Bubble Gang has once more proven to be a critical gag show as it attempted to criticize the Gloria Administration when it impersonated a joint session of the Congress, this time to the tune of Itaktak Mo.
According to the joke, GMA was to hear out the congressmen and department secretaries' ideas for priority subjects. Since everyone seem to want to be heard for the sake of hearing, she decided to have a game show instead, much like Eat Bulaga's Itaktak Mo, Tatakbo, to determine whose project will be given priority.
questions as well as answers are as follows:
1) Anong "G" ang namamahala sa ating bansa?
contestant's answer: graft and corruption
correct answer: Gloria
2) Anong "B" ang ginagawa ng mga congressman?
contestant's answer: basura
correct answer: bill. electric bill, water bill, etc.
3) Anong "G" ang nagbabantay ng balota pag eleksyon?
correct answer: gwardya
4) Anong ibig sabihin ng "B" sa BIR?
contestant's answer: binubulsa
correct answer: binabangko
And they say television shows reflect audience interests and sentiments.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
an accident
Part of the requirements for my EDSP122 class is to observe three Montessori schools and one non-Montessori school to assess its method on early childhood education.
This afternoon, Mhira and I went to Mayfield Montessori Academy in UP Village. After an hour observing children, we took a red tricycle to bring us back to Philcoa.
On the way...
Another tricycle was in front of us. It drove almost near the sidewalk to let the passenger down. When our tricycle driver saw this, he moved a bit towards the middle so that we can pass. However, in just a few seconds, the other tricycle was moving again and thus, we were almost side by side each other.
As this was happening, a van attempted to overtake the two tricycles by crossing the other lane. However, another car was coming towards the van and so, to save itself, it hit the tricycle where we were in, dragged us slightly forward that we hit the other tricycle and slided until the two tricycles hit the sidewalk and both came into a stop.
The driver from the van stepped down, checked if there was any damage on his car, looked straight at the tricycle driver and left. Other tricycle drivers came and asked what happened. One wrote down the plate number, while another hurriedly followed the van. The tricycle driver was still in the state of shock.
"Kuya, dito na lang po kami. Habulin nyo na lang po yung van," we kept telling the tricycle driver but he insisted to take us where he was suppose to.
Mhira felt a little pain in her right arm; I on my left leg since we hit both sides of the tricycle when the van and the other tricycle hit us. When we got off, much to our surprise, his hands and leg were wounded. The driver had blood on his left hand.
"Ok lang ako," the driver told us.
As we were walking away the tricycle terminal, we realized if it weren't for the other tricycle that we hit, we would have gone off the road and much damage would have happened.
This afternoon, Mhira and I went to Mayfield Montessori Academy in UP Village. After an hour observing children, we took a red tricycle to bring us back to Philcoa.
On the way...
Another tricycle was in front of us. It drove almost near the sidewalk to let the passenger down. When our tricycle driver saw this, he moved a bit towards the middle so that we can pass. However, in just a few seconds, the other tricycle was moving again and thus, we were almost side by side each other.
As this was happening, a van attempted to overtake the two tricycles by crossing the other lane. However, another car was coming towards the van and so, to save itself, it hit the tricycle where we were in, dragged us slightly forward that we hit the other tricycle and slided until the two tricycles hit the sidewalk and both came into a stop.
The driver from the van stepped down, checked if there was any damage on his car, looked straight at the tricycle driver and left. Other tricycle drivers came and asked what happened. One wrote down the plate number, while another hurriedly followed the van. The tricycle driver was still in the state of shock.
"Kuya, dito na lang po kami. Habulin nyo na lang po yung van," we kept telling the tricycle driver but he insisted to take us where he was suppose to.
Mhira felt a little pain in her right arm; I on my left leg since we hit both sides of the tricycle when the van and the other tricycle hit us. When we got off, much to our surprise, his hands and leg were wounded. The driver had blood on his left hand.
"Ok lang ako," the driver told us.
As we were walking away the tricycle terminal, we realized if it weren't for the other tricycle that we hit, we would have gone off the road and much damage would have happened.
Monday, August 6, 2007
a culture of indifference
This afternoon, I happen to read a blogpost by a journalism student. This certain post talked about the current state of the Philippine Collegian (Kule). He narrated that when he was asked by the publisher of the Philippine Daily Inquirer how the Kule was, his first reaction was to say that the publication is "too progressive".
