Seventy-two units or Seventy-two million

(This essay appeared in my column JUSTIFIED)

Forbes Asia magazine has released its list of Philippines’ richest people which includes the likes of Henry Sy, Lucio Tan, the Gokongweis, and the Zobel de Ayalas. More or less on the same month, the Nobel Prize committee also released its 2008 Nobel Prize winners which include one economist whose works I had read, New York Times-columnist Paul Krugman.

Which would you rather be: super rich or super smart?

The apparent inconsistency between academically inclined people and financially endowed ones is quite well-documented. There is even a book by financial guru Robert Kiyosaki titled “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” supporting this discrepancy. In that book, he posited that academically successful people do not necessarily become rich while most rich people were not academically successful. Apparently, Kiyosaki’s research revealed that there are skills rich people have which academically-inclined or “intelligent” folks haven’t learned. In one issue of Forbes magazine, it was reported that non-college graduates who are on its billionaires’ list have an aggregate net worth several times heftier than the Ivy-Leaguers. Grades then are not an indicator of financial success.

Would well-schooled people have a hard time becoming rich? Are our schools or educational system to blame for not teaching us the financial skills needed to succeed in life (at least financially)?

This would-you-rather-be-rich-or-smart question is deceptively hard to answer. It’s not as easy as answering, “Coke or Pepsi?” where one has an immediate preference. It’s more like the chicken-or-egg question. It’s actually like choosing between becoming Bill Gates or becoming Albert Einstein. (Incidentally, Time magazine chose Einstein as their Person of the 20th Century over all other contenders which include Bill Gates.)

One may be tempted to choose becoming rich over being intelligent. That would not be an easy choice for one can be the target of jokes or tirades or one can become very, very insecure if in the company of intelligent people who have also become moderately successful financially. The other side of the dilemma is to choose being intelligent over becoming rich. One would rather be an Einstein than be a Gates. If you’re intelligent –really, really intelligent—you can be of help to society; you might be able to discover things or espouse ideas which could change the world and make the world a better place than you have experienced it, one may be tempted to say. But then, how would you answer the rejoinder: “What is the point of being intelligent and what’s the point of having all those degrees if you can’t be rich?”

So would you rather be intelligent than rich? Or should you strive to become rich and forget about getting too schooled and too educated? No ready answers. One thing I know for sure though: Make the best of what you have, be the best of who you are. It’s a choice anybody can easily make.

(SHOUTOUTS: Hi! to Atty. Richelle Alistado, Atty. Aileen Zorilla (Febiar), Mark Henry Borromeo, Carmelchristee Woo, Me-ann Macute, Gerbert Maglangit)

Confessions

(This essay appeared in my column JUSTIFIED)

I'll tell you my views about politics: I don't have views about politics.
I'm what others would call an apolitical "animal" except that I'm probably more human than most politicians. I have little to no inclination towards politics. In fact, I am averse to it. I rarely read political news, I have no plans of going into politics, I have this preconceived notion that politics is dirty. (Haler! In the Philippines. . .?) Politics is neither in my blood nor my cup of coffee (except to vote), so to speak.

However, having obtained my undergrad degree from the State University (aka UP) and having lived near Mendiola means that I was exposed (and I do really mean exposed) to rallies, protests and demonstrations. For those who have been living under a rock and haven't seen the footages of the water "cannonization" of Sen. Jamby Madrigal, Satur Ocampo and Randy David, Mendiola (technically Chino Roces Street) is that stretch of road leading to the Malacanang grounds. It has been and is a mecca for demonstrators, rallyists and all sorts of vociferous people who want to voice their sentiments and grievances against the government, or ---as it has devolved into---against almost anything and anyone.

I'm sure many of those groups have valid sentiments, but I've never been able to identify with rallyists, demonstrators or protesters even as a student at the State University (probably the breeding ground for activists.)At the State U, I have encountered many student-activists. They cannot be missed: they are the ones who marched along the corridors with megaphones, chanting and shouting---and disrupting classes and work.

I had this Literature professor in college who was not amenable to the activists' way of life. She pointed out that aside from disrupting classes, most (if not all) of her students who were activists would readily skip classes to join protests and demonstrations. Many would even go underground and join socio-political organizations with unclear agenda. What she saw was not youth full of idealism and trying to make a difference but wasted youth who could have made a difference if they would just sit still, finish their education, and make a difference afterwards. I think she had a point.

It would be probably better for these student-activists to first focus and make good in their studies. Afterwards they could join the government and private sector or corporate world and take the initiative to do socially responsible acts. That is, if they don't get gobbled up by The System or Establishment which sadly and ironically, these same student-activists are, most likely than not, the very first to succumb to.

