There are many things we assume when we are given bare facts. One of them was when I was taught at school that the Sampaguita was the (Philippine) national flower. Oh, ok then. If it was the national flower, then it was ours. The unspoken premise was no one else had it.
In the course of my travels however, reality has been chipping away at these hoary assumptions. One was when I discovered the Philippine roast pig called Lechon, happily existing in a Laotian marketplace. (Yeah, yeah, a Laotian Roast Pig). The latest to take a fall has been the Sampaguita (Jasminum sambac) which I encountered happily growing on a sidewalk in Solo, Java. Research on Wikipedia has since shown me that the Sampaguita ranges from Southwest, Southeast, and South Asia.
Great. I feel betrayed. I want to punch someone. Whoever led me to believe the Sampaguita was uniquely Filipino. Arrrgh!
Monday, November 1, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
When people succeed. It is because of HARD WORK. Luck has nothing to do with success. Do you AGREE or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to explain your position.
I agree that success is earned by a lifetime of hard work and has little or nothing at all to do with luck. Luck is for gamblers and ne’er-do-wells who pin their hopes on the roll of dice or a Lotto ticket stub. While I will grant that there are people who will win that pot, people who are “lucky,” most will eventually lose their winnings. They will end up right back where they started. They are the ones who believe in “luck.”
Luck is a tool the cunning use on the foolish. In our country gambling is abetted by the government, the Catholic church, and media. The government’s pin money comes from the winnings the Philippine Games and Amusements Corporation (PAGCOR) rakes in from gamble operations throughout the country. The Catholic church keeps quiet and lives richly on the dole out of the government. Sweepstakes ticket vendors have for so long been selling tickets around churches that the act of buying a ticket is now seen as an act of charity.
The brainwashing is also done through lunchtime variety shows on television. These shows play to an audience mostly comprised by the impoverished masses of the Philippines. The shows play on the unreasoning desire of stumbling on unearned windfalls. A variety of foolish games of chance and cleverly designed contests keeps the audience riveted to their screens and forever dreaming of that wondrous day when they each come to their own.
I believe that success is earned through hard work, the serious dedication to purposeful toil, the application of generous amounts of elbow grease, that frees up the mind to see opportunities for breakthroughs. It is hard work and the opportunities it creates that lead to success.
Luck is a tool the cunning use on the foolish. In our country gambling is abetted by the government, the Catholic church, and media. The government’s pin money comes from the winnings the Philippine Games and Amusements Corporation (PAGCOR) rakes in from gamble operations throughout the country. The Catholic church keeps quiet and lives richly on the dole out of the government. Sweepstakes ticket vendors have for so long been selling tickets around churches that the act of buying a ticket is now seen as an act of charity.
The brainwashing is also done through lunchtime variety shows on television. These shows play to an audience mostly comprised by the impoverished masses of the Philippines. The shows play on the unreasoning desire of stumbling on unearned windfalls. A variety of foolish games of chance and cleverly designed contests keeps the audience riveted to their screens and forever dreaming of that wondrous day when they each come to their own.
I believe that success is earned through hard work, the serious dedication to purposeful toil, the application of generous amounts of elbow grease, that frees up the mind to see opportunities for breakthroughs. It is hard work and the opportunities it creates that lead to success.
When people succeed. It is because of hard work. LUCK has nothing to do with success. Do you agree or DISAGREE with the quotation above? Use specific reasons and examples to explain your position.
I disagree that success is purely a result of hard work. Perhaps because of association with the idea of gambling, the word “luck” has taken on the meaning of unearned and irresponsible recklessness in one’s lifestyle. However, the luck I’m talking about is of a different sort, the one that comes out as a result of hard work.
Invariably, hard work and luck simply have to come together for success to result. You see, I believe that there are many people in this world who work hard, very hard in fact. Ditch diggers, jeepney drivers, domestic helpers, nurses, teachers and such. Hard work is their lot. Yet time and again, few of them will ever make it beyond a difficult working life.
The problem does not stem from a lack for effort, but the lack of that sensitivity to opportunity otherwise called “luck.” Many a hard worker hunches down to do his work without ever stopping to think about what opportunities are created or opened by that work. As such, the person never sees nor grabs opportunity. He or she never has any “luck.”
On the other hand, there is that uncommon worker who has vision, an inquisitive mind, and the gumption to take risks. That person realizes that beyond the work is the constant opportunity for improvement. There are, so to speak, many ways to skin a cat. This worker is the kind who, given “luck” will one day make the leap from merely slogging away at the work to eventually becoming resoundingly successful in his career.
Invariably, hard work and luck simply have to come together for success to result. You see, I believe that there are many people in this world who work hard, very hard in fact. Ditch diggers, jeepney drivers, domestic helpers, nurses, teachers and such. Hard work is their lot. Yet time and again, few of them will ever make it beyond a difficult working life.
