lank tangles

I don't deal well with this part of him because he does things like this without any idea how his smallest gesture throws my heart into chaos.

:: Love Letter Chapter 3 Page 92

Kigawa: Life must really be enjoyable for you.
Adachi: Oh, was that a compliment?

:: Love Letter Chapter 4 Page 125

Koumoto: [grabs Otsukawa's hand and kisses the back of it]
Otsukawa: [snatches his hand back] W-w-w-what... What are you doing...!?
Koumoto: Disinfecting you. She touched your hand, didn't she?
Otsukawa: Y-you have a childish way of showing your jealousy...

:: Love Letter Chapter 5 page 146

A reaction paper submitted to Mr. John Hendrix on the interview with the band Six Cycle Mind on May 24, 2008 at the Campus 99.5 Conference Room, Unit 906, 9th Floor, Paragon Plaza, EDSA corner Reliance Street, Mandaluyong City

As a personal opinion, the Filipino music industry equates to the Juan dela Cruz Band, The Eraserheads, Tropical Depression, such oddities as The Late Isabel, Daydream Cycle and Sugar Hiccup, and the instigators of ethnic fusion, namely Bagong Lumad, Cynthia Alexander, Bayang Barrios and Kadangyan.

A young person who has lived listening to the best, with the likes of such artists as The Beatles, Queen, Joe Satrianni and Mr. Big, all her life cannot be blamed, surely, for thinking so lowly of the local music scene. It makes one sad, more than angry, that whenever a newly-sprung Pinoy band would come out with new songs, after a few listens the hammer would come down with the verdict of, "It's something I've heard before."

Frankly, I grew tired of the whole talk about music being a business; but it is a sad fact. I've often witnessed commendable artists go through extreme style overhauls in order to cater to the demands of the masses. Take Kyla and Jay-R as examples, two artists who came into the scene with their own unique breed of achingly Pinoy hiphop-marries-R'nB. Both were initially recognized and wowed for it, but after some time, they had to give in and lose most of what defined their music for the sake of going mainstream in order to stay in the industry. It got me to thinking that the Filipino masses 'kill' real artists and are more in favor of a uniform set of performers who sound and look too much alike.

I really would rather talk about music as an art, see, and would prefer to overlook that important fact of it being a business, but it's a futile wish.

The interview with Six Cycle Mind did in no way change my opinion of the Filipino music industry, but it helped shed light on a few very basic facts:

That, with regards to age, younger artists are preferred for their potential of staying in the scene for a longer period before they retire. Plus, they have greater appeal, physically, to the audience consisting mostly of 10- to 30-year olds;

That up to a point, artists who want to make it big sooner or later have to fashion themselves into something the 'masa' would approve, never mind the fact that there are people, often a mere minority, who appreciate their originality. Why? Because music is a business; and

That there is a thing called respect.

In the course of the whole talk, perhaps the thing that hit me the most was what Mr. Darwin Hernandez said about respect. He talked about a side of respect I've never ventured into. That when you listen to an artist sing his/her song, no matter what your auditory preferences are, you do not have the right to dub their music as 'baduy' or 'panget'. You wouldn't feel so hot either if you were speaking your mind and pouring out the story of your life then somebody suddenly butts in and calls it 'baduy' or 'panget'. The better thing to do would be to keep your opinions to yourself, and change the dial, for no matter what you think of the song or the artist, somewhere in the world, a person is touched by its words, and people put the song on repeat to hang on to sanity and dear life.

As for the band, my biggest Kudos! for an awesome live performance. I don’t follow bands not included in the list that I mentioned, but I recognize and respect talent when I see and hear it. I' really more of a go-see than go-buy-the-album person, and live performances executed with such emotion and precision are the reasons why I go to watch Filipino bands in the first place. Although they have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone, the members of Six Cycle Mind proved to me that some artists are REAL, not just products of synthesizers and computer-controlled alterations.

