Anybody for the Environment?

I AM usually silent in regards what most of my enlightened friends and colleagues are fighting for. Maybe they've already unfriended me and boxed me in a crate they reserve for “rightwinged moomoos.” That's the way life is these days, I guess. You disagree with the enlightened you are a Conservative. You diss the Conservative you are stoned-cold homeless. Either way, you are unfriended. LOL! For the first time in my life though after four decades of being labelled a hardcore Leftist, I am called rightwing skynyrd! Ah! Freebird. Seriously though, I don't expect to be labelled left or right when I talk about the environment. I hope.

          Has anybody taken to heart and soul the danger of sea-level rise after Katrina and Sandy, more than we spend huge energy debating and discoursing stuff? Stuff like The D and The H over the B? When Hurricane Sandy hit New York in 2012, it flooded more than 88,000 buildings in the city and killed 44 people. That figure may not shake the skeptic, I'm sure? Yet that was a transformative event. By 2030 or so, the water in New York Harbor could be a foot higher than it is today, according to mostly Dutch experts that the city government hired following the disaster. That may not sound like much, yet even with a foot or two of sea-level rise, streets will become impassable at high tide, snarling traffic. The cost of flood insurance will skyrocket, causing home prices in risky neighborhoods to decline. So says a Rolling Stone article by Jeff Goodell.

          But that is not the real fear. There will always be a big storm coming. A year from now, 7 years, maybe 20 years. It might be smaller than Sandy, it might be a lot stronger that the strongest that hit the Philippines or China. Of course, governments are working things out. But if you add a foot or two of sea-level rise to a 14-foot storm tide, you have serious trouble. And if it hits before we actually constructed or implemented mechanisms to lessen damage of such a calamity, then we got serious problem.

          Sea-level rise is no joke. And news from the Arctic is not good. Of course we know that the big guys have been melting ice there for more oil diggings so we can gas up more and watch “Game of Thrones” more. This summer, temperatures in Greenland spiked to the highest levels on record. If just one-tenth of the Greenland ice were to melt, it would raise global sea levels by two feet. The breakup of West Antarctica, which has showed signs of increasing fragility, could raise the seas 12 feet.

           Hugely contributing to environmental ruin of course is the greenhouse effect, a process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is critical to supporting life. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.

          Approximately two-thirds of all industrial methane and carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere since 1854 can be traced to burning fossil fuels and producing cement. Over the decades, scientists have succeeded in confidently tracing how much of climate change can be directly tied to human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. Sadly, the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are now higher than at any point in human history, further worsening the ‘greenhouse effect’ contributing to global warming and the consequences of climate change. In fact, recent data shows that global carbon dioxide emissions were 150 times higher in 2011 than they were in 1850.

          The main contributors to global warming via our lifestyle? Or carbon footprint, the total amount of greenhouse gases produced to directly and indirectly support human activities, usually expressed in equivalent tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). Top 4: China, the US, India and Russia. Cement? Top 3: China, India, the US. Steel: China, Japan, India, the US.

          Do we think that we are doing enough for the environment? No. Instead of fighting for bike lanes and bus transport, we fight for (I don't wanna say it). We listen to political humor more than we listen to, for example, the Dutch who know how to prevent floods (well their country is under water protected by dams, dikes and levees) and they are also number 1 in use of bikes not for recreation but for basic transport. How many of us will boycott Walmart but are you willing to boycott your gas station? No. You get my drift. We love that car. Anyway, it's past 2 AM now. I gotta digress. And sleep. Uh huh.

Words and Stuff and Love

IT seems so effortless. I say words or write poems to try to comfort worried hearts and ease clouded minds. As though I had it all figured out—that healing wounds or making someone feel better is something that I am “good at.” Like what that silly song, “Handy Man” is saying: “I fix broken hearts, I know I truly can.” But do I know what love really is? I don't know. It's an individual truth. I am confident I know somehow how to project love yet do I know how it really works? Depends on the person receiving and giving, right? Interplay of negotiations. Interface of compromises. What I share on the area of love, relationships and all these sweet shenanigans don't necessarily work for me. How I wish that I am the dude who receives advice than the one giving it. Yet it doesn't lessen my joy when someone—either here on Facebook or in my little shows—tell me, “You made me feel better.” That's cool. That's all the hero I need be.

