I revisited the idea of cutting the cord, but still couldn’t push through with it. Testicular fortitude FAIL. I did recall, however, one comment in that thread that held a lot of promise.

In summary, it suggested a way to take away the tensioner… without having to cut the cord. Even better; it’s possible to do it in a way that you’d still be able to put the tensioner back! This means you’ll be able to experiment with the feeling of having the cord cut¹ without having to drastically modify a “core design feature” of the Classic line.²

So if you’re considering cutting the cord altogether, this would be a good way to “test” if you’ll regret your decision.

Anyways, enough “justifications” – lets get down to it. To accomplish this mod would entail “hurting” the tensioner a bit – I’ll explain as I go along.

First, you’ll need:

1. Pair of Vibram Classics
2. A “wide and flat-ish” tool for widening the plastic opening of the tensioner
3. A cutting implement.
4. Careful hands
5. Balls of steel

Procedure

First, we take our wide and flat-ish tool (In my case, it’s my Alessi Stila letter opener for its thickness (it won’t bend out of shape even if you twist it around strong materials – not that the tensioner is strong at all). A larg-ish flat-head screwdriver would do the trick as well.

As you see in the picture the goal is to warp the tensioner enough so that you can slide the button out (as seen in the picture below). This will make cutting the tensioner easier.

I’m not going to lie, this is pretty scary the first time you do it – cuz you’ll think you’re going to break the tensioner, but it’s surprisingly flexible. Still, I urge you to be careful about it.

So we now take our cutting tool and create two slits in the tensioner (one above, and one below) like so:

This is probably the most “destructive” part of the whole tutorial. The only time you actually “harm” any part of the shoe. No pain, no gain ;)

I suggest doing it like in the picture: diagonal, opposite sides. I’m pretty sure everyone will have the tendency to want to cut straight in the middle. No dice; when I do the spatial analysis it makes most sense to do it this way to preserve as much structural integrity as well as not having the button easily slide out. Take note, we are in fact, compromising the tensioner’s structural integrity just by doing this, so we want to minimize the weakening as much as possible.

If you do it properly you should end up with very neat/clean slits where you can slide the straps out from.

And there you have it! If you want to put the tensioner back, just put the strap back through the slits and re-insert the button.

Results

Here’s the “finished” product:

Cosmetically, it doesn’t look as spiffy as the velcro mod, but the good thing about this is that you don’t have to worry about glues, velcros and all that other shit. We’ll be dealing only with your shoe as is – nothing more, and only one thing less (the tensioner). After everything, t’ll be free to be used, abused, and most of all, washed thoroughly without having to worry about messing anything up.

If you’re thinking “Well, I did what you told me, but why isn’t the tab tucked to the rubber like in the picture? It’s still [annoyingly] sticking out!”

The answer is simple: the strap is pretty “stiff” (precisely why it sticks out annoyingly) so all I had to do was twist it once over itself and let elastic potential energy do the rest ;) Do it often enough, and the strap will develop a natural curve downward (and hopefully close to the heel) – possibly to the point that you can leave it alone and it’ll still behave itself.

For a clearer look at the slits, here you go:

“Carlo, why is your cut so neat and clean” you ask?
Cause I’m a fucking ninja, that’s why!

Just keep those tensioners in a safe place for the day when you think that you feel like using them again ;)

Obviously, only Vibram Classic users will notice the little nuance in the photo above.

For those who didn’t catch it, the tab is tucked [mostly] flush to the heel instead of just sticking out. This has been a constant source of annoyance for myself and other Classic users – especially since the tab tends to go off-center for whatever reason when you just leave it alone.

I know it’s just a cosmetic issue… but if it could be solved then why not, right?

I’ve considered just cutting the cord altogether – since I’ve been hearing a lot of good things about people who have done it. Alas, I’m not quite sure sure if I’m ready to take the plunge and do anything with my Classics that can’t be reversed to a certain degree.

So I decided to be content (at least for the meantime) in trying solve the annoyance of the tab sticking out arbitrarily. Here’s the simple solution I came up with.

What you’ll need

1. Vibram Classics
2. Velcro (preferably coins for neatness – as well as non-stick; as you’ll have to take out the adhesive anyway)
3. Glue of choice (I would be more specific about this, but I can’t… more on this later)
4. Any other tool you feel would make your life easier with regards to applying glue, cleaning up, etc.

Procedure

Step one: If you weren’t able to source non sticky-back circular velcros, take the time to take out the adhesive material on what you plan to use on the rubber.

Personally, I didn’t do it to the fluffy side since it was too difficult to do on that particular part. More on this on the next step.

Step two: Glue one part (non-fluffy) to the VFF heel, and stick the other to the tensioner as shown in the picture below.

Luckily, the size of the velcro coins I had purchased seems to line up perfectly with the rounded corners of the tensioners so they cosmetically fit like gloves (not that you’ll see them, but like they say: God in the details hahahaha)

Note that because you’re just using the regular adhesive tape for the velcro on the tensioner, this will probably wear out after a few washes/soaks. That said, I’d rather wait for that to happen and just slap a new velcro part on it (they’re dirt cheap anyways)

However, if you’re lucky enough to source a velcro that’s self-mating (has the exact same surface that can fasten together) chances are the adhesive will be as easy to take out as the non-fluffy part of the regular velcro.

In that case however, I’d opt to use a waterproof adhesive (3M) for joining that and the tensioner – since the tensioners surface are pretty much flat and solid (unlike the curved, flexible rubber heel), you’ll probably be able to get a decent “tape” bond without having to resort to glue. This is pure speculation though – just thought I’d throw that disclaimer out there ;)

And there you have it! It’s a pretty straightforward process… I can foresee that the major issue will really have something to do with what type of glue you use… that, and how “messy” the workmanship will be.

Limitations

There are two limitations to this modification AFAIK

You may have to use a combination of glues

I’ve tried Shoe glue, Epoxy, and construction adhesive so far. The best was the latter as it was flexible even after adhesion.

However, I’m not sure if it’s because I was too impatient to let it cure, but a moderate pull from the velcro could break the bond from the rubber.¹ Epoxy seems to be the strongest in adhering to the rubber, but it doesn’t quite do as well to the surface of the velcro. Same goes with the shoe glue.

I am currently doing a combination: epoxy on the rubber, then after drying, applying the construction adhesive to the surface and the velcro. I’ll see how that turns out in a couple of hours/days

And I even haven’t got to test how the glue reacts when washing them. So the definitive glue to use for this is still anyone’s guess

Modification is usually practical if you don’t need to tighten the shoe

In other words, it’s more beneficial to users when the tensioning strap is always at its loosest. The tigher you go, the more “strap slack” is generated at the back. Remember, the velcro is at the tensioner and not the actual tab. So if you really tighten the shoe and have the strap stretched way beyond the tensioner, the tab will probably hit the ground given the angle the velcro affixes the tensioner.

A lot of friends have been asking about my new “footwear” – especially since I wear them almost exclusively nowadays regardless of how controversial they “look.” While it’s nothing Google can’t answer, I’ll try to explain what the deal is with these shoes for those who are “tamad” to do the research.

Before getting into the details, let me answer one of the questions that’s often been asked: are they really that good?¹ To that, my answer would be “depends how much you like doing stuff barefoot.”

Having said that, in my case, ultra-mega-fuckin’ good!

Personal Introduction

I first saw these puppies being worn by Kevin Rose in an episode of Diggnation – and was summarily humiliated by his co-host with the grounds of him having Gorilla Feet. Mr. Rose never wore them to the show again, but I have to admit that as weird as they looked, they’ve always had this inexplicable appeal to me. I can only guess this appeal came from my innate preference of going barefoot.

I’m not exaggerating when I say I like going barefoot. To this day, I don’t wear slippers when inside the house. When recording or in practice, I often take off my shoes/slippers. I even on occasion take my shoes off while eating dinner in a restaurant.²

I would never have thought that in 30 years, that preference/habit of mine would actually be an argument I could use in purchasing footwear.

I finally got to see them IRL while shopping in Rockwell. It took me a couple of visits before I got the nerve to try… and eventually buy a pair of KSOs.

As with everything I buy, I try to take the time to understand the technology behind a product so I wouldn’t be one of those pricks that would just buy stuff they don’t understand. That, or being a fashion victim – though I seriously doubt these could start a fashion trend – but then again, we’ve got people wearing scarves in a tropical country (and we still haven’t explained the whole Crocs phenomenon), so what the hell do I know right?

All the same, getting a second pair within weeks of the first (and a third after a month) is pretty telling of how much my feet have been enjoying these suckers.

What’s the Deal With These Shoes?

And so it comes to this; for what purpose do these kinds of shoes serve? What are they for?

The simple answer is that, if you really think about it, the human body is a pretty amazing “machine.” I’m sure we’ve all heard/read different studies claiming how the naked human body has evolved to be the most versatile piece of equipment ever seen. Evolutionally speaking, this is due to the need to survive; we’ve become less hairy to survive the tropics, we’ve got opposable thumbs for using tools, etc.

The human foot is no different – as it has evolved out of the need to be mobile in various terrain for hunting.³ Our feet, as with the rest of our extremities, are brilliantly designed to handle climbing, swimming, and most importantly, running. And we know the early humans, as hunters, ran a whole lot!

I’m not a runner, but running is the activity that best highlights the benefits of going barefoot. Consider the picture below – which tracks the force of impact to body whenever your foot strikes the ground.

As you can see (and if you try running yourself), a shod runner tends to strike the ground with their heel, as the shoes have cushioning to protect us from the pain.

Remember; the impact generated is from your feet’s inertia coming an abrupt stop on each footfall. Having said that, it doesn’t take a genius to divine that [most] running injuries are related to this somehow. I mean, think about it; If early human hunters could run through uneven terrain on a daily basis to catch their food (or to escape from becoming food). Have we evolved to be so weak nowadays – that just running in a perfectly flat pavement can injure us?

The answer is yes and no.

No, because our feet are still of the same “design” as with our hunting ancestors – so we are perfectly capable of being hunters even today. Jungle-dwelling natives easily prove that fact.

Yes, because being shod has changed the natural way of how we run. Try running barefoot the same way you did when you had shoes on; you’ll find out that you can’t do it for long – because it’ll fucking kill your heels. Instead you’ll find yourself adjusting your stride in such a way that the ball of your foot will hit the ground first – just like in the picture on the right. And you can see how the impact is converted to rotational force.

From the visuals, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to assume that less impact = less impact related injuries = happier joints and body. That’s why Five Fingers are extremely popular with the serious runners in places the brand has gone mainstream.

Non-Runner

As I said, I don’t run. Why do I use them? First, as I mentioned earlier, is because I like the barefoot feel.

Next, while running certainly highlights the benefits as far as preventing running-related injuries is concerned, but imagine how useful it can be for climbing, or any activity where foot balance and gripping is crucial.

I can only speak for myself, but I feel that a shoe that can protect your feet from wounds while maintaining the type of mobility as being barefoot is the best “all-around” shoe one could use. You gotta to admit; the science makes a lot of sense regardless of a persons’ knowledge of biomechanics. The simple fact that we can all implicitly agree on is that anything that allows any part of your body to move as freely/naturally as it should is always better.

So going back to what it’s for – It’s not an exaggeration to say “practically anything.” It’s a true cross-trainer, if you will.

The “Need” for Different Models

A very good question, I asked that myself, why do they have to come out with different models? Since being barefoot seems to be the best “condition” to do practically anything, why not just make a single model that does everything?

Hell if I know, but the legitimate answer (apart from profiting) I guess would be practicality, protection, and breathability. The KSO (Keep Stuff Out) is claimed to be the best all-around model because it can work for running, off-road, and water-related activities. Which is usually why if you plan to own only a single pair of VFFs, the “jack of all trades” KSO is usually the best choice. My first pair were KSOs as well.

However, the KSOs (and models of similar “coverage”) have a tendency to get too hot. Since VFFs are best worn without socks, which easily translates to smelly, sweaty feet. That, and they required much more effort and time to put on/get off.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) I loved the barefoot feel VFFs provided so much that I wanted to use it them more often – exclusively if possible. I needed a pair that I can literally slip on and off for everyday use. The KSOs were obviously not an ideal pair in that regard – so I got myself a pair of Classics which are much easier to put on, and are the most breathable of the lot.

There are a couple of other models as well, they’re basically fine tuned here and there for a specific need. Like if you want the breathability of the Classics but don’t want it slipping off easily when you run, then the Sprint would be a better choice. If you plan to go hardcore in your running and need a bit more “specialization,” (i.e. cushioning and sole thickness) then you’re better of with a Bikila or Speed. The list goes on as they release more models.

As for me, I’m currently fine with two types; the Classics for everyday walking, and the KSOs for more active use (e.g. hiking/climbing shoes, aquasocks, etc.)

Now if you read this far and still want a really good and in-depth primer of the VFFs, you can read it here

Lastly, it’s pronounced VEE-bram – because it’s an Italian brand/name.

It’s a Lian-li Tyr PC-X2000 which I had ordered last April – which finally arrived today… along with their T7 workbench – which I won’t be talking about.²

Lian-li, to me, is the brand to beat as far as desktop casing goes. If there’s one company that can rival Apple in the chassis department for their desktop computers – it would be them. If Apple focuses on the user-experience of their software/UI, these guys focus on the mechanical aspects of desktop casing.

I started out with a PC-60. I got it for a couple of reasons:

1. It was the first all-aluminum case available for DIY builders – much lighter than the regular steel cases.
2. It had a removable motherboard tray
3. It had front-panel USB ports – which at that time, wasn’t standard issue with any case.
4. It had a bunch of huge built-in fans – which again, at the time, wasn’t standard issue like the cases we see today.
5. It used “thumb-screws” – which allowed you to open up the case without having any screwdriver.

Simply put, if you like building computers, working with a case like this was, is, and will be a real joy.

I eventually realized that I needed a bigger case. Constantly accessing the innards became tedious as the cabling would get too cramped on a mid-sized tower. I upgraded to a full-tower PC-75.

I remember even having it modified (adding a handle and caster wheels) before transferring the components to it. It had a lot of improvements on the PC-60 apart from the size – but for some reason it did lose the removable motherboard tray.³

It was a good case and served me well – and has been the case I’ve been using until now.

The reason I felt like upgrading was when I came across the PC-X2000; it had a lot of features which solved a lot of sources of frustrations I had with the PC-75.

Take note of the wheels on the PC-75,
it’s really not that tall ;)

Fan Filter

The fan filter of the PC-75 has long since “decomposed” it’s just some special type of foam, so continuous washing, etc. eventually just made it brittle till it was unusable – and the “replacement” foam I’ve been using just isn’t up to par. This new case now has a more industrial type filter (the one to the right of the front-cover in the picture below) just like with air conditioners, which I imagine would be much easier to clean/maintain.

Black Anodized Aluminum

Speaking of maintenance, it was getting tedious to clean/maintain a gray aluminum case. The new case was black appealed to me very much because no matter how dirty it gets, it won’t be an eyesore.

