Requiescat

Here she lies, she's safe at last
She will sleep the millennia away
She's mortal like us we know
Someday we'll all have to go
But right now we don't know what to say
She's gone from here
Yet here she lies
Now she's excluded from all earthly pain
She's closed her eyes
Behind the glass
No sun, no smoke, no rain
Tears and fears and hugs and sighs
She's stoic in her white box
Does she hear us we wonder
Does she see us we ponder
What does this all mean
Here she lies she's safe at last
She's forever eighteen.

Maria Teresa Foronda, June 11, 1991- June 16, 2009

Storybook Patois

So I'm reading A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, and I'm viddying a lot of odd words. Truth be told, it's taking malenky tolchocks at my brain, this nadsat jargon. First of all, it was already mighty bezoomny of Burgess to write this, since it's all horrorshow dratsing with shaikas and screaming devotchkas and ptitsas. Some of my droogs reckon it's a nice book, but I wouldn't use that slovo. Well-written. Imaginative. Engaging. Nice? No. By Bog, Burgess makes Vonnegut viddy relatively tame. So much krovvy and flying zoobies in this book! And what is scary about Alex, that’s the bezoomny malchick’s eemya, is that he’s not the least bit poogly of ultraviolence. He actually lives for horrorshow, no remorse whatsoever, and I know that’s what Burgess wants to show, but it pooglies me somehow. Knives in the moloko and dratsing-oobivating every night? More sensitive souls would be bolnoy by the thirtieth page. It vreds my brain, really, like a bolshy britva of verbosity.

Speaking of jargon, all this nadsatting reminds me of another invented language: Newspeak. ( From George Orwell's 1984. ) Now there's a double-plus-ungood language because it limits the words people are allowed to think and say. They phased out Oldspeak, and you had to be always goodthinking, otherwise the thinkpol would get you. It’s not easy to grasp the ramifications unless you read the novel itself. So many of my favorite words they turned into crimethink, really. It's double-unsane. I don't even know why those proles didn't take to the streets and quash Ingsoc. Not goodwise for the mind, although it didn't really matter, comrades, since if you were caught by the thinkpol you would become an unperson anyway. I unbellyfeel Ingsoc and Big Brother, of course, and like Oldthink better. But I have to stop now, since I am also afraid of being sent to joycamp, just in case Big Brother is reading.

The Amazons, Asherah, and The Search for Atlantis

(National Geographic Channel Episode)
Riddles of the Dead: The Amazon Warriors

“Men who are warriors do not gain much attention. Women warriors, on the other hand, become the stuff of legends.” There was a feature on the National Geographic channel, Riddles of the Dead, about the Amazon warriors. They were fierce, beautiful, blonde women who refused to be conquered by men. They raised their male children as slaves and trained their women to be warriors. The myth of the Amazons continues to inspire many stories, even up to today.

It was said that the Amazons fought on the side of the Trojans during the war against Achilles and the rest of the Greeks. Achilles is said to have killed the Amazon Queen Penthesilea in a fierce battle, and another Queen, Hippolyta, possessed the girdle that was one of the labors of Hercules. An archaeologist investigating a 3000-year-old burial in Southern Russia discovered that it contained the skeleton of a (according to an anthropologist) woman in a nomadic warrior’s pose—one leg straight, the other bent. Along with this were hundreds of arrowheads, golden beads, and golden emblems of a priest/ess. They figured that the woman (later confirmed to be so by DNA testing) was a nomadic warrior priestess. Coincidentally, studies showed that Southern Russia was where the Amazons were most likely to have gone after they were displaced by external factors. It seemed that the Amazons were not only simply “myth” after all.

(The Amazons, or Androktones—Killers of Men, are now the newest subjects of my feminist research.)

Women like them, who have defied order and “traditional” gender roles, are definitely interesting. They show us that the line we draw between capabilities of men and women somehow do not really have to exist. I think gender roles are really a way of keeping the stability in society. Humans are creatures of routine, and if there was too much variety the world would be more complicated. Or would it? Do these roles really simplify things? There was a time when gender roles were a question of pragmatism and not of bias. That is not always the case today.

For starters, gender roles are unfair. They constrict and they divide. They serve to separate things that should not have boundaries. These boundaries are based on the assumption that men and women are intrinsically different, and there are some things that only men can do and vice versa. It is assumed that there are some things that only women can do. With the exception of childbirth and other biology-related aspects, this is really not true.

