am back!
after a 3 hour flight from thailand, it felt good to be around people who spoke tagalog. grabe. dinugo ako sa ibang bansa. ang hirap magpaintindi pag hindi marunong uminggles ang mga tao sa paligid.
the funny thing was, in all the countries we went to, we were mistaken for locals. so they all spoke in their native tongues when talking to us. at siyempre ang sagot namin, english please!
it was my first time out of the country. my sister gave the trip to me as a birthday gift which i claimed only after the bar. am glad i got the chance. it was an experience that i will remember for a long time.
there were a lot of opportunities for mishaps, like almost being left on an island by the last train because we couldn't understand the announcement, finding out that the cab driver had no idea where the place we were going to is located, having no map to go around, getting caught in little india with enough money left only for the train, which we couldn't find... the list is long. but at the end of the day we just found ourselves laughing and congratulating each other for winning the day's leg -- ala amazing race, and for getting to the hotel safe and sound.
several times during the trip i found myself feeling sad for the philippines. kasi parang ang progressive nung mga ibang bansa. disiplinado ang mga tao. of course there were exceptions but on the whole, people were pretty much disciplined enough to not litter, not push, not run red lights, and generally follow the law.
nakakalungkot. but i realized that we can do it if we tried. perhaps we lack pride. not in ourselves as individuals but we seem to not take pride in being filipinos. collective pride kumbaga. kaya natin eh.
ewan.
other than those moments, though, the whole trip was fun. rina and i enjoyed ourselves immensely. and the fact that we were working with a limited budget added spice, not to mention hysteria, to the whole experience.
will put in a more detailed account when i get hold of a computer i can hog.
it's good to be back. :) am home.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Saturday, October 23, 2004
hello
rina and i are doing our version of the amazing race. 4 countries in 12 days. how's abouts dats?
we are now in singapore. we arrived from indonesia yesterday. then off to malaysia then thailand.
so far it's been an adventure. tell you all about it when i get back. all i know right now is that i'm getting very good at monosyllabic answers.
:)
we are now in singapore. we arrived from indonesia yesterday. then off to malaysia then thailand.
so far it's been an adventure. tell you all about it when i get back. all i know right now is that i'm getting very good at monosyllabic answers.
:)
Friday, October 15, 2004
we do not have a monopoly
Arguments Before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives on H.R. 1885, 59th Congress (May 17, 1906).
Mr. Chaney: If you proposed to do this in horticulture, might you not authorize a man breeding horses to get out a patent on an improved breed of horses?
Mr. Walker: The difference is very marked. In horticulture you produce new varieties, while in animals you do not. If somebody could produce an animal that had the speed of the horse, the patience of the ox, the intelligence of the dog, and the wisdom of the elephant all combined, then perhaps he ought to have a patent on that animal.
Mr. Southall: Then you would give a man a patent on a mule?
Mr. Walker: Yes, although the patent on the mule would have expired by now.
The Chairman: But in the first instance you would give a patent on a mule?
Mr. Walker: Yes, we would on that principle give the man who bred together the horse and the ass a patent on the animal produced; that was undoubtedly a benefit to mankind.
Mr. Chaney: The late Mr. Ingalls would object, because he said that the mule has neither pride or ancestry nor hope of posterity.
H.R. 18851 did not become law.
this amused me no end. :)
*www.westlaw.com
Mr. Chaney: If you proposed to do this in horticulture, might you not authorize a man breeding horses to get out a patent on an improved breed of horses?
Mr. Walker: The difference is very marked. In horticulture you produce new varieties, while in animals you do not. If somebody could produce an animal that had the speed of the horse, the patience of the ox, the intelligence of the dog, and the wisdom of the elephant all combined, then perhaps he ought to have a patent on that animal.
Mr. Southall: Then you would give a man a patent on a mule?
Mr. Walker: Yes, although the patent on the mule would have expired by now.
The Chairman: But in the first instance you would give a patent on a mule?
Mr. Walker: Yes, we would on that principle give the man who bred together the horse and the ass a patent on the animal produced; that was undoubtedly a benefit to mankind.
Mr. Chaney: The late Mr. Ingalls would object, because he said that the mule has neither pride or ancestry nor hope of posterity.
H.R. 18851 did not become law.
this amused me no end. :)
*www.westlaw.com
Thursday, October 14, 2004
owie!
went to get myself vaccinated today. there is an outbreak of chicken pox in the office and since i don't seem to remember being infected when i was younger (neither could my mom, for that matter), i thought it best to get a shot. plus a flu shot for good measure.
my cousin bien administered the shots. imagine my shock when he asked me this question:
madami ka bang taba sa tyan?
heyng????
i thought he was just making cracks about me being fat. apparently he was not.
he said it would be less painful to get shots in the stomach if there's fat. there'll be less blood too. i, being the younger cousin and oh so trusting of mr. doctor cousin, decided to take the shots in my stomach.
there was no warning. first he was just pinching about 3 inches of my stomach. and then WHAM! i couldn't help it. i practically whimpered in pain. the vaccine was a suspension -- powder dissolved in liquid to reconstitute it -- and it was PAINFUL! i took it as a good sign though. there may be less fat there than i first thought.
the second shot was a little less painful, but painful nonetheless.
after the 2 shots, my legs felt wobbly, i felt sleepy, and oh so tired. i had to go back to the office to try to get some work done but i was starving already. i ended up just reading some and then we had dinner already.
now am all pooped. waiting for the fever which is a common side effect of vaccines.
oh well. at least when i go out of the country i'll be protected against the birds and the chickens.
my cousin bien administered the shots. imagine my shock when he asked me this question:
madami ka bang taba sa tyan?