"Critical of the nation's leader[s]", he criticizes the Kule for failing to give "updates on what's happening in school". Moreover, he posits that being the official publication of the university, it only represents a "small percentage of the entire UP community". He goes on further to the conclusion that the editors of three years ago are definitely a lot better, as they had at least showed "hint[s] of decency".
He ends his post by saying that "sometimes we are too immersed with ideals that we fail to see what is real" and that it is "no wonder not many journalism students are interested to join the Collegian".
Dismay is an understatement of what I felt after I had read the post.
For one thing, the Journalism Department itself teaches the students to be critical of the nation's leaders, of the policies they make, and the current situation of the country for one mere reason, it is a responsibility of journalists to the public. In simple terms, communication theories call it "watchdogs". To ask for updates, pardon me for saying, is very high school. There's a big difference between the two.
However, given that argument, I believe the Kule never failed to give updates on the current situation of the college, as it even publishes the statements of the students councils on the issues that the university is facing. It has not failed to air the eviction of tambayans in CMC. What this student might be looking for is the UP administration's side, something the Kule has attempted but the admin completely ignores.
To question idealism is to question the very principles that is taught in our department. It is this idealism that has developed ethical and news standards. It is this idealism that graduates aim for the best, for a change in the system as they see the reality in our society. It is this idealism that has taught students to look beyond the fame, the money and work on the very essence of journalism itself, a public service, a responsibility to the citizens of this nation. To question idealism is to entertain a culture of indifference, a shame in this profession.
In an interview, my uncle said, "If I had known that Journalism would be defined such as it is today, I wouldn't have entered Journalism in the first place."
At first, I didn't quite understand why he was able to say such things, as if he has lost hope of the future generation of journalists.
After reading a post written by his former students, I hate to admit that he might be right after all.
* not so convincing noh? ako rin, nahihirapan sabihin. abangan kung bakit *
"Critical of the nation's leader[s]", he criticizes the Kule for failing to give "updates on what's happening in school". Moreover, he posits that being the official publication of the university, it only represents a "small percentage of the entire UP community". He goes on further to the conclusion that the editors of three years ago are definitely a lot better, as they had at least showed "hint[s] of decency".
He ends his post by saying that "sometimes we are too immersed with ideals that we fail to see what is real" and that it is "no wonder not many journalism students are interested to join the Collegian".
Dismay is an understatement of what I felt after I had read the post.
For one thing, the Journalism Department itself teaches the students to be critical of the nation's leaders, of the policies they make, and the current situation of the country for one mere reason, it is a responsibility of journalists to the public. In simple terms, communication theories call it "watchdogs". To ask for updates, pardon me for saying, is very high school. There's a big difference between the two.
However, given that argument, I believe the Kule never failed to give updates on the current situation of the college, as it even publishes the statements of the students councils on the issues that the university is facing. It has not failed to air the eviction of tambayans in CMC. What this student might be looking for is the UP administration's side, something the Kule has attempted but the admin completely ignores.
To question idealism is to question the very principles that is taught in our department. It is this idealism that has developed ethical and news standards. It is this idealism that graduates aim for the best, for a change in the system as they see the reality in our society. It is this idealism that has taught students to look beyond the fame, the money and work on the very essence of journalism itself, a public service, a responsibility to the citizens of this nation. To question idealism is to entertain a culture of indifference, a shame in this profession.
In an interview, my uncle said, "If I had known that Journalism would be defined such as it is today, I wouldn't have entered Journalism in the first place."
At first, I didn't quite understand why he was able to say such things, as if he has lost hope of the future generation of journalists.
After reading a post written by his former students, I hate to admit that he might be right after all.
* not so convincing noh? ako rin, nahihirapan sabihin. abangan kung bakit *
Saturday, August 4, 2007
y! speak on HSA
I was suppose to go with my org mates in this special edition of Y!Speak which aims to talk about the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007. However, since I couldn't come, I watched it on television instead.
What makes this particular episode interesting is that it actually had the chair of the Anti Terror Council as one of the panelists, and god, was he grilled to his bones! However, he remained as confident and certain as he could be.
"The Bill of Rights is not absolute."
I tend to quite agree on that, I'd have to admit. However, the statement should not be taken as it is. One may argue that the HSA is just one of the many laws to safeguard such rights but in context to the HSA, it becomes more than that. Taking into account the extrajudicial killings, of every indivdual reported to be abducted by some men, with the military denying their involvement yet always justifying that this individual is a member of the New People's Army, this law is a parody and a safeguard to those seated in power.
