Posted on

Why I chose the candidate I chose

I’ve been more active in “advocating” my support for Gordon in the recent days. It was prompted by some article of a person who’s “reasoning” kinda turned me off. Not because it was wrong per se, but simply because it was a bit “shallow” (for lack of a better word) given the stakes.

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. Read More

Posted on

Pride and Prejudice

I’m probably one of the most “patient” people a person could meet. And take note, when I say “patient,” I don’t mean it in the delayed gratification sort of sense – as I’m very impatient when it comes to that. What I mean is my tolerance (pasensya) for anything unfortunate – usually in the form of people and their insufferable dispositions. Even my own sister could vouch for this 1 At least she already had done it before

I even remember Cris complaining that me “never” getting angry with her 2 We do fight, of course – but she still has yet to see how I can be when I’m “angry” was/is a constant source of her “insecurities.” Ika nga sa lahat ng “away” – ang pikon, laging talo 3 I would challenge that argument, but for the most part, it is true. – 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 At least to people who haven’t “crossed the line” – as I’ll explain later 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. Read More

Notes

Notes
⇡1 At least she already had done it before
⇡2 We do fight, of course – but she still has yet to see how I can be when I’m “angry”
⇡3 I would challenge that argument, but for the most part, it is true.
⇡4 At least to people who haven’t “crossed the line” – as I’ll explain later
Posted on

The Heirarchy of Realistic Significance

Roy posed this question in a comment on my previous post which I forgot to address in my response.

…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 🙂 Read More

Posted on

Dogma

Holy fuck this is long… hope whoever reads this has got the patience. But seriously, I think it’s a good read – not because I’m an interesting person (far from it) but there are a lot of points here that are really worth thinking about especially if you’re a person of faith.

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 naive 1 At least, based on experience in a sense
Carlo: how they can be agents of suffering PRECISELY because of their “skewed/misguided” religious beliefs 2 how they tend to take doctrine at face value without even bothering to evaluate it in context of the reality of the human condition.
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 😉 Read More

Notes

Notes
⇡1 At least, based on experience
⇡2 how they tend to take doctrine at face value without even bothering to evaluate it in context of the reality of the human condition.
Posted on

Reflections of love

Three qualifications before I begin:

  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 Mostly because I’m very logical about everything else 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! Read More

Notes

Notes
⇡1 Mostly because I’m very logical about everything else