate it. Some people had indicated that their happily married grandparents are manifestations of Love, others have said that the young couples that are seen in the park after hours are Love embodied. Some people have said that God is Love and, on the other hand, that their Love for God is the epitome of Love. At first it would seem that, just as with the definition of Love, things are limited only by the imagination of the individual but... after all of these definitions, you find that just about everyone recognizes actions that are the result of Love. A cynical individual may not consider Romeo's swooning of Juliet to be realistic Love, but they will clearly recognize it as a manifestation of Love from the perspective of the person who created the situation. A young man serenading a woman may seem childish and sexist by my understanding, but I can clearly recognize its legitimacy as an action inspired by Love.

If the manifestations of Love are genuine and accepted by others (even if they're not received well by others) where then does the confusion lie? Why is there this near feverish search for Love by so many people throughout the world?

The answer here, I feel, is deceptively simple. Everyone is too busy searching for Love in the form of how Love is represented by the great poets, artists and romantics. There is an attempt, a drive, to try and find True Love and that search is fueled by these works that various people have contributed to since time immemorial. Therein lies the problems, the great romantic works are manifestations of Love and not Love itself. People have sought the actions without seeking the emotion. This is why I claim that Love defines itself as Love. Lets ask the question again, What is Love? Love is because it is!

Love does not have a form, Love inspires form. Emotions are meant to felt, not defined or rationalized. Any attempt to "box" emotions will result in frustration and internal torment. Far better, I contend, to simply embrace the fact that they're there. Do not seek the symptoms of Love, seek to be infected with its glory—the symptoms will follow, trust me! Let it flow through you and completely consume you, do not try to control it. Let it happen and, once it happens, accept that it has happened.

So, the result of this long-winded foray into the murky realm of human emotion? Are we any closer to understanding Love or, for that matter, ourselves? No and, quite frankly...

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Acceptance, not understanding.

This one takes the cake:

2007-09-10T06:41:37Z

All of you know how much I hate my classmates. Many of them are well meaning people and they certainly can't help their predicament or avoid irritating me; it's just that they're absolutely stupid. In light of this realization, I've entered a sort of mid-life crisis. I'm seriously considering dropping out of college in order to pursue the other things which I feel I'd be more accomplished it (while, at the same time, accomplishing more things). My friend had talked me out of this plan and I had just about written off this crisis as a thing of the past when the following event occurred:

It was a normal day in KASPIL1 (That's J.P. Rizal for all of the rest of you). That is to say it was a normal boring day in KASPIL1. I don't particularly find the class exciting, or relevant that matter, but for most of the term I found it to be nothing more than a waste of time. The class was not a danger to my mental capacity, it was just that I'd rather be doing other things. However, that all changed this fateful day.

My classmate was presenting the characters from the Fili. When he got to Elias the following dialogue occurred:

Classmate: Then we have Elias, he's parang kinda Leftist.
Professor, reasonable confused: How is Elias Leftist?
Classmate, brimming with pride: Kasi Sir, he's angry.

Yes, that bears repeating. "Elias is Leftist because he's angry!" I don't believe I'd ever been more mortified by something uttered by a classmate (although the Devil's Advocate thing was pretty bad). I mean, it's plain retarded! I wanted to jump out the window to end the insanity. Angry = Leftist? God...

THESE ARE MY PEERS?! It's a travesty.

Opinions are a privilege, not a right

2007-09-07T05:45:17Z

There is an epidemic plaguing intellectual discourse. This plague is limiting critical thought and reducing substantial conversation to mush. What is this rapidly spreading disease? First, an anecdote:

I was having a rather lively discussion with a friend of mine a few days ago. We were discussing morality and whether or not there is any form of universal morality. His belief was that all moral codes are relative and therefore meaningless. My contention that the objective existence of such a moral code is irrelevant because from our understanding and perspective that moral code does exist. Where morality becomes important is where we recognize that, given the situation we've been born into, morality becomes a vital fabric of the existence that we've been exposed to. So while morals might be defined by society they are far from meaningless. Whether or not the Universe considers our behaviors moral or not is immaterial. How did my friend refute my point?

Well, that's just my opinion.

To be fair, my friend is not the only person I've heard this defense from. There seems to be a disturbing trend spreading through society, opinions have become rights. Everyone seems to be entitled to one, no matter the restrictions to mental processes involved in deriving that opinion. This seems like an innocuous right, everyone should be entitled to think what they want. Any attempt to restrict that right would be akin to the infamous Thought Police popularized by George Orwell. However, like most individualist theories, this is nothing more than a superficial analysis of the issue--a feel good solution to a problem that needs something more.

What problem is this? Quite simply, misinformation. Lies and falsity spread through humanity with unprecedented strength and speed. One of the unfortunate byproducts of the Information Age is that now anyone and everyone has the ability to upload their opinions and spread them throughout the cyberworld--and directly into the real world--without any sort of verification or analysis. It's nothing more than uneducated spew spilling over the human psyche.