heyng????
i thought he was just making cracks about me being fat. apparently he was not.
he said it would be less painful to get shots in the stomach if there's fat. there'll be less blood too. i, being the younger cousin and oh so trusting of mr. doctor cousin, decided to take the shots in my stomach.
there was no warning. first he was just pinching about 3 inches of my stomach. and then WHAM! i couldn't help it. i practically whimpered in pain. the vaccine was a suspension -- powder dissolved in liquid to reconstitute it -- and it was PAINFUL! i took it as a good sign though. there may be less fat there than i first thought.
the second shot was a little less painful, but painful nonetheless.
after the 2 shots, my legs felt wobbly, i felt sleepy, and oh so tired. i had to go back to the office to try to get some work done but i was starving already. i ended up just reading some and then we had dinner already.
now am all pooped. waiting for the fever which is a common side effect of vaccines.
oh well. at least when i go out of the country i'll be protected against the birds and the chickens.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
twisted
yesterday morning i was watching tv when i came across a program where they were discussing religion. there were priests and bishops being involved. i don't really know why i stopped to watch but i did. (religious programs are not really my cup of tea)
what i heard left me slack-jawed in disbelief.
the priest (or bishop, am not really sure) was saying this about pre-marital sex and birth control:
"pre-marital sex and birth control are not wrong because the church says they're wrong. they're wrong because they're really wrong."
huh?
okay. it's the church. i'm there already. sex should be within the confines of marriage. and the bible said go forth and multiply. i'm there too.
but then we have to look at what is actually happening now. it's out there. people are having pre-marital sex. and some of these encounters end in people having babies. hence the multiply part.
but in my opinion, letting kids grow up in the streets, barefoot
and hungry, is way up there on the "WRONG" scale. mothers leaving their newborns to die in garbage bins or in gardens, or worse, under trucks, is a greater crime than practicing birth control.
people engage in pre-marital sex. that's a fact. perhaps in a perfect world people shouldn't. but they do. so we have to approach this in an appropriate manner. why say that birth control is wrong? is it, really? don't you think that it would be better to at least have a safety measure so that what they perceive as wrong will not be compounded?
and what of those who have more kids than they can feed? just because birth control is "wrong." i see kids in packs, running in the streets and begging. what will become of them?
nobody wants to hear about babies and children begging and starving. or babies dying. i'd rather hear about an increased sale of condoms. or pills.
the irony of it is that i've encountered women who got pregnant out of wedlock because they said that birth control is not right. yet they indulged in pre-marital sex. something which the church considers equally wrong. twisted, huh?
i'm probably not making sense. but it just ticks me off that people can be so blind. if people can stay chaste, hell why not? but for those who don't, or can't, or whatever, why aren't they taught to at least practice safe sex? that way there will be no children to suffer from the indiscretion of their parents.
hay naku.
basta, in my world, it is still more of a crime to have kids go hungry.
what i heard left me slack-jawed in disbelief.
the priest (or bishop, am not really sure) was saying this about pre-marital sex and birth control:
"pre-marital sex and birth control are not wrong because the church says they're wrong. they're wrong because they're really wrong."
huh?
okay. it's the church. i'm there already. sex should be within the confines of marriage. and the bible said go forth and multiply. i'm there too.
but then we have to look at what is actually happening now. it's out there. people are having pre-marital sex. and some of these encounters end in people having babies. hence the multiply part.
but in my opinion, letting kids grow up in the streets, barefoot
and hungry, is way up there on the "WRONG" scale. mothers leaving their newborns to die in garbage bins or in gardens, or worse, under trucks, is a greater crime than practicing birth control.
people engage in pre-marital sex. that's a fact. perhaps in a perfect world people shouldn't. but they do. so we have to approach this in an appropriate manner. why say that birth control is wrong? is it, really? don't you think that it would be better to at least have a safety measure so that what they perceive as wrong will not be compounded?
and what of those who have more kids than they can feed? just because birth control is "wrong." i see kids in packs, running in the streets and begging. what will become of them?
nobody wants to hear about babies and children begging and starving. or babies dying. i'd rather hear about an increased sale of condoms. or pills.
the irony of it is that i've encountered women who got pregnant out of wedlock because they said that birth control is not right. yet they indulged in pre-marital sex. something which the church considers equally wrong. twisted, huh?
i'm probably not making sense. but it just ticks me off that people can be so blind. if people can stay chaste, hell why not? but for those who don't, or can't, or whatever, why aren't they taught to at least practice safe sex? that way there will be no children to suffer from the indiscretion of their parents.
hay naku.
basta, in my world, it is still more of a crime to have kids go hungry.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Thursday, October 07, 2004
back in the saddle again
back to work, actually. but only for the next two weeks. my contract says i'm a "consultant." big word that would look nice in my next resume.
anyway, the months between july and october seem to have faded into the woodwork. much like a bad dream that is best forgotten. when i got back to the office it was like i slept july 15 and woke up to october.
work is tedious. i think i should have taken a break (aside from the nights out, that is) before going back to work. but then again, this stint is only for two weeks, then i'm hopping on a plane and will be off to somewhere.
looking forward to that. this is a boring post. :D brain slow.
must have food.
anyway, the months between july and october seem to have faded into the woodwork. much like a bad dream that is best forgotten. when i got back to the office it was like i slept july 15 and woke up to october.
work is tedious. i think i should have taken a break (aside from the nights out, that is) before going back to work. but then again, this stint is only for two weeks, then i'm hopping on a plane and will be off to somewhere.
looking forward to that. this is a boring post. :D brain slow.
must have food.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)