"'mere suspicion', walang ganoong nakasulat." He also mentions that it is the USA Patriot Act of 2001 from which the HSA was actually patterned that mentions "if it appears to be intended" and can therefore be interpreted as MERE SUSPICION. The HSA never mentions nor implied such things.
Section 17 of the HSA states that "Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this Act or to sow or create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand..."
Truly, the HSA does not directly says such things but it is the section's vagueness which makes this law questionable.
Terrorism in its given definition is quite vague. Who qualifies a group is a terrorist group? If, by working on the phrase, "create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace", the adminstration itself is liable for the extrajudicial killings and may also be qualified as an act of terrorism. However, by mentioning "in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand", it hides the government from any responsibility to the lives of those critical of the administration.
Because of its vagueness, it leaves too much interpretations. And by Philippine experience, vagueness of the law has been used as a form of abuse to those in power.
The greatest fault in our judicial system is that anyone can interpret the law and unless the public causes turmoil on the peculiarity of such interpretations, no action will be seen from the judicial department.
"The HSA is a criminal law and therefore applies to all."
Sure it does. Since it already leaves out some responsibility from the administration, I do not think we would have problems in line with that.
The adminstration can justify as much as they want. I, along with other students, can argue as much. But as Atom Araullo ends the show, "[HSA] posits too much questions rather than answers." The law is not made to pose questions but to answer the needs and interests, not of other government's, but of its own people. Take note of the difference.
What makes this particular episode interesting is that it actually had the chair of the Anti Terror Council as one of the panelists, and god, was he grilled to his bones! However, he remained as confident and certain as he could be.
"The Bill of Rights is not absolute."
I tend to quite agree on that, I'd have to admit. However, the statement should not be taken as it is. One may argue that the HSA is just one of the many laws to safeguard such rights but in context to the HSA, it becomes more than that. Taking into account the extrajudicial killings, of every indivdual reported to be abducted by some men, with the military denying their involvement yet always justifying that this individual is a member of the New People's Army, this law is a parody and a safeguard to those seated in power.
"'mere suspicion', walang ganoong nakasulat." He also mentions that it is the USA Patriot Act of 2001 from which the HSA was actually patterned that mentions "if it appears to be intended" and can therefore be interpreted as MERE SUSPICION. The HSA never mentions nor implied such things.
Section 17 of the HSA states that "Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this Act or to sow or create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand..."
Truly, the HSA does not directly says such things but it is the section's vagueness which makes this law questionable.
Terrorism in its given definition is quite vague. Who qualifies a group is a terrorist group? If, by working on the phrase, "create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace", the adminstration itself is liable for the extrajudicial killings and may also be qualified as an act of terrorism. However, by mentioning "in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand", it hides the government from any responsibility to the lives of those critical of the administration.
Because of its vagueness, it leaves too much interpretations. And by Philippine experience, vagueness of the law has been used as a form of abuse to those in power.
The greatest fault in our judicial system is that anyone can interpret the law and unless the public causes turmoil on the peculiarity of such interpretations, no action will be seen from the judicial department.
"The HSA is a criminal law and therefore applies to all."
Sure it does. Since it already leaves out some responsibility from the administration, I do not think we would have problems in line with that.
The adminstration can justify as much as they want. I, along with other students, can argue as much. But as Atom Araullo ends the show, "[HSA] posits too much questions rather than answers." The law is not made to pose questions but to answer the needs and interests, not of other government's, but of its own people. Take note of the difference.
admiring Viktor
I have the slightest idea what you have in mind with that title but NO. I am not interested in him. And NO, I am definitely not going to involve myself with some sort of political turn-coatism or anything similar to that.
But bear with me on this one. I really have something to say. (shucks! parang sir arao lang yan)
Viktor is currently the Vice Chairperson of the University Student Council. A student from the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, he ran under Alyansa party and won by almost 50 votes only.
From this point forward, it must be noted that there exists a strong sense of party affiliation in college politics, most especially in USC and for this reason alone, members of my political party is quite antagonistic of him.
There had been issues against him even at this point, accusations that his party conspires in dominating the LCC elections and other critical decisions the alliance will have to face. However, allow me to say so, most of these accusations are but rumors.
During LCC meetings, there were things I've noticed about him that are admirable.
As a convener, he seems so objective and neutral. There seems to be no trace of bias on him. He never mentioned Stand UP, Alyansa or Kaisa (well, he shouldn't. that's really quite off) He never favored any college, not even his own. He always let everyone speak up. It's like he's just there, facilitating and that's it.