Hot Swappable SATA drive bays

When I started migrating my drives to SATA, having hot swappable bays for them would be easier to work with. This new case had excactly that. In fact the feature isn’t common with the newer Lian-li models themselves, so at the time I bought it, the feature was specific to the Tyr PC-X2000.

Side mounted CD-ROM drive bay, Top access to controls/panels

These are more more of cosmetic things. The ugliest thing I always notice with computers is the CD drives – so much so that I end up buying Lian-li drive covers to “unify” the look of the case and exposed components. Given I personally don’t use the drives a lot, it was nice to relocate them to an area that isn’t immediately visible, yet still easily accessible.

The PC-75′s front panel, just like with the PC-60, was at the bottom. The power/reset switches was in the typical places (lower middle). Which is very annoying for a full tower case which is usually set on the floor. The new case fixes that by putting all main controls and panels on top.

Simply put, this allows the case to have a very minimalist front. Even the LED indicators are carefully placed as to not be so intrusive

Removable Motherboard Tray

The feature I love is back! ‘Nuff said

Narrower

I usually put the computer on the floor inside the table, so the PC-75 used to stick out quite a way lest the wires and connectors on the back would hit the table’s back. Now, the X2000 is narrower; so I could afford to push it inward more while still having space at the rear.

Pros

Apart from what I’ve already mentioned above, of course.

• Its really quiet – which is a feat in and of itself given the huge-assed fans it comes with.
• It comes with so many accessories to simplify the PC build.
  
  • All the screws and extra screws you will ever need: (30 drive/motherboard screws, 16 stand off bolts, 26 SATA HDD screws,⁴ 8 CD-ROM screws, 6 PSU screws, and 6 spare thumb-screws)
  • 6 regular SATA cables, and 2 extra long ones (to reach the CD-ROM)
  • PCI-Card holders of various sizes for extra long GPUs⁵
  • Special mounting bracket for SSI CEB/EEB type boards.
  • 6 HDD rail handles (for use with the HDD/SATA mounts)
  • Buzzer: the speaker isn’t built-in to the case anymore, it now comes as a cute detachable piezo thingie.
  • Cable ties and clamps for cable management

Cons

There are only 3 issues I have with this case.

• It’s too tall. I would’ve wanted to put the same modifications on the case as I did with my PC-75 (wheels and handlebars) but the case alone is taller than my modified PC-75, and anything taller than that wouldn’t fit under the table.

• While Lian-li has been thoughtful enough to provide all the cabling necessary, it wouldn’t hurt to having black shrink-wrapped cables. You’ll still have to do some cable management if you want to tidy everything up – including the use of cable-wrappers. Just compare the image below to the one above; the one above is after I’ve made all cables black.

• The fan-speed switch is covered by the fan filter. So you’ll have to take the filter off if you want to change fan speeds. Not that you’ll really need to adjust it often, I just set it to the highest (given how quiet it is) and leave it there forever. But still, it would’ve been nice to put it in the front-panel instead right?

Conclusion

All in all, I’m very happy with my new case. I don’t see the need of changing it anymore… but then again, that’s what I said when I got the PC-75 – so only time will tell ;)

Visit the official product page which describes all the features in detail.

The thing that makes this issue complicated is that both sides have their respective legitimate arguments – and the “problem” I see is how people assume something has happened simply based on the possibility that it can.

That mindset, while legitimate to a certain extent, is unfair to use in the field of technology because it is an uncontested fact that any system, given enough time, can be compromised. The goal of security experts has always been to, at the very least, make it extremely difficult for any hacker to accomplish such a task in a reasonable amount of time.

So given the elections, that’s quite a slim window of opportunity to get anything done unless you’ve already got a hack in place. That means the system already has to have defeated from the get-go – wether it by knowing the 128bit encryption cypher, or that you’ve tampered with all the PCOS machines, or that you somehow managed to tamper with all remote receiving servers.

Again, these are all possibilities… but you can see how foolish it can be to assume any one of them has happened based on unsubstantiated claims.

The Role of Cryptography

People underestimate the role cryptography plays in all of this. One of the podcasts I listen to is specifically geared to explaining internet security – and they discuss cryptography heavily.

Sufficed to say, without belaboring the subject, it’s safe to generalize that cryptography has matured far enough that as long as you had a robust implementation,¹ having access to the source code doesn’t necessarily compromise the security of the encryption. It’s worth mentioning that I’m talking about the source code on the implementation of the encryption – not necessarily the actual “OS” of the PCOS.

The 128bit key is the cypher that’s used to manipulate the data, as long as you don’t know what the key is, it doesn’t matter even if you knew how it manipulated the data. If I had said that I shifted letters by X amount (X being the “key”)… it would only be helpful if you knew what X was.

So here you have me practically giving you the source code; by telling you how I intended to “encrypt” the data² depending on X – and that “key” is the only thing that I left out in the equation. Of course it’s a given that brute forcing a single digit is simple since you only have 10 possible values. This type of cyphering is a far cry of what real secure encryption algorithms use.

What they’re implying that they have compromised a 128bit cypher. That’s claiming that they have successfuly found the single correct value out of 2¹²⁸ or 3.40282367 × 10³⁸ possible values/combinations.

Assuming you had a [as yet non-existent] computer (or supercomputer cluster) that can process 1 trillion passwords a second. On average, it would still take you around 2×10¹⁸ years³ to find that key via brute-force – and that’s assuming that the “system” you’re trying to crack allows that many “tries” in a second. Banks usually only allow 3 tries, then they lock you out.

Sufficed to say, as far as that “scenario” goes; the only way to get the key is if SmartMatic gave it to them in a silver platter. Because any other way would involve words like “God,” “immortality,” and “time travel.”

So Koala Boy’s claim of cheating by mere interception of the [encrypted] data, and sending modified data remotely is practically impossible… unless they knew the key, and that would imply SmartMatic itself was in on the action. That, or that SmartMatic programmers are incompetent fools who didn’t use encryption with their transmitted signals – either scenario is highly unlikely.

Server Hack

I’ll use the iPhone as an example for this topic of discussion. The whole jailbreaking scene, up to this day, hasn’t found/guessed the encryption key Apple uses for its hardware. At best, they are able to circumvent it locally in the device. But this sometimes isn’t enough IMHO; in some cases, there’s still the server you’ll have to deal with.

The best example of this when you try to downgrade your firmware. Apple has put in an “extra step” when installing firmware on your device; iTunes has to “phone home” to ask permission from Apple servers if what you’re doing is allowed. In a nutshell; the servers do not allow you to downgrade your firmware… you can only upgrade it.

No matter what hack you do on the device itself, you cannot fool the server into letting you downgrade. But the workaround Saurik has come up with was to create another server that acts like the Apple server – and by editing your machines’ hosts file, you can redirect all calls to that server instead – and the fake server fools iTunes into thinking it’s talking to the official server, and “allows” it to downgrade the device.

In case you missed my point, my point is that in spite of all this, the official Apple server is still untouched. And all these hacks/workarounds are ultimately for manipulating data coming towards your computer/device.

This is hardly the case with the elections; where you ultimately send data out to the official servers. And the concept of a “fake” server is not applicable in this scenario; everyone’s polling data from COMELEC and all other official servers that were tasked to handle the results. The only way to compromise the system on this level is if you had access and had hacked all the official servers.

Possible, but again, what are the chances of that happening?

PCOS Hack

Most hardware hacks rely on exploiting some memory bug (what they call a buffer overflow/overrun) this allows you to inject arbitrary code. Jailbreaking iPhones naturally use this type of exploit as well.

I guess it is possible to say insert code that would fit right in between the part after the device recieves the votes, and before the data is encrypted and sent remotely. In the case of a jailbroken iPhone, this certainly seems to be the case; that’s why iTunes or the official Apple server still recognizes your hacktivated iPhone as a legitimate unit.

The analogy I would use here is person A handling the vote receiving, person B handling the vote counting, person C is the messenger, and person D being the recepient. Persons’ A, B and C are all within the PCOS machine, and person D is the server which only accepts official transmissions from person C – because only person C knows the “secret handshake”. If you can somehow get between A and C or B and C, you would have a shot, as you were able to manipulate the data locally before it was even “officially” encrypted (person C).

I’m not going to lie, this is possible. In fact there’s a video on YouTube demonstrating exactly this with the whole DieBold debacle.

Still, to successfully affect the election results significantly, you’d have to have compromised a lot if not all PCOS machines. Interception outside of the machine will not work (because person D will not accept person X masquerading as C, unless X also knew the handshake… which they probably don’t because of the crypto discussion mentioned above.)

But again, being a possibility doesn’t mean it is the reality. For one, the video’s pretty old, if SmartMatic is worth its salt, they should’ve had dealt with that possibility a long time ago. Plus DieBold algorithms are not necessarily SmartMatics, so you cannot assume that the same approach will work for SmartMatic. There are too many unknowns.

The Bottomline

The bottomline is that all these “possibilities” no matter how compelling they are – are still speculation. The only way of really knowing if Koala Boy’s telling the truth is if his side can procure a working implementation of their “system” – specifically showing that it has compromised SmartMatic’s proprietary system. To believe his claims at face-value is quite sad as it speaks volumes of how fear/rumors play a huge part in how our people think. Perhaps it’s that same fear-mongering that led us to select less than ideal leaders. But I digress…

If you still can’t get the idea, try to remember “Iron Man 2″ – Tony Stark was correct in claiming that his technology doesn’t exist anywhere else. And that would be a reasonable assumption. That his claim was disproven was precisely because there was a real-world implementation that refuted his claim… not because some asshole just claimed that “it’s out there… somewhere”

It is possible that there’s a flying teapot (from some damaged spacecraft) in orbit… does the possibility mean that it does exist? Remember, we’re not talking about the existence of God here, this sort of argument can be proven/disproven quite easily if the whistleblower just step forward and put his money where his mouth is.

NOTICE:
Icons last updated at 06.03.2010

For those who noticed my iPhone; I’ve been a fan of giZ’s Smoog theme forever now.

Very subtle and elegant IMHO. The only drawback is given how often I install new applications, that uniformity is easily broken… and it’s not like the author has time to make new icons for every application out there.

Which is why I ended up making my own, which I would like to share in case anyone finds them useful.

Custom Smoog Icons

Here are some “unofficial icons” created by yours truly. They were made either because the Smoog website doesn’t have icons for the apps in question, or that the available icons didn’t appeal to me.

Clicking on any icon will download the PNG file; just drop it/them into the /root/var/stash/Themes.XXXXXX/Smoog.theme/Icons/ folder of your device¹ (where XXXXXX is a random hash)

Custom SBSettings Icons

The gray icons are already existing icons – only that I set both “on” and “off” icons to a single, desaturated one. The reason for this is because “on” and “off” states don’t apply to those particular toggles – as they usually just launch a mini application. The rest were made from scratch.

These are a bit different as they are usually folders that contain two files (on and off states). Decompress and upload the folders themselves to the /root/var/mobile/Library/SBSettings/ folder of your device. Same requirements/procedure as with the application icons.

Anyways, enough of that. This post hopefully will be my last with regards to the political events that have transpired recently.¹ At this point, I think I really have to get back to worrying about the stuff in my regular “life.”

I actually had wanted to post this much much earlier (like right after the election), but couldn’t find an “angle” to use as a springboard. The reason was because the last thing I wanted was to post it late in the game and people would think Dude, you’re still hung up on this? Get over it!

But thanks to a friend of mine who felt passionate about the whole issue, and took offense to how I simply generalized Noynoy supporters believing in the false notion of mabait = magaling. I was called out publicly, which I didn’t mind.² So thankfully, now I do have that “avenue” I was looking for to get to post my thoughts – because I’d like people to understand where I’m coming from.

So, where should I begin…

See, the thing that makes this complicated is that I still sincerely believe my assertion to be true. And this isn’t because I’m being stubborn or anything, nor is it because my goal in life is to offend the people dear to me. I’ve claimed in a past post³ that I tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.

Gordon/Gibo vs Noynoy: The Objective Approach

As others have correctly observed – these elections were rather stressful given how divisive our social class⁴ was in selecting a leader. There were 3 clear candidates to consider: Noynoy, Gordon, and Gibo – but that’s as far as our “solidarity” went. The very act of choosing between them drove some ill-will between the camps of what was supposed to be “like-minded” individuals.

Yet, given that fact, it’s also worth pointing out that there is not as much “animosity” (if any at all – relatively speaking of course) between Gordon and Gibo supporters than there is between them collectively (and individually) against the Noynoy camp.

My Girlfriend (and her family) and my cousins voted for Gibo – yet I didn’t even bother arguing with them cuz to me it was just like “he’s fine too, I just think Gordon is better” Same way they felt when they found out I supported Gordon and applied their own “judgements” on me. But at the end of the day, we let each other be without feeling the need to “convince” each other as we seemed to have found a common ground in what we percieved to be what the country really needed; doers instead of icons.

The fact that both our sides are very iffy about Noynoy winning; that was indicative of something. And I guess I felt that it was significant enough to be a topic for discourse. Our camps didn’t “conspire” to do this, nor is it in our goals to sabotage the administration in any way.⁵

We simply and sincerely believe the majority has chosen not just an “inferior” candidate, but a significantly inferior one. And again, we’re not saying Noynoy will do poorly, nor are we saying that we hope he does poorly. We’d be relieved to be proven wrong; after all, a good president is good for the country – and that what everyone’s after at the end of the day. What we are saying simply stems from the sheer frustration that we, as a people, rarely get a chance to have candidates with such promise and potential, and we blew it so we can take chance on “the nice guy” – and sorry to say, that reason just isn’t good enough for me.

The “Anthropological” Approach

Take note of the quotes. Again, as Marian Rivera would’ve probably said it; I’m not a Social Anthropology, so this is just me trying to make sense of the whole thing in a societal context.

We go back to the issue of people being offended by “the generalization” I’ve asserted earlier on. So I will now explain why I have essentially distilled everything to that. It’s not because I simply “discarded” all other factors and just stubbornly would like to stick to the whole “hype” and “status” angle (though it’s very tempting to do so, I must admit) I certainly acknowledge that a number of Noynoy supporters did put more thought into their decision – but I daresay that the majority of the supporters didn’t.

This is analogous to claiming people who voted for Erap, Villar, etc. are generally misguided – perhaps that’s one thing we all can agree on right? But I personally know intelligent people who somehow still chose those candidates for one reason or the other.

So before anyone takes offense in my “prejudice,” try to remember how all of us generally feel about the other candidates’ supporters as well – and you’ll understand what I’m feeling – and hopefully be less offended; as we’re all guilty of “judging” those people at one point.

Unless you can honestly and truly say that you believe that all Erap supporters [in general] are of sound constitution, and that they weren’t “misguided” in any way, then you have no right being offended if people feel the same way about your group. In fact, I dare say that this might very well be the reason why people from the Noynoy camp get so agitated with our claims,⁶ perhaps its because they feel their decisions are belittled to the same degree of how we belittle the decisions of those who choose someone like Erap.