The problem does not stem from a lack for effort, but the lack of that sensitivity to opportunity otherwise called “luck.” Many a hard worker hunches down to do his work without ever stopping to think about what opportunities are created or opened by that work. As such, the person never sees nor grabs opportunity. He or she never has any “luck.”
On the other hand, there is that uncommon worker who has vision, an inquisitive mind, and the gumption to take risks. That person realizes that beyond the work is the constant opportunity for improvement. There are, so to speak, many ways to skin a cat. This worker is the kind who, given “luck” will one day make the leap from merely slogging away at the work to eventually becoming resoundingly successful in his career.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Some people prefer to live in a BIG CITY. Others prefer to live in a small town. Which place would you prefer to live in? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
I would prefer the big city. While I appreciate the thought of H.D. Thoreau, I demand much of myself and the small town, I’m sad to say, will not support that pursuit.
I want to excel. I want the finest education and the top schools of the Philippines are invariably in the city or in its outskirts. I want to eat well and live well, where I and when I want. The best restaurants and cultural centers are central to the city. I want to social service: the hospitals, the clinics, the police, the utility men, the transportations systems are again in the city.
No, I do not kid myself. I know that I pay a price for wanting these things conveniently. I have to suffer an unhealthy population density in the city because many want the same things I do. I have to pay for the things I expect and as a result, I have to work harder. I want the best so must be no slouch in what I offer back to the system.
Yet I am happy. As I have lived in the city for so long, I know how to keep myself relatively safe in the city. I am not subject to marauding bands of rebels nor need I worry about paying arbitrary ‘revoluntionary taxes’ for what I have toiled for. I am entertained by the latest movies, plays, and the most cutting-edge electronic devices our day has to offer.
Finally, I will have far reaching impact. It is likely I will move from the city to the rest of the world, as will my children, and their children’s children. I am a city person through and through.
I want to excel. I want the finest education and the top schools of the Philippines are invariably in the city or in its outskirts. I want to eat well and live well, where I and when I want. The best restaurants and cultural centers are central to the city. I want to social service: the hospitals, the clinics, the police, the utility men, the transportations systems are again in the city.
No, I do not kid myself. I know that I pay a price for wanting these things conveniently. I have to suffer an unhealthy population density in the city because many want the same things I do. I have to pay for the things I expect and as a result, I have to work harder. I want the best so must be no slouch in what I offer back to the system.
Yet I am happy. As I have lived in the city for so long, I know how to keep myself relatively safe in the city. I am not subject to marauding bands of rebels nor need I worry about paying arbitrary ‘revoluntionary taxes’ for what I have toiled for. I am entertained by the latest movies, plays, and the most cutting-edge electronic devices our day has to offer.
Finally, I will have far reaching impact. It is likely I will move from the city to the rest of the world, as will my children, and their children’s children. I am a city person through and through.
Some people prefer to live in a SMALL TOWN. Others prefer to live in a big city. Which place would you prefer to live in? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
I would prefer to live in a small town for the very reasons small towns are disliked by others: the towns are small, their lifestyles are uncomplicated, the people are easily satisfied.
To start with, small towns have better environments. They will only occupy as much room as needed to accommodate their population and their industries, which are often agricultural. Yet because they are small and surrounded by undeveloped vastnesses, the air quality is better than in cities, the weather is more refreshing, and the environment is rich with trees and fields. The way to Baguio from Manila is lined with such small towns and they are eloquent testimony to the advantages of which I have spoken.
Then there's the lifestyle: small town lifestyles encourage moderation. Townsfolk are not likely to be harried because whatever needs and services they require will already be in that town. Those who know how to appreciate 3 square home-cooked meals a day have nothing else to seek beyond the limits of their town. Many people with long and unstressed lives can be found happily nestled in small towns while their sophisticated counterparts live short and harried lives in Manila.
Finally, town people are contented. a reassuring rhythm in life arises from modest ambition and an agrarian lifestyle. Planting crops and fishing are livelihoods that require you to be in synchronization with their seasons. The sun goes up and the sun comes down in predictable cycles and they cannot be hurried along by frenetic humans. Work had its place in the country, but it has not grown into the pervasive and often toxic religion it has in the city.
Oh yes, I would prefer to live in the countryside.
To start with, small towns have better environments. They will only occupy as much room as needed to accommodate their population and their industries, which are often agricultural. Yet because they are small and surrounded by undeveloped vastnesses, the air quality is better than in cities, the weather is more refreshing, and the environment is rich with trees and fields. The way to Baguio from Manila is lined with such small towns and they are eloquent testimony to the advantages of which I have spoken.
Then there's the lifestyle: small town lifestyles encourage moderation. Townsfolk are not likely to be harried because whatever needs and services they require will already be in that town. Those who know how to appreciate 3 square home-cooked meals a day have nothing else to seek beyond the limits of their town. Many people with long and unstressed lives can be found happily nestled in small towns while their sophisticated counterparts live short and harried lives in Manila.