As I was saying, in Mendiola and perhaps in parks and plazas in other places, activists, protesters and demonstrators disrupt classes and work, and create monstrous traffic jams around the area where they hold their demonstrations. What's worse, after every rally, protest and demonstration, trash would be scattered everywhere. They could have made an impact and a statement if they cleaned up after using these areas. At least it would have served as a good example and others may be inclined to take on their (the activists')causes.

Facetiousness aside, I see little point in taking to the streets. Most often, the authorities and powers-that-be would just ignore the demonstrators. You know how our system works.

I'm not saying though that we should just ignore the atrocities and shenanigans committed by those in power. In this age and time though, I believe newer and better channels for voicing out sentiments should be exploited. I'm not quite sure what or how: I'm apolitical as my earlier disclaimer would make it readily apparent, and I was never oriented in the activists' ways. Maybe somebody more politically-oriented could---I said could, not should; I reserve my right of first refusal---educate me on this.

It may be argued that marching to the streets may get the attention of news organizations. This is true, but for a very fleeting moment. Media caters to mostly attention-deficit, not to mention, apathetic, viewers. Any event would just be filed under the heading "one of today's stories." Tomorrow or the day thereafter, it would be replaced by another more newsworthy event.

And then the cycle of marching, rallying, etc. continues while government apathy remains.

Changing times call for better, more proactive approaches. I'm really not sure how but I believe there are better ways. Now you start thinking!

Just add hot water

(This essay appeared in my column JUSTIFIED.)

For the past several years or so, I have been some sort of a techie ( For dinosaurs out there,that's technospeak for "a person who is inclined towards the use of modern technologies.") I have had---or still have unless lost or stolen--- a laptop, a Palm Pilot, several phones at a time, and other such gadgets which shall remained unnamed lest I'll sound pompous.

That also means that I am addicted to various internet sites and maintain several accounts in Yahoo!, Google, Blogger, Tagged, Skype, Shelfari and of course, Friendster (and now, Facebook).

"You have 122 friends" (that's not even that many compared to other users), a line beside my profile reads.

Whoa! I've never imagined I have that many friends. Or are they?

It never dawned on me, not until recently, that one could have so many friends---in an instant. I've always believed that friendship takes time to develop; that it's based on mutual respect, honesty, empathy, understanding, etc. I can never remember being given the chance to experience any of the aforementioned qualities to all of my 122 friends.

There was a time when the things "instant" that we know of are coffee, milk, noodles ---you only need to add hot water---and gratification. Well, there's the word I've been looking for---gratification. Let me emphasize that: instant gratification.

If you want a nice body but don't want to sweat, go and have your fats sucked. Forget about lifting weights, forget about the hard work. If you want instant financial gain, then join get-rich quick schemes (the most incredible ones use only baking soda and lint from your bellybutton, wink wink, nudge nudge). Forget about thrift, investing and budgeting skills. And now, if you want instant "friends", go surf The Net.

We want everything to happen so fast. Not just that, we want everything to happen without investment---in time, effort, energy---in it. What has happened to character-building? Is it consigned only in textbooks?

Most of us have problems with instant gratification at one point of our lives or another; heck, almost all of the time.Partly to blame for this malaise is how society pressures us to be better,faster, taller, better-looking, fairer, etc. In order to achieve that, society dictates---and we succumbed---that we purchase what's the latest in the market, the most recent product breakthrough, the top-of-the line, the biggest there is, the glitziest there is. Media, of course, hasn't been much of a help in this regard. The implicit message is: "Be happy and be merry now for tomorrow you die." Or something to that effect.

"You want fairer skin? Use this body lotion. Whiter skin in just two weeks!", says one product endorser on TV. "Two weeks?! Our product makes you whiter in 24 hours! Plus it peels your epidermis, has Vitamin E, SPF 15, aloe vera and seaweed in as low as buying a pirated VCD from the tiangge. Not only that, we deliver right in front of your doorstep!" retorts another product placement. Yes, I'm totally making up these lines but they cannot be further from the truth.

What is the metaphysics of instant or immediate gratification? Is it wired into the knobs atop our necks? Are we, as a species, biologically inclined to gratify ourselves---that is, is it human nature? Or is it just a case of "trying to live up with the Joneses"? You know, the mentality that if others have it so should I.And at once. I know it can be bad, inexistence of proof notwithstanding.

Aside from television, other modes of media have fueled our cravings for immediate gratification. The Internet and the computer have been used for online purchases, porn viewing, seeking faceless, nameless "virtual" friends, who knows what else is there.

This exposition is not about the ill-effects of technology. This is about how we have been bombarded in all fronts by media and various modes of communication in giving in to our pleasures, cravings, whims and instincts and how we have readily succumbed.

We must therefore be wary; be very, very wary.