WHEN I look at some relationships, I wonder what really works? Yet I have been a witness to many relationships that work and those that didn't. There seems to be a pattern (at least with people that I know). Most of those that end in divorce appear to stand by the dictum, “I do my thing, you do yours” and “I keep my own money, you spend yours.” In other words, they try to sustain their singlehood freedom while under one roof. They tend to idealize family and explore new dimensions yet they fight a lot or they don't talk a lot. The other one is what the first one calls as “uptight” and conservative. This kind of couple shares all as per conjugal belongings—bank account, decisions, church, problems, even friendships. They even share one email address. They “lose” their individual-ness (as opposed to individuality) in a synergetic whole and functions as per an agreed plan and direction. They have more laughter than arguments. They don't put so much ado on how to correctly raise children—they worry more about education and trust fund. Most of these unions carry on to 30 year anniversary or longer. Of course, a relationship isn't black and white or polar extremes. Just saying.

DATING HER, KNOWING HIM. I am probably the weird one here. Or has life changed? How easy it is to gather (or “friend”) people on Facebook yet it equals the difficulty of “friending” someone out there. When we ask another (opposite sex) to meet over coffee or beer or to hang out and play pool or walk dogs on Carrier Park, would that qualify as a “date”? Or are you sending signals that says, “I'd like to date you”? How'd you “date” someone whose personality/character are mostly typed in/posted online? It doesn't make sense to me. Yet you may find someone in here who could vibe with your aura or probably share common threads on things—the “Matrix” trilogy, seafood paella, glass sculpture, vinyl records, Murakami, democratic socialism, Goodwill shopping, familial wisdom etcetera. Wouldn't you wanna meet that person beyond the internet? Just meet. You don't need to get a new haircut or gear up your Beckham abs.

We grow and evolve into better individuals via interaction with humanity and the world, out there. What we get in the internet are second/third hand data. It's like knowing David Bowie and Prince through their music only. Do you know that they could be as odd as the next-door dude who winks at you every other Thursday as you gas up on Merrimon Av? Or maybe they're not that odd. It would be awesome to align wavelengths with someone that you actually interacted with beyond “likes” and emojis. Maybe someone that you shared a sweet concert at The Orange Peel or walked with along Beaver Lake talking about your respective kids or went with to Caleb Beissert's open mic? Something deeper might ensue or develop, why not?

          But how do we know people before we begin imagining under starry, starry nights or scaring ourselves in the dark confines our room fearing that this dude could be Jason Voorhees-incarnate? Post the negative stuff that converge in your dark cloud of paranoid imaginings, expect 55 likes in one minute! You see, we may post and share all the wonderful confections of our life and rant how brilliant we see society and governance on social media—but until we see eye to eye, spend real time together (other than nervous candlelit Bonefish Grill dinners or Thirsty Monk beers) beyond the constraints of “Ten Dating Rules,” we will never know. Sadly, all those red flag fears and preconceptions will gather while we ruminate in front of our laptop what should be and what shouldn't be. Meet and hang. If you spend moments on weekly basis, or even several times a week, better. Plan it out, talk. That's how we know people—future friends or possible sweethearts.

LOVE in TIME. As you get older and look back at all those broken valentines, shattered relationships, mistakes and mishaps—you tend to ponder deeper and learn to accept in humility that you also did commit faults and let your flaws dictate your decisions. Wrongdoings aren't confined to one person. So you tell yourself, when you meet someone who let love blossom in you again, this is going to be better because you have learned from the past. You know what you should change in you, modify and learn more to help a relationship finally find a degree of realizable success. You know the current-you is the best from all that you were. Now you are committed, you have time, you have a love that is present and alive. You are not perfect but you know you are more than alright.