Gender roles then extend to Dating Scripts. There was an episode on The Tyra Banks Show related to this. The topic was a woman who could not seem to get dates because of her “bad dating habits.” Some gay men were on the show to give her the “straight” dirt. It was amusing because these gay men showed the women what to wear, what to say and what not to say on a first date, and claimed to know what men really think. Dating scripts are another way to keep the stability. What is it that people have against spontaneity anyway? Some of the frequent advice given to women for first dates are: Don’t reveal too much; be approachable; eat light; show genuine interest in your date, etcetera. Which begs the question: Why? What if you don’t want to eat light? What if you’re not genuinely interested? Why do we allow ourselves to be governed by these scripts?

I should probably mention a certain bestseller I extremely abhorred due to it being a proponent of gender roles: Meyer’s Twilight. That requires twelve more pages of criticism, so I won’t elaborate.

Random Observations: In a traditional couple scene, the woman holds on to the man, not the other way around. And when it comes to holding the umbrella, the man holds it for the couple—even if it was the woman’s umbrella to begin with. And the whole business with the man carrying the purse (emphasis on the “purse,” it often being of no weight at all) of the woman: what in the world is that supposed to mean? If the world were gender aschematic, we’d all have a lot more freedom to do whatever we want. Not to sound like an anarchist, but the unwritten gender roles can be suffocating.

"The basic options of an individual must be made on the premises of an equal vocation for man and woman founded on a common structure of their being, independent of their sexuality." (Simone de Beauvoir, La Deuxieme Sexe)

(Discovery Channel DVD Episode)
Archaeology II – The Forbidden Goddess

Was it a battle of the sexes, or was it a battle for power, gender regardless?
Maybe it was both.
In ancient Israel a few thousand years ago, there were two main divine beings: Yahweh and Asherah. Yahweh was the almighty ruler, Asherah was his consort, and was the mother goddess.
With the subsequent editing of the bible, Asherah was scratched out and Yahweh rose to the rank of “only” god. Everything else is simply labeled a false idol.
Scholars today only know of Asherah through physical evidence unearthed by archaeologists. (Statues, icons, sculptures.) There are also some surviving texts in which she is mentioned as “Yahweh’s Asherah.”
There are two reasons considered for the deletion of the goddess and the phasing out of her cult. One, the high priests and officials of Israel, male, wanted the god to reflect them, and saw no room for a woman. (Gender studies show that while men are fascinated by women and their ability to reproduce, they are also threatened by this power.) Two, the high priests and officials of Israel saw her as a threat to Yahweh’s seat as most powerful divine being, and saw no room for any other divine being, woman or otherwise.

The episode made some old questions rise from the murky confines of my subconscious, somehow connected, but not exactly about it.

Disclaimer: I am an agnostic.
Note: Agnostic is not Atheist, and while we’re on the subject, Atheist is not Satanist.

One: Why do we refer to god as “he”? Is there any conclusive evidence to suggest that “he” is male? Following the logic at the very beginning, if god made humans in his own image and likeness, then isn’t it more likely that he was both male and female? He created both genders after all. (Tangent: How many genders are there, really?)
Two: “God has a face, hands, feet from time to time, but how about below the waist? There is no mention of genitalia anywhere.” It’s almost as if they’re denying physical evidence of god’s sexuality while asserting it through pronouns.
Three: How do we know that there is only one god, and that there are not multiple divine beings? (This will probably never be answered anyway.)
Four: I know that the bible is considered the absolute truth in a lot of circles. But why? It’s literature. It does not provide a conclusive account of how things happened. How can it? Every piece of work, written or otherwise, is reflective of the time and place in which it was created and, more importantly, who created it. The specific details cannot be held true for all time and for all people. It also has gone through revision after revision, translation after translation. How many sentences come out with a different meaning after being translated? And how many things get lost in revision? It does not provide an unbiased account of history, it is an insight into the people who wrote it and how they lived and believed.

"The bible is literature, not dogma." - George Santayana

P.S.The story of Asherah shows that history is written by the winners. The losers have no place in it except to be in the wrong, or to have no place in it at all.

(Discovery Channel DVD Episode)
The Search for Atlantis

I'll keep this one short.
Humans have always been fascinated by the unknown. It is not by coincidence that the mystery of Atlantis has survived the test of time, and that people, despite all failure and disappointment, still believe that one day, Atlantis will be found.
Some researchers say that it's on Bimini Island in the Bahamas.
Some say that it will never be found, because through time, and following geological patterns, it has been pushed under the Caribbean plate.
I think that the mystical Lost Island represents more than just thrill and treasure. It seems that no matter how much we progress, we will always feel the need to look back to where it all began. If only to see how far we've come.
If Atlantis does get found someday, I sincerely hope I would still be around to see it.