He catches every points raised during meetings and is able to reiterate each one.
During the deliberations of the LCC statement against the Tuition and Other Fees Increase, certain arguments were faulty and irrelevant but he was able to debunk them in such a way that it is not offensive and partisan.
Moreover, he insists on keeping the meetings on focus, even when his own party mates are deviating the discussion.
As I see it, Viktor is Alyansa but his actions seem to only be directed towards the interests of the students. (pardon me for saying this as early as now, but that's how i see it from an almost outsider's point of view) And for this reason alone, Viktor has earned my respect.
All these makes me think of our council. Why can't our chairperson be like that? Why can't party affiliations fade away and direct every action towards student interest? Why can't he put the students first before himself? Why can't he be objective and at least try to listen to other perspectives as well? Why can't he not prioritize his party mates so that we can all work together for the benefit of the students? Why can't he do it? Why can't I live in a perfect world where unity in diversity exists?
Why not?
But bear with me on this one. I really have something to say. (shucks! parang sir arao lang yan)
Viktor is currently the Vice Chairperson of the University Student Council. A student from the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, he ran under Alyansa party and won by almost 50 votes only.
From this point forward, it must be noted that there exists a strong sense of party affiliation in college politics, most especially in USC and for this reason alone, members of my political party is quite antagonistic of him.
There had been issues against him even at this point, accusations that his party conspires in dominating the LCC elections and other critical decisions the alliance will have to face. However, allow me to say so, most of these accusations are but rumors.
During LCC meetings, there were things I've noticed about him that are admirable.
As a convener, he seems so objective and neutral. There seems to be no trace of bias on him. He never mentioned Stand UP, Alyansa or Kaisa (well, he shouldn't. that's really quite off) He never favored any college, not even his own. He always let everyone speak up. It's like he's just there, facilitating and that's it.
He catches every points raised during meetings and is able to reiterate each one.
During the deliberations of the LCC statement against the Tuition and Other Fees Increase, certain arguments were faulty and irrelevant but he was able to debunk them in such a way that it is not offensive and partisan.
Moreover, he insists on keeping the meetings on focus, even when his own party mates are deviating the discussion.
As I see it, Viktor is Alyansa but his actions seem to only be directed towards the interests of the students. (pardon me for saying this as early as now, but that's how i see it from an almost outsider's point of view) And for this reason alone, Viktor has earned my respect.
All these makes me think of our council. Why can't our chairperson be like that? Why can't party affiliations fade away and direct every action towards student interest? Why can't he put the students first before himself? Why can't he be objective and at least try to listen to other perspectives as well? Why can't he not prioritize his party mates so that we can all work together for the benefit of the students? Why can't he do it? Why can't I live in a perfect world where unity in diversity exists?
Why not?
Friday, August 3, 2007
LCC elections
The League of College Councils (LCC), an alliance of college councils which serves as a consultative body of the University Student Council (USC) similar to the CoR, held its election for two positions, the secretary and public information officer (PIO), yesterday afternoon. The School of Information and Library Science Student Council (SLIS SC) was elected as the secretary and College of Mass Communication Student Council (CMC SC) as the public information officer.
The election was actually a weird experience. The CMC SC (at least six of us: Ayeen, Gem, Marian, Airah, Carlos and I) was actually confident in winning the position since we were the only ones nominated. At the same time, CMC SC had always been the PIO since the training fits the position very well. And if I may say so, this was actually planned by members of the political party which adds even more to the confidence level. (hala, nag-bakla si ateh)
Apparently, there was another nominee, the National College of Public Administration and Governance Student Council (NCPAG SC).
So what's wrong?
My instincts tell me there is some sort of conspiracy going on. Being a Stand UP dominated council, (not Stand UP council, know the difference) it may be possible that the "other" party would rather grab it, being the position vital in making statements and press releases. (yeah, I know. It's just politics and all)
We were asked to present our general program of action. Being that confident, we actually didn't prepare a detailed list of plans. However, with another nominee, we really had to flaunt our abilities, which includes our connections with a long list of media organizations. The only thing NCPAG SC had to say to redeem themselves is "if you want someone new."
I got agitated with the statement.
I can't blame people for looking for alternatives to those considered as institutions in politics. I myself voted for Ramon Ilagan as mayor with the same reason in mind. However, by experience in college politics, it somehow connotes the idea of leaning towards apathy. Students usually look for alternatives because they think Stand UP is too proactive. So they would vote candidates from other parties, ending up only to regret their votes. Then they would vote for Stand UP for the next few years until they start to look for alternatives again. It has been a cycle.
