The UFC, or Ultimate Fighting Championship, as seen on pay-per-view and some cable channels, has become the most popular mixed martial arts organization. It’s become more popular than the NBA playoffs (as shown by number of viewers), and apparently even HBO’s 2006 PPV boxing matches. If you aren’t familiar with MMA (though I doubt it), it’s free-form caged matches — bloody, brutal, ugly — all in the name of sports. This is what some dub as “real fights”, because since there is no fixed way of doing things, you really have to rely on your instincts, quick thinking, skill, and hope your body’s tough enough to take the relentless blows. This is a totally different level of fighting. 

Depending on your way of thinking, the above picture could either be simply surprising, liberating or it could be disturbing. Female fighters in an MMA arena — one about to deliver a heavy punch, and the other in the fetal position. What do you think?

FFF stands for Fatal Femmes Fighting. It’s a female MMA event, where apparently some females with otherwise ordinary lives have are getting their excitement. To quote one of the fighters:

“To be able to potentially break somebody’s arm is pretty cool for me.”

Umm okay. First yes, let me admit that I’m NOT a fighter (most I’ve done is punch a boy in 3rd grade) nor am I all that athletic. I don’t have a terribly exciting life, but it isn’t all that boring either. UFC president Dana White (male), says that they have no plans on making a female division, and that he doesn’t like the idea of girls beating each other up in cages. Is it condescending, sexist even? That’s surely how some, especially Fatal Femmes, choose to see it.

But there’s something odd with these matches, in my opinion. Even the men will say that these all-female catfights are “more brutal, more barbaric” than those in the UFC. And that quote up there is something that brings shivers up my spine.

Have we been so consumed by the image of weakness that society’s associated with us, that we so hungrily jump at this opportunity to demonstrate power? It does sound barbaric, it does LOOK barbaric, and in some lights and angles, it doesn’t even seem like a sport anymore.

I’m not a follower of MMA, so I do hope this doesn’t apply to all fighters. When we demand respect, I hope we don’t overdo it. I hope that’s really not what this is about.

Technorati tags: ufc, fatal femme, mma, martial arts, fighting, ppv

[Click to see full-size. From http://www.zanetti.net.au]

I remember a canned tuna commercial I saw a few times on TV, they showed pictures of an abandoned console, an empty mall, and other abandoned stuff. Basically they were what we commonly perceive as things that kill society. They showed the people instead having fun at a huge park. While that’s not exactly what I have in mind with this post, I guess it’s a good illustration for my real point. But let me start with a question. By whose standards is going to the mall and playing games a bad thing, as opposed to running and having picnics in the park?

Before you react, please read on.

I actually really want to talk about the Internet. My work right now is very focused on the internet, and the moment I get home and into my room, I turn my laptop on and check my mail, my blog, my other emails, my friends’ blogs, some social networks, and when I’m done with that I start chatting with some people who are on Yahoo Messenger. Basically, I live a pretty internet-based life. And maybe you, reading this, are in the same situation.

Does that make me antisocial?

Social networks. As of now I’m in 4, but I’m only semi-active in one, because I’m usually lazy to do what the others are doing. It seems more like a highschool/college thing to do anyway. But it’s there, and when I check, I do sometimes find something worth noting — a friend’s birthday which otherwise I wouldn’t have remembered, a relevant announcement. Blogs. Only a handful of my friends actually tell me what’s going on in their lives anymore. They usually just post in their blogs, and expect me to read, and whenever I do catch them and ask how they’re doing, they usually say something like “Oh that? Well, it’s in my blog.”

Personally, I find no offense in that. I myself, evidently, am a blogger. Just when I thought that there couldn’t be anything more basic than the blog, Twitter came along. And the common sentiment from those in line with certain canned tuna commercial makers is simply, “What ever happened to human contact?”

On one hand, I agree. I grew up in a small town where you didn’t have to “set” playdates for kids, kids were the ones always itching to go out and play with the neighbors. There and then, we loved sitting on the rooftop, watching the stars, singing to tunes on the guitar (I sound so old), and yeah you get what I mean. Where I grew up everyone knew everyone, from the baker, the barber, the old lady around the corner. But since we moved from that place, things changed. I noticed it. I used to think that it was the place, but I realized it was the time. It just so happened that that particular place hadn’t caught up.