It would seem that I'm trapping myself in a paradox of sorts. Aren't I also contributing to this mass of useless data that is corroding critical reasoning ability? Of course not, and here's the difference. Unlike my friend and his "it's just me" defense for his idea--mine is not a defense within itself. I, and others like me, actively seek criticism of their ideas in order to strengthen our own positions or, heaven forbid, discover that we are completely wrong. Our opinions are not defensible merely because we have them. So come on, challenge us!

I am not advocating that thought be restricted, but people should not be allowed to get away with spewing whatever falsity they want and expect to go unchallenged. I am not pushing for a government authority to monitor and approve which opinions are considered valid and invalid. I do, however, urge that all people who hold opinions that are well reasoned challenge those with weaker and differing opinions. This is not intellectual elitism, this is ensuring that the spread of misinformation is stopped and limited.

Opinions are earned, and they must be defendable or else there is no reason to have them.

Why are Filipinos corrupt?

2007-09-06T05:41:37Z

There is no doubt that the Philippines is corrupt. Transparency International reports in their annual Corruption Perceptions Index that, out of 163 countries, the Philippines ranks an abysmal 121. It is tied with the likes of Nepal, Russia and Rwanda (all less than sterling examples of model government systems). However, it's not like one has to read the Transparency International report to understand the entrenchment of corruption within Filipino society. Personal anecdotes and professional journalisms abounds with stories of law enforcement officials being bribed, students getting into top schools by manipulating connections and a general approach to the laws as being there to give bureaucratic officials authority to engage in such practices. This national situations begs a very poignant question: Why are Filipinos corrupt?

I posed this question to a very good friend of mine. He placed it in a context that I seldom hear from the national pundits in their, seemingly genuine, crusade against corruption. Essentially, as my friend explained, the Philippines is still a Feudalistic society and Filipinos still have a Feudalistic mentality. Feudalism is a difficult term to describe, since there is still a raging debate within academic circles whether or not the term is an accurate one (given the array of issues contained within the term), but for the purposes of this entry it will be used to describe a government system where the population is not seen as being independent and free to make their own decisions but rather as subjects to the ruling order. This is the mentality which prevails among Filipinos and it is one of the more powerful roots of corruption.

How? As my friend explained to me, under a Feudalistic system people do not have rights. Their entire existence, all of the goods and services they can receive, are entirely at the behest of the Lords of the land. In the Filipino context, this means the governmental system as represented by the plethora of bureaucrats. Filipinos do not psychologically recognize that they have rights! Everywhere you look, the power structure is set up to tell people what it can do for them. For crying out loud, look at the elections! Filipinos are not voting for the furthering of their rights but for what the politicians promise them.

How can this be addressed? Nothing short of a nation-wide overhaul will create any meaningful change in the corruption that has gripped the country's system. However, one thing is for certain: efforts to punish people who engage in corrupt practices are not effective and are a waste of time. This is primarily because it is not addressing why corruption exists. These officials may be corrupt, but they're opportunists are worst. They are merely reflecting the morality that the Filipino people allow and the system perpetuates. If any attempt to purge corruption from the country is going to work, it must work first with education before punishment.

Sustainability is irrelevant

2007-09-05T06:53:33Z

Over the past three weeks, I've had no less than 7 arguments with friends about a single issue: sustainability. Specifically, the need for it. Most of my friends are under the persuasion that all projects and endeavors need to be sustainable. This is something we hear in Economics a lot, the much hyped Sustainable Development (semantics of the term aside). Everything we do needs to be sustainable.

This is simply not true.

But first, I'll give credit where it is due. I do believe that any project that has a goal needs to be, if we're going to use the term, sustainable. There's nothing worse than forming an organization that has a clear goal but no way of getting there. If not a single thought has been given to the logistics of how that goal will be achieved, then there's no reason to waste the intellectual capital of the people you've gotten involved in trying to achieve that goal. In this case, the idea of sustainability is akin to efficiency. Every organization has an obligation to operate efficiently in what they're doing. The goal they are seeking should be sought in the more efficient way.

Where I disagree on the idea of sustainability is when it boils down to ideology. The main point of contention among my more conservative minded friends is that of my support of free migration. How does that solve anything? they decry. They're afraid that a world wherein migration is unrestricted is too idealistic and, prepare yourself, unsustainable. Quite frankly, that shouldn't be the question they ask. Who cares what the goal of free migration is? The infinitely more important question to ask is whether or not free migration is an ideal worth fighting for. The sustainability of that ideal, after it is in place, does not in anyway undermine the legitimacy of pursuing that ideal.

