Thank you for the bigass crackers, Rebisco!!! - Thank you for the bigass crackers, Rebisco!!!
1 hour ago
If they wanted to protect Earth, why did they leave the Matrix on the planet? They're a space-faring race, they could have hid it anywhere in galaxy! Second of all, what the fuck does making a tomb of their own bodies do? Shouldn't they have stayed alive to protect the Matrix? Or finish off the Fallen? Or just not die and leave Earth and the entire Transformer race in jeopardy?
And why hide the Matrix at all? Don't they need Energon to survive? Didn't they say they go to other lifeless planets? These idiot Primes just doomed their whole species for no fucking reason whatsoever! No wonder the Decepticons are so pissed.
...ahem. Eventually, Sam and crew find the Matrix, which instantly crumbles into dust. Sam puts the dust in a sock because he thinks it will bring Optimus back to life.
What follows is the most spectacular part of the movie, as Sam and Mikaela try to run the several miles back to the military camp during a massive Decepticon attack where the military has dropped Optimus Prime's corpse.
Why is that awesome? They could drive back in one of the Autobots and be there in a minute or two.
They don't do that.
Of course they do. And I assume the Autobots just mysteriously disappear again until a second before a Decepticon is about to kill Sam.
I am already incredibly sick of this movie, and I'm just typing questions about it. Sam resurrects Optimus, Optimus kills the Fallen, end of story, right?
Pretty close. Sam dies, though.
Yeah, for a little while. But then the Transformers in heaven send him back because he still has work to do.
Fuck you. There's no way.
It's true. The 6-7 Primes are there in the clouds like Mufasa's head in The Lion King, and tell Sam he's awesome and he needs to live again so he can bring Optimus back to life.
I may be ill.
Sanford (Governor of South Carolina; recently discovered to having engaged in an extra-marital affair --j) voted to impeach Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky saga. According to The Post and Courier of Charleston, Sanford called Clinton’s behavior “reprehensible” and said, “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally” to resign. “I come from the business side. ... If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” Remember that Mr. Sanford?
And this kind of hypocrisy isn’t confined to the politicians. It permeates the electorate. While conservatives fight to “defend” marriage from gays, they can’t keep theirs together. According to the Census Bureau’s Statistical Abstract, states that went Republican in November accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates in 2006.
-- The Prurient Trap by Charles M. Blow, The New York Times
Mon: Ano, lawayan ko na ba?
Me: Yes, discreetly.
"... the NPC is having second thoughts about him. We hear that Ramon Ang, Danding Cojuangco's alter ego in San Miguel Corporation, has been telling friends that they're quite unhappy with Chiz because he announced to reporters that he was going to call for an investigation of the sale of GSIS shares in Meralco to San Miguel. Apparently, Chiz was advised to distance himself from Cojuangco and show that he's his own man. (Cojuangco is known to be a major contributor to Chiz's senatorial campaign in 2007; the other key donor is Lucio Tan.)"
"But he may not have pushed through with his plan. We've not heard of any such Senate investigation."
"It is writers who routinely get to be charged with saying and not doing, of talking and not acting. It is writers who routinely get to be told: That’s all very fine, but when will you act?
It is the most astonishing thing because writing is acting. That is why we call it “the act of writing,” because it is an act. And like physically ministering to the sick, it is a vital act. It is spiritually ministering to the sick, an act that is fraught with meaning, an act that is laden with consequence. When you write, you either cure or you do not. When you write, the world either lives or dies."
-- Conrado de Quiros in his Inquirer editorial titled, ‘Writer ka lang pala’
Agent: "Ano pong trabaho nila."
Agent: "Aaah, writer lang..."
Me: "Eh ikaw, call center agent lang."
JESUS SAID "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24).
By contrast, Michelle Robinson was every parent's dream. In elementary school, she was so advanced for her age, she skipped the second grade. In high school, she was the class salutorian, taking science classes at a local college. "I wanted to be a pediatrician," she says, "until I realized science wasn't much fun." Even her mother was impressed by Michelle's precocious pragmatism. In a rare appearance at a New Hampshire Women for Obama event, Marian Robinson described a daughter who was hardworking and had a "natural eye" for clothes but who was also practical. One day Michelle came home with a new Coach bag she'd bought with the money she'd earned from baby-sitting. How much did you pay for it? her mother asked. When Michelle told her, Robinson gasped. I would never pay that for a bag, she said. Yes, Michelle answered, but you'll have to buy ten bags—I'll only have to buy one.
(DPWH Assistant Director Armando) Estrella said in a statement that the operators of outdoor signages volunteered to take down the huge ads after “they realized that many people were against indecent and immoral billboards.”
“They were conscience-stricken,” he said, adding, “They fear the backlash in public opinion will affect the products they are endorsing.”
The Supreme Court of Judicature had little patience with Procter & Gamble’s lawyerly attempts to break out of the potato chip category. The company argued that to be “made of potato” Pringles would have to be all potato, or nearly so. If so, Lord Justice Jacob noted, “a marmalade made using both oranges and grapefruit would be made of neither — a nonsense conclusion.”
He was even more dismissive of Procter & Gamble’s argument that to be taxable a product must contain enough potato to have the quality of “potatoness.” This “Aristotelian question” of whether a product has the “essence of potato,” he insisted, simply cannot be answered.