Information age, that’s what they call it. Everyone is using the internet, almost anything can be found on the internet, and the internet has replaced some basic social functions — there’s online dating, email, online games, chatrooms. There’s almost nothing left that can’t be “replaced” by something online. It’s inevitable that technology will continue to improve at an accelerating pace, and along with it, transactions and communications.

So in this highly automated world, there’s another way to look at these things that have replaced our normal interaction. The information age can’t be stopped, and everyone’s subconsciously aware of it. While some people view Twitter as suicide of the social being, in a way I see it sort of like the opposite. If Twitter had not come, I wouldn’t normally call or text other people what I’m doing at any point. So if anyone cares, if anyone wants to get this small semblance of a connection with me, they can check my Twitter. And what I don’t normally get to say in person, I get to express through my blog.

So I guess that image up there isn’t too appropriate, so consider it pure satire. Point is, with everything that’s going on in terms of technology, it seems like although physical human contact and presence is ideal, these things aren’t actually what kill the social web we so humans need so badly. To me, they actually seem like desperate attempts to hold on to it.

Technorati tags: blog, internet, network, antisocial, society, life, twitter

Let’s say you had some home-cooked spaghetti, with your choice of cheese on top. It smells really good, and you’re really hungry. What do you look for first?

I sure hope you didn’t say “iPhone”.

For all the hype that built up over the iPhone, it was a categorical certainty that many would be disappointed when it came out, no matter how well it actually worked. And surely enough, after buyers camped outside the Apple Store to finally get their own (they looked like homeless people with Macbooks and TVs, I tell you), the common sentiment leaned first toward “Finally!” then to “It looks so cool!” and THEN to a disturbing “What the..?”

As far as reviews go, the iPhone is still doing well. But while probably only 1 out of 10 reviews are bad, it’s those that really get my attention. Don’t get me wrong, I do want it, but reading about it has got me thinking about why some people were disappointed in the first place, and why there are still those adamantly negative reviews.

It’s revolutionary, and that’s a given. If for anything, it should be honored for stepping outside the box, for being a breakthrough gadget, for not just being a cellphone, and so on. So what are the cons? No 3G support, no memory card slot, no GPS, no MMS, you can’t install programs other than those from Apple, no Java or Flash support, no voice dialing. Also, the AT&T network gives average call quality, and the really sub-par EDGE system makes for slow connection. So I’m thinking, aren’t these pretty basic stuff? But hey, it has MySpace integration, a flashy interface and it’s oh-so-pretty. MySpace integration. Seriously now.

I don’t get it. For some reason they thought MySpace integration and the other unnecessary-but-netizen-relevant stuff are more important than having good calls and a good connection to go with all the good stuff to see WITH the connection.

Maybe they held back for future versions, but the way I see it, it’s like they developed a fork that can send email, but has shorter tines. The spaghetti-eating experience isn’t that great, but hey, at least you can email your mom about how good the pasta is.

Technorati tags: iphone, technology, myspace, apple, fork, at&t, edge

I’m an avid reader of TIME magazine, and a few months ago, I realized something. It seems like they’ve taken an active stance in this age-old debate about God, science, and the origin of the universe. Before I go any further, I state this just to set it straight—I’m a firm believer in Creation and in God. And I will not deny the purpose of this entry. I do hope that doesn’t stop many of you from reading on.

In one of TIME.com’s own blogs by a certain Michael Lemonick, the topic of discussion has gone from the Origin of Life to the Big Bang, and while I wouldn’t dare pass myself off as an expert, I do have a reaction to one of Lemonick’s arguments, one that I’ve heard and read already before.

But as I’ve often said, lightning was once an argument for the existence of God(s), until we figured out the real cause. It may be that THIS time we’ve come to the final impasse, and will have to invoke God as the cause. But I prefer to wait and see what the smartest theoretical physicists in the world can do with the problem first. They’re on the case.

I’d also like to quote a Jim Hill, commenter on the same blog:

If research, as expected, continues to turn up nothing for the foreseeable future, then your allegation becomes a matter of BELIEF or FAITH, because you have no data to back up your allegation. I could allege just as easily that God created life at some point, which becomes my BELIEF and FAITH. Because you have no data to contradict me, we have a real standoff.

Well here’s what I think. I’m not saying that the studies on the Earth and animals, but there’s something funny about the picture I saw from those two quotes alone. I noticed that pattern (or should I say, habit) from those who unshakably stand by science AND against the belief in God. I suppose it’s difficult not to invoke our ignorant past like that. Let me help out a bit—they arrested Galileo for saying the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe, they refused to believe Columbus when he said the Earth is round. It’s always been the church against science. One disproves, or ridicules, the other.