That, and the fact that they recognize the reality that making music is mostly business but has steadfastly managed to preserve a unique sense of musical self as a band in such a fast-paced industry has branded them, in my mind at least, real Pinoy artists, performers and musicians. And this opinion of Six Cycle Mind has absolutely nothing to do with Chuck being such a hot, hot, HOT (damn, boy) middle-aged musician with his tattoos, tunnels and lazy smiles.

ChE 195 (Chemical Engineering Laws & Ethics) Reading Assignment and Reaction Paper: The Emissions Problem

"Human life is possible because of the greenhouse effect in which atmospheric gasses such as water vapor and carbon dioxide block solar energy from escaping, after being reflected from the Earth’s surface. Evidence is maintaining that since the 19th century, owing to human burning of fossil fuels that increase levels of greenhouse gasses, the Earth’s climate is warming. The change is small, but even a few degrees of ”global warming” could well enough melt the polar ice caps to raise the ocean level a few feet and thereby cause severe flood damage. Other effects include major disruptions in weather patterns, such as increased drought and increased storms. The complexity of the issue has divided the scientific opinion, but an emerging consensus led to the 1997 Kyoto Agreement, signed by 150 governments, to reduce carbon emissions to 5.2% below the 1990 levels by 2012. In 2001, President Bush announced that the US would abandon the agreement because it was anti-ethical to American business and also unfair because it did not place stronger requirements on developing countries. Research the current state of the scientific and political debate. Present and defend your view as to whether or not the US should do more to show leadership on the issue." (Source: Schilizinger and Martin, Ethics in Chemical Engineering, 4th ed.)

It’s surprising how misunderstood the issues of greenhouse gasses and global climate change are. Secondary school students in Los Baños happen to think that the greenhouse effect is the culprit in this global warming, and that it should be eliminated. Though the impression is certainly not wrong, it is not entirely correct either. The greenhouse effect has been sustaining this planet’s life forms for millions of years, since way before the humans ever came into existence. It is not the presence of the greenhouse gasses that is affecting humans; rather, it is the excess of these gasses that is making the natural processes go wild, thanks to none other than the humans themselves. It is surprising more to know that, given their superior mental capacity, humans simply do not want to recognize and take full responsibility for disturbing the planet peaceful existence. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that it is their need to make their lives easier, to control what cannot be to suit their folly, that is messing up the natural way of things. The planet apparently isn’t taking any of that ignorance well, and eventually, smarter people began to notice and the effects of man’s meddling began to matter. The anthropogenic greenhouse gasses causing the greenhouse effect to go on overdrive, or what we’ll refer to as the emissions from this point on, has to be controlled (for it is impossible to stop them, of course). Thus, the formulation of the Kyoto Protocol of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The emissions objectives of the Kyoto Protocol are not based on any ultimate environmental objective — they are instead simple and easily understood guidelines of holding emissions constant. The Kyoto Protocol, in a nutshell, contains legally binding emissions targets for Annex I (developed) countries for the post-2000 period, with a deadline set on 2012 by which time they should have achieved those targets, with reference to their 1990 levels. The Protocol’s ultimate objective is to move the international community closer to achieving the prevention of "dangerous man-made interference with the climate system" (Europa Commission, 2008) by arresting and reversing the upward trend in greenhouse gas emissions that started in these countries 150 years ago.

Among these greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the three most important. The remaining three are the long-lived industrial gasses – hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). These six greenhouse gasses cited by the Protocol are to be combined in a "basket", with reductions in individual gases translated into "CO2 equivalents" that are then added up to produce a single figure (Europa Commission, 2008).

The Protocol was adopted on December 11 of 1997, and was implemented on full on February 16 of 2005. As of May 2008, 182 parties have ratified the protocol. Thirty six of these are developed countries required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the specified levels, with three more countries intending to participate; one hundred thirty seven are developing countries that have ratified the Protocol, but have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions.

On March 28, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would not implement the Kyoto Protocol on global warming (Coon, 2001).