          Yet the relationship still fails. As you reel from the splinters of your bleeding heart, you take in all the words that all point at how awful and evil you are. But are you really that bad? Maybe it is not her/him and it is not you, per se. It is the “wrongness” of a relationship attempt that wasn't working. You feel the love but it found a room or space that finds it hard to evolve into positive light. A relationship that couldn't pursue beauty and wisdom. It's all anger. You are dragged out to thorny brush in the woods or the cold darkess of your shell. The demons in you that you believed have left are threatening to come alive again. You start beating yourself up.

           So leave and let go. You don't need to punish yourself just because you are told you are the worst human being there is. You are not. You just haven't found the apt relationship that you deserve. And that holds true with your ex. Mere fact that you first fell in love together meant you both saw the goodness in each other's hearts—until some harsh realities and uncompromising truths got in the way. Just move on and always open your heart no matter how broken it could be. There will always be a warm hand and a loving heart that will meld and mend and sail with yours. Your chance at joy is not yet over. You haven't failed.

          Meantime, don't forget to live good, love good, eat only good food. And dance. It's summer, you know. 

As mountain rain falls, memories of monsoon waft by

I ALWAYS say I am a very courageous guy. I am not scared to interface my truths or my little me in any given situation, circumstances, diversity. But that doesn't mean I am a very confident dude or a person beaming with grandiose self-esteem. I write because I am not very trustful of my spoken word. I mumble. I ruminate as I talk. I ramble. So I project myself in so many ways in relative quiet—art, literature, cooking, organizing events. I am not as proud as others in terms of my physical attributes. I am short and skinny etc. I also believe in so many ways that I am just weird and oblique that I get scary and dark. You know, the fear of not knowing an individual who seems to be so different.

          So before I could even “fully introduce” myself, I already frightened people away, uh huh. I wrestle with my acute inferiority complex yet no one who knows me wouldn't believe that at all. “Pasckie, you rock out there! You are all over the place!” I always crack silly jokes that elicit unfeigned laughter. Yet the only moments that I feel really belonged and attached is when I read poetry in front of an intimate crowd. I relish the moment up front on the mic. Yet still, after each show—I gravitate back to The Batcave and wish that warmth stays. But you wouldn't know that, ain't you? Until I share this drama. In fact, right now I am painting with radiant colors as the Bee Gees (again!) provides the dancing vibe. 

ALONENESS is an understatement. My immediate family are oceans away. Yet I never really felt loneliness the way I hear it from some friends, including those who are with loved ones. But I do feel sadness sometimes. Of course, I do. But living in this mountain idyll for almost eight years now blessed me with sublime quiet and warm intimacy—and familial love from my friend Cindyrella—that negate whatever that may be defined as "loneliness." Life evolves. I enjoy my blessings. I write stuff that I know make people feel better somehow. My sappy poems could still win a smile or two, albeit online. Well, that's all the little hero that I could ever be. I am happy being that kind of pasckie. Meantime, Georgia The Babedawg and Cyd The Koolcat are such transcendent gifts of presence.

ALL THOSE YEARS AGO. I feel that at age 55, a relentless five decades of life that not many of my current friends have witnessed in me, I already experienced most of what life has to offer. I am a totally different person when I was in my 20s to early 40s. But although I experienced at lot more than an average 80 year old has, I didn't do the "wild" stuff. I mean, I've never experimented on drugs or engaged in any form of casual sex or never violated the law--apart from my rabid activism when I was in my 20s to late 30s which I call, civil disobedience. I've never been (legally/lawfully) charged of anything or ticketed for whatever--despite a very active life out there in communities in so many big cities and small towns in two continents. 