Another possible reason is perhaps they equate that single, isolated part of them (opinions on a specific topic) as representative of their whole being. That should they be proven wrong… it would diminish their value as humans. Of course not! It would certainly diminish their opinions with regards to politics, but not as a person. So us being proven wrong means we’re the ones who don’t understand, and my opinion on the matter would certainly mean less the next time around. If we’re proven right, then the opposite is to be expected. Simple as that, no need to make it more complicated; either you’re right and I’m wrong, or I’m right and you’re wrong.

And the thing is; I don’t mind being wrong, because that’s the only way I learn. What I’ve noticed with people is that they tend to be defensive; like they absolutely cannot accept the possibility that they might be wrong – maybe it’s because the stakes are much too high for them to just say “ooops”

We have to learn how to separate these different aspects of our lives. For example, I have asserted that most reasoning Noynoy users have, no matter how “intellectually engaged” their arguments are, when applied to the reality of the situation (and I’ll delve into this extensively in a bit) – can be too idealistic, and a bit naive. Shallow if you will⁷

But that by no means implies that the person is shallow. While it is likely for a shallow person to arrive at the same conclusion without any need to think critically, arriving at said conclusion doesn’t necessarily mean you didn’t think critically as well.

Correlation != causation.

But after saying all that, if it so happens that they still can’t (detach and relax) – should that really be my problem?

There is one tidbit that people tend to miss; that given all the facts and figures, there’s one thing that usually serves as a tipping point for these kinds of decisions: subjectivity. Subjectivity is what caused all this divisiveness. After all the facts, figures, projections, assumptions and calculations are done, we ultimately have to make a subjective choice as to what we think is best for the country – because ultimately, we really don’t know. Gordon might turn out to be a tyrant; Gibo might turn out to be a dog of the past administration, and Noynoy might be a great leader. Only time will tell who was right and wrong.

But make no mistake; that subjective call we all make was and should have been predicated on probability. If you just rely on faith/hope, your “decision” was no different from a gamble. And if we’re just gambling, why even bother campaigning or voting – let’s just spin the bottle and be done with it. It would certainly save us a lot of stress and bloodshed.

So there’s the rub… the probability, what do you base your “probabilty” on? Coupled with the things I’ve mentioned earlier, now you see why I root for Gordon – and why we think Noynoy is a considerably inferior candidate to the likes of the former or Gibo – and why people like us are soooo frustrated.

Nasasayangan talaga kami To me, Gordon or Gibo were like Titanium and Carbon bike frames and that we already had the budget, all we needed to do was pick one or the other. But for some reason, we started compromising here and there and ended up with a good ol’ steel frame. Which again, is perfectly fine, but it could’ve been so much better.

The truth is, we can’t help but reach that generalization you Noynoy supporters dispise; that it really boils down to Noynoy just being mabait – because if we would objectively test all other aspects… no matter how many legitimate examples you could use to support Noynoy… the simple fact is whatever Noynoy has done, compared to Gibo or Gordon, there’s no escaping the fact that he’s inferior in every other way⁸ – and I guess that’s where Gordon/Gibo supporters see eye-to-eye. Noynoy being “more capable” than they are simply doesn’t compute – it makes no sense. It would be a fluke at best – and again, if he does turn out to be a great leader… does that mean the mentality used in choosing him would be an optimal way of choosing leaders the next time around? Of course not!

Idealism vs Reality

I’m going out on a limb and claim something which I’m not sure would open a new can of worms: I think that the Noynoy camp is being too idealistic.

I know, I know, they did say that they have no delusions that it would be an easy administration and all that jazz – and I actually believe that statement. But consider this:

I personally was hopeful for the Aquino administration if Mar was in it. Because I think Mar, compared to Noynoy, is a more capable politician. I was kinda hoping he would do the work I believe Noynoy wouldn’t do, and yes, I’m being extremely biased at this point, so forgive me – it’s just how I feel personally. Anyways, even people from the Noynoy camp admitted that the decision for Noynoy to run was specifically because no matter how good Mar was, he simply wasn’t winnable – his “brand” was weak. So it would’ve been a wasted campaign the party had led with Mar. That’s totally fine with me; a good strategy is a good strategy no matter how you slice it. And I extend this “logic” to the other candidates in his party in various positions.

Here’s the problem with that approach, and it’s precisely why I’m claiming what I claimed above. They seemed to have banked on the idea of the government working as a “unit.” Which again, is certainly how everything should be – but not how it actually is. Naturally, having a bunch of your party-mates in the senate would give you the leverage you need for your administration to work. Again, the concept was sound.

But of course the results in the election showed it was an impossible feat to accomplish – and we’ll see soon enough what the implications of such idealism will be now that he’s got a bunch of people surrounding him that don’t necessarily share his “agenda.” This is where a leader’s individual capability will be tested; how he can tame that goddamned circus. And given the type of person Noynoy seems to be, I’m really not so sure he can handle those animals – because he doesn’t seem to be the aggressive type. 12 years and nothing to show for it, very aggressive!

What Exactly IS Our Role?

Which segues perfectly to the other argument the Noynoy camp loves to use now that they’re probably feeling the pressure of everyone expecting so much of their candidate. And this is actually what I really wanted to post about but could never get the right “angle” to start since it would sound too selfish if I had led with it right off the bat.

We have to do our part; the success of INSERT LEADER HERE will depend on the people.

Ok personally speaking, that’s the lamest cop-out I’ve ever heard. But sure, let’s run with it; lets try to discuss it in a more sensible manner.

The implications of that claim essentially passes responsibility back to us. As a citizen I’m very wary of this statement because while it is sound conceptually, it’s flawed realistically. Let me explain:

Assuming “active involvement” of the public as a major avenue of fixing the country, while certainly possible, will only work if it’s a sustained effort – meaning when all the hype of elections is gone, when the next “issue” comes and goes, whatever “we” have “started” should not only be still going, but going strong. And the chances of that happening is very slim.

As much as I don’t want to be pessimistic, I think maintaining critical mass of a sustained concerted effort for fixing the country on a voluntary basis, is nearly impossible given the culture, overall mentality, and population.⁹

I mean think about it: I will be first to admit that if I wanted to be that active/involved in fixing our country, then I would’ve gotten into politics/public service myself, which I didn’t. Why? because apart from following the law, I believe that anything else related to the country should be the responsibility of the government – that’s why we have a government in the first place! That’s why public service for the most part, is a job in every sense of the word. Volunteerism will always be a pleasant and welcome bonus, but by definition is not (nor should be) a requirement.

At the end of the day, After all the hype is over, I will return to my normal life to make ends meet. I’ll worry about my family and not necessarily the country’s issues¹⁰ And I’ll will “act” as much as I can to serve my family’s needs. Selfish? Hell, yes! But you know what? Those are my priorities, and I’m not ashamed to admit it – now, who’ll cast the first stone? ;)

The bitter truth (while not appealing to admit) is that it’s not unreasonable to think that way. Why? Again, because anything more should really be the government’s responsibility. And I’m willing to bet good money that many share these sentiments (wether or not they like to admit it) – even from the Noynoy camp.

I would definitely be a responsible citizen regardless of who’s on top – that should go without saying. But to imply that “doing our part” entails more than just being responsible citizens can be impractical – and can even be unreasonable in some cases.

As Randy David mentioned in his article

It is time we recognized the gap between our idealized notions of ourselves and the actual functioning of our society.

To me, the “involvement” required from us is to make sure we properly elect the people that will be fixing our country. And the elections was just that – and now we have what we have and will have to live with it for half a decade.

That’s why I’m being this vocal about it. Because to me, advocating is one thing that can actually work realistically; to make people realize that we choose leaders for the wrong reasons. The question is if and when people will listen; If and when people will start voting based on sense rather than sentiment. Clearly, given the election results, we are still in the dark ages as far as our mentality with that particular issue goes.

While I agree that a certain amount of cooperation from the people is needed for any government to function effectively. I submit that if you’ve got a great leader, simply obeying the law should be enough. And that the nation’s progress would still depend greatly in the vision [and more importantly actions] of the man on top.

Bottomline

So having said that, I refuse to accept Noynoy supporters “copping-out” claiming “we have to do our part.”

I will do my part; my part is not breaking any laws and not getting in the way of Noynoy’s plans. But what I’m really tempted to say is that, if you guys claim “involvement from the people” is that which will determine his success, then that’s your issue, not ours. I choose reality and you choose idealism, and I will not be suckered into personal suffering because of a decision I didn’t make.

Look on the bright side; if you’re right – you shouldn’t have any problem proving me wrong… because the fact that Noynoy won means that 40% share your “ideals” and 40% is a significant number. Literally enough that should all the Noynoy supporters actually put their money where their mouths are, it can turn the country around. And you could gloat all you want then and I would be the first person to admit I was wrong.

So there you have it, 40% of the population can do their part – for better odds, isama ninyo na those who claim they feel the same way regardless of their candidates ;) All that’s left is to observe and see how the “percieved math” above stacks up in real life. ;)

You know why people like me are so “arrogant” and “confident” in claiming these things? Because doing great things without necessarily having the “support of the people” can be done. A lot of people from Marikina may hate Bayani for various reasons, but you cannot deny what good he has done with the place – and to the greater part of Metro Manila as MMDA chair. You may hate Gordon’s guts all you want, but you can’t deny what he’s capable of dong when push comes to shove – and no matter what weaknesses those people (or their projects) had, they still have something to show for it.

We’re talking about the highest position in the land here; we should be expecting no less than the best. If you had deliberately chosen an inferior candidate (for whatever reason or “strategy”) under the impression that he may “step up” and live up to the expectations of the whole country, that’s perfectly fine. Just make damned sure he does live up to the hype he’s been given. Because I wouldn’t mind putting that exact same expectation on my candidate – and I’m certainly more confident that my man can get the job done – as he has already done great things without having the title of president.

Now that Noynoy is ensured of the title, he should have much more influence and clout to get things done. That’s why I will be holding him to the same standards I hold my candidate to.

Yes, we are watching your man, and yes we are holding you accountable for putting him there. Yes it may seem unfair as we would never do this with anyone else¹¹ If you feel uneasy now that such stipulations are “unrealistic” and “unfair” – you know what? You should’ve thought about that when you decided to take a chance on Noynoy when we clearly had better options. Simply put, if he is the man you paint him to be – then you really have nothing to worry about right? All these things I’ve been saying will not matter once your man does his “magic.”

Wrap up

To end on a positive note, one thing I appreciated was that thanks to the progress in technology, we have eliminated a chunk of the concerns that kept us distracted (e.g. cheating etc.)

Given that the automated elections are far more reliable than the old method, it gave the people a chance to be more discerning about their choices. Seeing that Erap is legitimately #2, and even the whole divisiveness of what I’d like to call the 3 “good” camps. Hell, the fact that I even took the time to “care” about this whole thing.¹² Shows how more engaged we all are. And that’s a good thing.

Gordon’s appearance made me reconsider my stance on our soceitey being a hopeless cause – that maybe we do have a chance in progress. Here was a guy that basically felt the same way I did; that stupidity ruled the majority – yet still was willing to take on the responsibility of trying to turn things around, regardless if he was appreciated for it or not. I will never have the kind of “patience” with the people he does. He may be sharp-tongued, but I can see just from the opportunities he turned down for a chance to get into a thankless job of fixing a majorly broken country, that he’s one of those who will really go the distance.

And in spite of all the frustrations involved; it is crystal clear that we do love our country more than we would like to admit – and that always a good thing.

The thesis of this post is that there is a possibility that the PLDT DSL service, literally damages Apple devices that have gateway (i.e. routing) capabilities.

Background

A few years ago, I threw away my Time Capsule (TC).¹ The reason for which was because its gateway/routing capablities died without any warning. It would always throw an error of not being able to authenticate with PLDT’s PPPoE server. When I try connecting the computer(s) directly to the modem, it/they would work. Hence I was convinced it was the TC’s problem.

That was then – now, I’m not so sure.

Recently

I eventually bought an Airport Extreme Base Station (AEBS) to replace the TC. The reason I specifically want Apple hardware is because it has support for reserved DHCP mapping via MAC address. In short, you can have it assign a specific IP to a registered machine even if you’re on DHCP.

Granted, there might be 3rd party firmware for the famous LinkSys WRT54G series routers that can do the same, but my particular WRT54G is a WRT54G2 – and the firmware compatible with that is limited, and the one I had installed doesn’t have that particular feature I want.

Also, I like using the Drobo as a NAS² device. The TC and the AEBS have a USB port where I can plug my Drobo in and have it accessible to any computer in the network. And again, the LinkSys model I have doesn’t have such USB support. Then there’s the whole issue of access via Samba and AFP (since I’m on a multi-OS environment) Accessing the Drobo via Windows requires Samba, while OSX can use both, AFP tends to be more reliable.

Whatever the case may be, lets just say that I prefer using the Apple hardware for my gateway needs. Period.

Going back to the story… just a few days ago, the exact same thing that had happened to the TC happened to the AEBS! That was too much of a coincidence if you ask me. So I started researching about it – and smacked my head to have found this thread.

Turns out it wasn’t my TC that had a problem… well at least not entirely.

Not Entirely?

When I try to put two and two together; I’m led to believe that the problem is both the hardware and the DSL service. But the latter causes the former.

The fact that the TC’s gateway never worked again, but plugging a new gateway (AEBS) did, clearly indicates faulty hardware.

However, that the new hardware would eventually act up now suggests that while it may be a hardware issue, something is triggering it… which can only be the DSL service itself. Furthermore, it’s specific to Apple devices because I always have my LinkSys router handy as a spare – and it always worked.

Then of course we have that whole thread of similar issues all related to Apple specific hardware – which automatically means my issue is not an “isolated” case.

It’s my belief that connections via PPPoE may have some data packets that can corrupt the ROM of Apple gateways in particular – and the corruption apparently is beyond a hard reset. Meaning once it hits you, it toasts your Apple-branded device’s ability to authenticate via PPPoE.

Tricky business

Now you can see the implications of having this issue resolved. Because it’s specific to Apple hardware, calling in tech support would always, as I’ve confirmed myself, result to them claiming that you have to buy another router, that their system is working just fine.

And they would be a bit justified in claiming that, it’s impossible to prove to them that there’s something in their system that’s wrong because it works on every other gateway device or machine – even on Apple hardware for the most part.

Solutions

Luckly, the thread did mention a workaround… which is to have the DSL modem itself authenticate with the PPPoE server instead of the router (or the machines) and act as a DHCP server itself.

This would mean that anything connected to the modem would only need to be set to get a connection via DHCP – which is a good thing as it literally makes your whole network topology “plug and play” in a sense. In cases like mine, it would mean we wouldn’t have to use our AEBS’ now-broken PPPoE feature to authenticate. All we need to do is set it to act as a bridge and we’re done.

The only “gotcha” according to the thread is that the solution only works for users that have a specific model modem: the Zyxel P-600. Other DSL modems are literally just modems – this particular modem is a modem with routing capabilities – but PLDT sets it up as just a modem by default.

Luckily, most new subscribers are given this particular modem. Unfortunately for me, I’m an early adopter – so the modem I have was the prehistoric Nokia one from the days when the DSL was still new.