This outrageous announcement proved to be a shock to the United Nations, the other countries that were at the time in full support of the Protocol, and the common people of the world. Who in their right and selfless minds would dare contest such a noble cause, after all?

Aside from being the most powerful country in the world, the United States is also one of the most industrialized countries, and consequently, one of the major producers of greenhouse gasses in the world. The total US greenhouse gasses emissions rose 14.7 percent since 1990 to 2006, when it totaled 7,054.2 Tg CO2, and have continued to rise up to present. Carbon dioxide was the primary greenhouse gas produced, representing approximately 84.8 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, and is caused mostly by fossil fuel combustion (US EPA, 2008).

Countless studies have been conducted by various experts, scientists and critics on the subject of the Kyoto Protocol. The conclusions derived from the assortment of methods and models used to scrutinize its effects have come up with one common argument: that the Protocol was flawed in more aspects than one – adding, therefore, to the soundness of the decision of the US to back out of the treaty.

A paper by Nordhaus and Boyer (1999) from the Yale University said that the Kyoto Protocol will have an unexceptional impact on global warming. Because it does not succeed in put a ceiling on the emissions of non-Annex I countries, the long-run impact of the Protocol on carbon emissions and global temperature will be extremely small, as will be discussed a bit further. They also observed that that the strategy behind the Kyoto Protocol did not have any background in economics or environmental policy. Keeping emissions constant for a group of countries does not relate with quantified changes in atmospheric conditions, nor to an economically-oriented strategy that would balance the costs and benefits of greenhouse gas reductions. The cost of the implementation of the Protocol varies enormously for different settings.

In laying down the groundwork for the Protocol, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to a few conditions that ultimately proved to be the Protocol’s very weakness. The conditions, or rather assumptions, made and agreed upon are that: (1) the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries; (2) per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low, and (3) the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs. In other words, China, India, Brazil and other developing countries, were not included in any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not yet main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions in the period when the Protocol was conceptualized. These so-called developing countries at the moment have the largest workforce and labor requirements, brought about by the multitude of worldwide companies flocking to put up industrial units in these countries because of the dirt-cheap cost of labor.

Take a look at China. According to the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency, China overtook the USA as the world’s largest emitter in 2006 (Wang and Watson, 2007), exceeding US emissions by 8%. The Dutch report cited the most immediate reason to be the growth in coal-fired electricity generation and cement production in China. China already gave out a statement in defense of itself, stating that since it has maintained low emissions per capita and a low population count, it should be looked at as a contributor to the environment instead, and that majority of its emissions result from exports for consumption by developed countries (Wikipedia, 2008). The last argument is valid, but it is not an excuse for them still to hold no bars in their emissions, as if it isn’t even partly their fault that big companies are after their cheap labor. And countries should be concerned with emissions due to the production of goods that they consume as much as those produced within their borders.

It would make sense to say that an agreement that allows the developing countries to continue emitting greenhouse gases would in effect negate the efforts of the countries trying to reduce them. In the long run, if this process is allowed to continue, the prices of gasoline, electricity and fuel oil in the Annex I countries would rise drastically and eventually cause significant harm to their economy. Developing countries, on the other hand, while enjoying the freedom from the rules set by the Protocol, would not need to raise their energy prices or product prices as the industrial countries would after implementing steps to meet their targets.

Coon (2001) also cited other reasons in support of the US’s refusal to ratify the treaty. The Protocol’s projections are based on scenarios that predict population change, fuel use, technology development, international trade, and rate of development. In short, the Protocol is bordering on idealistic, without any thought about the implications the conditions would have in the long run to the economies of the world. It makes no distinctions regarding human and non-human factors affecting the climate change, thus having no real basis that policymakers could use to make intelligent decisions on how to reduce human contributions to climate change and how to prepare for changes that are due to forces outside of human control. Also, the Protocol’s targets are unrealistic in such that essentially many countries will not be able to meet their emissions targets, and even if they did, their efforts would be offset by the rising emissions of the developing countries. And finally, there is too much emphasis is placed on carbon dioxide and not enough on other greenhouse gases and heat-trapping substances. Furthermore, Bush objected to the fact that the US pays almost two-thirds of the global cost of the Protocol in the central Annex I case. He has expressed that he would rather deal with the issue of global climate change based on sound science, offering to support the development of technologies, incentives and other approaches that would address the factors involved more effectively.