          Among many other adventures and misadventures--I have been to places that a few will dare tread, covered events that journalists refer to as "hot spots," raised kids at a very harsh time, been into life and death situation twice, "ran between the rain and bullets" as a traveler, backpacked like the road was my home, traveled my worst road trip ever beyond physical danger (which happened recently), and been to a most difficult relationship. 
          My emotional wear and tear supercedes my physical exhaustion--yet the spiritual growth that I derive from all these negates all the mental tiredness. But although you and me might say, we also experienced a most ideal relationship sometime years ago, till we wasted it so foolishly--that doesn't meant we can't experience another one. A lot better. There are a few thousand more miles left to negotiate. After all these crazy years, I haven't been healthier since my surgery in New York City in 2000. No vitamins, no food paranoia, no viagra--yet I can still sweat it playing basketball or doing yardwork. No regular trips to the doctor for checkups, no pills, no let up with steamed white rice. I drink yet I know when to quit (gone down to two beers or two shots of tequila or vodka), no debts, no court dates--but sigh (!) still no wife and no girlfriend.

         Meantime, in life, we should accept in humility and surrender where we faltered and failed in those attempts and so we should know how to succeed the next time. They say save the best for last. Absolutely! As for me, for sure, next year will be closer to what I was. Just older and wiser. But a different life. I still got time to engage some entrepreneurs to a business hook-up in an Asia/US route, write more books and read them in cafes and universities, brainstorm a movie or two with my son, write more songs with my former band, fundtraise for typhoon victims, deliberate political upheavals and economic trends locally and globally with a think tank, play pickup basketball with my four brothers and nephews, visit France and Italy and Greece and the rest of the 7,641 islands in the Philippines that I haven't set foot on, and make love from dusk till dawn (if there's another chance, that is).
         Therefore, the journey isn't over yet though. It just took a different route leading to the ultimate destination. On layovers, there will be chilled raw oysters and mango mojitos on a seaside and lots of laughter by a roadside cantina. 

The (Quiet) Business of China

I SEE myself as a deeply-perusing observer. Meantime, my reflex usually veers away from taking sides—and opts for reason and wisdom even beyond my own convenience. I'd like to say that as backdrop to my (continuing) observation of China—a consuming thesis that dates back to my childhood. The Chinese has always perplexed and mystified, intrigued me. From the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and Deng Xiao Ping's ushering of Beijing's economic open-door policy to the hubbub that it sent to World Trade Organization at Bill Clinton's administration (remember the Battle of Seattle?) to Foxconn's clout to the South China Sea tempest etc etcetera.

          The Chinese are a kind of humanity that don't talk much. They just work and deliver what you want. Reject it, they'd complain less—and quietly leave. After sometime, they'd show up with a new prototype or alternative until you are convinced. When they fall into silence or sleep, don't settle—they are actually (re)planning things out.

          For years since the huge nation's WTO entry in 2001, the Chinese economy's expansion has been relentlessly breakneck. As provincial entrepreneurs enjoyed Beijing's subsidy, rapid development has turned fishing villages into factory towns and factory towns into financial hubs. But that's not all heaven. “Heavy investment has crowded out consumption, and heavy industry has muscled out services, as if making stuff mattered more than serving people,” The Economist writes. China's socialism/communism's interface with Western-styled capitalism has somehow shook the gains of the Cultural Revolution's populist wisdom. But then, wait. Is that all bad? Not really.

         

China opts to slow down a bit to restudy variables, just like the traditional Chinese trader. New figures showed the economy expanding by 7.7 percent in the year to the first quarter, marginally slower than the previous quarter’s pace and notably slower than expected. The loss of momentum confounds, given the spectacular surge in credit in January and March. However, that is not entirely weird. China's growth, buffered by its manufacturing/services industry, also obscured two encouraging trends that may matter hugely for China’s future. Consumption, although still low, made a bigger contribution than investment to China’s growth in the first quarter. Even more notable, services have trumped industry’s contribution to GDP in the past three quarters.

