Search Term:

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Almost Lovers

Just some thoughts on this little poem posted by someone on facebook:

Goodbye, my almost lover
Goodbye, my hopeless dream
I'm trying not to think about you
Why can't you just let me be?

So long, my luckless romance
My back is turned on you
Should've known you'd bring me heartache
Almost lovers always do

First of all, it seems to me, that it is the person, the almost lover, that the writer is saying goodbye to, that the writer is trying to forget.  This as opposed to saying goodbye to just the feeling or idea and not the person.
Also, it seems that the almost lover is still around even though the writer asks to 'just let me be'.  Whether the writer has actually asked or whether this is only unspoken, wishful thinking, I can't tell.
In the end, the writer decides to turn back on the almost lover, as it brings the writer heartache.

The idea of not finding love or romance where one would like to find it, causing that someone to turn back on another, is quite a sad thought for me.  I wonder, is it not possible to accept that the relationship will not lead to romance, while at the same time remain together as friends?  
I suppose it may be that the writer just needs some time away and will eventually be able to return and keep the friendship.  Personally though, I'd much rather spend the time with the friend, because you never know if the time spent away would turn out to be the only time you have.
I don't suppose it will be easy.  There will still be heartache and pain, I expect.  But this heartache is partly due to a refusal to accept, or trying to hold on to the idea of romance that is not there or can not be.  The first step really is to accept.  And from there, it will be easier.

Your thoughts?

Note: (16Oct2011)
I just realized that the selection, which I thought at first was a poem written by the poster, came from a song entitled 'Almost Lover'.  I don't know when the song came out.  I have never heard it before.  Anyway, it goes without saying that I interpreted only the given lines.  I don't know if the rest of the song gives it a different meaning.  Maybe one of these days, I'll get to listen to it in full and find out.  =P

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Anne's Dilemma

(This is NOT a movie review.)

Watching movies in the theater nowadays is so expensive so I rarely do it.  But I did see the trailer of Anne Curtis's new movie 'No Other Woman' and one of her lines there caught my attention.  What she said was something like this:

What will you do if the only man that you loved is unfortunately married?  I am not going to give up.  Rather, I'm putting up a god-damned fight!

 (I hope I got that right.)
Anyway, here are my thoughts on it.  (Remember that I haven't seen the movie so this is more of a general thing.  It's not necessary to take it in the context of the movie.)

First, a question: when did you find out that the guy is married?

If you know from the start that the guy is married, then you should know enough to stop yourself from developing any special feelings for him.  (Needless to say, you shouldn't play with fire.)  Now, you may say 'but I can't help it if I do'.  Two options then: (1) choose to distance yourself from the guy, or (2) stay, but limit yourself to being just friends with him.

If you only find out that the guy is married after you have already developed a relationship with him, then you have to wonder why that is.  It seems impossible it didn't come up in conversations at least.  So apparently, the guy hid this fact from you?  And I doubt that means anything good.  The relationship has to end.

The bottomline is: you always have to keep in mind that it is not just your self that you have to think about.  You also have to consider the guy, his wife, and their family.  Therefore, in this case, better to accept and let go, rather than put up a god-damned fight.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

QWERTY on Phones

Time to update this blog again! I'll start off with something light. =)

QWERTY on phones.

I had a typing class in high school so I'm one of those who learned to type with the right finger on the right key. So when I first found out about QWERTY phones, I thought it was a bit absurd. I thought, why would anyone want to have a QWERTY keyboard on such a small space you can't comfortably fit your two hands on? Besides, you'd need to put the phone down somewhere to type on it like a typewriter or keyboard. Of course, I should have realized that you're not expected to use it like a typewriter. Hehe. =P Anyway,...

My sister sent me a QWERTY phone so now I'm 'forced' to use it. And as with most things, if you use it often enough, you adapt and get used to it.

I suppose the main advantage is that you don't need to press on keys several times to get to certain letters, as is the case with alpha-numeric keypads (unless you use predictive texting). And maybe QWERTY pads are more universal among different brands (I may be wrong). I mean, I usually get confused with alpha-numeric keypads when switching between Nokia and Samsung phones - the keys for space and clear/backspace are different, and maybe even between different models of the same brand.

As for whether QWERTY pads are better than alpha-numeric keypads, I haven't decided yet. =P

I, for one, find it more convenient to use two hands when using the QWERTY pad, compared to one-handed use of the alpha-numeric pad. (Actually, I've tried using just one hand with the QWERTY pad and it can be done, but I prefer two hands because I feel there's always a danger of dropping the phone with just one hand, the keys being small and very close to the edge.)

So, is this a good or a bad thing? I think the effect is that you'd need to focus more on the phone if both hands are occupied by it. So maybe this will deter people from trying to text while doing other things like walking, going up or down stairs, and driving. If so, then maybe it is a good thing and may lower the possibility of injuries and accidents. But then again, you never know. Some people can be a bit hardheaded and reckless, choosing to focus on the phone rather than keep their eyes on the road (with potentially disastrous results). As they say, never underestimate the power of human stupidity...

