UPMin CS 06: We're so fanny!

Good times...good times with the best people.

A Day of Shame for UP Mindanao

by: Dr. Eufemio T. Rasco, Jr.

Few considered it an important issue. For the first time in the history of the 100 year-old university, a scientific experiment, the symbol of UP’s academic tradition, was destroyed upon the order of the honorable mayor of Davao City.

The order is unjustifiable. It was based on half-truths and exaggerations manufactured by the City Agriculturist. UP Mindanao took pains to clarify all of these directly and indirectly to the City Mayor, in newspapers and in various public fora. But the explanations fell on deaf ears. UP Mindanao pleaded for more time to explain; this was summarily denied.

Even if the City Agriculturist’s claims were true, it could be argued that the local government could not justify the destruction of the experiment. There was no imminent danger to life or the environment that might justify a drastic local government action on an activity that is officially permitted by the national government. The basis of the order, in the final analysis, was that UP Mindanao failed to post a notice in 1 out of 4 places in Davao City where it is supposed to, as a condition for granting a national government permit to do the experiment. The punishment, if warranted, would have been to revoke the permit. This could only be decided by the Bureau of Plant Industry, the organization that issued the permit. But the permit had not been revoked; BPI had not been asked by anyone to revoke the permit.

The order was carried out, in full view of the leadership of UP Mindanao, and by the same people who worked hard to set up the experiment, all of whom knew that the order was at best questionable, if not outright illegal.

A photo taken in an interview with Himati early December. This statement, however, was sent recently.

Who gave the command to destroy on site? It was not even the City Agriculturist, the man who was sent to carry out the order. She was an associate professor, a member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) of UP Mindanao -- the same IBC, by the way, that was remiss in posting the controversial notice.

The role of the IBC at that stage of the experiment was to monitor the procedures to ensure that they comply with BPI’s (the regulatory body’s) conditions for granting the permit to do the experiment. If the experiment was compliant, it was IBC’s duty to make sure that no one illegally interfered with it. If it was not compliant, it was IBC’s duty to report this to BPI. But the experiment was compliant; BPI, the official body to whom the IBC reports, said so in an official certification that everyone knew exists.

But one member of IBC decided that it is her role to carry out the order of the City Mayor, even without consulting the rest of the committee. In a fit of sadism, she asked the young researcher who worked so hard for the experiment, to destroy her own work while a noisy mob of anti-GMO advocates cheered. It is a spectacle that I will never forget.

While the rape of the university tradition’s symbol was taking place, most of the university’s constituents were in downtown Davao City 20 km away, participating in the annual parade of Christmas lanterns, even as they were alerted earlier in the day that the order was about to be carried out, and that their presence could help prevent the virtual invasion of UP Mindanao. Few cared. Those who do and were present in the experimental site, did little to stop the invasion. The project leader of the experiment, the UP Mindanao faculty who should be most concerned, was hundreds of kilometers away, enjoying an early Christmas break…

December 17, 2010 permanently tarnished the University of the Philippine’ self-image as a family of fearless, principled advocates of social change and a bastion of righteousness in the academic world. This image, recently enhanced by the standoff with the Supreme Court over a plagiarism issue, was lost in UP Mindanao.

On December 17, 2010, the name UP Mindanao has assumed a derogatory meaning. It is too embarrassing to print what this meaning may be. We will forever carry this badge of shame. A former UP President once rhetorically asked: Does UP Mindanao deserve to be called UP? Many of us questioned this skepticism. But he may be right, after all.

This statement was emailed by Dr. Rasco to the UPMin school paper, Himati. It was sent December 19, 8:34 PM for 'immediate' publication; but since Himati couldn't publish a print issue at the moment, it was posted for public viewing in Google Docs.