Beckoning to the sovereign God of Sustainability when it comes to issues of social justice is the resolve of a weak mind. Those who want to procrastinate and buy time use this excuse. They form committees and decision making bodies to make resolutions which are then in turn debated by all the parties involved and then, by the end of who knows how many generations, the amount of lead in pencils gets decreased by less than one milligram but hey, at least it's sustainable... right?

In the end, what's most important, is that you do something and take responsibility for the consequences. Indecision is certainly far easier, but it seems like such a waste of life.

Outsourcing: A serious contributor to environmental degradation and climate change

2007-09-03T09:09:03Z

I love my job. Primarily because, given the nature of teaching, there is a dual process occurring during every lesson. I am imparting knowledge onto my student but, through our discussions, they are teaching me about various topics. A recent discussion with a student brought to my attention an aspect of environmental degradation I’d never before considered: the environmental impact of outsourcing.

I’d always been away that outsourcing had an effect on the environment, but I felt that this impact was marginal. Of course when a company invests to build and operate a factory in a new location (in this case, an outsourced location) then the impact on the environment will entail the construction and operational costs of the factory but I did not consider, however, was that this impact is not linear but rather exponential!

How? It’s actually quite obvious, this student managed to make me feel somewhat stupid since I’d never even thought about it from this perspective! If a company operating from the Developed World builds a factory in the Developing World there are normally laws and mandates requiring various environmental compliance. Many of these laws do not exist in the Developing World, which is most concerned with rapid industrialization and modernization. Therefore, by outsourcing heavy industries to countries occupying the Developing World sphere environmental degradation is rapidly accelerated!

It’s crazy how I couldn’t see it before.

Your search - Human Rights - did not match any documents.

2007-08-31T09:26:05Z

"...organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." [Emphasis added]

That is the opening line to Google's mission statement. In fact, this has been a basic tenant of many of the Internet's foremost companies. The beauty about the information society is that, for the first time in history, information is no longer siphoned through intellectual elitists from the irrelevant disconnected realms of their Ivory Towers. Google was one of the primary proponents of this idea (but certainly not the first), bringing the world together by spreading information uniformly throughout the globe! This went so far that columnist Thomas Friedman even claimed that Google somewhat represents God! But it seems that was nothing more than smokes and mirrors from the brilliant populist campaigners at Google's pristine headquarters in California.

Amnesty International reported that Google's Chinese portal (google.cn) is assisting the Chinese government in filtering keywords that provide information to the viewer concerning topics that the Chinese government considers sensitive. "This version of Google," AI reports "affects Chinese users by restricting search results for topics such as 'human rights', 'political reform', 'Tiananmen Square' and 'Falun Gong', among others."

This is nothing short of appalling. It runs entirely counter to Google's supposed mission and to the larger scope of the Information Society! A sixth of the world's population is essentially cut off! They're only receiving information that they are allowed to receive, the right to information is merely that--a right controlled and monitored at the discretion of the Government. By supporting these draconian policies, Google is ensuring that such policies continue. Human Rights are being violated at the behest of Google! This is not merely inaction or indecision, they're directly involved!

How does Google support its actions? As AI cites, "Google has stated that self-censorship is a requirement of doing business in China. While admitting that filtering its search results compromises its mission, Google has emphasized that it has made certain concessions, including informing users where information is being censored."

How does that even begin to address the injustice perpetuated here?! Everyone knows, Chinese included, that the government is censoring information. Merely adding a sticker to a web search confirming that it is censored in no way suggests that Chinese Government is making concessions for Google. As for their "costs" of doing business in China, that's a ludicrous defense. The right to freedom of information is guaranteed in the Chinese Constitution. While the Chinese Constitution may be nothing more than over glorified toilet tissue (given the authoritarian nature of the government), The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights--of which China is a signatory--states the following:

"2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice." [Article 19, Section 2. Emphasis added.]

Google's assistance to the Chinese totalitarian regime not only undermines the credibility of Google in being the poster child of an information based world, but also undermines the ability of NGOs to effectively combat Human Rights abuses throughout the globe. This makes Google a detriment to these efforts. They are complacent partners in the subjugation of the Chinese population.

[The full report from AI is here while the full copy of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be found here]

The myth of anti-globalization

2007-08-30T07:06:12Z

Few topics in modern society have come to the forefront of day-to-day conversation as prominently as Globalization (save perhaps Climate Change)—which is normally used to refer to the integration of Nation-States into a unified economic system. The pundits hail the progression of Globalization in the name of the buzz words Free Trade and Democracy (since Globalization is largely an effort of the so called “Free World”). Globalization is not merely a furthering of the modern systems of economics but rather a complete overhaul of many regional economies in order for them to integrate more efficiently with the developing world system. Globalization is a complex issue entailing substantial changes to both Economy and Society.

