Chris Kochesky - My Two Pesos

It has always been perhaps the most common debate amongst pet owners, the whole "Which makes a better pet, a cat or a dog?", but is there any validity in this argument? Is one animal considerably better than the other or is it merely an issue of opinion. In my seaches on this subject, I have found valid arguments for both sides demonstrated in a very scientific manner and others which take on a much more comical opproach to validate their side. I will take the former approach rather than the latter as it is difficult to take someone seriously when their discussion is laden in sarcasm and insults towards the other side. This is, without a doubt, a classic example of the proverbial "apples and oranges" comparison, of which I am unable to fully understand as they are both delicious fruits and both have there place in a balanced diet. Likewise, cats and dogs are both intelligent mammals that make wonderful pets and have their place in any loving family.
With all the above being considered, a search on this topic is usually not for the purpose of helping one to decide which animal they would prefer as a pet. Instead it is mostly for the purpose of strengthening their opinion towards one side or the other. Being that cats and dogs are the two most common household pets, most people have been around them their whole lives and already know the differences between the two. We're not talking rocket science here, we're taking common sense, but it's still enjoyable to make the comparison anyway. However, if you are one of those people that greatly dislikes one and loves the other, you are more than likely dismissing the positives of the other, unless of course your experience is limited. If that is the case than it is unfair to make judgement when you have no basis for an accurate comparison.
TRAINING AND HOUSEBREAKING
Personally, I grew up with both dogs and cats and currently have a dog and two cats (and six fish) and absolutely love them all, even so I still do have an opinion of preference backed by valid arguments. First, I will start with the subject of training and housebreaking. Dogs, on one hand, have an advantage here as they are able to be trained with relative ease compared to a cat. Dogs can be trained to do "tricks" and be obedient in order to appease their master(s), a welcoming asset indeed. While it's great to have a dog that obeys and can do tricks, I don't think of this as being an advantage necessarily as compared to cats. Where a dog requires training in order to be a good pet and can become ruined without it, a cat, on the other hand, doesn't have those same requirements. Housebreaking a dog can often be a long and messy process, where as a cat will instinctively find a place to dig and bury their refuse. In general, all that is required to do with a cat is show it the litterbox and the rest is history. Even after housebreaking a dog, there may be the occasional "accident" which can be quite an annoyance, especially if it becomes more than occasional. In my dog's case, the door to the patio is always open and there appears to be absolutely no reason for this type of behaviour, thankfully it's not an issue any more. Perhaps it's a plea for attention or a spiteful act but despite the reason, it's an annoyance to say the least, one that you should never encounter with a cat (as long as you keep a clean litterbox). The other side to this is that dogs can be trained far more easily than a cat which can be considered a sign of respect. In my house, I am the alpha male and my dog Kiko respects that and (usually) obeys my commands. It is this respect and obedience that makes dogs so desirable. Cats do whatever it is that they want to do with no regards to you as they are much more independent and see you as more of an equal than a master. However, it is their independence that often makes cats so desirable, they are low maintenance. I'm going to have to give this round to cats for their low maintenance, instinctive litterbox behavior, and for the fact that they don't require training. While you may have to coax your cat to use the scratching post instead of your couch, this is a minor offset in my opinion. You may argue that since this is the subject of training and certainly dogs being more trainable should win this category hands-down, it does take time and patience to achieve a proper-mannered pup. All that is required for cats is a little attention and a clean litterbox.
PERSONALITY