**reposted from Facebook

Quest Physics

"I have come to believe in something called the physics of the quest. a force in nature governed by laws is real as the laws of gravity. the rule of quest physics goes somthing like this, if you're brave enough to leave behind everything familiar and comforting which can be anything from your house to bitter old resentments and set out on a truth seeking journey, either externally or internally, and if your truly willing to regard everything that happens to you on that journey as a clue and if you accept everyone you meet along the way as a teacher, and if you are prepared most of all to face and forgive some very difficult reality about yourself then the truth will not be witheld from you. i can't help but believe it given my experience."


-Liz Gilbert (Eat, Pray, Love)

The Aquino Boom

Our country has had very few leaders like Corazon

Aquino, in whose name and in whose defense
millions deed tyranny: few Filipinos have been so
widely admired and cherished
at home and abroad. It would have been easy for her to
enjoy the comforts of retirement and abandon
the political stage:
easy, but at the peril of betraying everything
she stood and suffered for – freedom and the
principle that no man or woman is indispensable
to the country.
It was the only time in her presidency that Mrs. Aquino
matched the toughness of celebrated world leaders like Golda
Meir and Margaret Thatcher. And that time, everybody did Cory’s bidding.
With her death, the Philippines went wild about her son
Benigno Simeon C. “Noynoy” Aquino III. An outpouring of
grief over the death of his mother in August of last year had convinced Mr. Aquino to give in to massive calls for him to run
for president on the platform of change.
The simple explanation of the current Aquino-inspired
rejoicing must be that the Filipino people as a whole are fundamentally sound and that they know a good, faithful, and
patriotic public servant when they see one. It is more apparent that in P.Noy, they have seen one.
It is doubtful if any administration has received so much public condemnation for tolerance of ofcial crookedness,
corruption, inefciency, and incompetence. But despite the
general damnation that has come from the people, Aquino has been singled out as a shining exception. Maybe or not because
of what his parents did.
Nacionalistas –liberal’s greatest rival during the campaign
period – who feared their party’s collapse then that Aquino is running, planned and schemed to woo back the ex-senator. But
all attempts have proved futile.
It wasn’t the strength of a political party, but the people’s
thirst for “true reforms” that won for Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III the presidency.
And now that he is married to our country, when should the “honeymoon period” start? Right after he won the elections, or
after he assumes ofce?
It does not matter whether he starts early or late if he is
headed for the cliff.
Many will have conicting judgments. But one thing they
can’t differ about – are the facts.
Like the new graduates who are stepping forth from
their halls of learning into the world of affairs, the Philippine government is about to pass out of its period of tutelage and
make its bid for a place in the concert of nations. Out of these facts we will have diverging opinions – all opinions are equal –
and reality has a way of taking shape according to the manner an opinion presents how it will take shape.
As P.Noy has declared, the leaders must unite and consolidate all their efforts. Anything short of whole-hearted,
whole souled and undivided effort will spell certain disaster for
the Philippines.
Meanwhile the Aquino boom keeps increasing. To try to stop it would be tantamount to the old story of sweeping back
the ocean with a broom.
Then it will be a hundred days after the May 10, 2010
elections and two hundred and so on– what next, where to –
Philippines. SIX YEARS.

VEGAS

My first attemt at creating something from Vegas Pro 9.0. Sorry for the crapiness. LOL




Oh, and after you watched this trailer, please read

HIMATI, The $3X Issue (Volume XIV, Issue 1)