          In other words, China is sliding to a new phase of its march to modern times, Western-style. From manufacturing, Beijing sets its gears at consumers and services, two promising trends that work around each other. Because services are more labor intensive than industry, their growth boosts wages and household income. Money on the hand of the consumers. Heftier take-home pay jacks up consumption, and consumer spending, in turn, favors services.

          But then you think China will slow down its giant manufacturing machine? No. They are just setting sight on other options. In other words, China is pretty much aware not to follow the mistake/s of America. As The Economist puts it, “As China’s economy matures, its pace will slow. Fighting this economic law will only invite inflation, excess and harder reckonings. Growing fast is a poor alternative to growing up.”

LET's look beyond the mainland and check what the Chinese are up to. I am leaving the South China Sea maneuverings on this discussion and instead focus across continents.

          Since 2008 China has agreed some $500 billion in currency swaps with nearly 30 countries, from Canada to Pakistan, which gives the counterparties access to yuan when trouble is suspect. A currency swap is a foreign exchange derivative between two institutions to exchange the principal and/or interest payments of a loan in one currency for equivalent amounts, in net present value terms, in another currency. Currency swaps are motivated by comparative advantage, an economic theory about the work gains from trade for individuals, firms, or nations that arise from differences in their factor endowments or technological progress.

          Meanwhile, Chinese banks have lent $50 billion to Venezuela since 2007. Argentina is the second-biggest recipient of Chinese loans in South America. Then there is Russia, who may have the largest deposit of crude oil in the world, but its economy isn't enough to develop the natural. Again, Chinese banks have lent more than $30 billion to Russian oil companies.

          What does that infer? That is a loud testament to China’s remarkable growth. And more significantly, China it seems or it appears is setting up development banks intended to challenge the dominance of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Analysts have always sounded that China is on track to surpass America as the world’s biggest economy within a decade. These are nagging hints. Chinese banks have been making its move continent to continent.

          Let me touch Brexit for a bit and look sideways. This is all about the world's major banks, of course! No surprise why UK's HSBC Holdings, top European bank, wanted out of European Union. It's not really the country that's bolting out per se. It's the bank. Hence, if BNP Paribas and Credit Agricole Group rebel, then expect France to withdraw from EU as well. And join the Chinese? Not far-fetched.

          I repeat, the Chinese are a kind of humanity that don't talk much. They just work and deliver what we want. They'll give `em to us. But we gotta admit it. The Chinese have indeed gone a long way from lo meins and dumpling soups. They have evolved into slick dudes on Brooks Brothers suits sipping Dom Perignons in stretch limos, Ivy League-educated assistants clutching iPads and iPhones on their beck and call. As The Economist puts it, “The anachronistic state of global economic governance is growing ever more glaring.” It has gone eastward. 

SOME random Facebook comments/responses (by me) on the subject of the Orlando shooting. Religion, atheism, conspiracy theory, and the anger in humanity.

[ ] DO we have to list killers as per believers in a god vis a vis atheists? Is there a basis of comparison between the Virginia Tech shooter with Idi Amin? Or a Tim McVeigh with Ted Bundy. Charles Manson and maybe Pol Pot? The evil in their head are individual darkness. The glaring parallel is—they kill people for reasons that's personally theirs. The human mind is unpredictable. Alfred Nobel invented the dynamite for a reason not to kill and maybe Adam Lanza got weird when mom and dad divorced and then mom spent more time in the shooting range. Did these guys read the Bible? Or maybe Mother Teresa would have poisoned her Calcutta village the same way as Jim Jones did in Guyana. Both read the Bible profusely. Or a Muslim imam who mass feeds people in towns battered by typhoons would have put cyanide in the food after reading a chapter in Quran? People kill. They could be a loner kid who listens to Pink Floyd over and over or one who idolizes Che Guevara. They got sick reasons and sick minds. Many times they don't even have a reason. They simply feel the insistence and compulsion to kill.