Anyways, to cut a long story short, I filed a request to have the modem replaced. That has been done just this afternoon, then I appled the “fix”³ as dictated by the thread and viola! I’ve now got my network online again through the AEBS via DHCP instead of PPPoE.

Conclusion

If you experience the same problems as I did with your Apple branded base station, then try setting your modem as a router – and if you don’t have it, put in a request for modem replacement like I did.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to care enough as to actively advocate your vision in my own little way (as I’m usually apathetic to these sorts of things) I have no regrets in having done my part, no matter how futile it seemed, in trying to open people’s eyes to the truth most of us are not willing to accept… yet.

Please continue your public service in whatever capacity available to you. You, of all people, have already proven that you don’t need to be president to do great things for our people (of course it would speed things up if you were, but I digress).

May you continue to prove what we (your supporters) already know to be true – that regardless of others’ sentiments – you do care for our motherland more than anyone else in the current political landscape – and are willing to do whatever it takes to bring back our country the dignity it deserves.

I’m skeptical, but look forward nonetheless to the day that the Philippines will be ready for someone like you… because God knows we need it badly.

Don’t give up on us, Gordon.

• Carlo Santos from Pasig City

I just want to go on the record that if Noynoy doesn’t deliver on his promises… those who voted for him are not going to hear the end of it from me. And the next time we talk politics, your opinions would be of considerably less significance. So your man better be the person you hope him to be – because I’m pretty sure he’s not. And thankfully, unlike debating the existence of God, we will have the answer if he’s indeed the man who could “fix” our country. If your “faith” in him was just that; blind, naive faith – or if it really was based on something more substantial (which I highly doubt).

In fact, just for the heck of it, I’m willing to make a bet: If Noynoy wins, and he does deliver – then I’ll shave my head bald. If by some miracle, Gordon wins, and he doesn’t deliver, I’ll do the same.

My only stipulation on that bet is that whatever it is Noynoy “delivers” – will be of no less caliber than what Gordon claims he (Gordon) could accomplish.

So I won’t be accepting the “it’ll take time” or “it’s not as easy as it sounds,” or even the “we can’t expect that drastic a change in such a short period” types of excuses for an answer. Because I know our man would never cop out to answers like that – he never had to and still got results – why should he start now? You said your man can turn this country around, then I will expect of him no less than what I am expecting of my candidate. I will want to see concrete end-results – not just “in-progress” shit.

You know why us people from Gordon’s camp are so “confident” about these kinds of claims even if they’re still in the realm of suppositions?¹ It’s because he has done them in a micro-level already. Like I said, wether or not that it’s possible to “port” his accomplishments to a macro-level (the Philippines), of all the candidates, he still has the best chances by the mere fact of having the experience of “trying.”²

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know by now that Gordon is the type of man that will get things done – even if entails being a hands-on type of leader (instead of passing the responsibilies/blame to others). Whether or not this “initiative/determination” is driven by personal pride (of not looking bad / failing),³ or simply because he’s just that capable, isn’t really relevant at this point. As long as that inititave/determination yields the results our country so badly needs, how can that be a bad thing right?

The reason why I’ll feel bad if someone like Noynoy wins is because when all is said and done, and when my fearless forecast does come true⁴ the only consolation people like us have left to say to ourselves is that “it could’ve been worse” (We could’ve gotten Villar, or Erap). This is so disconcerting because given the candidates we currently have, it really could’ve been better – so much better.

I will admit, I do not underestimate the urgency of not letting people like Erap or Villar win, so while the “winnable” argument turns a lot of people off – when it comes to the point that Erap or Villar winning, then I guess voting for Noynoy would definitely be the better choice.⁵ I believe I admitted this on my earlier blog post(s), however the reason I’m crestfallen is that since it’s rare that I actually am this optimistic about the possibilities of our country, I’ve realized that we actually have a shot at true progress – which, if you know me, I’ve normally been very skeptical of.

It just pisses me off that the country is most probably going to waste a rare opportunity because they’d rather elect someone out of sentiment rather than sense – and the reasons for my jadedness, skepticism, or lack of faith in our society will be proven right once again – when right now, there’s nothing more that I want than to be proven wrong.

I apologize to Noynoy supporters who are friends of mine in advance; because this is really addressed to most of you. I have no qualms about Gibo supporters because I truly believe that this election, if people really used sense over sentiment, should really be between Gibo and Gordon. And both would be fine choices. While still I think Gordon is considerably more capable and experienced than Gibo, I wouldn’t mind Gibo winning as he, to me, is the real “second best” choice.

Noynoy, Villar, etc. are all a distant 3rd IMHO as far as potential goes. So I will have to be honest that Noynoy winning… to me is just like Erap winning – the only difference/consolation would [hopefully] be that that he wouldn’t be as corrupt (or corrupt at all) as you say he is – but as far as actually effecting change in this country – I seriously doubt it. That his VP is more capable than him (admitted by your own camp) is a clear indication of that.

If anything, it would be Mar that could actually do something – but it seems Binay might just win. If that happens, the whole “balance” of Noynoy’s situation will suddenly go haywire; can he really control someone like Binay if they don’t agree with policies? But you know who could handle anyone regardless of irreconcilable differences? Someone who isn’t concerned with “playing nice.” Someone like Gordon.

So I’m hoping for a miracle… and I will shave my head if that miracle is given to me.

I hope those people saying they will hold themselves accountable for the leaders they elect could really do something that could make up for that mistake (should it be proven that they indeed made a mistake). Because let’s face it, there’s really nothing you can do once you set the wheel in motion and realize you’ve made a mistake. What else can you do right? Nothing, because the only thing any of us could’ve done is just choose the right man for the job, and we didn’t – we blew it – simple as that.

Mo Twister was right when he said that it really is the people’s loss if Gordon loses. And if people still think that’s an arrogant claim instead of trying to see exactly what’s at stake here, then we fucking deserve to fall further down the rabbit hole.

My thesis is pretty simple with regards to choosing a leader for the country: Get the most qualified person for the job. Now that may be easy to say and every camp has it’s own [legitimate] arguments as to why they claim their candidate to be “qualified.” Given that all candidates seem to be “qualified,” it really leaves us with one delineating factor – and the funny thing is that it’s not really that different from an employer choosing a new employee.

From my field of work, I can say with certainty that the things we read in resumes or CVs mean less and less as the world continues to modernize. What we really pay attention to is an individual’s portfolio. That is to say, what actual things has he/she done This is important especially in our line of work as the real visionaries tend to be the people you least expect. That and most talented people in the tech industry have some form of “Aspergers”

In politics, one’s “resume” is what we usually see: the candidate’s marketing of themselves. And all three candidates worth considering (Gibo, Gordon, Noy) have their respective “impressive” traits (for lack of a better term) on paper. It’s but natural to assume that all of them will oversell themselves in one way or the other – nothing wrong with that; after all, that’s how you get a job.

That’s the resume, but the portfolio is another thing… it’s the actual tangible accomplishments – and that’s where certain candidates clearly start to set themselves apart from the rest.

Talk is Cheap, Results Matter

Here’s a simple test you can do to determine the objective potential of any candidate.

We have all candidates claiming they’ll end corruption… now give me an example where your candidate actually tried to do that. Then once you have found your legitimate “example”, compare it to how Gordon has tried to address it.

Or say, how to deal with poverty; each candidate is full of platitudes and promises (it should come with the package, Gordon is no different) but apply the same test; what has your candidate done to alleviate poverty? Then once you find your example, compare it to Gordon’s efforts on that front as well.

How about economics? If applicable, what has your candidate done to communities they were in charge of? Was it better than what Gordon was able to with his projects? Hell, even his his running mate (Bayani) has probably done more than the other presidentiables.

Same goes with crisis management. Has your candidate ever been tasked to handle something like that? If so, what have they done? How did it fare compared to how Gordon dealt with crises with communities he was in-charge of?

On Gibo

If you would notice, I don’t really criticize Gibo supporters for choosing to vote Gibo. This is because, just like with Gordon, he also has something to show for all his talk. He’s relatively young but he has already done so much. If he keeps at it, he might just well be similar to Gordon as being a man of action.

I’ll admit, just like any “non-supporter,” I am concerned about his potential loyalty to the previous administration. However, I while I do factor this in, I do not use it as the tipping point for not choosing him. Because I realize that that concern is a subjective claim – the only way to really know if he has the backbone to know when to make the distinction between responsibilities vs. utang-na-loob is if and when he takes office.

My choosing of Gordon over him is not because of speculating about where the latter’s loyalties lie – I’m choosing Gordon simply because he’s more capable, more experienced… and most importantly, all these claims are not speculation – there is a track record that corroborates his perceived capablities (based on what he has done).

My beef with [most] Noynoy supporters

Sadly, most of my beef really is with Noynoy supporters. But it’s worth saying that my main frustration isn’t because of the their choice per se,¹ but the reasons for which they chose him. I even blogged about it months ago

The thing is, when I try to pigeonhole the common denominator of what I think leads people like Noynoy supporters to decide the way they do is that they choose with their hearts rather with their heads. This is not to say its wrong – but it is, to me, very unwise.

Also, I’m not saying that because they decide with their hearts – that they aren’t using their brains at all. What I’m just saying is that the “priorities” they’re applying clearly indicates that they are more subjective deciders than objective ones. Again, this is not wrong at all… but like I said earlier, it’s unwise.

Now you might say “well that’s pretty presumptuous of you isn’t it? To think that we choose Noynoy because we think subjectively? What if we really believe with his credentials and qualifications?”

Certainly an argument worth addressing, and here’s my answer: I said earlier, it isn’t a matter of them being qualified as I’d would like to think they all are to certain degrees… the question at this point is who’s the most qualified – and more importantly, who has the best chance of actually following through (because qualifications mean shit if you can’t walk the talk) And sorry to say, anyone who claims that someone like Noynoy is more qualified than Gibo or Gordon has got their head buried in the sand – just apply the test I mentioned earlier and the truth of what I had just said becomes painfully obvious.

I hope Noynoy supporters would stop being so defensive and just admit that you’re voting for him simply because you like him. Factoring all complexities of decision making, etc. even assuming you also applied objective reasoning… you have to admit that it’s an accurate and fair assumption that at the very least, Noynoy supporters are being more subjective than objective.

There’s is an exception I’m personally fine with – and I have my friend Juan to thank for that. He supports Noynoy because Noynoy’s platform, according to him, puts some emphasis on health care. The rest of the candidates (including Gordon) are usually more focused on the usual suspects: Education, Poverty, Corruption, etc. My friend has an extremely rare [and expensive!] condition – so I totally respect his choice of Noy’s platform in that context. That may have been a decision based a personal need (as against the greater good of the people), but it’s not subjective IMHO – my friend’s need is real, and the platform supports health care… and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to take care of yourself first and foremost.

However, just like I mentioned in my old blog entry – if you’re of the camp that simply thinks Noynoy’s the best because he’s humble, “incorruptible,”² his pedigree, etc. Then you have to admit you’re being subjective.

I’ll now demonstrate that while, like I said, there’s nothing wrong with it (to each his own), it is indeed unwise to decide that way.

Faux Psychology

I’m putting “faux” in there, because, as Marian Rivera would probably say it, I’m NOT a PSYCHOLOGY. Therefore I do not claim to be an authority on it. But I have observed enough to make this generalization which has yet to be disproven.

Most humans, by nature, focus too much on impressions and senitmentality – this is obviously is a subjective mental process. The trouble with that is that it sticks longer than it should – and it’s not healthy. Noynoy’s hype is a perfect example of this. Pound for pound, he’s the least qualified, yet people still choose him. Imagine that, purposely choosing someone who you know is inferior (as far as capabilities/qualifications are concerned) simply because of the sentiment that he is “a good man.”

Now the reason why I don’t think that’s a wise barometer to use when choosing leaders is because we make it a personal affair – when it really should not be. It’s well and good if you can relate to your leader in a personal level – but the reality is that all societies are [too] diverse, that you really need some amount of “disconnect” to be able to govern properly. This means your leader should be able to enforce what people need… not what they want. And we all know that everyone is deciding on the level of personal wants.

We all (myself included) want a leader that is kind and gentle – but to be so stubborn as to have that requirement as a non-negotiable – that you’d risk electing someone who is most likely ineffective over someone who is proven to be more effective simply because the latter isn’t “kind.”

That is what I mean when I say people are too hung up on sentiment – and that is why it isn’t wise.

Being of “ideal character” doesn’t guarantee anything – it only guarantees a person is good natured (i.e. humble, etc.). It says nothing about his or her ability to solve problems. Let me give some examples.

Cory Aquino

Here’s the deal with Cory. She is benevolent, I’ll give her that. In fact, she reminds me of my Mother to be perfectly honest. But a good president? Are you friggin’ kidding me? The only reason she won is to save us from Marcos – not because she intended to fix the country – which she didn’t by the way.³

So during that time, she was indeed the best choice despite being not-qualified. If I had lived through that time as an adult, I would definitely have voted for her simply because we had no other alternatives. Cory was the solution to Marcos – not the country’s problem as a whole. People often fail to make that distinction.

Fortunately, we aren’t in such a desperate situation. We aren’t trying to “oust” someone and just need anyone to replace them. In fact, I dare say that rarely do we get the chance to have people running who can make a difference. And yet we stick to our impressionable ways of choosing leaders.

Can’t people see how “being good” isn’t enough when we need results!? Can’t people see that choosing a less capable leader simply because they’re good-natured doesn’t work!? Didn’t work before with Cory, didn’t work with Obama in the US… it simply doesn’t work, goddamnit! When will we realize this!?

And it circles back Gordon’s claims of people “not thinking.” Which really means “thinking more with your heart rather than your head.” and we are constantly falling into a societal rut because of it!

Barrack Obama

Barack Obama was the epitome of hope, character, and humility and yet he’s not following through with his promises. While people could be disappointed in the oh-well-I-thought-it-was-a-good-idea-but-turned-out-it-wasn’t context, but we fail to realize the real-world implications – that people are still suffering, losing their jobs, the economy’s tanking, etc.

Take note, to this day, there’s no question about Barack being a “good person” (at least compared to McCain) – but he’s turned out to be an ineffective leader. And choosing someone who had given us the impression to be capable – based on “character” – now reveals itself to come at a terrible price.

Bill Clinton

Now lets look at Bill Clinton. In the past years, the US was strongest during his tenure… So take your Obama, Bush, etc. And compare them to Bill; Bill is undoubtedly the better leader given what he has done for the country.

And yet, people ousted him because of a matter that really is neither here nor there when it comes to fixing the country. Make no mistake, the US slipped when Bill was kicked out. People had their “sentimental retribution” – but at what expense? The whole country suffered because of it.

Don’t get me wrong, I do prefer that our leaders are “morally upright” as well – I mean who wouldn’t right? It’s always good to start with an “ideal” – but we really should learn when to start thinking out of these “mental boxes” we have made for ourselves. To me, I put more stock in what a person/leader can do. The only time I will find the issue of “morality” worth investigating is if it negatively affects their capacity to do their jobs (i.e. corruption, etc.)