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Separation of Church and State, part 2

[Note: This was meant to be a comment to comments in a previous post.  But then when I tried to post it there, I got the following message: "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters."  Hehe.  =P  Copying it onto Word tells me I am 200 characters in excess.  So maybe it's better to just make a new post and call it part 2.  =P
I will retain the comment as is.  If you wish, you can read the first post and comments here: Separation of Church and State, part 1]

Good day!  =)

I'm sorry I wasn't able to comment back right away.  I had some difficulty in thinking how to reply because the topic expanded a bit beyond the limits I intended.  =P

Francis and Anonymous, you each mentioned points about the RH bill and divorce that I would like to address.  But I did not actually intend for this post to be about them.  One reason for this is because I haven't reviewed the two bills yet, and I want to be able to do so before I make any further comments.  I merely mentioned them here as examples, to illustrate the meaning and application of the phrase "Separation of Church and State".  So I hope you understand if I will limit my comments now to the main topic of this post.  I do plan to make separate posts in the future regarding the RH bill and divorce, and I will address the points you mentioned here when that time comes.  =)

For now, I will concentrate on the 'separation of Church and State'.

bong mentioned Article III, section 5 of our Constitution.  For our reference, this is what it says:

Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.  No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

The separation of Church and State is best shown in the first statement of this section.  It means that no law shall be made that is biased for or against any particular religion, whether Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.
Precisely because, as the following statements show, all are free to choose a religion that suits them.  Government can not dictate all its citizens to join a particular religious group.  Therefore, it is expected that the country consists of citizens belonging to different religious groups.  Furthermore, for each citizen to be able to exercise his/her rights, there is no requirement that they belong to any one particular religion.
(Take note that Church, therefore, does not only pertain to the Catholic Church.)

To take another approach, allow me to include here a comment I made on another blog.  It is as follows:

As far as I can tell, from my understanding, there is only one place on earth wherein it is acceptable to have NO separation of Church and State. And that is in the Vatican City.

Because it is a sovereign city-state headed by the Pope himself (head of the Catholic Church), and 100% of its population is Roman Catholic.

Elsewhere, however, I expect there will always be a mixture of various religions, therefore there should definitely always be a separation of church and state to be fair to all the citizens of each country/state.

Two more points I would like to address:

Francis mentioned that "People misunderstands the teachings of the Church because of His fading influence."  This is precisely why I said that the role of the different religious leaders now is to double their efforts in their duty to educate their own respective people regarding their faith, their beliefs, their practices.  That is their duty, their role.  It is not to pressure the government or lawmakers to formulate laws in favor of their own particular religious group's beliefs.

Anonymous seemed to imply (apologies if I misunderstood) that the Church and the State are against each other - "they've never really quite understand each other.. they always argue about the Rights and Wrongs..."  It shouldn't be so, and it isn't really so.  I would like to think that the Church and the State both have the best interests of their people in mind.
It just seems that they are against each other because, as expected, the more vocal members (leaders or otherwise) of the different religious groups stand and fight for their own beliefs, while the government tries to consider even those in other/outside particular religious groups.

And I think that's it for now.  If there are other points that I missed, I will try to get to them next time.  =)

Thanks again for visiting my blog!  =)

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Father and Son

Hindi ako naniniwalang naisasalin ang karangalan.  Iginagalang ko ang ama dahil sa karangalang tinamo ng anak at hindi ang anak dahil sa karangalang tinamo ng ama.  Hayaang magdusa o magantimpalaan ang bawat isa batay sa kanyang ginawa at hindi dahil sa ginawa ng iba.
- Pilosopo Tasyo, Noli Me Tangere, Jose Rizal

The following is my translation...
I do not believe that honor is (passed/handed down/transferred).  I respect the father for the honor gained by his son but not the son for the honor gained by his father.  Let each one suffer or be rewarded for what he has done and not for what others did.

Do you agree with this?  I do.  Because what the father achieves is his own, but what the son achieves, in some way, reflects what the father did, in the way he raised his son.

Happy Father's Day to all fathers.  And Happy 150th Birthday, Dr. Jose Rizal.


[Note: The Filipino translation is from my high school textbook -- Ang Noli Me Tangere ni Jose Rizal: Isang Interpretasyon, by Batnag, Flores, & Romero.]

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Separation of Church and State, part 1

[Note: I am from the Philippines so I mention Filipinos here specifically.  But even if you are from another country, please feel free to read on and comment.  Thank you!  =) ]

This is a phrase commonly mentioned especially in times like these when there are controversial bills, such as the Reproductive Health (RH) bill and Divorce bill, being pushed into law.  I admit that it is a phrase I took for granted.  I just accepted it and did not think much about it before.  But recently, as I was (half-)listening to discussions on the AM radio, it's meaning dawned on me...

It can be argued that it is difficult to have this 'separation' because religion or one's beliefs is an integral part of each individual's life.  This is true, I agree. But the thing is this:

While we are all Filipinos, and therefore all under the laws of our country, we do not all belong to one religion.  Therefore, beliefs of one religion should not be imposed on all others.

Laws are more encompassing in the sense that they are meant to apply to all citizens.  On the other hand,  beliefs vary among religious groups, so each set of beliefs apply to specific groups.

The task of lawmakers is to make laws in such a way that they take into consideration the rights of all citizens, within bounds.  Expectedly, this will result in bills which may partly be unacceptable to some.  And I think this is where the task of religious leaders come in, not to vehemently oppose the passage of such laws, but to double their efforts in their duty to educate those who belong to their respective religious groups.

There are laws that only allow certain things and not require them.  For instance, a law that allows the use of contraception does not mean everyone will be compelled to use them.  It then falls into the hands of the religious leaders to educate their people whether they, as members of their religious group, should or should not use contraception.  For these types of laws, the specifics need not be followed by those who think they are unacceptable, but the laws are still there for the benefit of those in other groups who think they are acceptable.

While answering comments, this post gave birth to a part 2.  =P
It can be found here: Separation of Church and State, part 2

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Points of View

"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making."
- John Milton

This blog will, of course, mostly contain my opinions.  And I expect your opinions may be different from mine.  My purpose is only to share mine, and maybe encourage you to share yours.  We may differ, but we can respect each others' opinion.  And others may learn from the points I make and the points you make, and form their own.