Once there was a learned man who studied philosophy. He was so fascinated by the concept of the golden mean that he applied it in every aspect of his life.

One day, he was confronted with a problem. He believes in a religion, and the beliefs of that religion call for austerity, simplicity, and honesty, and a deity that is good and just. The religion also preaches that there is an anti-deity that urges the people to do the opposite of what the deity imposes. The religion also preaches that while the deity frowns upon submitting to the rule of the anti-deity, the deity is just and forgiving.

Seeing this loophole in the beliefs, and thinking about the golden mean, the learned man said to himself “Why not have the best of both worlds? Why suffer when you can have all the fun? After all, the deity is just and forgiving. All I have to do is to confess at the end of the day, and I get a clean slate.”

So the learned man retained his belief in the deity while committing all the no-nos that his religion preaches about. At the end of the day, he went to the temple to confess. He did these all throughout his life.

Then the learned man died. His soul entered the hall of justice, where the deity was seated. The deity asked the learned man’s soul, “Who is your master?”

The learned man replied, “The supreme creator, the deity who is good and just.”

The deity asked back in reply, “What did you do on earth when you were alive?”

The learned man was not able to reply. He knew deep in his heart that he served the anti-deity too.

The deity, while good and just, was furious. “While you think there was a loophole in my justice, while you abused my goodness and forgiveness, while you profess that I am your master, you did all that is opposite of my commands. You confess that I am your master yet you serve another one. You wanted to have the best of both, now you will get none. I reject you as you rejected me. Be gone from my sight!”

The learned man’s soul sadly left the hall of justice and went to the anti-deity’s casino castle.

The anti-deity asked the learned man, “Why are you here?”

The learned man’s soul replied, “I was banished by the deity.”

“Hah! Trying to have the best of both of us! I have no place for you here! Out of my sight!” the anti-deity replied with malice.

And so, without a master, without a home, the poor learned man’s soul roamed the earth forever.

(This is in response, or should I say, another view, on Resty Odon’s essay on Technical Writing.)

When I was considering leaving the academe after three years, I was wondering about what job to take. I finished a technical course (Computer Science) but I dabbled into other fields from time to time. I was part of the school paper for a good three years of my college life (my second college life, but that’s an entirely different story), so I know I can write decently. Immediately after graduation, I was hired to teach computer programming subjects. From time to time, I was asked to teach courses which are esoteric to my field – accounting, for example. And I find it ironic that I was asked to teach Technical Writing, all because the director knew I write well and I had been an editor at the college paper for close to a year. Of course, those are not proper credentials to teach the subject, but I felt confident enough to dive in.

The fact that (1) I know a little about programming and (2) I can write decently gave me an idea. Take the best of both worlds. Yes, a technical writing job. Scrounging the newspapers and online job hunt sites, I found one for a foreign (the vogue nowadays – outsourcing) software company. Yep, technical writer, with a decent salary, incentives, and the prestige of the company to boot (it is a well-known company in the industry it is in).

When people ask me what I do, and when they hear my answer, they always ask back either “What’s that” or “Is there a job like that”. Then, I tried very hard to explain what I do, which is a process that always drives me to exasperation.

Technical writing is so vaguely defined that an online texbook says this:

Technical communications—or technical writing, as the course is often called—is not writing about a specific technical topic such as computers, but about any technical topic. The term “technical” refers to knowledge that is not widespread, that is more the territory of experts and specialists. Whatever your major is, you are developing an expertise—you are becoming a specialist in a particular technical area. And whenever you try to write or say anything about your field, you are engaged in technical communications.

Another key part of the definition of technical communications is the receiver of the information—the audience. Technical communications is the delivery of technical information to readers (or listeners or viewers) in a manner that is adapted to their needs, level of understanding, and background. In fact, this audience element is so important that it is one of the cornerstones of this course: you are challenged to write about highly technical subjects but in a way that a beginner—a nonspecialist—could understand. This ability to “translate” technical information to nonspecialists is a key skill to any technical communicator. In a world of rapid technological development, people are constantly falling behind and becoming technological illiterates. Technology companies are constantly struggling to find effective ways to help customers or potential customers understand the advantages or the operation of their new products.