A Critical Study on the Real Essence of ART

The world has become a very visual one - art is all around us, or at least they are art as people classify them. Understanding art is understanding our world. A good first step is to try to understand what is mean by art.
"Art--the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."--(Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)
The word "art" comes from the Latin ars, which, loosely translated, means "arrangement" or "to arrange", though in many dictionaries you will simply find it tautologically, translated as "art". This is the only universal definition of art—that whatever it is was at some point arranged in some way. A few examples that show this meaning is too broad, includes artifact, artifice, artillery, medical arts and military arts. However, there are many other colloquial uses of the word, all with some relation to its etymological roots.
A definition of art that seems correct to many Americans in the 21st century is likely to differ greatly from definitions of art in non-Western cultures, in tribal societies, and in other historical periods (Barnes, 2006).
Defining art raises problems also in that since the beginning of the 20th century some artists have sought to challenge the very definition of art. Their art objects may lack the qualities long associated with art, such as beauty, skilled craftsmanship, and clear organization. These art objects may even be indistinguishable from consumer products.
Art is a very slippery subject for whom everyone has a different definition. There had been a lot of curiosities on art. Academicians, thinkers, and scholars of all ages and nationalities around the globe have endeavored to define this thing called art. However, the definition of art is extremely elusive or indefinable. It is difficult (or perhaps impossible) to come up with a single definition that will include all forms of art and please everybody.
Recent attempts at explicating the essential character of art have given rise to discussions concerning the significance of this question for artistic or aesthetic theory and to skepticism in some quarters about the very possibility of defining ‘art’ (Berleant, 1964). While this issue raises numerous difficulties, not the least of these revolves around the nature of the concept of ‘art’ itself. Some term it an “open” concept, since its boundaries, by the very nature of an empirical concept, cannot be finally drawn. Consequently, defining art is a very subjective matter.
Thus, the word art connotes a sense of ability, of the mastery of a medium, of the efficient use of a language so as to express meaning, nearness or depth. Making this judgment requires a basis for criticism: a way to determine whether the sensory input meets the criteria to be considered art, whether it is perceived to be ugly or beautiful. Perception is always colored by experience, so a reaction to art as "ugly" or "beautiful" is necessarily subjective.
Although a firm definition of art may seem like a good idea, and
philosophers in the field of aesthetics have attempted to come up with one, it is
possible to create and enjoy art without such a definition.

(Research Proposal/AH2)

Vote Your Favorite Actor.... Into OFFICE?