As with any complex social and economic issue, there is a camp which has positioned itself against it. This normally is referred to as the Anti-Globalization Movement. This term is used to identify an extremely diverse umbrella of organizations which are against the various champion organizations of Globalization (WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc). This term is at best a misnomer and at worse misleading. Anti-Globalization is a myth and, in terms of power and credibility, does not have any significance worthy of debate.

The term Anti-Globalization seems to imply that organizations and individuals ascribing to it are against the edicts of Globalization--Integration, Free Trade and Democracy included. The term suggests that these operating units are factionalist, regionalist or isolationist. This is simply not true! While most of the organizations do not approve of the sort of Free Trade advocated by the WTO and others, they are certainly in favor of integrating countries with one another. The term Globalization needs to be revamped to more accurately reflect what is going on. Globalization is normally referred to the process of economic and social integration sponsored by the aforementioned world organizations, these organizations have a decidedly vested agenda in corporate interests. Trade Liberalization, as promoted by these organizations, has disastrous effects for regional industries which are undeveloped or otherwise are unable to compete with the purchasing power of foreign competition. Under an entirely Liberalized world, this foreign competition has no restrictions in dominating these weak regional industries. Trade Liberalization is clearly in the interest of Corporate lobbies in the Western world and, as such, the colloquial understanding of Globalization is more properly termed as Corporate Globalization.

As for the groups opposed to this exploitive process, a single term hardly captures the soul of the entire movement. Prior to the reclassification of Globalization, this movement was referred to as the Anti-Globalization Movement however since the term used to describe the process previously defined as Globalization has been altered the term Globalization is now freed up. In fact, Globalization is a far more accurate description of the organizations who pundits claim are against it! There is a strong sentiment in the this movement to eliminate restrictions on migration, several organizations call for a complete dissolution of national borders(Here)! Many organizations utilize Web 2.0 in furthering their positions and raising awareness. Web 2.0 and its emphasis on connecting people throughout the globe has a strong Globalist persuasion (For info on Web 2.0, take a look here and here)! You find this trend with many ideologies presented within the movement, a strong desire to integrate the world cultures and societies into a unified body called: Humanity.

In this sense, this movement is more true to the tenants of Globalization than the organizations that originally coined the term! This movement is not integrating economies, they are integrating people! If this is ever achieved, imagine all if the misery and turmoil our current separations (enforced largely by the Nation-State) are causing that will be greatly reduced. War, tribalism, government enforced violence—all of it, gone! They will become completely irrelevant in this new world, a world where people identify not with their culture but with their species. Culture will still exist but its role as an identifier will change. It will be a flavor, as spice, to your life—it will not be your life.

Is there, then, any groups which are truly opposed to this process? Unfortunately, yes but, luckily, these are ineffective at best and fringe groups at best. In order to be completely against the idea of international integration (whether economic or social) you need to be an isolationist. Needless to say, the groups which propagate this realm of public discourse are not the best bed fellows. Neo-Nazis, Racists and Cultural Supremacists abound in these circles. These people are not to be taken seriously, since their positions are almost entirely based on a paranoid and hateful application of the age old “Us vs Them” fallacy. In terms of credibility, there is no lobby that effectively challenges the process of international integration. This is a good thing, because to keep these separations intact is to inherently support all the atrocities that it commits: Genocide and War are merely the most extreme results of these separations but they cannot be taken lightly.

Anti-Globalization is a myth. There is no feasible lobby today which can truly be called Anti-Globalization. The groups normally identified as being against Globalization are, in fact, more true to the philosophical, social and moral entailments of Globalization than the supposed supporters of Globalization. These false Globalizers are merely an extremely powerful lobby of Trade Liberalizers who are operating in the interest of Western industries seeking to enlarge their market share to the size of the Globe. In this sense, this form of Globalization is better termed as Corporate Globalization since at no point does the interest of the individual or the peoples subjected to this economic integration take precedent over the Corporate interests in ensuring that this integration occurs. The majority of the groups previously defined as being against this integration entirely based on economic considerations are more accurately defined as being truly Globalistic in scope and, therefore, the true lobby for Globalization. These groups promote international integration in order to further freedom of migration, information and choice—while taking into consideration relevant elements that could be adversely affected if the integration isn’t progressed carefully (such as the Environment). In a strange paradoxical way, these groups are more “free” than the “free trade” movement. Perhaps the only thing the “free trade” movement is truly free of, is conscience.

Somehow, stoic doesn't quite capture it.

2007-08-28T09:55:47Z

Today started out like a normal enough day--

Right there, I should have known something was going to be anything but normal. The day proceeded fine until I tried to commute from school to work. I don't know if it was because I was somewhat tired after my three hour Calculus exam (Nothing short of torture) but when I crossed the street I heard my name called by two people (I won't mention Angeli's and Leah's name, out of respect =) ) and what happened next was sort of blurry.