And a lot of people have a wrong conception of what a technical writer does. Take, for example, my previous job. I didn’t get to write anything at all. The Web page credits someone else. And rightfully so, for he or she had written that. What I did, and others like me in that company, was to check other’s work for grammar and readability, place HTML tags on them, and then publish these on the Web. It was more of an editing job than writing.

To reduce on cost, the company plans to automate the process, so I left.

What does a technical writer do? It depends on the situation. Right now, I have a wide span of responsibilities. I write, rewrite, and/or revise product manuals, quickstart guides, SDKs; I make content and design changes to our company Web site; and I might even participate in the redesign and coding of the company Intranet.

For others, it might involve reading a very technical document and creating a more readable document out of it. For some, it is more of an editing job, like how a writer submits his work for editing before it is published. For others, it might mean reporting about something technical. You see, in this context, a newspaper or magazine reporter who writes specific things about a specific technology can be a technical writer.

A programmer who writes documentation for a project that he does is a technical writer. An engineer who writes a report on how a network outage started and how it is resolved is a technical writer. Heck, even a lawyer who writes about the constitutionality of screening blog comments is a technical writer.

The job is a lonely one, with very few interactions with other humans, and most of these interactions are through instant messaging and email. Face-to-face interaction is very rare; it only happens in meetings. It involves facing a computer for eight hours or more. It involves deadlines, document formats, last-minute changes.

And a technical writer doesn’t have to think about an ending to a story. =P

Finally, I saw a complete episode of The Explainer last Tuesday. The topic was “Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances“.

When she saw the show, my mom said that there should be a Filipino version of the show and should be shown on ABS-CBN Channel 2. Normally my mom doesn’t watch shows like this; in fact, she skipped Calla Lily just to know something about presidential vs. parliamentary system. People need to know this, specially since Sigaw ng Malacañang insists on the change of system of government.

(Ironically, in a break, a Sigaw advertisement was shown. More later.)

I find the host moving from a plasma screen to a blue wall (was it blue?) rather distracting; my mom said it was irritating at the very least. Since the cameras couldn’t really catch up with the host’s movement, the transitions were jarring. Can’t they design the set so that the two walls are at 45 degrees? That way, all the host has to do is to make a small turn, making transitions more smooth.

Also, I feel that the explainee was just a token, with her questions obviously scripted. Which is not bad, per se, but the delivery was so dry. And the interview portion was rather sad. You have an articulate host, and you have a guest who is almost tight-lipped (I am exaggerating); my father thought that the interviewer was more knowledgeable than the interviewee. Too bad I missed Teddy Boy Locsin; he is so articulate and talkative, you will be sorry if you missed one word.

The content was great, and with sources being cited, the viewer can always verify and see for himself. That is, for me, the beauty of this show.

I find one hour to be too short for a good topic, thus the frantic pacing of the show. And also, the timing of the replay remains to be desired. It will probably take a while before I see another episode, since the time slot guarantees that I will be on the way home by that time, and by the time of the replay I will be sleeping already.

Overall, the show was great (minus the glitches stated above) and informative. This is clearly the kind of show that the people should watch.

I found the Sigaw ng Malacañang advertisement to be tacky and foolish. In the said ad, a girl was shown giving her grandmother a mug, then the grandmother looked at the mug given by her dead husband back when they were still you. The old mug was shown to be broken, with pieces joined together by glue. Then, the grandmother was shown placing the old mug besides her husband’s picture at a display cabinet, and showing gladness with new mug. When asked by the granddaughter if she liked the mug, the grandmother said yes.

Then cue in the Sigaw catch-phrase: Pagbabago! Ngayon na! Yes to Charter Change!

Now, more than ever, I feel that the so-called people’s initiative being led by Sigaw should not be heeded.

By comparing the Constitution to a mug, the Sigaw group is showing the simplistic thinking of its leaders. A broken mug is not the same with a Constitution that some see as faulty. Charter change is not as easy as buying a new mug. The comparison was ridiculous.

The so-called Sigaw was questioning One Voice’s source of funding. Now we – the people – should begin to question Sigaw’s funding.