I feel that the personality of a cat is closer to our own personalities and cover a wider gamut of emotion (emotional intelligence) than a dog. This can be seen by the various, and almost schizophrenic, mood changes that a cat shows thoughout the day. A dog's mood and personality seems to be more predictable as they are either placid and relaxed or energetic and playful most of the time. Yes, I know that they experience fear, sadness, boredom, etc. but with less shades of grey in between as compared to a cat. This is not my opinion but my observations and I am not alone on this. This diverse emotional intelligence gives cats an edge when it comes to communication. A dog barks in only a few given scenarios at most whereas a cat will actually talk to you, the question is "Do you know how to listen?" If you only use your ears than "I'm hungry" will sound the same as "pick me up Daddy" but the clues are in the body language. Sometimes it's hard to tell what cats are saying or what they want but I find their communication far easier to understand than trying to read the blank stares of a dog. Some people may consider this to be ludicrous and disagree with my observations but you may take this with a grain of salt, it is coming from my personal experience and from that I derive that cats are easier to understand. Of course, it may be taken into account that this is no fault of the dog, I may not be able to read them as well as other's can. One thing that scares me about dogs is that they have an irratic side that comes out when they feel threatened, you just don't know what they'll do next. When you offer your hand to a dog to greet them so they can get to know your scent, are they going to bite you or offer you their paw? This is a threat that you will likely never encounter with a cat because when a cat is scared or threatened, they will run away or give a tell-tale sign (hissing, arched back with raised hair, etc.) that they want to be left alone. Being that dogs are pack animals, it is imperative that they are able to communicate with other dogs and it is this social behavior that makes dogs so vastly different than cats. With a dog you get huge doses of unconditional love and affection, often times too much, but this is part of why they are considered to be man's best friend. A dog's attention, affection, and loyalty are second to none. Also, it is much easier to gain a dog's trust than a cat's, cat's are very picky and spread their love and affection carefully and evenly. Again, I think this makes a cat's personality closer to that of a human's. I have met some people with dog-like personalities and let me tell you, it's annoying to have a loud, over-excited person constantly in your face, trying to get your attention- most people are not like that and with good reason. I admire the independence and communication skills of a cat but also love the playfulness and loyalty of a dog. I am going to have to call this one a draw. This is one of those categories that is entirely dependent on the personality of the owner. I have always considered myself a cat person but dog's are more fun in general even if their affection and playfulness is excessive at times.
INTELLIGENCE
Unlike the personality argument, this one is much easier to measure in scientific terms. Sorry dog lovers, cats are measurably more intelligent- yup, it's true. I'm not just talking about the higher emotional intelligence of a cat, but actual IQ which has been proven in a battery of different tests. Ok dog lovers, before you get yourselves in an uproar you must consider the definition of intelligence to which I am referring. When I say measurably, I am talking about how we, as humans, measure intelligence through traditional IQ tests, those concerned with memory and problem solving. A cat is very adaptive and can quicky adjust to it's situation and surroundings using some of the keenest set of senses with perhaps the broadest perceptive ability in the animal kingdom, stronger even than our own. This not only makes for a better solitary hunter but allows a cat to know where they are at all times. It is not unusual for a cat to find it's way home from miles away and I have even read about a cat that did so from nearly 3,000 miles away. I don't think that this story was an exception, I believe every cat has this same ability. Dogs, on the other hand, can get lost on the same street that they live on and would really only be able to find their way home after seeing something they've encountered numerous times or catching a familiar scent. This is because a dog's greatest sense is that of smell, a cat's greatest sense is the sum of the whole, all senses working in perfect balance and harmony. To be more precise on what I mean by "measurably", I will include a quote from http://www.itchmo.com/thanks-for-the-memories-cats-and-their-ability-to-remember-2423 stating; "A test comparing memory retention of cats versus dogs (that age old rivalry) was conducted by Dr. Maier, professor of psychology at the University