Ça se dit comment en Français?

Bonjour mes amis. C’est un article en Français, pardonnez-moi. Aujourd’hui, j’ai étudié, quoi d’autre, Français. Je prépare pour la semaine prochaine et pour les semaines après. J’apprends le temps futur, le temp pas parfait, et le temps conditionnel. (... Pas parfait? Qu’est-ce que “imperfect” en Français du reste?) Plus les temps passé et présent j’ai apprendu l’année dernière. Et les adjectifs et les adverbes! Quelle un cauchemar.

Alors. L’été est fini. C’est triste, mais c’est étonnant aussi parce que je peux apprendre choses nouvelle. Alors. Mon l’emploi du temps. Chaque jour de dix heure à onze heure et demie, un cours de Français avec Monsieur Bautista. Chaque mardi et jeudi de onze heure et demie à une heure, une cours de L’écriture Créatif avec Madame Duque. Cependant, chaque mercredi et vendredi de onze heure et demie à une heure, une cours de L’histoire. Je fais une pause pour le déjeuner à une heure à deux heure. Ensuite, le cours je deteste surtout, un cours de Calcul. Le professeur est Madame Bello, mais je ne sais pas elle. Chaque lundi, j’ai CWTS en la Géographie, de deux heure à cinq heure.

C’est tout. Tout à l’heure.

Random

Public advisories have been going on and on about how to avoid AH1N1. Their top tips include not hugging, not kissing, and more generally, not touching anyone. And also channeling your inner OC every time you wash your hands.

I know the virus is airborne, and human contact is just a secondary way of transmitting it, but if human contact is the only way to get it, I’m pretty much immune.

Kind of sad when you start thinking about it.

Just kidding. I don’t need a hug, I just feel like being dramatic. And the cactus bears wonderful resemblance.

By the way, a cactus is going to hurt you if you hug it, so don’t, even if it looks like it wants you to. Appearances are most often than not deceiving. XD

What if the Earth Stands Still?

“Your planet is dying.”
“So you’ve come to save us!”
“No. I have come to save the planet.”
- Dialogue from “The Day the Earth Stood Still”

Global Warming. Climate Change. Air Pollution. Water Pollution. Land Pollution. Excessive Greenhouse Gas Effect. Thinning of the Ozone Layer. Melting glaciers. Fossil fuel shortage. A lot of these issues are now as commonplace as corruption and traffic—in this country, at least.
Thankfully, with campaigns launched for awareness about environmental issues, “going green” has also entered the mainstream. Energy conservation. Drives against Air and Water Pollution. Anti-Smoke Belching Act. All noble and well-meant efforts. But the movie The Day the Earth Stood Still poses an alternative, more radical solution:
Exterminate mankind.
In the movie, Keanu Reeves is a representative of a group of civilizations far more advanced in all aspects relative to earthlings. (Why is it that almost all sci-fi concepts make us inferior to our intergalactic peers?) They have also been keeping tags on Planet Earth and are aware that it is one of few planets capable of supporting life. Therefore, they have decided to save it. And there is only one clear way, that is, to get rid of all human beings and all man-made objects that destroy the planet. The aliens do this by unleashing thousands of locusts (much like a plague) that are capable of eating away at metal and reducing it to dust. Smaller termite-like insects eat away at the humans themselves.
They also sent out spheres to every corner of the globe to act as modern versions of Noah’s Ark, to save the Earth’s species. They took one of each, except humans, understandably.
It is a work of fiction, and yet... What if that is the only way?
“If the planet dies, you die. But if you die, the planet lives.”
We all know that this planet needs to be saved. But what is not resilient in common thought is that it needs to be saved from us. Most people think of it in terms of saving it from toxic wastes, from global warming, from fossil fuel emissions—but these are terms that only serve to distance us from the real problem at hand: US. Toxic wastes and whatnot are merely side effects. Human ingenuity and intellectual curiosity have led to the development of technology, and the thrill of discovery and the comfort and convenience it brought us has masked the ugly face of destruction. And has masked it for far too long.
But akin to the anti-venom that saves the poisoned victim, we are also the solution.
History teaches us that every civilization reaches a turning point where it is forced to substantiate or suffocate. Some survive, some don’t. There is a collective decision that has to be made, to determine whether it will fall off the precipice or further assert its existence. Maybe, in a figurative way, the earth is standing still and awaiting our decision. Will we make the right one now, or will we have to wait for an alien species to save us from ourselves?