It is highly unfair for the supporters of the Protocol to heap so much criticism on Bush’s decision regarding the ratification of the Protocol, considering that China and other developing countries aren’t affected by such limitations. Their the claiming that unless the US reduces its carbon dioxide emissions under the agreement, the Earth's temperature will rise with catastrophic results, such as massive floods, coastal erosion, and water shortages is unfounded. These allegations make them appear desperate to condemn US for something, which may be their own shortcomings. It is much more logical to criticize the US for poking their noses in the business of Middle East and Asian countries, than for being sharp about the issue of global climate change.

This paper was not written to go against that the Kyoto Protocol, or to say it should be disregarded for its flaws. Rather, it is a petition for the greater population in need of a big wake-up call to, like, wake-up to the reality that it takes much more than assumptions and pointing fingers at who should pay the biggest to save this planet. Bush’s decision regarding the treaty deserves respect simply because he was thinking of millions of Americans that are counting on him to keep the US standard of living as it is. It deserves respect because there are, in fact, better and more effective and realistic ways in dealing with this problem of emissions, though, it is always important to keep in mind that the point of reducing emissions is to reduce future damages. The Kyoto Protocol is a start, it is not perfect, and one prominent man’s firm decision to not give in to the pressure of so many to just go along is a signal that something needs to be improved or reworked so that it can work for more, if not all, people.

References:

Brahic, C. 2007. “China's emissions may surpass the US in 2007.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: New Scientist, <http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11707-china...>.

Coon, C. 2001. “Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: The Heritage Foundation, Leadership for America, <http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1...>.

Frankel, J. 2000. “The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol and Global Climate Change Policy.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: <http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/KyotoKSGForumWeather...>.

“Kyoto Protocol.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol>.

Nordhaus, W. and J. Boyer. 1999. “Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: <http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Kyoto.pdf>.

“The Kyoto Testimony”. Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: Energy Information Administration, <http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press109.html>.

“US Greenhouse Gas Reports.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: US Environmental Protection Agency, <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryrep...>.

Wang, T. and J. Watson. 2007. “Who Owns China’s Carbon Emissions?” Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research. Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: < http://tyndall.webapp1.uea.ac.uk/publications/briefing_no...>.

by Kesper North 

"Getting dressed to go out is a ritual, a donning of armor. When you're in your finest, you stand a little straighter, raise your chin a little higher. You look good, you look yourself, and you know it.

You listen to music while you're getting ready, of course, it gets you in the mood. Most people would think it's depressing, but it fills you with joy and wistful longing as you sing:

Don't you worry
They won't find my body
I want you to know
I've found peace in another world
Don't keep digging
I want you to lean back
Away from the place
Where my ashes are buried...

You walk through the streets of your city, smelling hot metal and car exhaust and cheap Chinese food, and people you pass part around you like water, a tall, imposing figure in elegant black, either sharp like a Matrix hero or flowingly dramatic as a dead poet. They are the mundanes, the normals. They cannot even imagine the excesses you enjoy on a nightly basis -- drink, sex, intellect, conversation, whatever your drug of choice may be. They are a little afraid of you, and you smile and speak with consummate politeness to them even as they edge away from you, loving the effect you have.

Oh, yes, anything for effect. It's what you're best at. It's what you live for. You dress like this for a reason. You love attention, you love drama and pathos and playing part of a story.

And that's when you turn down an anonymous blind alley and find an unmarked door set into a wall. You can hear the thud of industrial bass through the building wall as you open the door and enter the club. You smile at the bouncer, who welcomes you and waves you past the line of supplicants. They all know you here; you're a respected regular, a member of the Scene, bright and sharp yet kind and friendly, always knowing just what to say and what to do, dancing on the knife-edge of etiquette and contempt.