of Michigan and Dr. Schneirla, curator at the Dept. of Animal Behavior, American Museum of Natural History. Both species were shown a number of boxes and taught that food could only be found under one box with a lighted lamp on top. When the training was completed, researchers lighted the lamp briefly. To test the animal’s memory, the researchers prevented them from going to the box for a period of time. Cats returned to the correct box as much as 16 hours later, exhibiting a power of recall superior to that of monkeys and orangutans. The dogs’ recall lasted no more than five minutes." This is just one example of a cat's superior memory but the problem-solving side of the debate proves to be a bit harder to measure. My cats have always been able to open doors and will go for the handle if the door is latched while my dog will just sit there and whine, waiting for either me or my wife to open it. There is no doubt that intelligence can be measured any number of ways but as far as tangible intelligence as we know it goes, cats definitely have the upper hand. I have read arguments in favor of dogs and they just aren't convincing enough to me. Some psychologists say that dogs are more intelligent because they have a more complex social structure. We as humans have both loners and social butterflies and agreeing with the above hypothesis would be like saying that a party girl is smarter than a writer who spends their days inhabiting a cabin in the middle of the woods. To be fair and not totally go off the beaten path, many species of fish live in schools and I don't think that they are any smarter than the species that don't, it's merely a survival instinct and nothing more. Common sense is another area of intelligence which can be interpreted as instinct and both cats and dogs have there respective instincts which cannot be compared, both are winners for different reasons. To sum it all up, cats are better problem solvers with better memories and dogs are better at understanding people and their emotions. Dogs have been with humans much longer than cats and have a better understanding of us in general but I don't think cat's will change with time, cats are cats and they aren't going to change their ways for us, we will change for them if anything. Again, the advantage here goes to the cats for conclusive evidence showing their superior memory and problem solving skills.
CLEANLINESS
Well, here's an easy one. Cats are definitely cleaner than dogs, almost to a point of compulsiveness. Dogs are wonderful creatures but damn they're dirty. If you have cats, you will notice that they are always cleaning themselves and it shows. Indoor cats never have any offensive odors eminating from their bodies aside from their stinky breath. Dogs however, require bathing at least twice a month (we bathe Kiko once a week or more) or else they will just plain stink with greasy textured hair instead of soft. Even if your dog never rolls around in the grass or in waste (which they absolutely love doing), they will still develope an offensive odor. I believe that this is because a dog, much like a cat, will bath themselves with their tongues. Why cats don't stink because of this is beyond me but it may have a lot to do with the content of their saliva. A dog's saliva contains natural anitbiotics which help heal open wounds and repel parasites, perhaps this is the single cause for the offensive odor- a great evolutionary adaptation if not the most pleasant. Dogs also are living garbage disposal units, they eat anything and everything. I can't say that this is always a bad thing but I have caught Kiko eating cat vomit, hairballs, droppings out of the litter, dirt and plastic. Indeed, dogs are disgusting creatures. Some people will say that cats smell worse, more specifically their litter, but if the litterbox stinks than the obvious solution would be to scoop it or change it- problem solved. Hair can also be a problem with both cats and dogs and I don't think that either one has any advantage over the other in this department but I do find more cat hair on the floor, funiture and my clothes than dog hair. This is, however, a breed specific issue as Kiko is a short-haired breed that sheds very little. Obviously, longer haired breeds will be much more problematic. One last problem to be considered is that of drooling, dogs generally drool more than cats. This is usually minor except in some breeds, like Saint Bernards for example, whose mouths flow like small rivers. My cat Manny does drool but it is rarely anything more than a drip or two. On the topic of cleanliness, cat's can celebrate an overwhelming victory.
SERVICE