          I don't favor pointing at a certain collective belief system, religious or ideological as the guilty triggers, because that would also indict and wrongly judge those other peaceful believers. There is so much evil in this world. Yes. But let us not lump them as one collective humanity. It is offensive. It is not solving or minimizing hatred at all. In fact it is fueling it. What happened, all these mass killings, aren't the kind of wrongdoing that a peace-loving Muslim or Christian would like to be compared with or aligned with.

[ ] CONSPIRACY theory? As in governments plot mass killings to push laws? This is way off left field, I must say. Why don't we look at the culture itself. Facts. The gravitation to polar extremes in present day America as shown by behaviors in regards coming presidential election shows that Americans are upset about practically all levels of institutions and structures. You don't have to be a devout Muslim or a redneck or an Occupy radical to get angry these days. Historically, the incidence of mass murders in America in the last ten or 20 years is unprecedented. THAT had to be looked at. It is not religion because the two largest traditional religions, Islam and Christianity, have always been a part of America. But the huge discrepancy between rich and poor has never been this wide. The increase of queues to CVS is alarming than those who seek peace in church. And if I believe that some government machineries are behind these, then I am up for doomsday. I don't want to look at the world and society like that.

[ ] RELIGION and ATHEISM. I am continually weirded out by people who categorically judge Christians by what some from their flock say. It is not fair. It's like do all Muslims mow down people like what terrorists do? That, religion is the sole cause of gruesome killings in this world? That atheism (and/or paganism) is the answer to global peace? How ignorant some people could be! Do they know that serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer is an atheist? And Jim Jones who poisoned to death 909 people in Guyana in 1978 was actually an atheist? And those leaders that we love to hate: Kim Jong-Il, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin never believed in God or religion? And the most evil of them all, Adolf Hitler did not believe in organized religion?

          One other dude (who was on my FB) who hides behind a Hindu name maintains that pagans never had war? Read up History 101, please! Why can't people grow up--and start widening their minds than continually closing them? Putting blame on religion or people's culture for the evils in this world is one of the most profound form of ignorance and hatred. We will never have a real semblance of real peace in this world if some people live this kind of narrow-mindedness all their lives. I will say that over and over and over again.

[ ] I SAY, no matter how angry a person is, let him get it out of his system--then compromise and negotiate. Maybe he/she has a point. Maybe the channeling was the problem. Maybe it's a question of an apt device to show/share truths. But if we immediately stereotype or judge a person "abusive" or "rude" or worst, mentally deranged and the only cure is a shrink and prescription--I believe that, we are undermining our human ability to heal and understand. The filmmaker Sam Peckinpah said, "The whole underside of our society has always been violence and still is. Everybody seems to think that man is a noble savage. But he's only an animal. A meat-eating, talking animal. Recognize it. He also has grace and love and beauty." But unlike most animals, humans possess rational minds and compassionate hearts. If we are able to channel that aggression in art or music or literature, or even farm work or sports, that anger could be stopped from evolving to physical violence. 

Some Pasckie Random Thoughts: The goodness of Facebook. What do we know so far? What's behind wars.

SOME people who don't find any sense in being part of social media have to realize that the world doesn't just revolve in or around them. I am not a huge follower of electronic gadgets or computer technology myself but I see a far more sublime reason why some people turn to Facebook than what non-believers don't see. This is a global community that, quite logically, isn't just speaking/talking with one or two sociocultural environment. Other people have other reasons. Like an open market, grocery store or flea market—or the world itself—Facebook is replete with negative stuff as well as positive things. It's your choice—grab one or get out. Get upset and distracted, get pleased and inspired. Like television, like a book.

          Yet if an individual expects that the universe is all love and Namaste, and their rationale why they don't do Facebook is it's all negative—better build a sweet dungeon and stock up on organic jerkies. For sure, that person will find ways to whine about the unavailability of sunlight and rainfall in there anyhow. Among other reasons beyond engagements with bored trolls (which also happens out there anyways), I do enjoy Facebook for one singular benefit: Connection with family, relatives, and longtime friends—including buddies in my youth's neighborhood, grade school and high school classmates. I am also able to seriously discuss and/or joke around with ex-college professors and writing mentors/editors and media colleagues.