If there’s something that needs to be changed, it is to change the brains of people like Raul Lambino. If I was his law professor, I would be appearing in all talk shows, beat my chest, and shout Mea maxima culpa for allowing such a character to see the light of the law. In fact, Lambino is the same as any politician that holds office in the Bastusang Pambansa – balimbing to the core.

We really need to change our selves. And our leaders.

The sleeping quarters were full, and I don’t want to go home then come right back here in the office. So, what I did is to see Superman Returns at Eastwood City Walk 2 Cinema. It was a good movie, it took three hours out of my waiting time.

So how is the movie? It is an action movie, with very long scenes that could have been taken out by an editor for superfluousity. I mean, there are scenes that do not really contribute to the advancement of the story, and these scenes should have been taken out. Well, at least it lasted that long.

On the technical side, it was terrific (the movie employed more than seven effects houses). I only have one beef. Watch carefully the scene where Superman falls from outer space. There was this shot where he is dropping towards a park. Watch closely, since the effect was obvious. Come on, the true measure of a good visual effect is that it should appear natural. That scene is surely unnatural.

Soundtrack – John Ottman did a good job of not reinventing the wheel and instead used John William’s indestructible and obviously Superman theme. Heck, he even used William’s Superman love theme. However, I am not really impressed by Ottman. In X-Men 2, the only track that I liked is the opening titles. Here, the choral track is great, the others are so-so, you wouldn’t even realize there is a sound track. And thankfully, there’s no song either in opening titles nor in closing credits.

The design of the Superman costume is so gay. Just look at the belt buckle, and that teeny-weeny S logo in the chest. And Superman is now low-waist, emphasizing a long torso. And, most controversial of all, the bulge. See for yourself and decide if it was deemphasized.

Brandon Routh is technically a Christopher Reeve lookalike, but he did well for this film, specially in the scenes where he is Clark Kent. I find Kate Bosworth unfit to be Lois Lane. I dunno, I don’t see her as leading lady material. As for James Marsden – basically, if you find Cyclops in X-Men 3 wimpy, his character in Superman returns is basically Cyclops without the glasses and the mutant powers. Maybe it’s in Marsden’s style of acting.

Kevin Spacey is brilliant as usual, but his character Lex Luthor is not as cunning as he was presented in the Reeve-era Superman, in the cartoons and in the comics. Luthor is so out of character, that I find it hard to believe that he was Luthor.

I think the movie is great, but you better see for yourself. A good way of spending 3 hours if you have nothing better to do. Trust me.

BTW, I am already awake for more than 24 hours.

It seems that Christian indoctrination really works. Scary date.

Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code had stirred a minor controversy when it was released years ago. The movie is far more controversial, and most thinking people asked – what’s the fuss?

Here’s a roundup of the blogosphere’s comments on the book, the movie, and the controversy. My reactions later.

• Atty. Ted Te blogged that “it is ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES TO COME OUT THIS YEAR!” (He wants to be quoted on this.) Then, in reaction to this INQ7 news item, he called the book burning as a form of censorship and a throwback to the time of burning of witches.
• Manolo Quezon says that watching the movie “was a complete waste of time and money”.
• Dean Jorge Bocobo has several entries: Never Underestimate the Power of Story-telling, The Taliban In the Manila City Council, and
  The Da Vinci Code, the Mohammed Cartoons, and Being Consistent. Very erudite man, I tell you.
• The Village Idiot Savant asked, “Dan Brown, where is thy sting?“. The entry led to an interesting discussion between DJB and the blog writer, plus reducing the brouhaha into C# and Visual Basic.NET codes (I love them! Brilliant! I am reproducing them below.)

I have never read the book, nor seen the movie. So I won’t comment on those two. I’d rather deal with the overblown, sensationalized, and irrational reactions made regarding the movie.

Those members of the clergy who called for the ban of the movie are insulting their parishioners when they called for the ban. The call implies that the laity cannot distinguish fact from fiction, that their faith is brittle enough to be easily persuaded by a work of fiction.

The actions of the officials of Legaspi City and Manila are, at best, irrational. DJB has rightly termed City Hall – the Taliban City Council. The Constitution specifically states that the State shall not prefer any religion, yet City Hall acted as if the movie was an affront to the official religion! I agree with DJB, their actions are culpable violations of the Constitution!