This area goes to the dogs, exclusively. Dogs are natural born protectors, guards if you will. Your dog will instinctively protect you and your house 'til the day they die and are happy to do so. I mean, who needs a security system when you have a dog, that would be overkill in most cases. Dogs have been used for generations to serve and protect and have a vast range of breed-specific talents that benefit mankind. With dogs, the master's wellbeing comes before their own, a demonstration of selflessness to the extreme. Cats are only looking out for themselves, except in rare cases- very rare cases. A cat will only help you if it benefits them in some way but that's not to say that they wouldn't if they knew how, it just isn't in their instinctual behavior. I live in the Philippines which is a very dirty, trash-ridden country with an overwhelming cockroach and rat problem but in my house, it's no problem at all. This is where cats have their purpose, keeping out unwanted intruders of the smaller kind. I have had cats give me baths on my head, arms, and legs and it is truly an honor to know that a cat cares for you and views you as one of their own but this really isn't a benefit of service and falls into the personality category- a trait that they share with dogs. Again, this is a no-brainer, dogs win this one with ease as their service-oriented and protective benefits are very numerous to say the least.
By looking online you will find that this is an endless and futile debate and some people just plain have it all wrong. From what I can see, people seem to think that cats are anti-social and pretentious but I have rarely encountered this in most of the cats I've owned. In fact, I think quite the opposite. I've had fun cats, shy cats, smart cats, etc. and while each and every cat or dog has their own unique personality, I think that cats are much more diverse and are as different from one another as humans are from one another. Most of my cats are home at my parents house and I miss them dearly but the two that live with me here are no slouches. In fact, my cat Manny is, without a doubt, the coolest and most interesting cat I have ever encountered. I would be as bold as to say that his personality is head and shoulders above ANY dog I have ever known. He plays fetch, tag, hide and seek, play fights with Kiko, can fish change out of the change jar, sleeps in my pants when I'm on the toilet, verbally alerts me when Homer (my other cat) escapes from the patio, climbs up doors and windows and even wrestles with me without getting pissed off- been doing that one since he was a kitten (see video "Psycho kitten" @ http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.myvideos. Not only that but he is also more talkative than any other cat I've known. If you think that cats only meow when they want food, well...you're wrong. My cats usually want to say hello and often they make great alarm clocks and rarely let us sleep in. They are truly exceptional cats but take into consideration that I raised them by hand and spend all day, every day with them. If you want to see the full potential of your cat, you must spend as much time with him/her as you would a dog. It's often not a fair playing field for cats because people seem to think that because cats are so independent, they don't need as much attention. This attitude could be the very reason why people think cats are snobby and anti-social. Homer, my other cat, was no where near as playful and friendly as Manny when he was a kitten and finally after several months, all of my love and attention has paid off- he is a total sweetheart, following me around, rubbing against my legs and talking to me throughout the day. In fact, he pays more attention to me than even my dog Kiko, as strange as that may sound. None of this should be taken as an insult to Kiko, he is a great dog and my wife and I always feel that we've been blessed to have him. Of course, we spend a lot of time with each and every one of our animals (even our fish) and they gladly return the favor. With animal care you simply must follow the "What you give is what you get" ideology or otherwise you will have a sub-par pet and wonder why you were cursed with a dud. In conclusion, both cats and dogs have their strengths and weaknesses and it really comes down to personal preferrence. I am a cat person but I definitely love Kiko equally as much as Manny and Homer. What dogs lack in grace and cleanliness, they more than make up for in friendliness and dependability. What cats lack in playfulness (with people) and obedience, they more than make up for in gentle affection and intelligence. Whichever pet you choose, be happy with your choice and give them all the love and attention they deserve. If you choose to have both, do not show favoritism and always remember, what you give is what you get.