Simply put, Bill may have been indulging in other personal matters, but that didn’t change that he was good at what he did⁴. People can’t even argue that “if you can’t handle your family, then you can’t handle the country” – that’s the most naive thing I’ve ever heard. Bill was already managing the country just fine even when he stuck his dick into Lewinsky’s mouth – so that argument is moot.

So there you have it; The poster-boy of “goodness” failed to get anything done. Whereas the real effective one just happened to be “immoral” – and people consistently choose the former over the latter – at the expense of the economy, jobs, etc. Because of silly narrow-minded, subjective, sentimentality.

Tiger Woods

I thought I’d just throw this in for the heck of it.

You watch Tiger Woods not because he’s a good or bad person, you watch him because he’s a good golfer. You like golf -> you watch people play golf -> you watch Tiger play golf (because he’s the the Michael Jordan of golf). Should be a fairly simple and uncomplicated mental process right?

While his issue is indeed unfortunate, that never made him any less capable as being the best golfer out there. And again, people are treating the issue like its such a personal thing when it shouldn’t be. If there’s an issue, it’s between him and his wife – not him and the country. He’s being paid to play golf well – not to make sure he sticks his dick inside his wife’s vagina.

Shallow or Narrow?

I’m pretty sure that people are thinking that I’m must be admitting Gordon has such a bad character to defend him in such a way – which couldn’t be further from the truth. And to think that also proves my point on how misguided people can get when they rely too much on “sentiments” and “impressions” (like I said, it indeed is unwise)

Yes, he may be self-assured… arrogant even. But that doesn’t mean he has less integrity because of it⁵ People fail to realize that the results of the things he does (and has done) are actually the opposite of his “unfortunate” temperament. That is to say that you may think he thinks of us as “lesser beings” – and yet his projects are still for our benefit. Now why is that?

Why is he active in the Red Cross when he’s clearly an asshole right? Why he’s letting go of his senate post to prove his resolve in fixing our nation if you think he’s got the tendency of being a tyrant⁶ Why did he bother rescuing hostages when he thinks all of us are idiots anyways? Why would anyone, who seems to have so little respect for us, be willing to sacrifice so much for us? Just let that thought simmer in your brains – and hopefully, you’ll see him the way his supporters see him. There are so many good things he has done that doesn’t “sync” with his temperament if we were to believe others’ claims that he is nothing more than an arrogant prick.

If this arrogant prick can get things done, if this arrogant prick can bring our country to its former glory. Then by all means! Because believe it or not, you can be a prick and still do great things for others – just look at Sherlock Holmes, or Gregory house. Or if you want a real-world examples try Sir Winston Churchill, Larry Ellison (Oracle), and the grand master douchebag of them all: Steve Jobs.⁷

On Discrediting Gordon’s accomplishments

People talk about how much of Olongapo is still in poverty. And that may be true… does that mean he’s any less capable?

Wayne Gretzky said “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” Even if Gordon hasn’t “fixed” Olongapo completely, he still “took the shot(s)” in trying to “fix” it – there still is progress, no matter how little (and I’m already downplaying it to ridiculous levels at this point). How about your candidate? What has he/she done? Compared to Gordon, its not unreasonable to say that they have done absolutely nothing relatively speaking. So to call him out on not fixing his “business” completely – when your candidate doesn’t even have a business to start with is kind of strange. If you want that argument to stick… then first have your man do something similar then we could re-evaluate your claims.

Or lets take the argument that “Subic is not the Philippines” – that the scope and nature of the two “endeavors” are too different for Gordon to handle. Is translating the succcess of Subic to the Philippines indeed impossible? I don’t think so, but perhaps. Is assuming all of Gordon’s accomplishments are not applicable to the Philippines? I disagree, but sure, lets say it may indeed be that way. But speculating gets us nowhere.

The thing is, I could easily throw that argument back at whoever dished it out – and my argument would have more weight; because when all is said and done, Gordon would still be the candidate that will have something tangible to show for it – and he didn’t even need to be president to do it – what more if he was.

Face it, even if we assume that all three “could never anticipate” the gravity of the post they are applying for – it’s still clear who of the three has the best chance of not buckling down under pressure by the sheer amount of crises he has had to deal with – regardless if it’s applicable to the country as a whole or not.

So I ask you this: If Gordon’s accomplishments doesn’t convince you he can turn this country around – what makes you think YOUR candidate’s LACK OF THEM will? You mention that Gordon’s credentials are still inadmissible as qualifications to be the best man for the job… but your man, who has done nothing compared to him, could!? We both have to admit how utterly ridiculous that sounds right?

Gordon’s “policies” may not be popular to some people – but respect the fact that he tries (and even succeeds in some cases) – which is more than I can say for the others.

Handling the truth

I’ve said a lot already at this point… my frustrations are rather similar to Gordon’s. Can you blame us if we think that people are not “thinking” when they’re voting for people like Noynoy? I’ve just broken down a considerable amount of objective weights one should be using in picking a candidate – and no matter how hard I try to justify Noynoy’s capabilities, when pitted against the other two, it just simply doesn’t make logical sense to choose him. The ONLY thing going for Noynoy is his “humility”⁸

Claiming to choose Noynoy, on the grounds of objectivity (aside from the exception I stated earlier on) is an oxymoron. He’s the least capable of the three no matter how you want to slice it, and it’s frustrating that people celebrate choosing that sort of a leader. It’s Cory all over again.

Synthesis

The truth is, humans in general have a lousy way of gauging what’s better for their country because they’re too hung up on analyzing things on a personal level. We really should stop doing that and admit that our leaders should govern us the way we need to be governed – not how we want or prefer to be.

Like I said earlier, this isn’t just like choosing friends where you can afford to choose solely by impression or subjective preference, because damaged friendships can be re-established EASILY for as long as both parties are willing to work on it. Besides, at the very worst, you won’t be friends – you’ll move on, and find other friends.

But poverty? Corruption? An economic depression? Loss of jobs? Or any of the other “implications” in choosing a less capable leader simply because he seems like a good man? Not so easy! (In my sing-songy voice) This isn’t the time to be “experimenting.”

With strained personal relationships, time can heal all wounds. We can be as careful as we want, take as much time as we want, etc.

We do not have that luxury when managing nations. Time is our enemy in that sense. Time will increase inflation (if the economy is not addressed as quickly as possible), time increases poverty (if the population, among other things, is not kept in check), time will allow corruption to fester, entrench itself, plan, and plot, and execute – if not dealt with aggressively.

AND, unlike Jesus Christ – there will be no 2 thousand year “grace period” for a concept to sink in and have people believe and finally act on it. Either we do this as soon as we can, or just continue down the downward spiral – until we are beyond saving.

What we need is immediate, aggressive change – and more importantly, the enforcement of those changes. I dare say that just being a “good” person will not cut it. What you need is a headstrong, driven, decided person who’s not afraid to make enemies if need be – for as long as the job gets done.

I choose Gordon because he is clearly the best choice. Unlike the others, what Gordon brings to the table is not a matter of speculation – he’s already proven to walk the talk.

I choose Gordon not because Gibo might be Arroyo’s dog. I’m choosing him not because Noynoy might be an empty promise. I’m not even choosing Gordon because I noticed that he thinks like I do (that’s just a pleasant coincidence).

I’m choosing Gordon simply because my candidate has done and can do more than whatever your candidates put together can muster. And I think we’ve had enough empty promises thrown our way by our “leaders” over the years… why not try picking a leader that will actually do something about it?

Enhanced content can [only] be viewed at nargalzius.com

This could be considered a milestone since there are a lot of “firsts” in (re)making this song.

1. It’s sequenced in Sonar 64-bit on Windows7.
2. First time to use the BFD2 (drum software)
3. First time to use Trilian for the bass track – and the different articulations are now done with one single instance¹ ;)
4. First time to use Omnisphere (synths)
5. First time to try recording using the FastTrack Pro… which honestly, sucked balls. Probably the last time I’m going to use it for desktop recording²
6. First time to try the jBridge VST wrapper – this allows me to use 32bit plugins which Sonar’s BitBridge tech couldn’t handle. So I was able to use my old Waves Plugins on 64bit

There are 2 drawbacks AFAIK

1. I lost the ability to use Reason for the meantime. But given I’m using a different synth and bass now, there really is no… er… reason to use Reason for now. There is one thing I kinda miss though; the old version had a sorta jet-engine-esque screeching sound effect, and that’s c/o Reason.
2. There isn’t a “DX wrapper” that I could find that would let me use Antares Microphone Modeler. This is the reason why the vocals don’t sound as “good” as they used to.³ Right now the plugins I had to use couldn’t “shape” the sound as well as the Antares modeler did. Also doesn’t help that the product has been discontinued – so there’s no hope of getting an “updated” version that works natively with Sonar 64bit.

Beyond

5:13 / 4.7MB
04/19/2010
Carlo Santos
Theme: Social hypocrisy

I
Hey, can you hear me? Are you restless inside and can’t seem to take anymore?
Can you feel me as I try to do what I can to open the door?
Can you see me when I spit in your eye as I shove back the lies down your throat. Won’t you greet me? ‘Cause I finally realized how wrong I was all along.

REFRAIN
Don’t you dare say that you know how to fix this mess were in. I’ve heard it all before

We see the light at the end of the tunnel, but we’re wasting time with things we do not need.
And we think – we start to wonder if we could touch the sky while remaining in our places.
I am so sick of these words that we say, and this shit about “possibilities.”
Why don’t/not we just relax, step back, attack these problems that we see;
trying not to overthink, but just get over ourselves.
Don’t look above/around. (Don’t look inside) Look beyond.

II
Hey, are you happy? Well then good for you! Have you tried making others the same?
Are you laughing? Well, it’s hilarious how your insincerity actually is!
And when you’re crying; do you realize that there so much more pain there outside?
You wanna piece of me? Well, come and get it . . . at least then, you’ll finally show initiative!

REFRAIN

OUTRO
We see the light at the end of the tunnel, but we’re wasting time with faces, places, and cases of futility.
Then we start to wonder if we could touch the sky while maintaining our paces.
I am so sick and tired of solutions we say and the sheer lack of follow-through.
Why not we just relax, step back, attack these problems that we’ve made;
Stop to think; shut the fuck up – and get over ourselves.
Don’t look above. Don’t look inside. Look beyond!

Ok, I’m not so sure if “epic” would be the term to best describe it – since there was nothing really life-changing or earth-shattering. But the sheer number of fails probably puts it at epic proportions ;)

First, some revisions at work made me practically recode so much stuff that I ended up not having time to finish it.¹ Hopefully today’s the day… that and they don’t send revisions that would entail drastical re-coding stuff.

This is actually pretty routine, but I usually get a good handle if I could get something done in time or not, and this was one of the few times I missed the mark.

Then, Cris and I were supposed to watch How to Train Your Dragon; and ClickTheCity.com had listed it as still showing in Eastwood. I wanted to watch in Eastwood because I love the BBQ popcorn there (you should try it!) – only to find out that it wasn’t showing there anymore!

So we decided to go to Metrowalk to have dinner and just buy dibidis – after getting said popcorn (since we were there already).²

We proceed to Yoo-hoo BBQ in Metrowalk – cause we’re “spartan” like that.³ I ordered it, but as I was eating, it wasn’t the taste I expected. Only then did I realize that I had ordered the roasted liempo instead of their inihaw one!

Then, we went on to the dibidi area where we got whatever was available of House and Chuck (and another movie).⁴ Apparently, I was too trusting (as I tend to be for some strange reason) and found out when I got home that the guy who said there were (20+) episodes on each disc was lying. We’ve already watched all the House episodes there, and only got to watch one new episode of Chuck.

In true Murphy fashion, the fails didn’t end there; the hard disk where I keep my audio recordings started acting up⁵ … and of all the files to be “zeroed” out due to corruption – it had to be the song I was working on recently!

While the bounced audio tracks⁶ were still there, I lost all the MIDI data – which is always useful to have when I wanted to change some [virtual] instrument lines – now I’m pretty much stuck with the bounced data as if a live band recorded it and I couldn’t afford to have them come back for revisions⁷ So when I get the chance, I’ll have to manually re-import those tracks and build a new session from them – tedious work ahead!

On the bright side, I was able to copy all the contents of the “failing” drive to the Drobo – so I can afford to try using it just in case I find a way to “fix” it – after reformatting it, of course.

I still haven’t given up on it though; I plan to use SpinRite on it and see if it can revitalize the drive (as it can do in a lot of cases according to testimonials). I’m hoping that if it does, it would fix that zero KB file and restore a complete version of the song I was working on – and save me a lot of headache.

I even remember Cris complaining that me “never” getting angry with her² was/is a constant source of her “insecurities.” Ika nga sa lahat ng “away” – ang pikon, laging talo³ – and I guess on that front, I usually come out on top… usually. While I do have my share of “quirks” that are enough to eclipse that singular “plus” I seem to have, that plus has never been disputed – nor could be disproven even if someone tried.

Pride

I think this allows me to have the type of candor I have – because at the end of the day, after I’ve said my piece, there literally is no hard feelings/grudges from my end.⁴ I noticed that this is something a lot of people have trouble with; that they don’t mean what they say. They say everything’s ok when it’s not. They say they feel this or that way when they really don’t. I, on the other hand, find it easier to just be frank about stuff as it gets a lot of the “weight” off on the onset – and makes it easier to “handle” the situation once the “air is cleared” as far as opinions/expectations go.

Anyways, what brings me to post about this? Read on if you’re interested.

Disclaimer

So far, in my 30 years of existence there are 4 people that have put me “past my limit”… a state which ultimately ends up with me denying their very existence⁵ ;) 1 during high school, 1 a few years ago, and 2 “family members.” Isn’t it funny that after all this talk about being “tolerant,” I certainly seem to balance it out by my sheer lack of being able to forgive. Perhaps it just comes with the territory; perhaps the “forgiveness” was already being applied – constantly… and when I finally “snap” it is, quite literally, too late. Who knows!?

Digression

A small part of my urge to post about this is that I heard (i.e. someone had told me) that the second [person in my "blacklist"] had mentioned in their blog that they had “forgiven” me. All I could do was laugh… not because of any defense mechanism on my part, but simply because it was too funny to fathom. The last time I checked, it’s [meta]physically impossible to “forgive” someone you’ve wronged. So I was like “funny, I didn’t realize I was in need of forgiveness – especially from THAT person.” – iba talaga, I guess, pag delusional ang tao.

In any case, whatever rocks their boat or gets them to sleep better at night; more power to them I say! I don’t really care either way since they’re dead to me – so whatever improvement or degradation in their “lives” are of no consequence to mine at all⁶ – that, and I know something they don’t⁷ ;)

The Real Reason

The real reason I posted, was while I was already “compartmentalizing” that [previous] aspect of my life as an “aside,” – the topic “tolerance/patience” came back up while sorting out some files in the computer.

As my previous post suggested, I’ve upgraded the OSes in my main machine, and I’ve decided to start “cleaning” up a lot of unsorted files I just dumped into the Drobo. I came across some “log” I [apparently] kept through the years, that file outlined an issue and the steps I, and the other party had taken to deal with a certain issue. It looked like it was made in preparation to go after someone’s arse publicly (and thankfully didn’t get to that point, but still).