Oh wait, no it isn't. I don't know if it was due to my mathematically molested brain or just the general sort of absent mindedness that has come to characterize much of my behavior the past few weeks but, I got hit by a car.

Well, perhaps that's somewhat of an exaggeration but it's technically correct. The side-view mirror careened into my thigh and bag--but don't worry, my mayonnaise jar was still intact. Oh, and my thigh was alright too. In fact, more surprising than having a 4 ton chunk of air-polluting metal slam into your body was the fact that I seemed entirely unphased by the whole ordeal. I proceeded to talk to my friends as if nothing had happened.

It was then that I realized that I am impervious to motor traffic! With this sort of power I can fight crime and stop dangerous speed chases that put small children and kittens in danger when careless police hound down otherwise innocent bank robbers down crowded suburban streets!

Or, more likely, I've become so accustomed to weird things happening to me that they now fail to have any effect on my psyche.

Oh well.

Ecotactics: The Sierra Club Handbook For Environment Activists

2007-08-27T09:57:01Z

Few non-fiction books manage to communicate a sense of urgency as effectively as this book does. When I started reading it, I already had an idea of the tone of the book (the title makes this readily apparent) but what I did not expect was in what way the book would transfer its tone and relevance to myself.

It changed how I understand my relation to the environment and in what ways I can work to transfer such a relevance to other people around me. I never understood why petty dictators and autocratic control freaks tried to control the spread of information by burning books but now it makes perfect sense. The ideas and tactics outlined in this book certainly would shake the reader's foundational understanding of the established authority and how precisely, and effectively, to challenge this authority.

This book changed how I view environmental activism. Some of the references are a bit out of date and I wish that The Sierra Club would come out with an updated version (particularly in the ways the Internet can be utilized for Environmental Activism) but, regardless, most of the information within this book is still applicable today. I think this should be required reading for anyone who dares to call themselves an Environmental Activist.

[This is my review from: Goodreads.]

Why cultural relativism is crap

2007-08-27T06:06:24Z

If ever there was a buzz-word funneling its way through the conduits of Americanization, usually referred to as Globalization, it would be the concept of Cultural Relativism and its associated philosophies. While the meaning of the term is obvious, all cultures are equivalent(as opposed to equal), the implications and dangers of such a train of thought are usually not realized but they can be readily observed and derived by the most simple logical processes. The concept of cultural relativism is postulated by the social conscious American citizenry, which developed out of the 1960s Civil Rights movement and, largely as a response to, the infamous White Man’s Burden philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries. This is then spread throughout the world by the process of Americanization; it is observable in nearly every aspect of this global phenomenon. It’s too bad, really, since it’s complete and utter garbage. Not only that, it’s also dangerous.

The first reason why cultural relativism is a dangerous philosophy is that it can be used to justify absurd and appalling actions all in the name of cultural rights! For example, a basic tenant of cultural relativism is that one cannot judge the actions of another person within the context of his/her society except by the standards of that society. Using this logic, any psycho can commit genocide or just about any other atrocity as long as the culture supports his/her actions! The multitude of state endorsed murders in Darfur and Sudan could, conceivably, be defended and legitimized within the concept of cultural relativism. How can we possibly resolve this issue? One cannot establish any sort of authority in which to judge good cultures from bad cultures, and therefore which cultures are protected under the rights of cultural relativism, because that contradicts the foundations of the philosophy! By establishing an authority by which to judge culture, one is admitting that some cultures are more legitimate that others. Without any clear definition or understanding as to what a culture is, cultural relativism is a hollow philosophy—without a clear definition of culture, there is no basis by which one can judge one action in relation to another.

Neither does cultural relativism provide any useful definition of culture! With such a flexible definition of culture, any group of people can decide that their behavior is somehow related to a cultural imperative that they’re subjected to. Gauge the value of one action or set of behaviors to other actions or set of behaviors. Just so long as the actors claim that they’re acting in accordance with their culture, then there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them!
It is sometimes claimed that cultural relativism is equal to moral relativism, the philosophy that there is no universal set of morality and everything is instead judged based on the perspective of the individual, but I do not think this is the case. If a man culturally identified as being British murders 1000 people because he feels that they deserved to die he cannot be protected under the dictates of cultural relativism. Unlike moral relativism, cultural relativism has no respect for the perspectives of the individual but only the perspective of the individual’s behavior within a culture. In effect, cultural relativism would be more appropriately called collective relativism.

Cultural relativism is, as has been shown, useless. On the surface it sounds like a nice, respectful, decent approach to life and others. However, when one takes its tenants to their logical conclusion, one finds that they’re left with nothing. Cultural relativism does provide an avenue for discouraging discrimination of other cultures but at the expense of any value of those cultures. All cultures are considered equivalent and, as a result, no culture has any value. Cultural relativism is a philosophy of the weak mind.