4 comments

HIV not R.I.P.

Monday, November 24, 2008 2:22:17 PM

AZT, HIV conspiracy, cause of AIDS, Koch's postulates ...

It's no secret that a global epidemic is sweeping the modern-day world by storm, the AIDS epidemic. I am not going to go into specifics about what the disease is for a number of reasons. Firstly, most people have known about AIDS since the late 80’s and early 90's when it became headline news and continues doing so today. Television commercials everywhere warned of the dangers of "HIV- the virus that causes AIDS." Secondly, I cannot tell you precisely what AIDS is because the worldwide medical community cannot (or don’t want to) tell you what AIDS is, more specifically what causes AIDS. I cannot speak for other countries, but I know in the US, it was commonly taught in schools (and everywhere else for that matter) that HIV is the cause of AIDS. There are, however, many glaring problems with this "theory." There has never been any substantiating evidence to support this theory. You have to ask the question “Why does a positive test result for an HIV antibody test mean that you, in fact, have HIV which will develop into AIDS at some undetermined time in the future?” Does that make any sense to you at all? If it does, then HIV is the only virus that has ever existed that goes against Koch’s Postulates. How can something be reactivated after the body is already immune to it or after it has been lying dormant in the body for years? The reality is this, the presence of HIV antibodies means that you are immune, not that you have HIV that will become reactivated at a later date and develop into full blown AIDS. On the contrary, a positive test result is actually a good thing, it means that you will never get HIV because either you have already had it and your body fought it off, you inherited the immunity from your mother, or you currently have HIV (don’t worry, it’s a harmless retrovirus). HIV is a very hard virus to transmit and is extremely unlikely to be passed from partner to partner in the act of unprotected heterosexual intercourse. It is important to protect yourself when engaging in a promiscuous lifestyle against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and HIV does not fall into either classification. Suffice to say, the entire planet has been scared to their wit’s end over a theory that can’t, and never will, be proven. When a virus enters the body, it starts to cause damage almost immediately, basically as soon as it finds a suitable environment to multiply. In the case of a strong immune system, a virus will multiply, initially causing illness, and then be destroyed by the T-cells of the body, resulting in immunity. A virus CANNOT LAY DORMANT IN THE BODY AND REACTIVATE ITSELF (in a healthy immune system and without sufficient concentrations to cause an outbreak or infection), it's NOT POSSIBLE!!! *I had to revise my previous statement to include the additions in red as it was brought to my attention that Herpes, in fact, can reactivate itself. The difference being that this only happens in a compromised immune system (some people are only carriers and never have an outbreak) and even in advanced cases of AIDS, the HIV virus is never found in concentrations significant enough to cause infection...if at all as in many cases where HIV isn't even present.* And for HIV to lay dormant in the body for 10+ years before reactivating itself is absolutely ridiculous. And how does it magically transform itself into AIDS? Also, why don’t all patients diagnosed with AIDS have HIV+ test results? After all, according to Koch’s Postulates, “1) The organism must occur in each case of a disease and in amounts sufficient to cause pathological effects; 2) The organism is not found in other diseases; and 3) After isolation and propagation in culture, the organism can induce the disease in an inoculated host. Failure to develop symptoms after inoculation is a sign the organism is not the active agent of the disease.” HIV fails as an explanation for being the causative agent in AIDS for all three rules above. This supposed HIV epidemic is on the rise not because more people today are actually being infected, but because we are now rigorously testing for it on a wide scale. HIV is a retrovirus and being as so, it does not attack the host cells. It can live inside the body for the remainder of it’s lifetime but lives an uneventful life, not causing harm to the host. If HIV were as deadly as to cause AIDS, the onset would be very fast. All deadly viruses kill the host cells and develop rapidly unless immunity develops. At worst, one can initially expect minor flu-like symptoms