          My two most recent “discoveries” were my aunt Concepcion, my dad's sister, who now lives in Japan with her family, and my cousin Ella, just few towns away from some of my siblings' house/s in Baguio City, the family's second home-city, north of the Philippines. Most of my childhood in Quezon City was spent with Aunt Chit (Concepcion's nickname) around. She was a teenager when I was a child. The songs that I share here remind me a lot about people in the past, including Aunt Chit, because music played a huge part in my upbringing when she was around.

          Ella was the only child of my (late) Uncle Tony, my mom's brother. They live/d in a little farming barrio called Balaoan in La Union province in the north. I used to spend some of my summers there when the rest of my eight other siblings were enjoying city life on school break. I enjoyed the quiet escape—meditations on the woods, picnics beside the river, harvest of escargots on the side of muddy rice plots, easy naps on bamboo beds, fresh vegetables and the smell of moist grass after rain. Because I located Ella, I also located other cousins Nida, Emily, Manuel, and Lito and their families.

          Hence, to me and many other people, Facebook isn't just funny cat videos and fiery political rants. It's more significant and valuable than a mundane distraction.

I HAVE been reading thoughts and discussions/debates from FB page/s of friends and acquaintances—mostly former professors, writing mentors, editors and media colleagues, emanating from four corners of the universe. Facebook, thank you for this one-click wonder... Interesting, intriguing, endlessly enlightening. I recall those days of yonder as a zealous youth hungry for knowledge and adventure, reading up on stuff from Freire to Nietzsche to Thoreau to Sartre to Camus to Mao to Toffler to Dylan to just about anything that is worth food for thought, chased down by a bottle or two of scrounged cerveza. It's always cool to sit down over a drink, whatever drink, with anyone who knows some—not simply a smartass agitator or trickster devil's advocate. Even in heated and intense joust, lessons are harvested. I learned a lot from those...

          Meantime, it is kind of easier now to engage in a discussion since words and stuff are easily double-checked via google. Yet if a prospective conversant reasons, “I don't believe in Wikipedia anyways...” or “I don't google...” and we ask, “So what do you know?” and get, “I don't need to know...” then what is the point of a talk, right? I say, what we get in the internet are all 2nd or 3rd or 4th hand data. However, it is a common progression in knowing stuff and things to follow through—get out, go to the library, talk with people, visit places. But who wants to do that these days? Ah! Still though I like talking with someone who has a baseline info about anything. Where did CD originate, are the Bee Gees British or Australians, what is Treaty of Paris, how significant is WTO, who is Sylvie Legere, was Genghis Khan really a jerk, how dumb was Columbus, how powerful was Isabella I of Castille, who is Tom Joad, how good was Duane Allman on slide guitar, what makes Ho Chi Minh a military genius, does fortune cookie exist in Beijing? But it is sad that today's humanity is generally interested with cryptic, 3-word lines only—short attention span earthlings who are so busy yet they haven't left their seats in the last 14 hours. Anyways...

WHAT's behind wars? Apparently, these go beyond body counts, avenging furies, and macho posturings. EXAMPLE (in history): Following the defeat of Spain to the United States in their war more than a century ago, the Philippines—along with four other stretegically positioned countries, previously under Queen Victoria's rule—were ceded to the US. Treaty of Paris, 10 Dec 1898. Zoom in: The Philippines. This archipelago of 7,107 islands is nestled right on the heart of South China Sea, a marginal body of water that is part of the Pacific Ocean, encompassing an area from the Singapore and Malacca Straits to the Strait of Taiwan of around 1,400,000 sq miles. This extremely significant sea is the second most used sea lane in the world, while in terms of world annual merchant fleet tonnage, over 50 percent passes through the Strait of Malacca, the Sunda Strait, and the Lombok Strait. Over million barrels of crude oil a day are shipped through the Strait of Malacca. The region has proven oil reserves of around 7.7 billion barrels, with an estimate of 28 billion barrels in total. Natural gas reserves are estimated to total around 266 trillion cubic feet. HUGE SHIT that the world that enjoys drinking oil mojitos and watching cable TV nonstop surely relish! This, aside from the fact that the area is a very important defense strait and refuelling base for the US (and any other superpower) in case of a war.