The MTRCB thought that it had made a Solomonic decision when it gave the movie R-18 rating, in order to please both sides. Well, you can buy the DVD/VCD later on, or read the book. So whether they ban it or give it a restricted rating, it doesn’t matter. So there’s nothing Solomonic about the decision.

The DVD/bookburning is the most extreme expression of irrationality and silliness regarding this issue. Reminds me of the Inquisition – one of the blackest stains in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. And that controversy about the Rizal Bill. What’s next? Burning Dan Brown at the stake? Behead him?

And the naysayers had given the movie so much publicity. So the more they ranted, the more watched the movie out of curiousity. Very nice. Rant all they want, and Dan Brown laughs his way to the bank (yeah, I know, cliche).

This issue has made one thing clear to me – we as a nation are vacillating between two extremes: tradition with its conformity, and modernity, which calls for challenging all known norms and beliefs. We know now that the traditionalists in general do not trust that we ordinary folks can think for ourselves. What a shame, indeed. What an insult.

The REAL Da Vinci Code:

In VB.NET:

Namespace DVC

Public Class DaVinciCode
Inherits HolyBloodHolyGrail

‘ Set values, later to be overridden by Dan Brown method
Private monksInOpusDei As Boolean = False
Private jesusMarriedMaryMagdalene As Boolean = False
Private existenceOfPrioryOfZion As Boolean = False
Private bibleCollatedByConstantine As Boolean = False
Private nicaeaCreatedDivinityOfChrist As Boolean = False
Private gospelsLaterEditedToSupportClaims As Boolean = False
Private cupMissingFromLastSupper As Boolean = False
Private saintJohnNotInPicture As Boolean = False

Public Sub Book()

While (peopleWillingToBelieveAnything And christianBashingAcceptable)
bookSales = bookSales + 1
movieHype = movieHype + 1
danBrownsBankAccount = danBrownsBankAccount + 1
historicalAccuracy = historicalAccuracy – 1
artHistoryAccuracy = artHistoryAccuracy – 1
skepticism = skepticism – 1
badWriting = badWriting + 1
If (asLongAsItIsNotTheVirginMary) Then divineFeminineSupport = divineFeminineSupport + 1
Dim mainStreamMediaChallengeCredibility As Boolean = False
Dim excuse As String = “It’s a fictional book”
Dim action As String = “Spend hours writing to debunking books complaining that ” & excuse
Dim seeContradictionSpendingTimeDefendingFiction As Boolean = False
For Each outlet As media In mainStreamMedia
Dim freePublicity As Boolean = True
Dim notPointOutObviousFlaws As Boolean = True
Dim dontOffendMuslimsAtAllCosts As Boolean = True
Dim christianBashingOkayThough As Boolean = True
Dim misrepresentOpusDei As Boolean = True
Dim askIsJusticeScaliaAMember As Boolean = True

Next
End While

End Sub
End Class

End Namespace

In C#:

namespace DVC
{
class DaVinciCode : HolyBloodHolyGrail
{
// Set values, later to be overridden by Dan Brown method
bool monksInOpusDei = false;
bool jesusMarriedMaryMagdalene = false;
bool existenceOfPrioryOfZion = false;
bool bibleCollatedByConstantine = false;
bool nicaeaCreatedDivinityOfChrist = false;
bool gospelsLaterEditedToSupportClaims = false;
bool cupMissingFromLastSupper = false;
bool saintJohnNotInPicture = false;

public void Book()
{
while (peopleWillingToBelieveAnything && christianBashingAcceptable)
{
bookSales++;
movieHype++;
danBrownsBankAccount++;
historicalAccuracy–;
artHistoryAccuracy–;
skepticism–;
badWriting++;

if (asLongAsItIsNotTheVirginMary)
divineFeminineSupport++;

mainStreamMediaChallengeCredibility = false;

string excuse = “It’s a fictional book”;
string action = “Spend hours writing to debunking books complaining that ”
+ excuse;
bool seeContradictionSpendingTimeDefendingFiction = false;
foreach (media outlet in mainStreamMedia)
{
bool freePublicity = true;
bool notPointOutObviousFlaws = true;
bool dontOffendMuslimsAtAllCosts = true;
bool christianBashingOkayThough = true;
bool misrepresentOpusDei = true;
bool askIsJusticeScaliaAMember = true;
}
}
}

}
}

StarTrek.com has announced that Star Trek XI is in the works with J.J. Abrams of M:I3 slated to produce and directed. And what was rumor since Star Trek VI is now fast becoming true – it is a PREQUEL! Guess who will play the young Kirk, Spock, and McCoy?

