tumpak!

one of my favorite columnists is at it again. he talks about the "work of learning" and i find that this article can apply to arenas outside of the academe. you see samples of critical thought --- or lack thereof, as is often the case --- in television talk shows, in radio shows, in blogs, in chat sessions, in drinking sessions. just about everywhere. the thing is, chat and drinking sessions are loose communication exchanges; no one expects you to come up with a washington post or new york times editorial every minute. you're having fun and if you launch into mind-wracking discussions, these are usually aided by alcohol and lots and lots of mirth.

tv/radio shows and blogs are different, though. people present opinions appealing to credibility --- theirs --- in their most persuasive fashion. between packaging (wooing) and actual content (critical thought), there is a great divide. listen to korina sanchez on her morning radio show and how she lambasts anyone she dislikes. how does she formulate her arguments? only she knows because a lambasting session is not a credible way to build and argument. sensationalism, i say. by simpy using the strength of her name, she is able to sway opinion, which is usually comprised of people who idolise personalities and not convictions. there are bloggers who present themselves as credible analysts by citing their credentials left and right, but a close examination of the issues they examine and the ideas they criticise are often a reflection of their own bull-headed biases. they employ all the tricks they picked up at university (and usually it's poor UP diliman that has all these hacks claiming their greatness because of it) and expectedly, their throng of unquestioning "friends" applaud their efforts and slather on the sticky praise.

it takes a lot of character to sift through the pervasive and intrusive opinions of "friends" and tell them, "you're not getting it quite right." i've had the pleasure of doing this to a strong-headed blogger and found my comments moderated (read: never posted). i did say "in the interest of precision and correctness, of which we are in pursuit..." and well, *benign chuckle* the comment never saw the light of day. i couldn't let this angry ex-legend-in-her-own mind issue blanket statements about catholic universities (especially MINE) when it was plainly clear that she simply did not have all the facts at hand and was relying on hodge-podge advertising techniques to make the claim "ALL universities must be thus."

enjoy this randy david classic by clicking here. in all probability, the people who should take this article's central thesis to heart will be the ones who will miss it (not because the language register is esoteric but because the subtle thought processes involved require sublime engagement --- and this, i doubt, these people can handle). if there's one thing my catholic university professors taught me, it was to separate the crap from the gold. and my dad, truest blue of the blues, told me to do it, well, ruthlessly. i only do that when the utter idiocy of matters is too overwhelming. then, as confucius said, "fuck it." yes, jesuits and their brainwashed lackeys do get the important things right.

the sheer irony of it all. *wink*