within 1 or 2 days after being infected with HIV…..that’s all. Additionally, how can HIV produce such a widely varied range of symptoms? Before HIV was discovered in recent years, each of these 25+ symptoms (diseases) currently associated with AIDS were individually and independently diagnosed. Today, when any one of these symptoms exists in the presence of a HIV+ test result, AIDS is the diagnosis. How can one virus be so potent when lab results say otherwise? In a nutshell, the HIV/AIDS connection was not the result of exhaustive scientific research; it was due to scientific misrepresentation and falsification by a certain Dr. Robert Gallo. This man is personally responsible for perhaps the largest medical science mishap in human history and is not being banned and censored as he should; he is being rewarded and awarded, held to the highest degree as a modern day hero. No respectable scientist supports his claims and theories and those who seek to reveal the truth and disprove his theories are the ones being censored. “Why?”, you may ask, well because the truth is not profitable. There are far too many people making far too much money for this atrocity to become public knowledge. “So, what causes AIDS?” AIDS is a degenerative condition of the body from a compromised immune system. This is not something that happens overnight, but over a considerable amount of time and for any number of reasons. Those who contract full blown AIDS are usually in a high risk group for certain behaviors that could leave the immune system in a perpetually weakened state. These high risk activities include the use and abuse of intravenous drugs, amphetamines, alcohol, antibiotics, as well as trauma caused by excessive promiscuous sexual practices and unsanitary sexual practices like anal intercourse or malnutrition (AIDS cases in Africa). However, the most likely of these actually being causes for AIDS are the ones that involve substance abuse or any other activity that progressively breaks down and destroys the immune system. Often, those involved in promiscuous sexual practices are also involved in substance abuse. Due to this, the cause cannot be determined with exact certainty. Only in a controlled scientific study could this be determined but those who try to get funding to disprove the current HIV/AIDS theory are turned down and often ridiculed. One study suggested the that male homosexuals are at high risk due to the persistent ripping of the rectal walls during anal intercourse, possibly allowing large amounts of bacteria into the bloodstream, only to repeal the idea when further studies showed a common denominator amongst many of these homosexuals, high risk drug use. Only when a proper study can be performed, to determine exactly what kind of behavior and activities cause AIDS, will we know the truth. Do I expect this to happen? Not any time soon. Now here’s a little something about AZT and other “treatments” for AIDS. AZT was banned from use prior to the HIV epidemic explosion due to its extreme toxicity only to reappear as a treatment for HIV and AIDS a few years later. These substances are highly volatile to the body and WILL KILL YOU after prolonged use. AZT and other HIV medications are given to prevent the onset of AIDS but, in fact, do the opposite- THEY CAUSE AIDS. I will say that again, AZT CAUSES AIDS. Why would you be prescribed such a dangerous drug when you are perfectly healthy? My belief is that excessive drug use and abuse wears down the body and immune system to such a degree after a certain period of time, that the body cannot recover- its resources for fighting off even common illnesses are gone. THAT, my friends, is THE cause of AIDS. AZT and other supposed HIV drugs are not an exception and actually many times worse than any drug you could put into your body, legal or illegal. Listen up, if you are diagnosed with HIV, DO NOT TAKE DRUGS PRESCRIBED FOR HIV OR YOU WILL DIE!!! If they try to force you, they are taking away your civil liberties and your freedom of choice pertaining to you own health. HIV is not a death sentence and if you are required to take an HIV test for any particular reason, refuse. An HIV+ result will cause you to be red-flagged and listed on an online directory of HIV patients and you won’t be able to get any decent health care plan if you don’t already have one. You are better off leaving the country (hey, you always have an ally in the Philippines…..me). Open your eyes people, you are being intentionally lied to for the sake of profit. Don’t be scared anymore and don’t become a victim, HIV IS HARMLESS AND DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS!!!

