Blue-eyed nanny

(This essay appeared in my column JUSTIFIED.)

Television keeps the masses occupied. What if everyone decided they wanted to make something of their lives? Television keeps the competition down and keeps more criminals off the street. What if everyone decided to go to law school or medical school? It would sure make it tough on the rest of us---Jim Urbanovich, author

I was never a T.V. baby. I mean, I grew up not watching T.V. or very little T.V. if at all. Not that I grew up pecuniarily disadvantaged to be totally deprived of the comforts of modern living. My family had the usual entertainment gadgets in vogue at the time like VHS player, stereos and the like.

This aversion to the boob tube is not really self-imposed. Almost everybody around me watches TV so it is impossible for me not to be influenced by them. It is just that TV watching has never been my habit. (If truth be told, for some it is not just a habit but an addiction.) The very rare occasions I get to watch TV are when I am in public places such as in restaurants, airport terminals or in other people's homes/rooms.


Growing up, my parents did not forbid me and my brother from taking to the "blue-eyed babysitter." But my parents themselves very seldom watch TV so we kids imbibed the habit.


I could remember when I was in high school and even through college and law school when my classmates and schoolmates would talk about this and that show---all of which, naturally, I totally had no idea. I would merely stare at them (but guess who graduated valedictorian, nyahahaha) like they were talking in Greek or Arabic (no offense to Greeks and Arabs). Despite that, I never felt out of place. For me then, as it is today, talking about boob tube stuff was not much a productive use of time and not good staple for conversations.


I used to classify people under three categories: A, B and C, in that order. The "A" people talk about ideas. The "B" people talk about things. The "C" people talk about other people. I classified talking about TV stuff under category "B". Of course, I wanted to be under category "A".


All these may not be bad after all. Growing up not watching television has developed my love for reading. Whenever this substitution crosses my mind, I am reminded of famous comedian Groucho Marx who said: "I find television to be very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go in the other room and read a book." Well, the same thing with me.


Lately, however, I catch myself watching more and more television. I don't know what this syndrome is called: maybe making up for all the decades of being TV-deprived, although I never felt it was a deprivation. Or perhaps TV is just the most common and pervasive means of getting information nowadays. It's definitely more accessible than browsing the Net and less cumbersome than reading the newspapers. The last two I still do despite my increased exposure to the boob tube.


Whereas before I consider television and TV watching negatively, I now see both in a more or less neutral manner. But just like all things neutral, the aforementioned medium could be used either positively or negatively. TV watching may distract you from doing more productive pursuits. The same medium may also be used to perpetuate misconceptions and distorted perceptions. Being bombarded with all those commercials will surely turn your noggin to mush.


Whatever may be my current perception on TV watching, you still can't force me to watch Wowowee or Marimar or whatever show Willie Revillame is on. Peksman.

The Great Debate

(This essay appeared in my column JUSTIFIED.)


The Heart has its reasons which Reason does not know of.---Blaise Pascal, French thinker

One of the most insightful books I have read is "Emotional Intelligence" by the eminent Harvard psychologist Daniel Goleman. I had read it when it was first published many years back. Lately, I found myself rereading it or at least attempting to reread it (if TV does not snatch my attention away).

I have always been fascinated by what it takes to be truly smart. The now oft-quoted term "emotional intelligence"was a groundbreaking brain and behavioral research that redefined what it means to be smart. Emotional intelligence shows the factors at work when people of high I.Q. flounder while those of modest I.Q. do surprisingly well . Psychologists now argue that our view of intelligence is too narrow, ignoring a crucial range of abilities that matter immensely for how well we do in life. My renewed interest in the "emotional intelligence vs. intelligence quotient" (E.I. vs. I.Q.) debate surfaced after I have read in the previous issue of The Mindanao Observer that the incidence of "no read, no write" has increased. This means that the level of functional literacy has declined. For those not in the know, functional literacy means not just the ability to read and write per se but the ability to read and write and to use such ability for practical uses. On the other hand, there are those who argue that what is important are one's personal and relational skills (collectively called emotional intelligence). I am sure this dilemma has also fascinated many others as evidenced by numerous literature dealing with both mental intelligence (as measured by ubiquitous I.Q. tests) and emotional intelligence (which has no real gauge but as shown by qualitative factors which include self-awareness, discipline, empathy, self-motivation, self- reliance and the like.)