The issue was a simple one: I used to have a Klipsch 5.1 system which conked out right after warranty. At that time, I was “active” in a computer buy & sell community called TipidPC.com – and they had a member that had good ratings of being able to repair various electrically damaged stuff. The testimonials clearly stated that he could even repair motherboards, which was no joke. So naturally I decided to have my system repaired there. And thus, started another “test of patience.”

The story/log can be read here. Take note, this was written probably in December 2005 – and as you noticed from the beginning statements that the issue started way before then. In case you didn’t read it, long story short; it never got repaired, and was returned. It’s also worth mentioning that ultimately that person wasn’t added to my “blacklist” – not that it matters, since I never really make lasting ties with anyone in the TipidPC community – why should anyone? It’s a service site – so it’s impersonal by nature.

All the same, the experience was a good example of how patient I can be – underscored by the fact that it was with someone I had no personal connections with⁸ I’m much more patient if it’s actually a friend, or someone I care deeply about.

Prejudice

I noticed that the “issue” itself also underscored a general frustration and observation I have with our [Filipino] “culture” – particularly how “unreliable” we can be.

In this case, it was an issue of professional courtesy, and work ethic. Why the hell would he try to cut costs when I’ve already volunteered to foot the bill on materials. The only reason was to try to still make a bit more money out of the funds I gave, and not just to save face/reputation – and that, to me, is just being plain selfish at that point.

It happens often enough that it makes me wonder if I put too high a standard on the people I encounter? Am I expecting too much of the people around me? I guess it’s hard for me to be “fine” with, because I, despite all my “quirks,”⁹ am still a pretty reliable person when push comes to shove. Am I expecting too much when I end up pulling the if-someone-like-me-can-do-it-why-can’t-you card on people – at least when it comes to “basic prioritization” of anything in one’s life?

On the flip-side, I’ve long accepted the fact that shit happens and that we are all unique in our own ways (i.e. “different strokes, different folks”) – so I guess I am expecting too much if I pursue the thought. That’s why I actively try not to – but the byproduct of that is I tend to be judgmental because of it. And it begs the question; can I help being judgmental? Why shouldn’t I be?

Given how “tolerant” I already am; I’m already putting up with the crap and accepting it as it is – it doesn’t mean I have to like it. And given humans have the power to change anything they themselves have inflicted on others… if they don’t act on it,¹⁰ is it wrong to assume they’re less of a person because of it – at least as far as that particular issue goes?

So if someone considers you as someone you think you’re not… and if you are affected and take issue with it, isn’t it natural to prove the person wrong? Because by not doing anything and going on with whatever “actions” you were doing that made them think that way of you – you’re essentially just proving them right. Simple as that.

I believe that we as humans are constantly sized-up in different aspects of our “being” – there’s just no getting around that fact. The reason why I don’t mind what most people think about me is because I don’t mind being judged – because I do it too (you should be able to take whatever you can dish out).

What “frustrates” me is when people don’t like being judged, but don’t even try fixing whatever it is that triggered that “prejudice.” So for example… to be politically incorrect, the thing about stereotyping (e.g. racism) is totally fine by me. Because while there are exceptions… it’s still mostly true – and to me, it’s solely the fault of those that represent the demographic that has been “stereotyped.” The song Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist from Avenue Q basically explains the phenomenon.

Same goes with profiling/stereotyping – it will happen – and the only thing that can prevent it is if the person actively proves or disproves it. And it all cycles back to human effort.

Our (in)decisions truly dictate who we are – whether we believe it is who we are, whether we like it or not. The sooner people come to terms with thing as fundamental as who they really are, without having to complicate things by factoring in “morality” et all, the better we’ll all be.

When I mentioned “morality,” I’m just talking in terms of prejudice – or recognizing your true worth as a person. I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t do anything in context of “defining” yourself – but I am saying that whatever it is you do (or not) does define you.

The reason I’m “secure” with who I am is I guess I’ve come to terms with my shortcomings, and if people judge me by them, then I will accept such judgment simply because they’re probably true; and if not, I have no problems proving them wrong if need be. I’m not living my life to impress people, but to simply be accepted as I am – and if I try being someone I’m essentially not to get that affirmation, then it’s not really “the real thing” for me – because I would be lying to myself.

So I’ve decided to “upgrade” the Hackintosh¹ to Snow Leopard (SL). I was hesitant to leave Leopard (especially for the work machine) because of this bug I experienced in my MacBook Pro.

Primer

So for those who are confused: I basically have a Drobo where I pretty much store all my data. And I need to have the computer(s) connect to it persistently since I’m a symlink whore; from the keychain, to IM logs, to my iTunes library – everything has been migrated to the Drobo and simply accessed by the system via symlinks.

The reason I chose the symlink approach is because I want to be able to store all critical data outside of the actual computers… so in the event of a system crash… the data is on the Drobo (which, if you researched about it, has fault tolerance built in)²

In the video you saw, this was when my Time Capsule died on me, that’s why I was connecting to the desktop. Normally, I have it connected to a base station – and have all the computers in turn connect to it. It used to be the TC, but now it’s the Airport Extreme (AE).

Going back to the issue

It’s worth mentioning that this “bug” only appears in Snow Leopard. When I got my AE, and reverted to my usual network topology; the Hackintosh (Leopard) could access the drives fine, but the bug persisted in the laptop.

Thankfully, I was able to work around that bug by accessing the NAS via SMB (Samba) protocol. But I noticed that the protocol is good for general file access, but not as efficient as AFP. AFP for some reason beyond my comprehension, works faster it seems (which is especially noticeable when I’m using iTunes, or doing my photo post-processing sessions)

Going Snow Leopard exclusively

So that’s what kept me from upgrading for the most part; that, and I really wasn’t in the mood to take the time to do another Hackintosh install for the heck of it (it’s more “involved” than one would hope it would be). But after messing up the boot partition after installing Windows 7, I thought I’d bite the bullet and do everything in one go (spent most of the weekend on that).

So I upgraded, and sure enough it experienced the same bug. Even worse is that, now when I connect it directly to the computer (and not via AE) it would do that alias error thing before I could access it at all. That was unacceptable! Also, since then, the Drobo has expanded from it’s single 2TB volume to 4TBs (split into two 2TB volumes) – and for some reason the second volume was working fine!

So that led me to believe that there was also something wrong with the filesystem of the drive instead of the actual OS. It seemed that SL was more “particular” than Leopard – which is why it thew errors where Leopard would just handle it like a champ, albeit inefficiently (not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. It’s similar to say comparing AS3 to AS2 in flash programming).

The “Fix”

So I googled and googled – and finally came across this gem:

Sure there’s a “fix” with Apple software. You’ll need to install the Developer Tools (XCode) from the Snow Leopard Install DVD, though.

After you’ve done that, you can use SetFile to clear the Alias bit from the misbehaving Volume:

/usr/bin/SetFile -a a /Volumes/<YourExternalDriveName>

Please keep in mind that using this command might be dangerous, so don’t try this solution unless you feel confident on the command line. (Refer to the online documentation on SetFile or invoke /usr/bin/SetFile without arguments for more info on the command.)

I actually didn’t do it that way. The first suggestion was to use an app called Path Finder, where that particular “bit” they were talking about is easily (and safely) set via its GUI.

Long story short, setting that Alias bit fixed everything! Now I could access all volumes of the Drobo both directly [via USB] and persistently [via the network using AFP] – and all my OSes are on Snow Leopard to boot!

Good times!

…but what makes a relationship “real?” Or at least, what makes it more “real” than faith? Is it simply the physical presence? What about our relationships with loved ones who have passed on?

I think the question would be worth making a new entry for – as it’s a perfect opportunity to expound on what I’ve touched on before.

And I apologize in advance; because I will be forced to use a shit-ton of quotation marks here – because I have a sinking feeling I’m going to regret this particular topic of debate with a bonafide Philosophy teacher, and I will admit right off the bat that as far as verbal/written articulation is concerned, I’m probably going to look like an idiot – but I’ll try anyways :)

Recap

The thing that led Roy to ask this question was when I stressed the importance of real empirical human relationships over relationships that are simply based on faith.

The general claim was that I [personally] put more value in human effort rather than human “beliefs.” That is to say, I “judge” a person’s worth based on what they do – not necessarily the beliefs they hold. And the reason is because in context of a limited world view, I don’t believe that there is always one answer (that admits of no exceptions) to every issue – something which the tenets of a “belief system”¹ tend to be by their very nature.

It’s sometimes tragic how people are convinced that the complexities of life and relationships can be distilled to something so simple, that you can just apply some “rule” without exceptions and that would be the end of it. This is even more tragic when they cause others (bonus points if those people care about them) to suffer because of actions/decisions made in that context.

It’s one thing to admit that we all have a limited world view, but another thing to not even try as hard as we can to look beyond this limit.² How people could one simply say “thou shall not kill” in context of the complexities surrounding issues such as euthanasia, or abortion? How could one can talk about the 7 deadly sins, yet fail to realize that we are sexual beings as well (and it’s importance to our species’ survival)? How dogma has managed to vilify something natural to humans (instincts, urges), as something seemingly so despicable and corrupted (original sin).

Addressing the Question

The thing about relationships being “more real” than faith is extremely difficult to answer given our limited world view. In fact, I do not even contest the “reality” of faith in and of itself. The act of believing is certainly a real, conscious decision [or action].³ The issue is more of believing in something that ultimately might be untrue. Emotional benefits aside, faith by its definition implies the belief of something to be real (without proof) – but it says nothing about the thing being “believed in” to actually be real.

While both relationships and [the act of faith] are “real,” the “things” these two “states of action” are evaluating are quite different. The former, IMHO, is already “complete” proof/evaluation of itself – while the latter, while similarly “existing,” in a sense, requires “more” to actually mean anything. Simply put, the latter has to “assume” something to make an experience [in its context] “palpable”⁴ … while the former already is a palpable⁵ experience – whether or not we assume anything.

So I can have faith in a friend that says they’ll never betray me… until they do (and life has so many examples of that) So in that extremely common example, the existence of faith doesn’t necessarily justify the existence of what is being purported to be true (the friend’s loyalty) – the friend is still free to go either way; we have no power over that. Whether they vindicate or shatter that faith we put in them is entirely up to them. But there is no doubt that the relationship we have with that person is very real. Their ability to betray us can and will [inescapably] change the dynamic of the relationship – how much “more real” can you get than that?

Human effort and action have the power to make clear the authenticity of that which is being evaluated (the relationship) beyond any doubt. Our ability to respond or act is very much palpable, and even testable – and its precisely that ability to respond/act that makes it more valuable for me – so naturally I would far more prefer to apply that in the context of something similarly tangible; like an actual relationship between people – rather than acting based on some “unseen/unproven” force.

So, all things considered, my [current] stance is that yes, the physical presence does make relationships between people “more real” than faith (or relationships based on it). I don’t see why it’s unreasonable assume such; the fact that human relationships are present in the empirical domain should at the very least, put it above faith as far as the “hierarchy of realistic significance” goes.

Even Roy’s stipulation of relationships with loved ones who have passed on is no exception; those people were real. Whether their existence in our memories after they had “expired” constitute the type of “reality” were talking about is anyone’s guess. But they, at the very least, were tangibly real – and your relationships with them were, likewise, palpably real. That’s why losing them is most of the time, a painful experience, because there was a tangible thing that was lost.

Even an absentee father who has passed on did have a “tangible” relationship his child, albeit a lousy one. His actions of not being there for the child – and the child’s reaction of that fact (whether it be of understanding, forgiveness, or resentment/hatred) – are all tangible enough to [inescapably] influence the course of that relationship between each other. So regardless if the relationship was a “good” or “bad” one it still is (or was) one.

On a Personal Note

The reason why I put so much emphasis in real human relationships over dogma is because of real world implications both approaches can accomplish; our actions can affect relationships for better or worse. Having said that, my opinion is that it’s much better (and safer!) to attribute something fortunate/unfortunate to an actual legitimate cause. – because in the case of the unfortunate events, there’s accountability. This is of course all in context of human effort/decisions/actions.

Realistically and practically speaking, having accountability is a very good thing – because any “effect” can be clearly traced to its source; and in the event of an unfortunate event/disagreement, finding a clear source of contention allows us to immediately address and resolve an issue – all that’s required is that the parties involved take the time and effort to do so.

This is where decisions based on faith/dogma usually fail. When people decide based on faith, and [unfortunately] end up being agents of suffering,⁶ instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they try to justify themselves based on dogma, they “cop out” essentially – they feel no accountability for their actions because they have the convenience of pointing to some unseen “force” as a justification. And when it boils down to opposing parties trying to have a reasonable dialog – how can one possibly have a reasonable discussion when the other is being… quite literally, unreasonable.

In that context, they fail (or refuse) to realize that as humans, we have the power to inject change in any of our relationships with the world for as long as we live and are capable of action. All the absentee father needed to do was show up, and things would’ve probably been very different (in a “good” way). An open mind admits of exceptions; that everything isn’t static – that conditions, people, events, situations change – and that nothing is absolute/final. Whereas Religion, like Roy said, tends to have a limited world view; but with ultimate and exclusive claims.

In my opinion, there should be no clear-cut “reference” one should use when dealing with relationships. Rather than relying on dogma, constantly evaluating and (re-evaluating) situations based on their context is a far more effective means of moving in this domain. The allowance of “exceptions” makes it possible for individuals to both achieve personal fulfillment (of being who they are without the fear of being judged), and keep their relationships with the world [and its inhabitants] “unruffled.” I mean even a person such as I would rather not “rock the boat” if I could help it – but at the same time, there are things I would like to do that normally would require challenging the “norm.” Being able to decide on a case-to-case basis allows for an optimal (and possibly balanced) course of action that achieves that “middle-ground” – what I like to call indulging responsibly.⁷

Simply put, what’s “right” or “wrong,” or what’s “good” or “bad” would depend on the situation; after factoring all the other elements affecting it. I believe any decision a person makes will have it’s share of both positive and negative implications – and it’s a matter of deciding which course is “better” for you and the relationship. However, there is one clear thing that is present in this case; that no matter what you decide, there is accountability. You should be fully aware and informed when you make decisions – because, as I said every decision will have its share of positive and negative implications.

That’s why I consider human relationships, by virtue of their empirical reality, as “more real” than those based on assumptions (faith). And that’s why I value a person willing to prove their worth through actions… because talk is cheap :) Actions speak louder than words.

Having said that, it constantly frustrates me that most people insist in letting something “less certain” (the things we assume to be true) override the value of something that’s already established to be more certain (the people and relationships right in front of us). It just boggles my mind.

Quick last point

Let me be clear on what I’m NOT saying. I’m not saying that just because I consider our relationships as “more real” than faith, that I’m implying the latter is not real at all. Like I said, both are real… but the question posed was what was “more real” – or what should be treated with more respect as far as living in our domain or reality goes. And that has always been pretty clear to me – I value what is real over what might be real.

Okay, so I brushed on the “brighter side of things” with regards to what Religion could bring to the table; in the context of my Recollection experience.