The Fortress by the Pasig has declared the late Fernando Poe, Jr. as a National Artist for Film. (ABS-CBN News, INQ7)

Awardees include Bienvenido Lumbera for literature (whose selection was subject of a controversy), Ramon Obusan for dance, Benedicto Cabrera for visual arts, Ildefonso Santos for architecture and Ramon Valera (posthumous) for fashion design.

Awardees will be given a medallion at a ceremony in the Fortress on June 9.

Will Susan Roces attend? Abangan!

Wrestlemania 22 is now history. Go there and see the results.

And finally, Bret Hart was inducted in the WWE Hall of Fame. It’s about time, and there was even a point in history that it was almost impossible to happen. The Montreal Screwjob was really a turning point in WWE’s history; it was really a low point yet the company utilized it to get back to the ratings game. It worked.

Anyway, Hart deserved the induction. He is one of the best technical wrestlers there is; if the wrestling shows are not scripted, he would win most of the matches.

We Filipinos tend to settle for the mediocre; this is best exemplified by the phrase “Pwede na yan” (that would be Ok). This characteristic was again reinforced when I sat down as a member of the panel that checked on software projects of several students.

When I am about to begin expressing my sadness over the mediocrity of a project, I ask the students to sing the first two lines of that James Ingram staple, Just Once:

I did my best,
But I guess my best wasn’t good enough

And after singing, their eyesights go to the floor. I have made my point.

Then I begin my comments, from asking probing questions to exposing false arguments and glaring mistakes. I appear angry, but deep inside I feel so frustrated and sad for them. For most of them did good software projects, but they tend to do shortcuts, thus making the entire process suspect. They had the right idea, but they always fail to express them. Even if you ask them leading questions, you’ll get unsatisfying answers. Obviously, they did not prepare well; some of them crammed (who didn’t, anyway?).

One time I asked a student why did they made the project; the answer didn’t shocked me. He said that he made the project to comply with the requirements for graduation. I always ask that question; never in four years being in the academe that I have heard a student answered “To excel”.

To excel. To do your best. When I was a teacher, I never fail to exhort my students to do well, for that value is highly prized in the workplace, and it will do you wonders. I tell them to never settle for 100%; if they think they have reached 100%, I tell them to aim for 101%. I tried to instill in them the passion for never settling for anything less than what their talents and skills can achieve. I always feel heartbroken to see a student fail to realize the potentials that he has.

The culture of mediocrity that hovers over us is palpable. We are always criticized for settling for the mediocre, from the work that we turn in to the leaders that we elect. We abhor quality audits and quality monitoring for it exposes our weaknesses, our laziness, our mediocrity syndrome. We enjoy watching love stories being repeated in variation ad nauseam in the television. The evidence is there, loads of them.

I have a theory why we had turned out this way. I think Jose Rizal had already touched on this issue. I think it was because we don’t live in a society that values merit over relationships. We had all have experienced, in one way or another, how a deserving person was bypassed for promotion because that person had not enough connections. We had seen a student self-destructed because his performance was not recognized, in contrast to what happened to the teacher’s pet. Why aspire for the best when it will not be rewarded anyway?

No wonder we are a society of mediocrity.

It is time we end this senselessness. It’s time we value merit as we value relationships. It’s time we tell our students that effort is not enough. It’s time to tell our leaders that we want transparency and good government. It’s time that we ask our actors to be actors and not hearthrobs. It’s time that we tell ourselves “Di na pwede ang pwede na” (It’s not OK to settle for less).

When was the last time you worked on something and did the best that you can? Isn’t it about time to do so again?