It is because of this same cycle that I am now faced the battle of principles. And I definitely am not enjoying it.
I can easily let go of my angst on the council and "his" principles. I just hope students would no longer base their votes on just looking for alternatives but for the abilities and attitudes each person possess.
As it turns out, 12 out of 14 councils voted for CMC SC. (well, that's not bad at all) What makes this election interesting are the reasons given by other councils for voting us, that it's not about being an institution in this position, but the abilities and training of CMC students that makes us qualified for the position.
Now that we got the position of PIO, everything else will be internal.
The election was actually a weird experience. The CMC SC (at least six of us: Ayeen, Gem, Marian, Airah, Carlos and I) was actually confident in winning the position since we were the only ones nominated. At the same time, CMC SC had always been the PIO since the training fits the position very well. And if I may say so, this was actually planned by members of the political party which adds even more to the confidence level. (hala, nag-bakla si ateh)
Apparently, there was another nominee, the National College of Public Administration and Governance Student Council (NCPAG SC).
So what's wrong?
My instincts tell me there is some sort of conspiracy going on. Being a Stand UP dominated council, (not Stand UP council, know the difference) it may be possible that the "other" party would rather grab it, being the position vital in making statements and press releases. (yeah, I know. It's just politics and all)
We were asked to present our general program of action. Being that confident, we actually didn't prepare a detailed list of plans. However, with another nominee, we really had to flaunt our abilities, which includes our connections with a long list of media organizations. The only thing NCPAG SC had to say to redeem themselves is "if you want someone new."
I got agitated with the statement.
I can't blame people for looking for alternatives to those considered as institutions in politics. I myself voted for Ramon Ilagan as mayor with the same reason in mind. However, by experience in college politics, it somehow connotes the idea of leaning towards apathy. Students usually look for alternatives because they think Stand UP is too proactive. So they would vote candidates from other parties, ending up only to regret their votes. Then they would vote for Stand UP for the next few years until they start to look for alternatives again. It has been a cycle.
It is because of this same cycle that I am now faced the battle of principles. And I definitely am not enjoying it.
I can easily let go of my angst on the council and "his" principles. I just hope students would no longer base their votes on just looking for alternatives but for the abilities and attitudes each person possess.
As it turns out, 12 out of 14 councils voted for CMC SC. (well, that's not bad at all) What makes this election interesting are the reasons given by other councils for voting us, that it's not about being an institution in this position, but the abilities and training of CMC students that makes us qualified for the position.
Now that we got the position of PIO, everything else will be internal.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
kids in a Montessori school
Today, our class in EDSP 122, Montessori and Other Approaches to Early Childhood Education, had a field trip to Maria Montessori Foundation (MMF) in Ayala Heights, Alabang. Existing for 28 years now, MMF is considered as one of the most authentic Montessori schools in the country.
We were assigned by pairs to observe children ages 3 to 6 years old in class.
Two kids, Iris and Alfonse, caught my attention. They got animal puzzles in their hands, placed the pieces on table where I was.
Iris: Wait for me.
Alfonse: Ok. I'll go slowly.
They placed their last pieces at the same time. Afterwards, they got up, put the puzzles back in its place and took a new material, this time, picture cards of the different parts of the turtle and horse. After enumerating the parts correctly, the teacher asked them to get their writing boards t work on a sort of diagnostic test. Iris took their colored pencils while Alfonse got papers and their writing board.
As they were writing, Iris's pencil broke and so she grabbed one of Alfonse's pencils. As it seemed like, Alfonse was quite annoyed by Iris's grabbing and thus, conflict start. Still working...
Alfonse: You're always making me sad.
Iris: People always make me happy... except my mom... except you.
Alfonse: You're making me want to go. You've been my friend for many days.
Iris: You're still my friend. Only a few people are my friends.
Alfonse: I'll share you my toys.
And they're happy again. They went on to talk about Harry Potter and Transformers. Iris was able to finish her work first.
Iris: Can I wait for you?
Teacher: Iris, put away your things. You're going home soon.
Iris: I have to keep my things now. I'll b going home soon.
Alfonse: Fine. Bye. Not friend.
Iris: No. (she comes closer to Alfonse) I love you.
Teacher calls Iris. Iris hugs her teacher and says goodbye to everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)