And you walk into the great underground expanse of the place, you see the beautiful people dancing and talking and laughing, each playing their roles, each an otherworldly creature. You feel the eyes of girls and boys upon you, and you smile faintly, knowing you can take your pick... and do not choose to. A table of friends waves you over, and after getting a drink from the bar, you sit, and talk philosophy, or clothes, or books, or whatever strikes your fancy. And you dance, you dance until you can't move any more, weaving to melody in graceful tai chi motions rather than pumping to rhythm. You kiss the DJ through the razorwire and circuitry and go back and drink some more and chat up the pretty thing with huge dark eyes and long midnight hair, sweet and damsel-like in her corset and flowing skirt.

And when you go home, late that night, alone or in company, you know that you have lived the life less ordinary, and seen the secret places, and done the forbidden things. The mundanes, the norms, they will never know what it is to be part of an imaginary aristocracy: unacknowledged lords and ladies of the night, to be sure, but lords and ladies all the same.

You live for beauty. You are beauty, and pride, and power. And you love it, and that's why you do it again the next night. This is what it is to be a goth."

____________________________________________________ 

i think this is a beautiful description of the goth lifestyle. see, most people think of goth as a mere fashion trend, when in truth, it is a lifestyle. explore it more, maybe you'll learn to understand it better, as i have.

one o'clock in the morning. smoke billowed like silver threads against the darkness. from a bench just beside the dormitory, hidden mostly in shadows, a pair of eyes gazed unseeingly beyond the fence at the almost empty street and the occasional late night vehicles speeding by. it has been a habit, being awake at that hour, and normally it was done alone. normally.

a door creaks open. footsteps.

"you're smoking again. one day it's going to kill you."
"right. and wouldn't you be a happy little camper then?"
"..."

silence.

"what do you want?"
"..."

a raised eyebrow. the bench creaks in complaint.

"look, i don't like you. you don't like me. you're obviously not here just for some fresh air. so cut this shitty 'attempt' at conversation, tell me what the fuck you need and get the fuck back to who-fucking-ever you're screwing and leave me..."
"well, if you put it that way, then no. for one, the only reason why i'm here is because i'm having trouble sleeping and usually, fresh air does help. thus, i do not have any ulterior motive whatsoever for engaging you in this 'shitty attempt at conversation'. for another, if ever i was - how did you put it? - 'screwing' someone, what would make you think i'd leave their company in favor of yours? like you said, i don't like you, and it's very much obvious that the feeling is mutual. but then..."
"what?"
"you're fun to piss off."
"well thank you, that makes me feel so much better."
"see?"
"..."

silence.

"hey."
"what?"
"..."
"what is it?"
"what do you feel for.."
"...?"
"you know."
"feel? what do you mean?"
"you make him happy..."
"is that the reason why you wanted to talk to me?"
"... maybe."
"and is that the reason why you hate me so much?"
"would that make so much of a difference?"
"i care for him. he means a lot to me. reminds me of what i've been missing out on. he looks me in the eye and is not be afraid."
"so... you love him too."
"... yeah... but i doubt if i'm in love with him."
"... i see."

an exasperated sigh.

"shit, why the fuck am i telling you this? you are not going to tell him any of this, are you?"
"oh. of course not. i would not dream of ruining your reputation. though i doubt he would believe me even if i did tell him that i had what could pass as a heart-to-heart talk with a certain man, let alone that that man admitted to value something other than what he sees in the mirror."
"i am so glad that at least one of us finds this amusing, because i don't."

silence.

"why do you do that?"
"do what?"
"smoke."
"don't you?"
"of course not."
"does it bother you?"
"more people die from second-hand smoke, you know."
"and i should care because...?"
"you didn't answer my question."
"you asked a question?"
"..."

a snort.