Hence, the two huge US bases in the country. (Check as well details behind the Battle of Bataan and Corregidor, return of Gen. Douglas McArthur via Australia etc in World War II)... America is an impregnable fort due to the physical barriers of South China Sea and the bodies of water that the other countries in the ceding deal—Cuba, Puerto Rico, parts of the West Indies, and Guam—offer the Mainland. When whispers of war heave through the air, we ask, WHY? What's going on..

SOME loose/random Facebook exchange of views.

[ ] Money in the (protest) campaign.

Money isn't that imperative. Tactical alliances, grassroots groundworking. Thing is, activists these days spend more time preaching to the choir than reeducating the "uninformed" middle forces. Money doesn't move change. Otherwise the One Percent will gobble you up. Let me put this way. America is still relatively comfortable (or the mindset is) to really push for real change. Ask people to gather at a City Council meeting to exact even the littlest amendment, who go there? The homeless. The people who know how to "move" change? Wombed in the internet.

[ ] The bathroom issue.

It is a defocus. Energies should be put into scrutinizing real gut issues. The Occupy movement isn't going to work because it embraced un-organization and embraced "chaos as fun." It was like a summer camp for kids who didn't want to mow the lawn. I was in Zuccotti Park for two weeks at the onset of the so-called protest. If Bloomberg didn't ask McDonald's across the street to serve the Occupiers 24/7, the convergence would have been over in 12 hours. No groundworking. They didn't even know what they wanted. They presented a 10- or 15-point demand form but these were all fantastic demands that only a full-blown revolution can achieve. They were dreaming. Revolution? When they won'tt even touch donated food that is GMO-induced or they freaked when cellphone loses signal?

[ ] Did we lose much (compared with the world?)

When it comes down to it, Americans didn't lose much. This is still a country where goodness and comfort reign supreme. Look how we drive our cars to the next curb to throw garbage or how we use electric power while Netherlands boasts of bicycles to Congress and Kerala turns off lights at 9 PM. We just lost the ability to feel reality up our guts as against the idealism of having to gain 'em all (or losing what we gained). We lost the jobs yet we are still hugging the trees. We struggle to pay bills and install a new room for growing kids, yet we spend too much time on bathroom rights. It is not how America was after the Depression when FDR ushered the New Deal. Irrelevant of the economic downturn and China's ascent to power and Russia overtaking Saudi Arabia in oil production, we are still talking about The Illuminati and gluten free funnel cakes. (Sarcasm.)

[ ] Elections are about winning.

It is a speech bait, slogan, soundbyte, PR strategy. Politicians appeal to and navigate emotional terrains, the surface of it, than what's on or in the terrain. Trump's following, I believe, is a product of growing people-dissatisfaction of traditional structures in American society, foremost of which is governance. I cited studies and data in my previous posts and blogs. Not hard to understand. People lost jobs, lost houses and cars, lost marriages and families, and when they go to the store, it's all Chinese products. Then who go to war, those what we call "rednecks" and right-wing believers--yet when they go home with severed limbs and mental confusion, they still fight for their benefits. It's gut issue. People want change. Will they get it from another elitist, politically-correct leader? Or from someone who speaks their voice and grievances. I am not saying that Trump is a good dude. All I am saying is--we gotta figure out the big WHY? It's staring us in the face. The progressives should reeducate these mass of people gravitating to a demagogue than call them idiots (that's what I see in the social media and in most discussions with friends who against The Donald).