Finally, town people are contented. a reassuring rhythm in life arises from modest ambition and an agrarian lifestyle. Planting crops and fishing are livelihoods that require you to be in synchronization with their seasons. The sun goes up and the sun comes down in predictable cycles and they cannot be hurried along by frenetic humans. Work had its place in the country, but it has not grown into the pervasive and often toxic religion it has in the city.
Oh yes, I would prefer to live in the countryside.
Do you agree or DISAGREE with the following statement? Television has destroyed communication among friends and family. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.
TV destroys communication? Certainly not! The television is very font of graphic stimuli for conversation! Were this bottomless cornucopia of near-gratuitous entertainment to dry up, people would not know what to do with themselves. Like so many frantic ants of a disturbed anthill, they would dash mindlessly about the house, busying themselves in such uncommunicative pursuits as pruning the garden bushes, washing the car, or doing laundry.
Time and again, this fact is evidenced when typhoons hit the city of Manila. When the power lines are down and the television sets are rendered silent. In desperation people rush to unearth the lowly transistor radio in fervent hope that the noise of the radio announcers will beat back the deafening silence. A collective sigh of relief radiates throughout the city when TV stations come back on air and “real” communication returns.
Television in every home is the electronic dendrite, the nerve endings picking up sights and sounds radiating from the television. People cannot help but react, discuss, and marvel at TV’s wealth of conversational stimulus. People both family members and friends are drawn into lively discussions about the latest shows and the most tantalizing controversies.
Television companies present to the viewing public not merely what is entertaining or curious, but what is novel. The latest news, the latest shows, the latest fads, and – as if often the case – the latest scandals are aired on television. With stimulus like this, only a pile of rocks would not end up communicating with each other.
Time and again, this fact is evidenced when typhoons hit the city of Manila. When the power lines are down and the television sets are rendered silent. In desperation people rush to unearth the lowly transistor radio in fervent hope that the noise of the radio announcers will beat back the deafening silence. A collective sigh of relief radiates throughout the city when TV stations come back on air and “real” communication returns.
Television in every home is the electronic dendrite, the nerve endings picking up sights and sounds radiating from the television. People cannot help but react, discuss, and marvel at TV’s wealth of conversational stimulus. People both family members and friends are drawn into lively discussions about the latest shows and the most tantalizing controversies.
Television companies present to the viewing public not merely what is entertaining or curious, but what is novel. The latest news, the latest shows, the latest fads, and – as if often the case – the latest scandals are aired on television. With stimulus like this, only a pile of rocks would not end up communicating with each other.
Do you AGREE or disagree with the following statement? Television has destroyed communication among friends and family. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.
TV has destroyed communication among friends and family, but perhaps more with the family. And it continues to do so.
These days, TV offers a panoply of programs, many inane, a few quite intelligent. Because watching TV is so much more convenient than conversing, people default to it. TV compounds the problem that family members aren’t getting enough time to really talk anymore. TV adds to electronic play stations, computers, home cable in keeping people focused outwards, through electronic channels, and not inwards to each other in intimate conversation
I imagine the art of conversation was much better developed in the past. I was told by my parents of times in their lives where they were expected to be home for dinner at a certain time. In the case of my mother, it had to be before the leaves of the acacia tree had folded, and I think that is at about 5 in the afternoon. My father tells me that in his case, it was when the bells of the Angelus struck at 6.
Some might swear that conversations among friends and family are actually stimulated by TV. I agree there’s conversation, but is it really the sort of communication that is therapeutic to the building of relationships? The way I see it, TV shifts the minds of people towards a form of Never-never Land, to borrow a term from Peter Pan, where people think that they really live. The here and the now are not actually real so only a minimum of attention and therefore conversation is accorded to it.
In the end, it might be said that there are a number of factors, not TV alone, that are eroding communication between friends and family. Yet, the contribution of TV to that erosion is quite significant.
These days, TV offers a panoply of programs, many inane, a few quite intelligent. Because watching TV is so much more convenient than conversing, people default to it. TV compounds the problem that family members aren’t getting enough time to really talk anymore. TV adds to electronic play stations, computers, home cable in keeping people focused outwards, through electronic channels, and not inwards to each other in intimate conversation
I imagine the art of conversation was much better developed in the past. I was told by my parents of times in their lives where they were expected to be home for dinner at a certain time. In the case of my mother, it had to be before the leaves of the acacia tree had folded, and I think that is at about 5 in the afternoon. My father tells me that in his case, it was when the bells of the Angelus struck at 6.
Some might swear that conversations among friends and family are actually stimulated by TV. I agree there’s conversation, but is it really the sort of communication that is therapeutic to the building of relationships? The way I see it, TV shifts the minds of people towards a form of Never-never Land, to borrow a term from Peter Pan, where people think that they really live. The here and the now are not actually real so only a minimum of attention and therefore conversation is accorded to it.
In the end, it might be said that there are a number of factors, not TV alone, that are eroding communication between friends and family. Yet, the contribution of TV to that erosion is quite significant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