Books are dangerous

2007-08-20T12:24:18Z

Without going into too many details, let me just say that books are dangerous. I understand now why the likes of Hitler and Stalin tried to control them.

Two books I'm currently reading have effectively destroyed everything I've held sacred for the past two years. I feel somewhat like a lost compass.

VHEMT: Revisited

2007-08-14T11:56:55Z

In a reaction to many of my ideas postulated in this entry, my friend had an idea that kept him from accepting the ideals of the movement entirely. His basic contention was that the ideas put forth by VHEMT do not take into consideration memes. Or, in other words, elements that make up culture which get passed along from one person to another.

I disagree with this assertion. To view the movement in this light is to approach it with a flawed premise. We need to understand that in order to completely grasp what VHEMT entails we need to eliminate certain predispositions we have in our mental repertoire. We need to purge these premises before we can fully embrace the ideals of the movement.

First: Culture requires families and children.

We cannot argue that VHEMT is anti-culture because no where does the ideal of the movement require its member to violate, or otherwise turn against, cultural norms except concerning those cultural norms (of which I am not aware of any) that would require that a person biologically have children. You can support VHEMT and still be married. You don't need to forsake anything, except having children biologically.

Nor is VHEMT anti-family. There is always adoption! I don't understand why this idea does not come to the forefront of modern discussions concerning the population crisis. There are already children here and now who need homes. Why is it necessary to add more? Lets be more efficient with what we have.

From this light, VHEMT is not anti-culture. But I think that what my friend was getting at was the idea that certain cultural elements need to be passed from one person to another and--by extension--from one generation to another. This leads to the next predisposition we need to rethink.

Second: Culture needs to be perpetuated.

From the perspective of a VHEMT supporter, this doesn't make any sense. As I've already highlighted, VHEMT is not anti-culture. To make this case about the need to perpetuate culture is nothing more than a redux of the Us vs Them mentality. Culture does not die just because we die. Culture is lived while we live. We need to stop thinking in terms of human future because, as VHEMT makes clear, there is no human future. We should live out our lives and cultures to the fullest. As the Omega generation, it stops with us. There's nothing scary about that.

The beauty in life is that life ends. If things were infinite and never died, they'd no longer have meaning. What's wrong with ending a culture? That, in my opinion, gives it far more meaning than if it sticks around just for the concept of competing with other cultures. If I serve as the Omega of my culture, I've succeeded in giving a complete circle of meaning--a life and a death--to my culture. Where is the shame in that?

How then could you say that VHEMT is anti-culture?

[Thanks to lunatariel for starting me on this line of thought.]

The enigma of Filipino hospitality

2007-08-14T07:34:45Z

"Filipinos are very hospitable by nature. Guests will often be treated like royalty in Philippine households."

That is a quote from Wikitravel. It's a very common claim that Filipinos are an incredibly hospitable lot. This may be true, as the quote states, within households but outside of them I'm having a hard time considering Filipinos as hospitable.

I didn't want to make this conclusion but after commuting for the last 6 months it seems undeniable now. Filipinos seem to be a largely rude and inconsiderate bunch! Case-in-point, today I had to reach over 6 people to get the payment of an old lady in the jeep because when she exclaimed "Bayad po!" ["Payment!"] everyone around her just pretended she wasn't there. After about 30 seconds I had to reach across, rather awkwardly I might add, no less than 6 people just to get her payment. If this were an isolated case, it wouldn't bother me so much but this is a regular occurrence! Is it really so difficult to grab an old lady's payment and pass it up to the driver? You need a foreigner to do it for you? It seems to run contradictory to all these stories I've heard to the contrary.

And this isn't even it! I was getting off the LRT-1 this morning and, being unusually crowded, I needed to plow my way through a crowd of people in order to get off the train before the doors shut. There was this lady hanging onto the handle bar, her arm blocking my path. I waited for her to move her arm because it was quite impossible for me to move around her. But what does she do? She just stands there and stares at me with this look that indicates "Well, aren't you going around?" How difficult can it possibly be to move your arm out of the way to let escaping passengers alight?

And finally, this particularly pisses me off, I need to catch a jeep on Ortigas extension in order to get home at night. Sometimes this takes a while, since about 1/20 of the cars are jeeps and 1/2 of those jeeps aren't going my direction. Getting my jeep is difficult enough without having to worry about drivers flashing their headlights at you! I don't understand what their problem is. Are they afraid that I don't see them--in the middle of the night with their normal lights flaring that they need to blind me with their headlights in order to ensure to themselves that they've been seen? This makes my commute exponentially more difficult because, being effectively blinded, I can't tell which jeep is my jeep until it's right on top of me!

Granted, anecdotes should never be used to justify a point but still. I'm curious, where is this supposedly hospitality that seems to be a defining point of Filipinos in guidebooks published throughout the world? I don't want to conclude that it's merely a myth, but with these experiences repeating themselves on a day-to-day basis, it seems to be the increasingly reasonable conclusion to draw.