Perhaps that was the Yang… now for some Yin to balance the scales ;)

This post is mostly about a concern I raised to a friend while we engaged in some mental masturbation on life and religion:

Carlo: siguro scary lang to think kse most of the “faithful” are naive¹ in a sense
Carlo: how they can be agents of suffering PRECISELY because of their “skewed/misguided” religious beliefs²
Roy: true
Roy: that raises the question of their “faithfulness” then
Roy: and their understanding of what it means to believe

And yes, I’m aware that I’ve posted this during the holy week – pure coincidence ;)

Now, if it wasn’t already obvious from any of my past posts on religion; I’m a skeptic. I’m not an atheist, but neither am I buying into the teachings of Religion hook, line, and sinker. Despite my belief in a higher being, one marked difference I have from a regular “faithful” person is that I make it a point never to tackle “moral issues” through the lens of Religion. Because, quite honestly, it tends to do more harm than good. Especially when dealing with gray areas – and we know life is chock-full of gray areas ;)

Overrated

While my experience in the recollection did spark some interesting topics for my own personal introspection, there was nothing “groundbreaking” as far as it being presented through the lens of Religion.

To me, presenting those points in the context of Religion merely makes them palatable even to those who are of “simpler minds.” Granted, justifying the existence of “suffering” – no matter the context (religious, objective, etc.) is not an easy task to undertake – much less to get people to “come to terms” with. But Religion accomplishes that somehow – and even makes it seem that it’s the best thing in the world to experience.

Christianity, as an example, is famously known for glorifying such a “failed state” of existence (suffering)³ – as the quintessential image of its savior is that of a suffering/dead person.⁴

Somehow, Religion’s endurance in the world has made it achieve what I’d like to call “hamburger status” – in which it is near universally accepted as “tasty and good!” Now, lets say that suffering is the “vegetable” that nobody likes, but will have to take. Put the vegetable in the hamburger, and you have yourself a more “palatable” way of consuming something you would otherwise want to avoid like the plague.

Religion provides a convenient means to simplify otherwise complicated concepts to something “consumable” for anyone – even to the simplest, uneducated, un-thinking person. It can make something look ridiculously simple and obvious – even if it’s far from being simple and obvious… realistic (to the complexities of the human condition) even – and that’s the danger I’m seeing.

Whoever said that “Religion is the opium of the masses,” seemed to have been on to something; as that statement is becoming more and more true as societies “progress.” There’s nothing wrong with believing in religion(s) or in the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or God(s), but we have to admit that to some degree, Religion has hijacked morality – which is becoming more dangerous than helpful in modern societies. People who refuse to come to terms with how the world currently works, are always faced with dilemmas and issues because they cannot reconcile it with their particular brand of dogma. Hence they just hide behind their beliefs to make themselves feel better; thinking that everyone else is wrong – because how could their faith be possibly wrong, right?

So, it really seems like an escape more than anything else. That’s why the phrase “opium of the masses” seems to be a pretty good description for those cases – and sadly, I think it’s only going to get worse. And the comments below (which I found on the intarwebz) put emphasis on that concern.

The problem with religion is dogma. All religions suffer from this. It is not enough to say love thy neighbor as thyself; they all have to add some asinine rules that are not (or shouldn’t be) relevant in today’s society.

Religion was a good way of explaining things, like a few hundred years ago when we didn’t have a clue about these things. But nowadays, I really don’t see a place for it in modern society. It just gets in the way.

Credit Where Credit is Due

Now to be fair to Religion, it’s not that it’s there to purposefully “brainwash” the people for some evil grand scheme of molesting its followers, or gathering shit-tons of non-taxable funds/donations to give a life of luxury to those in its upper echelon. I still honestly believe that it has tried (and is trying) its best to give societies proper directions on human well-being if and when it could do so.

Simply put, I still think the “intent” or goal of Religion is pure – no matter what we’re seeing in the news today – or what the comments above claim.

Clear and Present Danger

Still, it doesn’t negate the fact that it is more capable of doing harm than good in this era. The real problem isn’t because of Religion’s “intentions” – it’s mostly because of its relevance, and execution – and both feed off of each other.

Religion can tend to cling to arcane values which are simply not relevant [especially] in modern pluralistic societies, and when faced with such a reality, the knee jerk reaction of the faithful (especially the fundamentalists) are to steer everyone back to those arcane values. The Church may consider this method as “returning to God” – while an increasing number of critical thinkers would consider it more as “returning to the dark ages.”

But after all is said and done, just like I implied with that chat log at the beginning of the post; the most dangerous problem is really us humans.

No matter how well-meaning/pure the concept (or even creation)⁵ of Religion – people will misunderstand/misinterpret it – and use it as an excuse for every idiotic thing they can do to justify hurting others (whether intentionally or not).

This is why I avoid Religion when dealing with morality; because for one, it cramps my style ;) Kidding aside: if I applied my own “limited” (and most probably wrong) understanding of Religion/dogma to govern my decisions – all I really accomplished is making sure I’ve got my ass covered in case I mess up; because I can always use it as an excuse for a mistake that could’ve been avoided by simply thinking clearly/objectively.

To explain what I mean: the story of Abraham never sat well with me. In fact, lemme just admit that I think God was a major dick in that story. For one, as someone who’s supposed to be omni-benevolent, (that’s ALL LOVING in case you missed it) can you really justify a “test” as cruel as that? I don’t give a flying fuck if God never intended to let him continue… to me, putting that kind of emotional anguish on a person is inexcusable.

Now granted, events in the OT are myths, but you can see how “arcanely skewed” that type of “morality” is – especially when you try imagining someone pulling that same shit in the modern world. When was the last time you heard anyone suggest that you prove your faith by taking another life whether it be a joke or not? That’s right, you don’t because that sort of shit is reserved for suicide bombers and other crazy people.

And yet, amazingly, we have a story about the highest being in the universe condoning exactly that way of thinking… and what’s more amazing is that succumbing to such a thing is considered as a virtue, and people celebrate it!

Then ironically, these same people are appalled by the actions of terrorists? Don’t they realize that that particular mindset is exactly how the [religious] terrorists justify what they do? So if believers accept the story of Abraham as “soundly moral,” and “worth emulating” – then they have no right judging terrorists.

Objectively Speaking

So, while presenting such concepts through the lens of religion is totally fine – as it’s certainly better than not getting the points across at all. But now that the world has “evolved” into a much more complicated “system” – where we have a plurality of beliefs and cultures blending with each other, I’m not sure if the “convenience of the hamburger” is the optimal method of answering life’s more complicated questions anymore. Perhaps when the world was much simpler, just as the earlier comment suggested – but now, I’m not so sure.

Still, it is possible to navigate in such as system productively, without having to be enslaved to dogma. The question is how you go about it.

If you would notice the difference in how a critical thinker, and a simpleton would “synthesize” a concept presented through religion, the latter will usually accept it because “religion says it’s true – so it must be true” and should something unfortunate happen because of it, it’s God’s will.

The more critical thinkers on the other hand would have seen it as something obvious – regardless of the context it was presented in. We try not to cause suffering not because we’ll go to heaven or hell, not because it’s what God wants of us, not because there’s a reward at the end – but simply because any decent human would (or should) give a shit about the well-being of their fellow men.

Also, critical thinkers are more open to questioning/challenging established “best practices” depending on the situation – as they are aware that life isn’t so simple that you can just use some “commandment” to condemn stem-cell research, or say a rape victim that wants an abortion, or a person who loves someone… of the same sex.

If you think my arguments are still weak, then lets try this:

Cris sent me a link to this TED talk about how Science can answer moral questions.

I’ve taken the liberty to transcribe the more important points.

1:28 “Values,” are a certain kind of fact – they are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

2:10 There is no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I’ve ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience (and its possible changes)

3:49 There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish whether or not we understand these truths – and morality relates to these truths. So when talking about values, we are talking about facts.

I guess these lines explain what I’ve been trying to say earlier. That you can and will arrive at the same “moral truths” if you just have a clear head. Religion tends to put “unnecessary baggage” which can just complicate things if you don’t know which things you can afford to filter out.⁶

9:28 Many people worry that a universal morality would require moral precepts that admit of no exceptions; so for instance if it’s really wrong to lie, it must always be wrong to lie – and if you can find an exception; we’ll then there is no such thing as moral truth.

Now why would we think this!? Consider by analogy, the game of Chess; if you’re going to play good Chess, a principle like “don’t lose your queen” is very good to follow. But clearly it admits of exceptions; there are moments when losing your queen is a brilliant thing to do – there are moments where its the only good thing you can do. And yet, Chess is a domain of perfect objectivity – the fact that there are exceptions here does not change that at all.

I believed I touched that earlier when I said critical thinkers can afford to make exceptions depending on the situation – as they are aware of the complexity of the human condition – and aren’t naive enough to reduce life to a system that can be addressed by stubborn dogma.

If you actually watched the video, the discussion from 10:15-12:55 shows the need for a balance. And while that concept seems universally obvious – we don’t realize that most of the time, when we let dogma dictate our morality, everything gets skewed too far to the left.

13:11 Now the irony from my perspective is that the people who seem to generally agree with me, and who think there are right and wrong answers to moral questions are religious demagogs (of one form or another). And, of course, they think they have right answers to moral questions because they got these answers from a voice in a whirlwind. Not because they made an intelligent analysis of the causes and condition of human and animal well-being.

In fact, the endurance of Religion as a lens in which most people view moral questions has separated most moral talk from real questions of human and animal suffering. This is why we spend our time talking about things like gay marraige and not about genocide or nuclear proliferation, or poverty or any other hugely consequetial issue.

17:17 – It is possible for individuals or even whole cultures to care about the wrong things. Which is to say that it is possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering. Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality.

Again, it emphasizes my worries; that because something that should’ve been objectively obvious⁷ was seen through the lens of religion – suddenly all other dogmas are revered as absolute – and are precisely the cause of needless suffering.

At the end of the day, Religion will endure. I’m not sure that its a good or bad thing given what I’ve just said – but if it really wants to be of any benefit to human society in the future, it’ll really have to re-evaluate itself from the ground up. Else, like the comments said, it just will get in the way – and worse; people do not, cannot, or will not realize it – and we will be put in a constant state of turmoil because of it.

There was also talk about how “genuine” a feeling of sincerity (in this case it’s love) could be generated falsely by dogma as well. Here’s an extreme case:

DURING Q&A … you can love someone in the context of a truly delusional belief system. So that you can say like “Because I knew my gay son was gonna go to Hell if he found a boyfriend, I chopped his head off – and that was the most compassionate thing I could do.” If you get all those “parts” aligned, yes I think you could probably be feeling the emotion of “love.”

But again, then we have to talk about “well being” in a larger context; it’s all of us in this together; it’s not one man feeling ecstasy and the blowing himself up in a bus.

Thankfully, the world has grown a bit wiser, which is why dogma (which is what a lot of Religions thrive on) is slowly going away – in favor of actual well-reasoned thinking. While the example above shows the extremes dogma can put an illusion of morality where there isn’t, it also can be present in the more “banal” aspects of human life.

While the more civilized people don’t engage in mass murder because they believe there will be 72 virgins in the afterlife waiting for them, we still make stupid errors based on our religious beliefs. Like abandoning people we care about simply because we think its what God wants us to do.

I’ll use my mom as an example: She’s now (re)married to a Jew (she’s Roman Catholic btw). And I remember the time when she IMed me asking for marriage advice How weird is that; your Mom asking you advice about marriage – when you yourself aren’t yet. Moreso advice on marrying someone other than your father.

My Mom, for those who know her, is one of those devout types like you wouldn’t believe. And yes, she is one of those simple-minded followers of the faith that I personally am frustrated with. Anwyay, going back, her concern was basically this: She didn’t know if she should continue a relationship with this man simply because she felt that it was “wrong” to be of two different religions. Ridiculously simple as that.

Now we all know what type of person I am, so I didn’t hold back: I reprimanded her. Something I had said before in an old post came rushing back upon hearing her concern.

My opinion on a person is based on their merit as individuals… not their “beliefs.” Because honestly, if it takes something like “religion” to make you or me treat people fairly, then I don’t think we even deserve friends. Or worse; if it’s precisely religion that actually makes you decide to make or break bonds with other people – then I think there’s something seriously wrong with you. You’re essentially using something, which you ultimately can never be sure of, as a basis to interact with someone clearly present in your plane of existence.

I told her how stupid it was to stifle her love for someone just because some “system” might frown upon it. How she even would consider leaving someone she loves (and loves her) just because they believed in different things. I pointed out that the guy had every right to have the same reservations, but he obviously valued his feelings for her more than those issues – and that if she truly loved him, isn’t it only fair to give the same courtesy at the very least? I questioned what mattered more to her – what makes her happy or what makes others happy? Then I went into more “practical” concerns; such as the chances of finding a “storybook partner” given her age (and physical condition).

Long story short, she’s now happily married to him (I don’t think either of them even had to change religions) and is very content and fulfilled.

Yet this was a bittersweet victory for me as well, because she did consult with a priest (as if what I said hadn’t made enough sense already), and was given the go-ahead. Her being her, she probably used that as a basis for deciding, instead of all the friggin’ obvious and profound points I’ve just raised to her.

What if the priest she consulted wasn’t as open minded, and disapproved of the relationship? I couldn’t help but think of how much damage dogma could’ve done to her had she blindly used its “moral compass” to decide on their relationship. I couldn’t help but realize that how a naive view of religion could’ve the ended her “happiness” before it could even begin. Simply because she followed something other than her heart.

What if she ended the relationship, and ended up being much less happier than she could’ve been… till her dying days – what then would she have said? It was God’s will?

So you see my frustration with religion in that sense; how something that should’ve been so simple and obvious has been clouded because of it. “Suffering out of love” aside, isn’t it a fairly simple matter to love someone – I mean to simply acknowledge and express the sentiment of love? I find it tragic that people even have to debate wether or not to love someone when they clearly do (like in my mom’s case) – your heart already knows the answer – why would you let something external like religious dogma interfere with what you intrinsically know, and feel, and are capable of doing – especially if its something as beautiful as loving another person?

So in a nutshell, the point I wish to get across ultimately is to believe in whatever you want – but make sure you do not hurt other people because of it. Simple as that. I said in a previous post that you can believe in a rock for all I care as long as it makes you a better person.

And what makes a person good or bad is how they deal with various relationships that surround them – like Mr. Harris said, it’s about being aware of the well-being of conscious creatures. And it beckons back to me stating why I put more stock in a person’s efforts rather than their beliefs. Because whether or not there’s an afterlife, whether or not there’s a God. Whether or not humans get to the point where science or religion will be considered to be more authoritative than the other, it’s all speculative at this point in our lives; we simply cannot say.

But despite that, one thing is true, we exist in the same plane [of existence] – why do we insist in undermining our relationships with one another; relationships which are real and even tangible – in favor of uncertainties?

Sure, we could talk about faith; faith is believing something to be real regardless of it’s “provability” – and it’s perfectly fine to believe in that – since that’s what also brings hope.