A TOUT DE SUITE
Set in the 1970s, A Tout de Suite is the story of a 19-year-old girl who discovers that her lover, seemingly a Prince Charming, is actually a thief who has just committed murder. “Tout de suite,” instantly, her safe and comfortable world is turned upside down and she is swept into an adventure that takes her from Spain to Morocco and Greece.
A story of passions and dark family secrets, as told through the eyes of François, an only child who creates a make-believe brother and imagines the past of his parents. On his 15th birthday, a family friend reveals to François a disturbing but illuminating truth.
JEAN DE LA FONTAINE
Paris wakes up on the morning of September 5, 1661 to much noise: Fouquet, the King’s Counsel, is arrested upon order of Colbert, and the young Louis XIV has just become sole ruler of France.
While other artists offer their services to the Divine Monarch, one man affirms his support for the destitute Fouquet: the poet Jean de La Fontaine. Colbert swears to make the rebel surrender, the only artist in the kingdom to put his art above the King. Hence, La Fontaine, even in his misery, stands up to his convictions. Without regret, he resists the persecution and writes the Fables, which become deadly pamphlets against a despotic and decadent regime.
Under the care of Doctor Gachet, Vincent Van Gogh arrives in Auvers-sur-Oise in 1890. This is the most productive period of his life, as he finishes hundreds of paintings and drawings in a span of weeks. And yet it is also his most torturous, as he lives out his last days torn between love and despair.
At Versailles, in the year 1780, everything is being given away: commandments, ribbons, awards, pensions, honorific titles and administrative responsibilities. But because there are only a certain number of prizes available, a competition ensues in the court of King Louis XVI. The honest Grégoire Ponceludon de Malavoy, descended from an ancient, noble and bankrupt family, enters into this center of corruption. Will he be able to resist all of its temptations?
ZIM AND CO
Zim, 20 years old, faces a dilemma: either find a real job, or go to prison. He’s not the lazy type, and looks into the classified ads. But the only job he finds requires him to have a car and a driver’s license in 10 days! Neither of which he has. Good thing Zim has tricks, and best of all, friends: Cheb, Arthur et Safia. And to avoid going to jail, they’re ready to do anything … at least, almost!
Kiko, Chiz, Amina, Candy — and ‘consensus’
Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero enjoys a reputation for political eloquence, and as I have written before on other occasions, his “mellifluous monotone” can prove highly effective. But as his answers at the recent ABS-CBN-sponsored “leadership forum” at the Ateneo de Manila University showed, he also uses it in Orwellian fashion. That is to say, he sometimes uses his gift of gab to conceal thought, not to reveal it.
One example: To the question about personal heroes (Which historical person living or dead do you most admire?), Escudero said, None. His answer (in mellifluously monotonous Filipino, and readily available on his website) started in this wise: “Ilang ulit nang tinanong sa akin yan, matagal ko nang pinag-isipan ngunit wala akong maisip ni-isa.” My translation: “I’ve been asked that many times and have thought about it a long time, but I can’t think of anyone.” He went on to say: “Dahil para sa akin walang iisang kumakatawan at nagtataglay nang lahat ng katangiang kapupuri-puri [Because for me, there is no one who embodies and symbolizes all that is worthy of praise.]”
This is passing strange. The question was not Who is perfect? but Who do you look up to?
Escudero proceeded to state that perhaps what we ought to do is to choose what is admirable in our historical figures (“mga magagandang ginawa ng mga personalidad sa kasaysayan”) and avoid their mistakes. But that was the point of the question, wasn’t it? Give the Filipino people an idea of who you consider admirable. Escudero then wrapped up his two-minute answer with an appeal to imagination: Imagine a person with all these qualities, he said. “Iyon siguro, hindi man totoong tao, ang dapat natin tingalain [Maybe that is the one, though not a real person, we should all look up to.]”
Pure drive. I think in avoiding the true question, Escudero is betraying the anxiety of influence. As I’ve written before (the first time, I think, was in 2005), Escudero strikes me as the acceptable face of the Marcos restoration. Here’s a thought in search of a consensus. Perhaps Escudero declined to answer the real question because the people may not be ready to hear him profess any admiration for the late dictator.
Giving Chiz his due
A recent column deconstructing Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero’s deliberately vapid answers in last month’s ANC Leadership Forum prompted many questions, and not a few pointed comments. His speaking skills, after all, seem in large part to explain his popularity, especially among the youth.
I would like to expand on the young senator’s gift of gab, by recalling something I had written three and a half years ago.
I had covered the first impeachment vote in 2005 (the longest session Congress ever had to endure in its sometimes rambunctious history), and “reported” the proceedings in 10 parts for my Newsstand blog. On Sept. 10, 2005, I wrote:On other occasions I have written slightingly of Chiz Escudero’s speaking skills, because he seemed at times to use his eloquence to tell creative untruths, to mask the weakness of his position. The wild goose chase that led him to Los Angeles to speak with former Isabela Gov. Faustino Dy Jr., for example, ended with words that seemed like a promise of victory. Dy will speak at the impeachment trial, Escudero had said. But if you parse that statement, it quickly becomes clear that the House minority leader had actually misled the public into thinking Dy had already chosen one side over another. All Dy must have meant was, if the case reaches the Senate, where the President is almost certain of conviction, then I’m on your side. If it doesn’t, I’m not.