On a more personal note, I have always been oriented to use my mind more than my emotions. I have always put a premium on intelligence---the mental kind. For me, I.Q. could be the be-all and end-all in this game called life. To wax poetic about it, reason is my primary weapon whenever I am faced with life's sticky situations. This was most evident during my elementary and high school years when I had excelled in academics and other mental-related stuff. In recent years, however, I found myself coasting along, enjoying other pursuits besides books, school and anything even remotely related to one's mental development. This leads me to the epiphany that there might be other human endowmwents as important, if not more important, than intellect. That is why I tried to get a more or less holistic idea of what it takes to be truly smart by reading and now rereading the book "Emotional Intelligence."

I think there is nothing wrong with being attuned to one's emotions, developing skills other than mental skills and be able to relate well with other people as long as it is not used as an excuse for stupidity, to compromise and to pander to the least common denominator. The latter has become the norm rather than the exception.

Use your heart if you will, but use your mind, too. "Emotional Intelligence" (the book)should be required reading for everybody, especially those in positions that require them to put other people's interests together with, nay, ahead of their own. Hello! civil servants, politicians and leaders!

Get acquainted with both types of intelligence and decide for yourself which is of more primordial importance.

Freakonomics

(This essay appeared in my column JUSTIFIED.)


You get the clue that the economy is really in bad shape, despite government claims to the contrary, when product-makers and manufacturers use the same raw material for the different products they churn out. Or, when the consumers themselves use the same ingredient or resource or item for a variety of uses.

Call it whatever you like---maximization, efficiency, practicality---but whatever it's called, it sure is an indicator of the state of our nation's economy and probably a pointer to where it (the economy, stupid) is going. Forget about those statistics issued by the NEDA, DBM and other economic and financial gobbledygook that make your eyes glaze and which you could not, for the life of you, understand unless you have an Economics degree from the U.P. School of Economics (like I do, nyahahaha).

Look around you and be observant enough: if only a handful of resources or materials are being used as the main or active ingredient in most of the products that we use, then either that material or resource is a wonder product or the state of the economy had called for more belt-tightening measures. I bet it's more of the latter since it's quite a stretch to be using the same thing for a variety of uses than is humanly possible.

For example papaya: probably the most over-used fruit there is. You eat papaya for dessert; you add papaya to your tinola. Then there is papaya soap, papaya body wash and papaya lotion. I think it won't be long before enterprising entrepreneurs (pardon my alliteration) would come up with papaya shampoo, or maybe some fraking brainiac has already invented it somewhere. By golly, even the young, green papayas have not been spared! Now, we have green papaya soaps. So how come we have been wildly abusing this helpless fruit? Blame it on the economy!

Countless vegetables and fruits have been turned into a form of product or another.

Whereas cucumber and avocado were mainly for the palate, now facial lotions have avocado and cucumber varieties. Even the lowly calamansi is not too small to be dispensed with from this economic malaise. Calamansi is not only turned into juice but as an ingredient in facial lotions, as a stain remover and as an ingredient in laundry soaps as well.

Then there is green tea. It is the scent of your air deodorizer and an ingredient in your juice drink. Sooner or later the consumer would turn green or smell like tea for drinking and inhaling green tea at the same time. Don't ask me which one is worse.

We are not turning vegetarians or environmentalists, mind you; otherwise we wouldn't be seeing long queues at McDonald's or Yellow Cab (or Jollibee if you're a dyed-in-the-wool probinsiyano), we wouldn't be peeing on walls and dumping trash into our esteros. It is just that the economy has gotten really bad that we can't help but be utterly creative in the use of our limited resources.

Even one of my most fave things---coffee---is being milked (pun intended) for all its possible uses: as a beverage, ice cream ingredient and as a flavoring in cookies. Oh, there was even this cell phone holder I saw in a mall with coffee bean designs and has the aroma of real coffee!

Newspapers and magazines are not only for reading anymore. Since there's not much to read in the papers anyway unless you relish those gory photos of terrorist attacks (in which case you're a sadist) and are keeping a body count of the typhoon and tsunami casualties, they better be used dor wrapping dried fish, flowers or even as pamaypay (fan). At least that way you can recover the cost of the magazine or newspaper one way or another.

See, the economy has really deteriorated. We wouldn't go through all that trouble of multi-using a single item other than what it was originally intended for.

Now read this piece fast so you can recycle the paper on which it is printed on!