"you know, you're really cute when you're annoyed."
"... what?"
"you're pretty. too bad you're deaf."
"what?"
"want to try?"
"what?"
"honey, i would've expected your vocabulary to be a little bit more extensive."
"oh, shut up. don't call me that. and no, i do not."
"suit yourself, princess."
"shit. i'd have you know that i'm in no way..."
"what? scared? weak?... gay?"
"..."
"then prove it."

a deep inhalation.

"that was *cough*... *cough*... horrible *cough*..."
"aww shit... you okay? god, just how much..."
"i swear i am never *cough*... touching *cough*... those things again *cough*..."
"well... i guess smoking really doesn't agree with you, does it?"
"... i am really glad at least one of us *cough* finds this amusing, because i don't."
"right."
"..."

more coughing.

"but you know what?"
"what?"
"i doubt you would've had the same reaction if we had done it my way in the first place."
"which is...?"
"this."

to hear someone say that their heart stopped is stupid, for really, it isn't possible. in the least, it can't be healthy. but at that moment, there were no other words for it. in their minds, in perfect unison: 

/ my heart stopped. /

"..."
"... damn."
"... that was..."
"yeah."
"..."

silence.

"changed your mind yet?"
"about what?"
"smoking."
"..."
"well?"
"i still say it's a bad habit... though i really don't blame you for indulging yourself."
"... smoking?"
"whatever did you think i was referring to?"
"well..."
"..."
"bad habits die hard."
"indeed."

silence.

"go back to sleep."
"i could say the same for you."
"yeah, yeah. good night... morning. whatever."

footsteps. the door creaks open.

"hey..."
"yeah?"
"..."
"what is it?"
"if you want to kiss me, just say so the next time. it would save us both a lot of trouble."

silence.

"... next time?"
"yeah. next time. bad habits die hard, don't they?"

the door softly closes.

a goofy grin slowly, unconsciously, replaced the surprise on the normally passive face. a tap, a snap of a lighter and a flicker of light later, smoke was again billowing in the air. a new taste lingered on the pale lips, as sweet and addictive as the taste of the beloved smoke. hell, the late night routine was broken and yet...

/ i wouldn't have had it any other way. /

_______________________________________________

This entry was submitted to the UPLB [p] Pananaw 07-08 <uplbperspective0708@yahoo.com>

Indian legend has it that all dreams float thru the air at night in search of their destination. dreams are considered sacred for they are thought to bring in important visions, and so, to keep dreamers safe, the Old Ones created a special web –  the Dreamcatcher – to hang above sleeping places.

bad dreams easily get confused, and they struggle in the web and become entangled. they remain there, and so perish in the morning light of the new day's sun.

good dreams take the path of the web, going thru the beads and stones that give them additional positive energy, and drift down, light as feathers, to the minds of the sleepers below.

i never quite understood why there are those sects in some religions that disapprove of, even resent, Dreamcatchers. they were fittingly named as such to acknowledge the fact that they can only catch dreams, not make them – a feat that only the Dreammaker is capable of.

as you hang your dreamcatcher, tell it what you want it to do. speak to the object as a friend, for it is your friend, an aspect of yourself. then, thank it for the goodness it will perform.

as above,

so below

evil perish,

good ever flow.

joy, light and peace be yours, and good dreams!

did you know that releasing balloons into the atmosphere kills turtles out at sea?

televised celebrations where people let balloons fly make me cringe, sobra. the image of a dead turtle we saw in the pond in irri once keeps on popping up in my head. it was just floating like a driftwood while blood seeped slowly from its mouth and into the water. the cause of the death was unknown.

now, think global. the open waters are probably some of the biggest graveyards in the world. everyday, thousands and thousands of deaths occur in there, unreported accidents and murders that nobody would ever EVER know about.

releasing ballons just makes the deathlist longer. in the least, it increases the chances of water animals getting killed.

i'm not saying that balloons should be banned. they are pretty little human inventions that bring joy to the world (sap!). they just shouldn't be allowed to fly away.