Perhaps this is just reflective of my commuting experience within Manila. Maybe people are nicer outside of the city. If that's the case, then that is even more concerning. As Manila increasingly establishes itself as the center of the country, the sole definer of the Filipino Identity as it peddles the Filipino Language and other Filipino cultural components throughout the archipelago, does that mean it will also spread its endorsement of inconsiderate behavior?

[ADDENDUM: Perhaps a better thesis for this entry would be "Filipinos seem to give me the impression of not consideration, but rather inconsideration." Rather than the "Filipinos seem to be a largely rude and inconsiderate bunch!" which seems to be misunderstood.]

Today felt like a bad day.

2007-08-13T09:01:29Z

But nothing bad happened.

It just felt like one. The line was abnormally long at the LRT-1 (thank God for pre-paid cards). I'm talking hundreds of people! I felt so awkward... so many people, very unusual for the time of commuting (10AM).

Then, getting on the LRT-2, there were no people at the lines! It was practically a ghost town but on the loading station there were hundreds of them again! Once again, unusual.

But nothing bad happened.

What does it mean when I start to derive cosmic meaning from the ebbs and flows of commuter traffic?

My fabulous Tagalog skillz at work!

2007-08-10T11:48:12Z

Mangyatic tao sa loob lahat spacio!!

Sobra...

Quietly, the young lamb sleeps

2007-08-09T12:05:03Z

"May we live long and die out."

That is the credo of a movement entitled VHEMT (Pronounced Vehement) which cheerfully represents the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Yes, you read that right. There is a human extinction movement out there. When I first glanced at their website, I had several (reasonable) knee jerk reactions. I've shown the website to a variety of people and the usual responses I get are of the "Well, how can they have a movement? Why don't they just kill themselves?" to the parochial "It's human nature to breed" sort of responses. I admit that I, when first stumbling upon it by a sheer act of boredom, had a similar disdain and amused response. "How Nihilistic..." I thought.

However, as I read closer, I started to find that I actually agreed with many of the points that the Movement addresses. They do not encourage reproductive fascism or euthanasia. Each of us should live out our lives to the fullest with just one tiny alteration: Do not have children. If each of us did this then humanity would eventually phase itself out and the world can start working to repair the damage we've done to it. We've already caused irrevocable damage by causing the extinction of hundreds of plants and animals (and thousands more are endangered due to humans), at least we could quit while there is still an Earth around. (Source here)

Then there's the question of the ethics of bringing a child into a world that is no doubt full of strife. I approached this topic in my recent post on birth control. Currently in the world there are 40,000 children dying a day and, despite that seemingly astronomical figure, the world's population is increasing at an exponential rate. How many more deaths is it going to take before we start waking up and realizing what a screwed up situation we've found ourselves in? However, this isn't anything new. We know that people are dying due to a lack of basic necessities, we know that millions of children are without a home waiting to be adopted, we know that overpopulation is a very real threat to our very existence and yet, we still have children. Tell me, how could you ever seriously want to bring someone into this cesspool of a world that we've made for ourselves? (Sources here, here and here)

Then I got to thinking a bit deeper. Emotional appeals aside the ideas postulated by VHEMT do also have an intellectual, philosophical implication. It got me thinking, what a monumental testament to the resolve of a species to willingly allow themselves to go extinct. Far from being Nihilistic, VHEMT is actually a movement that would give far more meaning to the existence of humanity that procreating does! Rather than mindlessly, shamelessly and self-destructively breeding ourselves out of existence (and bringing everything else along with us) we would make the conscious, collective and assertive decision to take a stand against this perpetuation of misery and pain. For a species to make this decision is not reflective of a weakness of the species but rather a strength. To be able to go against our biological imperatives, to take the future out of the hands of chance and to control precisely where our destiny will go. That's something no other species in existence has ever done!

At first this might seem like a logical impossibility. A fallacy even, but I ask you to think about it carefully before jumping to any undue conclusions. Read through the website, read the sources I've posted so far. Think about it, serious THINK about it. Pro-creation is not inviting life into this world, it's welcoming Death.