Basically, we always think that it’s those who believe in Creation that are so close-minded. Well, what I find odd is that those who believe in science seem to be so quick to accept what scientists say, as long as they present enough scientific jargon to back it up. For instance, the infamous Theory of Evolution. Many believe that this is the consensus—that every self-respecting scientist should believe this, as it is the only theory that makes any sense at all. In fact, it’s often regarded as fact.

But what most people don’t know is that many scientists (highly credible ones) believe Evolution to be a “fairy tale”, or something either highly improbable or plain impossible. Of all the tens of thousands of mutations known to man, even those that Evolutionists themselves use to defend the Darwinian point of view, NONE of them are positive. Meaning, not a single one of them (and I invite everyone to test this) improved the quality or efficiency of the genetic code. So how could they say that humans, being as efficient and productive as we are now, evolved from single-celled organisms?

And yet, people so readily believe the Evolution theory as if it were the only thing that made sense. In fact, Creation satisfies far more logical and scientific rules than Evolution does.

So this is what I think, agreeing with what Mr. Hill says—people believe not what makes more sense, they believe what they want to believe. Scientists are human too, despite assumptions that they seem to be infallible and immune to biases, so it’s self-destructive to believe that what they say (or what most of them choose to believe) is the absolute truth.

So if the only real argument that they can give against Creation is that they’d rather not just “throw their hands in the air” credit things to God, then they shouldn’t go around waving it like a sword. It’s a defense, not an offense, and does absolutely nothing to change my mind. Creation, without a doubt, makes more sense than Evolution.

Technorati tags: creation, evolution, darwinism, charles darwin, religion, faith, belief, time, science

Journalists and other people concerned seem to be in an active rebellion against the almighty system that dictates what’s newsworthy and what isn’t. MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski made good use of her airtime to make this clear.

On last Wednesday’s (June 27) Morning Joe, she refused to read the lead story her producer gave her which is about Paris Hilton. She said she’s “done with the Paris Hilton story”, so she took the script, tried to burn it, and when that didn’t work she tore it to pieces. The second copy given to her ended up in the shredder. Later, Willie Geist (the guy beside her on the Morning Joe) had a web-exclusive interview with Brzezinski and noted on the shredder bit (which had been taken out on Brzezinski’s request) that that was a stunt. I quote Geist:

“The journalistic community has heard your statement, and it thanks you.”

She wanted to make a point, and I believe she did that. But what exactly was the point that she made? Don’t get me wrong, being a Journalism graduate myself, I’m certainly not for bombarding dear viewers and readers with Paris Hilton day-in and day-out. I’m certainly not for covering her stunts like we did Hurricane Katrina. We all know she’s enjoying the publicity, and I’m one with the crowd with the whole Paris-is-spoiled idea. But being a fan of irony, I’ve come to present you with an especially tasty one right now.

The effect of Mika Brzezinski’s “stunt”, although very noble (watching it on YouTube, I had to fight the urge to clap while in my quiet office), doesn’t quite hit the mark she should want to hit. Her name is big and juicy now, and many more people than usual will be struggling with her last name, but unfortunately, the all the current headlines with her name on them also have the word “Paris” in them.

Dr. Phil was on The Tonight Show, and he was talking about this irony:

…everybody is just tearing her up and ripping her up and saying that she is exploiting this whole thing. Then why are they talking about it? Anderson Cooper was doing it. I like Anderson. He’s a good reporter, but he’s on there talking about how absurd it is that he spent an entire hour talking about it.

And yet, there he was, also spending time on the issue. Heck, here I am, spending time on this issue.

The way I see it, the thought that journalists and other professionals cannot treat this issue like just any other issue, probably means that it isn’t. To me it feels like people are so adamant against it just for the sake of it, because people do care about it, enough for them to post so many comments on YouTube, enough for them to react. As long as people “fight” the issue, it’s never gonna die. If it’s true that the issue truly isn’t newsworthy, as Brzezinski (I’ve been copy-pasting her name all this time by the way) believes, then it’ll die down on its own.

But not if journalists, and bloggers like me, keep talking about it. Hey, I didn’t say I was blameless, I just said I’d talk about the irony.

Technorati tags: paris hilton, mika brzezinski, msnbc, morning joe, dr. phil, jay leno, the tonight show