Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Having a mind of a critic

As of now, most of my posts have been filled with criticisms. Most of them (if not all) negative.

I can't just help myself from ranting about these things. If I may seem angry, argumentative, or annoying to you, don't worry, I feel that way about myself as well.

I even think that I might need a psychiatrist in the near future.

You see, I an obsessive compulsive critic. Everything I do, everything I say, everything I write, it goes to some sort of filter before I'm able to do, say, or write it.

What's worst? I'm have an obsession with academic correctness. Whenever I use an uncommon word, a scientific term, or any word that I haven't used in a while, I have to check both urbandictionary.com as well as wordwebonline.com (Yes, I also checked links to websites before posting them)

The harder part? I have to read the news everyday and find something to think upon and criticize.
What could have person A done? What is wrong with Senator B's arguments? Why does Bishop C think that way? Why am I reading this when I'm supposed to be working?

Well, it's pretty damn hard to work when your supervisor is watching your every move. It's even damn harder when your supervisor is inside your own head.

Prying into the mind of a Senator

Okay, this blog was initially supposed to be a collection of stories. But recent events in the Philippines have made me realize that sometimes, real life is more interesting than anything I can imagine. And so, some of my posts have become rant-like. Unfortunately, here's some more.

Now, Senator Sotto has been very vocal about his opposition to any and all forms of the RH Bill.
Putting myself in his shoes, I was trying to think of a reason to oppose the Bill without delving into religion.

I've come up with the following conclusion:

Maybe the reason Sen. Sotto is going to new lows to stop the RH Bill is because he (or his heirs) will lose on potential voters.
Imagine, a hundred million potential voters in 2025 (or 2028), most of those would probably be living below the poverty line and most of them will just vote for the most popular candidates (Sen Sotto, if still alive, or maybe someone else in the family)

Remember, less population means we can concentrate more on education. Better education means future voters are able to make informed choices, better chances of electing better candidates. Better chance of better candidates winning elections means a lower chance of politicians winning just because they are popular comedians or actors.

If he saw that far into the future, then maybe I can give some respect to the guy. He is after all, investing in the future and based on surveys, investments are good.

Anyways, hope I get into writing again after a few days. I'm busy with other stuff (and trying to not get annoyed too much at what my countrymen are doing).

Saturday, September 3, 2011

On Kit Tatad and Federico D. Pascual Jr's stance on the RH Bill


http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?publicationSubCategoryId=64&articleId=723549

From what I've read, it's either a) He has not read the latest version of the bill b) blindy refuses the bill because it's labelled RH b) He does not approve because the church say so.

I agree with one point though, RH should not be dicated by foreign pressure, we should have this for ourselves.

Birthrate and overpopulation: Yes, we're not over populated, but some areas are already saturated. And the saturation will keep getting worst until a) we do something to prevent further growth or b) we relocate others from saturated areas. Good luck on trying to relocate people.

Availability of contraception/sterilization: Yes they are available, but only to those who have money, and those who know about them. Part of RH Bill is about information, availability to those who are a bit unfortunate should only come as second.

Birth Control: The government can't punish us for having unprotected sex and it cannot force us to practice birth control, it does not say that in the bill, that would be unconstitutional, inhumane, and incredibly awkward.

On Child bearing: Actually, it can, and it should protect or prevent child bearing. Some parents have too many kids and can't take care of more of them, to prevent another child from joining the family is to promote the existing children's right to a good life. Now, which is more important? The actual, living, breathing children, or an imaginary child that has not been concieved yet.

Dropping the bill: Yes, please, do that by all means. Just make sure you have an alternative to protecting women and children's rights to good lives.

To those against Population control: Please watch Soylent Green. I agree that we are far from overpopulation but that does not mean we should be complacent. Prevention is better that cure. I don't want my descendants suffering because their resources are dwindling to quickly.

You may also want to visit slums and try living with the families there. An RH bill is not only for the present, it is for the future.

The country's resources are like a piece of pie. The more the people who share the pie, the less your share becomes. I don't want my descendants becoming hungry because everyone's share of the pie is reduced to a small crumb.