geisharei @ 2007-08-09T17:08:00

2007-08-09T09:08:53Z

MATHEMATICS

GEOMETRY

Students will examine the nature of God as they progress
in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand
the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that
God was the inventor of that consistency. They will see God's nature
revealed in the order and precision they review foundational concepts
while being able to demonstrate geometric thinking and spatial reasoning.
The study of the basics of geometry through making and testing conjectures
regarding mathematical and real-world patterns will allow the students
to understand the absolute consistency of God as seen in the geometric
principles he created. Students will demonstrate an awareness of
the structure of a mathematical system, connecting definitions,
postulates, logical reasoning, and theorems while exploring attributes
of geometric figures. Students will make and verify conjectures
about angles, lines, polygons, circles, and three-dimensional figures
through coordinate and transformational approaches. Through the
knowledge of conditional statements and their converses, constructing
and justifying statements about geometric figures and their properties,
students will begin understanding the concepts of constructing geometrical
proofs. Students will be able to solve problems with the use of
formulas for the areas and volumes of polygons and circles while
applying them to real-world situations; in addition, they will develop
and improve their spatial visualization and reasoning skills with
three-dimensional figures. As they investigate properties of parallel
lines, students will write deductive arguments to justify their
conclusions and apply those properties to real situations. Students
will apply their knowledge of triangles to develop properties of
parallelograms, trapezoids, and kites as they continue developing
their mathematical reasoning abilities and their algebraic skills
by learning to write coordinate proofs. Right-triangle trigonometry
will be introduced in the area of sine and cosine ratios and vectors.
Finally, students will study circles from an algebraic point of
view by writing equations of circles in the coordinate plane.

ALGEBRA
II

Students will examine the nature of God as they progress
in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand
the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that
God was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will
result in a greater appreciation of God and His works in creation.
Students will extend their mathematical knowledge beyond Algebra
1 by continuing to develop an understanding and usage of advanced
algebraic concepts including functions, polynomials, rational expressions,
complex numbers, systems of equations and inequalities, and matrices.
Students will develop calculator skills.

PRE-CALCULUS

Students will examine the nature of God as they progress
in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand
the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that
God was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will
result in a greater appreciation of God and His works in creation.
Students who have successfully completed Geometry and Algebra 2
will develop skills in advanced algebra, analytic geometry, and
trigonometry. The students will focus on the mathematics concepts
that connect the thoughts of the mind with the realities of the
universe, experiencing the creative power and order of God.

CALCULUS

Students will examine the nature of God as they progress
in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand
the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that
God was the inventor of that consistency. Mathematical study will
result in a greater appreciation of God and His works in creation.
The students will understand the basic ideas of both differential
and integral calculus and its importance and historical applications.
The students will recognize that God created our minds to be able
to see that the universe can be calculated by mental methods.

[SOURCE: http://chfbs.org/high_school/high_sch_math.htm]

Seriously. What's up with this garbage?!

Mathematics has been taught and understood without incorporating theistic garbage into it's meaning for centuries. You do not need to utilize an understanding of God in order to fully appreciate Mathematics because Mathematics operates independent of socially constructed BS (like religion). An Athiest can fully understand the principles of Mathematics while this school's cirriculum is implying that without understanding God in the process then the student is not learning the full scope of Mathematics.

This is even worse than the Creationist mumbo-jumbo they tout around on the basis of belief, because this is actually utilizing something that is universally true to establish something which cannot be proved!

It's a pity that the webpage doesn't have lesson plans, I'd like to see what sort of methods they're using to prove God's creation of Mathematics. This is so irritating.

Jericho, Season One

2007-08-08T13:20:55Z

What would you do at the end of the world?

Going into this show, I had no idea what to expect. I knew the basics of the plot and, while the sci-fi Alas, Babylon-esque "OH MY GOD! JOHN TITOR WAS RIGHT!" aspects of the story appealed to me, I wasn't holding too much of an expectation for the series itself. The storyline is simple: A small town in Kansas, ironically named Jericho, is isolated from the outside world. What causes their isolation? Well, they aren't entirely sure. Just before they lose all contact with the world, and all hell proverbially breaks loose, they see an atomic explosion on the horizon.

I'm no stranger to Post-Apocalyptic stories, but I really found the way this series approached it to be refreshing. The core of the story revolves not around discovering what happened to cause the catastrophe (although some time is dedicated to this mystery) but rather Jericho and its residents attempts to try and preserve the decency and humanity they had prior to the day the bombs went off. This is no small feat when you have to constantly worry about roving bandits, nuclear fallout, drought, famine, depletion of resources, conspiracies, coup d'états and a whole host of other calamities and hostilities all vying to destroy your way of life. Small town politics never seemed so interesting!

The series is fantastic and the cast, which as far as I can tell is made up of people new to television, does a decent job with what they're given. This is where I feel that Jericho is weakest, the characters. The actors all fulfill their roles faithfully but often I find that it seems that those roles are too rigidly followed, with characters rarely deviating from the archetypes that they fill.

However this is just a small whine.

I also found that the series, so far, has very strong Isaac Asimov vibes (Think of the precarious state that The Foundation was in, but in a more contemporary setting) which is also quite interesting. I wonder if the creators got some inspiration from the way Foundation handled its neighbors, but any way...

Jericho, Season One, is well worth watching. I hope the series gets renewed for a new season because I'm quite curious what will happen to the small town in Kansas.