DO not be surprised. Expect at least one if not all of the celebrities running for political office to have a position in the government. Track the history of elections and the people winning and it is no surprise that most of the political figures were once public figures or what we call celebrities. Should celebrities be encouraged to run for public office?
The thought of celebrities running for office can be connected in one scenario in Back to the Future- a scientific fictional novel- specifically Doc Brown's (main character) shocked response when Marty tells him that Ronald Reagan is President of the United States in 1985. "Then who's vice president?" asks Doc, "Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wymann is the first lady. And Jack Benny is secretary of the Treasury”. It is a little joke that is so perfect. It is not surprising if Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis revolved the entire script based on that one situation of trying to explain to someone from the past that a B ‑ movie actor has turn out to be the head of the nation.
Nowadays the idea of celebrities becoming politicians isn't as funny, because there have been so many in office. Just like in the United States of America, from the very famous Arnold Schwarzenegger to the lesser-known Fred Thompson, they are/were mayors, governors, senators, diplomats, you name it. Apart from those who actually run and/or are elected, there are a number of celebrities with political interests that don't include holding office. Actors such as Warren Beatty, George Clooney and Sean Penn continually gain media attention for their activist campaigns and charity work, and are constantly asked about their desire to run in the future.
In the Philippines, from Vilma Santos to Joseph Estrada, Jinggoy, Ramon Revilla and Bong, they are celebrities who gained political powers through their positions in the government and by the people who voted for them. They are just few of the many public figures turned political figures. And in this coming May 2007 election, still, several candidates are celebrities, like the boxing champ Manny Pacquiao and others like Cesar Montano and Richard Gomez.
In an era of political scandals and an increasingly unpopular war, does the country need a popular celebrity to take back the government “for the people”?
There are a number of factors that have made it possible for celebrities to run for elective office. One key aspect of celebrity politics in the post-World War II period has been the emergence of television and its enormous consequences for the political process. Prior to 1960, when television emerged as a major communications avenue, most people got their public affairs information from newspapers. In 1959, for example, more people indicated they received most of their information from newspapers and found the printed press to be more believable than television. Within ten years, though, these numbers would become reversed. Ever since that time, more people have tuned into television and found it to be a believable source compared to newspapers.
The television era advantages celebrities because these individuals are skillful at using the medium, are photogenic, and are very good at attracting media exposure. As the culture has moved toward the adoration of celebrities, celebrities make for great copy and receive a great deal of coverage when they enter into the political realm. In addition, celebrities are perfectly matched for the contemporary political era because of their wealth and fundraising capacity. With the high cost of political races and the large amount of money required to broadcast ads, fundraising is vital to electoral success. Finally, celebrities make good candidates because of the "white knight" phenomenon. In an era of extensive citizen cynicism about conventional politicians, voters often see celebrities as white knights from outside the political process who are too rich to be bought and thereby deserving of trust from the electorate. This gives celebrities a kind of credibility that normal politicians do not have.
But being famous alone does not guarantee victory as seen by the failure of John Glenn’s presidential bid, Oliver North’s unsuccessful Senate candidacy, and Bill Bradley’s inability to wrestle the Democratic nomination away from Al Gore, all in the US. Political success requires qualities beyond a famous name and celebrity background.
The biggest challenge for celebrity candidates is the tabloid press. Befitting their past as entertainers or just public figures, celebrities attract both positive and negative coverage. More so than other politicians, celebrities tend to get very personal coverage. Reporters are much more likely to focus on their background and personality than their substantive stances. This can either help or hurt celebrities, depending on what things are in their past that get uncovered by reporters.
The ultimate question of celebrities is what kind of office-holder will they be. Do celebrities make for effective governors, Senators, and representatives? What challenges face them when they win a major office? What determines how successful they will be in the governing process? Are they of worth of being elected?
Definitely not. Not to generalize it, but not all celebrities are smart especially when they aim for a public office.
Experience counts. Several experts said celebrities do better in office if they have some earlier experience with the political process. But seeing it, most celebrities running for office do not have any experience. It is an obvious use of popularity to gain political power. Worse case is that some celebrity candidates did not even finished schooling when they should have before entering politics. Education is very crucial here since we are talking of nation building and nation leading for progress. In addition, the very qualities (independence and originality) that voters find appealing often set against the media and legislators. When these individuals start complaining, voters sometimes see the celebrity as an amateur and a novice who is not up the governing job. If that perception becomes widespread, it is hard for celebrity politicians to govern very effectively.
Celebrities cover those candidates that are more worthy of the people’s votes. They are famous. People love them because of their shows, their acts, performances their products and everything. It is very unfair for those more deserving candidates because these celebrities are the ones often seen on public. That is why people more than likely to vote them right away into office-without thinking their abilities in politics- than the best candidate. People only see their skills as TV personalities and their abilities to convince people themselves.
One of the major difficulties that plague celebrity politicians is the problem on the lack of a firm political base. To win office, celebrities often assemble unconventional coalitions that transcend normal party alignments. Unlike established politicians who most appeal to conventional political constituencies, celebrities can build coalitions that are more broad-based. They can reach out to Republicans, Democrats, and Independents without necessarily compromising their public support. Although this electoral strategy works very well and helps to explain why celebrities win, this same quality harms them in the governing process. The presence of broad voter support often is based on a faithfulness that is not very deep. The lack of a firm base means that when their public supports drop, they do not have a committed base that will stay with them through thick and thin.
The possibilities are endless, the tabloids are at the ready and we, the public, are willing to consider it. Horror of horrors: Celebrity politicians are here to stay.
But whatever the possibilities may be, celebrities should not be encouraged to run for public political office.
Celebrities are famous for acting, singing and being famous. They should be happy with the fame that they possess and not try to parlay that on to another profession. Despite the few exceptions, actors should keep acting; rappers keep rapping.
If you are famous for what you do, keep doing it.

(Reaction Paper/AH2/2nd sem/Up Mindanao)