But it begs the question; why cannot at least we put more importance to the things we already know to be real – like human relationships? The existence of humans and their relationships with their fellow men need not be proven by faith – because it is verifiable fact at some point; even if it’s just between two people. We physically exist in this world and our decisions and actions affect others – why do we insist in letting something “less certain” override our capacity to recognize those relationships and act more rashly because of it? Why would a suicide bomber prefer to believe in killing himself for the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife (which may or may not be true) rather than realizing how his actions in this world this world affect others?⁸

It’s just disheartening how people tend to value/prioritize the wrong things, and end up hurting others because of it – when there are so many ways of tackling an issue that could satisfy even opposing parties. Why do the faithful tend to fixate on single-minded solutions to very complex problems which sometimes require exceptions to their “rules.’

It just feeds off on itself on an endless loop – and that’s why we never learn, because we never really want to learn. We just take the “opium” and feel better about ourselves.

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

I want to end this post on a positive note, to find some way to reconcile the different concerns mentioned in this post. Interestingly enough, it seems to have come full circle to my previous post on love: it really boils down to the golden rule; to simply love one another – and to not let anything get in the way of your capacity of giving that love.

I know, it sounds so cheesy and like such a cop-out answer. But honestly, if you think about, the first step is awareness, and understanding then action – all of which need to be done in the context of love if it is to mean anything productive; you have to love the human race enough to take the time to actually care, be aware, understand, and act for the greater good of your species – regardless if it’s a relationship between one person, a group, or a whole society.

Was an extreme hassle though: I was about to pay the Electric bill, but I couldn’t do it online anymore (because the bill was a few days past the due date). It was doubly frustrating because the due date was the day after I filed the complaint – so the frackin’ bill could’ve been paid for in good time if they hadn’t mistakenly siphoned off the money I was supposed to use to pay for it. So I now had to do it over the counter.

If hadn’t aggressively followed it up the very next day I filed the complaint, it probably would’ve been fixed after a week. Normally it takes 5 business days to process complaints, factoring in the weekend, that would put it over the 6-day limit. If I hadn’t taken the initiative of hounding them about it, I’d end up having to go to Meralco offices personally to sort it out.

I really wish the bank knew how much of a hassle their mistake had put me in.

Looking at the brighter side; there’s a “bayad center” somewhere in Tiendesitas – and they accept overdue bills up to 6 days after the due date.¹ Also, there was parking, and I was in and out in record time and didn’t have to pay a parking fee.

1. For this post, I will use the word “love” very loosely. That is to say it will represent “caring” in any form – no matter how shallow or deep – no matter what type of relationship you’re in.

2. Situations mostly are concerning “love” – not practical living (e.g. elections, money, etc. etc.) I feel I have to state this because the things I’m about to say here will contradict how I view other stuff (especially the “fatalistic” part). I can explain those as well,¹ but it would deviate from the purpose of this post.

3. When I say the complexities of the “human situation/condition” – that’s just saying “life isn’t that simple” Meaning you can take all the books, church teachings, moral or cultural imperatives all you want, but ultimately – we all know the world isn’t black and white – it’s borderline foolish to make decisions “by the book” – because, repeat after me; life ain’t that simple, biatch!

We had a recollection yesterday which I have to admit was very interesting. We threshed out the details of the parable of the prodigal son, and how the turn of events in the story elicited different emotions and suffering. I was also going to discuss some other things related to the parable (a “complete synthesis,” if you will), but I found out that just focusing on “love” already had me typing out too many letters. So in the interest of keeping things focused, let me keep the discussion on “love” (as qualified earlier) for now.

Three types of Suffering.

1. Moral – Suffering inflicted directly by a cause (e.g. physical hurt, selfishness, etc.)
2. Ontic – Something that is beyond human control (e.g. calamities, sickness, death, etc.)
3. Suffering out of Love – Suffering because we choose to love (which is not morally wrong, but still brings about the evil of suffering).

Basically, during that part of the recollection, #3 is the most important – as it is an “evil” that paradoxically “humanizes” us – whereas the other two do the opposite. From what I gathered, “Suffering out of Love” is even needed in a sense.

Coincidentally, it’s pretty close to the Buddhist views of suffering:

1. Suffering of suffering: this refers to the most obvious aspects like pain, fear and mental distress. For me, this is the equivalent of moral suffering; because to a certain extent, we have control over this – whether we ourselves are the agents that bring suffering, or allow it to pervade our lives.
2. Suffering of change: refers to the problems that change brings, like joy disappears, nothing stays, decay and death. I’m going out on a limb here and equate “change” to an agent that is completely beyond our control – regardless of needs and intentions. This is the “ontic” type; where things happen simply because they happen.
3. All-pervasive suffering: this is the most difficult to understand aspect, it refers to the fact that we always have the potential to suffer or can get into problematic situations. Even death is not a solution in Buddhist philosophy, as we will simply find ourselves being reborn in a different body, which will also experience problems. I’m guessing this is the Cathloic equivalent of suffering out of love; the potential to suffer is because of our pre-disposition to love (love being the agent that can get us into “problematic” situation.)

You Complete Me

Us Dazers (people part of the Days With the Lord community) have come across the concept of being “born to love,” and a lot of us fail to grasp the true meaning of term (myself included) because we’re still bound to the complexities of our human condition. But there was one talk which used the famous Jerry Maguire phrase “You complete me” in context of being “born to love.”

Normally, the phrase, cool as it is, would be utter horse-shit when interpreted in “typical fashion.” The notion that the worth of an individual’s existence is dictated by finding their “other half” can be quite ridiculous as it implies that if you don’t find the half that completes you, you have essentially failed at life.² Believing in that notion at face value is naive and will set up false expectations – which I guess is part of the reason why so much people see life as half-empty.

However, the phrase can be true when we take the true meaning of being “born to love” into consideration.

The mistake a lot of us make when considering all this shit about love is that we expect something in return. We feel entitled for our efforts, etc. So to be “completed” in our [misguided] sense can only even begin to be true if we love and are loved in return. And there’s the issue right there: expectations are the bane of relationships.

Instead, consider this: when a person’s presence in our life is able to evoke an emotion of love out of us, in a sense they already have completed us – because our nature is to simply love, not necessarily to be loved in return.³ I guess if you would apply this to the Catholic doctrine; given that we are claimed to be fashioned in God’s image and likeness (that of perfect unconditional love) – then we are indeed, born to love, just like Him.

The cool thing about all this, is that even if you take God out of the equation, we still have these feelings evoked from us by other human beings. That is to say even an atheist can come to terms with this fundamental urge of loving with or without the presence of some moral imperative or “belief structure.”

When we love deeply, even if the object of our love is the very thing that hurts us; even if we can rationally come up with a thousand reasons to stop loving them – we simply cannot stop our hearts from doing so. We love them because we love them – simple as that.

A simple, yet concrete example of this is parental love. But it’s obviously experienced in the romantic sense as well (martyrdom), and even in “lesser” relationships (friendship, etc). It is the “all-pervasive suffering” we cannot escape – precisely because of our natural disposition to love.

So as it is, the phrase is correct in that context, but if I were to expand it to a more complete (and articulate) form, it would go something like:

You complete me because you have made it possible for me to love someone other than myself.
You complete me not because you love me; but because I love you.

To say someone has completed us should not be in context because we feel complete that they had loved us in return. To be completed by someone means that someone triggered us to put our natural born tendency: to love – into action. And this expression of love need not be limited to a romantic context, nor defined by a single event, or focused on a single person in our life. Throughout our lives, our “capacity to love” is [hopefully] being applied to all the people around us,⁴ and that, essentially, “completes us.”

Back to Suffering

What I do find beef with the “religious take” of this is that it glorifies such suffering. As if you have to suffer life for it to be worthwhile.

Yes, it is true that God or no God, loving will open us to suffering – and given the complexities of the human condition, we will suffer if we choose to love. There’s no getting around that fact. But to think it stops there; that if you’re suffering, you are “vindicated” by your suffering – I will have to violently object.

To me, suffering⁵ is just a symptom – it is far from the “end” – and that’s where “action” comes in.

We have the power to change our situation. Just because you’re suffering out of love, it doesn’t mean that you can throw in the towel and be content that you have “loved” and lost. For as long as you are breathing and capable of action, a human being doesn’t really have any excuse to give up on love – even if faced with insurmountable odds.

Also, it’s worth mentioning that all these hypotheticals are only from one side of the coin; the fatalistic view (which is another pet-peeve of mine). The truth is; WE DON’T KNOW JACK SHIT WHAT’LL HAPPEN! We can over-think scenarios all we want, but at the end of the day, we simply don’t know how events will turn out. So giving up on love simply because we think the odds aren’t good, that’s when you’ve failed; that’s when you are rendered “incomplete” – and it would’ve been of your own doing.

On the other hand, we can choose to be hopeful and see things as half-full. There’s a chorus of a song by Dashboard Confessional called “Currents” that articulates what I feel about this scenario – how I never give up even if something has a big chance of “failing” – simply because I value the journey just as much as the destination.

If it is born in flames then we should let it burn
Burn as brightly as we can
And if it’s gotta end then let it end in flames
Let it burn all the way down

This chorus encapsulates both possible outcomes. And I guess the problem with a fatalistic view is that it assumes the worst; it assumes we will get to the second part of the chorus. But to me, being half-full is about milking life (and love) for what it’s worth. If it’s going to end, then lets make sure make the best of it. If it’s love/passion that ignited it, let it end with just as much love/passion. Yes, it will definitely hurt should it end, but we would’ve done “the love” justice.

To address the fatalistic view directly, we have Alicia Keys’ song Unthinkable which has the bridge:

Why give up before we try
Feel the lows before the highs
Clip our wings before we fly away
I can’t say I came prepared
I’m suspended in the air
Won’t you come be in the sky with me

And as far as “action” goes. I’ve always believed that [for the most part] something only “ends” when we decide to end it. That’s right, even if the other is “gone,” we can certainly still continue to fight the good fight; just like how the father in the parable did.

We are born to love, and we only live once. Make it count.

I actually had written this blog before lunch, assuming that the issue I was posting about had been resolved – but it turns out that wasn’t the end of it. Since I’ve ended up filing a formal complaint to my bank describing the whole “incident,” I thought posting the link to the letter would save me a lot of time typing.

Kulang nalang sabihin ko: “Alam ninyo, Tunay Na Lalake kayo; KSE ANG LABO NINYONG KAUSAP!”

It may have been heavy handed but that’s just the way I deal with issues. Besides, I have experienced something similar in the past¹

It just begs the question though; is this “general unreliability” a cultural thing in our country? I mean it even kinda extends even to the workplace, and it just annoys the hell out of me. But I don’t want to dwell on it, as long as I’m not like that, then that should be good enough for me.

Instead, I just decided to see the brighter side of it: I mentioned in a previous post, that a lot of my other issues suddenly sorted themselves out – best of which (so far) was finding out that I didn’t have to worry about the prospect of spending on an operation. I didn’t expect this new expense, but you know what – at least I’m healthy and I probably would’ve spent more if I had been sick.

Reminiscing

Trying to see the brighter side of things [and taking action] this way reminds me of the time I had lost money right before our choir left for a US Tour. I had lost about 2k USD right at the airport before we left the Philippines, and for a moment (or a day maybe), I felt like giving up on the tour itself.

But after further reflection, I realized that I had to see it through. Plus I wasn’t about to give up just yet. As stated in the post, I still accomplished what I set out to do. So the lesson learned there wasn’t really about “signs” or whatnot, but if you want something badly, get your ass moving and get it no matter what it takes.

My most memorable moment on that tour was during an “evaluation” during the tail end of the trip. There was a question (one among many) that everyone had to take turns in answering: “Who did you admire the most during the tour”² – and of course we all had our different reasons for the choices we made; wether it be because of someone being the life of the party, or someone doing so well during solos, etc.

Ginny, a fellow member, chose me – and the reason she stated was she admired how I handled myself despite what happened to me. She had said that if that happened to her, sirang sira na ang mood niya the whole tour, but somehow I still managed to keep my chin up and enjoy just like anyone else. She said something like, “super galing niya, kse hindi siya nagreklamo or naging pabigat sa group at any point.”

The funny thing is, I really was happy and hopeful during the whole tour. I mean sure, that first day was a killer, but after realizing that I couldn’t change anything, I just had to make the best out of my situation. I’d rather enjoy the little that was left with me, instead of being miserable the whole three weeks we were there.

I had to stay home while others went to theme parks that required payment. Or I would go shopping with the group knowing that all I could do was window-shop. But I was happy, because at the end of the day, I was still going to get the pot of gold at the end (my Taylor T5) – and I decided to focus on that one good thing; that one sure thing – instead of seeing the other “not so good” things that my unfortunate situation had put me in.

That, like I said in my post yesterday, allowed me to appreciate the little things – and that made all the difference. How much of a difference? Enough to be noticed and admired by someone I admired myself (Ginny’s one of my favorite singers in BP) ;)

Digression

If you read the post about the tour experience, there’s one caveat I’d like to mention; how naive I was then. Specifically, how I kept on mentioning “God’s plan/will” – that’s the only thing that’s different with my life now; I’m still very much positive, still very much a hard-worker when I want something, but I don’t necessarily rely on (or even believe in) “God’s will” anymore.

That’s not to say that I don’t believe in God and His grace, but will? Sorry, not good enough.

The lamest cop-out one could invoke when [good or bad] things happen is that God controls our destiny. If this is the case, then why bother giving us “free will” in the first place?

We may be stewards of the earth, but we are also the masters of our own fates. In fact, the former doesn’t necessarily contradict the latter – as Gary Granada’s song Earth Keeper would explain: “To make or unmake, to do or undo – hangs on you.”

Resorting to “God’s will” to cover up for something we could’ve done but failed to do is both a disservice to one’s self and [inherent] potential. It’s also technically blaspheming as you are taking His name in vain.³ All in all, whether God really had/has something to do with whatever happens in life is irrelevant to me, all that matters is if I could do something… and more importantly if I actually do it.

So I’ll do my best so I won’t have any regrets.

Isn’t that awesome!? Since I mentioned that very same “lesson” in numerous posts – the most recent of which was:

I now find solace in the mere fact that if there was anything in my power I could do to change my situation, I already have done, am doing, or intend to do it

Seems like I have a knack of returning to my “core” – which has always served me well when in troubling times. I know it sounds so self-assuring, but honestly, I wish I could share this perspective with other people because it really makes dealing with life in general a lot easier. It makes a person less spiteful of the bad things that happen, and more appreciative of the good things that happen… and most importantly, it forces us to earn those moments that can take our breath away.

It all boils down to these key points:

1. Shit happens – not because God willed it,⁴ it just happens (most of the time, it’s because people made it happen)… the question is if we do something about it or not.
2. Likewise, good happens for the very same reason; not because God suddenly decided to give you a break, it’s most probably because you worked your ass off to get it, and did something about it.
3. Do something about it.
4. Life is half-full; be thankful of what is there instead of spiteful because of what isn’t. And if it isn’t, go back to #3 – and keep at it. Don’t give up. I say this because #1 can, does, and will happen just as often as #2, but for as long as we don’t give up (and have wind in our lungs) – we always have a fighting chance to change things for the better.