Here's a few more resources that support my claims in further detail:

http://www.duesberg.com/index.html

http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/cause/index.htm

http://www.duesberg.com/media/ebhiv.html

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/books/abbtoxic.htm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/137183/hiv_does_not_cause_aids_says_christine.html

http://www.ram.org/ramblings/science/HIV_AIDS.html

http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/hiv-does-not-cause-aids.html

...and a couple videos for those of you that don't like to read:

"HIV = AIDS: Fact or Fraud?"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6830231400057553023

"The Other Side of AIDS"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-266890172132861595

These are just a few of many that support the fact that HIV does not cause AIDS. Look around and you will find the truth behind the biggest medical/pharaceutical conspiracy of our time.

1 comment

The Reproductive Health Bill and Separation of Church and State

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:24:47 AM

separation of church and state, population control, Catholic Church, poverty in the Philippines ...

The Philippines is a democratic republic with a similar governmental structure as the United States. This design has proven to be a success here as people, in general, have the freedoms to do as they wish- legally speaking. Of course, not all things good and logical have been adopted into this stucture. I am speaking of one thing in particular, one of the best ideas the forefathers of the US Constitution have implemented, the separation of church and state. Essentially, separation of church and state keeps religion out of the schools and out of the government, keeping it where it belongs...the church. The church has no business being involved in government politics as it is a completely separate entity with it's own governing set of rules. This goes for the public school system as well. If I want my child to learn about religion and to participate in group prayer while in school, I will send them to a private school. School is designed for learning FACTUAL knowledge, not religious theories and beliefs that can never be proven as fact. The church is not designed to be a governing body, it is designed as a means for reaching spiritual enlightenment and participation in such should remain a personal choice, not something that is forced upon you. If I choose to go to college here, should I be required to take (and pay for) a course on Christianity if I myself am a Buddhist and know that taking such a course would be a waste of my time and money? Absolutely not!!!, that's absurd but yet is required at many colleges in order to earn a degree. This brings me to my main point, the negative impact of the Catholic Church against the passing of the Reproductive Health Bill. If you have been living in a cave for past year then perhaps you are unfamiliar with the RHB, however since you are obviously online right now let's assume that you at least know something about the bill and the opposition it's facing (unless of course you are not a Pinoy or are not currently living in the Philippines). If you are anything like me, you are fairly happy that the process is continually being stalled, giving women a little time, at least, to make (some of) their own educated decisions pertaining to their rights as a woman. Unfortunately, the longer the final decision is delayed, the longer women must wait for sexual equality and sexual freedom but, for now, some of these rights and freedoms are still intact from a former bill which is why I say "fairly happy" in the previous statement. If the RHB is rejected, it will send women's rights in this country back to the stone ages by repealing the rights given in the aforementioned bill and taking away so much more, a reversal in social progression . It's the 21st century for god's sake, hasn't humanity evolved past this point? Someone please enlighten me, what is wrong with teaching sex education in the schools? I had sex ed twice, once in 5th grade and again in 9th grade, and I turned out just fine. I am 30 years old with no children and no sexually transmitted diseases. Don't get me wrong, I do want kids....someday, just not now, I would like to continue my education and get a good career first so as to not bring another child into the world of poverty. Also, what is wrong with giving women a choice? If you use artificial contraction, you are NOT killing a life, but that is what the Catholic Church would like you to believe, in their own words. "Artificial contraception is not natural" you may say, well neither is a population that is growing at such an alarming rate (most being in poverty stricken areas of the Philippines) that industry can't keep up with the growing employment demands and the environment cannot supply enough natural resources for this kind of exponential growth. How can it be justified to take away these choices (rights) while watching those most affected suffering and struggling to support 10, 12, 15 children on a paltry salary without offering any substantial aid to these families. A woman has a right to know and a right to make an informed decision about her own body and her future. I am not even referring to abortion here, I am talking about prevention. Me and my fiance' do not want children yet, and with good reason, but if it weren't for the education that I recieved when I was younger, we most certainly would have children and would be struggling and suffering as well. Now to speak of abortion, if a woman is raped or a young girl makes a mistake (due to a lack of education) and has unprotected sex and gets pregnant, should they be forced to go to term or, even worse, to get an illegal abortion on the streets in an unsterile environment from an illegitimate surgeon- risking their life in the process? President Arroyo is obviously against the bill but isn't extremely vocal in her opposition but seems to be a resonable person that is conflicted due to the huge controversy surrounding the bill. What everyone must understand is that family planning is something that is a part of our modern day world and is absolutely necessary. Without it, you will have problems far beyond what any opposition could ever be able to justify such as a population which lacks the education, time, financial means etc. to support those they bring into this world and without the means to protect themselves and others against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, many of which can be passed to the fetus, newborn, or infant before, during or after birth. I mean, how can you give proper care and attention to each and every child when you have more than you can afford, financially and emotionally? How can you have a population which engages in premarital sexual practices without a way of controlling the spread of STDs/VDs? How can you plan for a family (or plan on not having a family) if you have no choice in the first place? In other words it's excessive, uncontrollable breeding, of which can be brought to sustainable and justifiable levels with family planning. Now, I don't want to look at children as just numbers, certainly not, but uncontrolled population expansion at the current rate will only hurt any potential chance of this country eventually freeing itself of poverty and obtaining that so desired dream of "20 years 'til first-world status". The Catholic Church is the biggest obstacle in the passing of the Reproductive Health Bill and has gone as far as to threaten and blackmail members of Congress to vote on the Churches' behalf against the bill. Are threats and blackmail the words of God, or men and women of God? Aren't they suppost to practice goodness and compassion? I really don't see how threats and blackmail fit into this. Personally, I think that they are HIPPOCRITS and are not looking out for the best interest of the many, only the few- themselves! The Reproductive Health Bill is a GREAT IDEA and is only receiving opposition due to a lack of understanding and from brainwashing from the Catholic Church. Their statements of opposition are not the words of God speaking through them, they are only humans, like you and me, and shouldn't cross the lines of what is a "Church" matter and what is a "State" matter. Please consider what I have said and help support the Reproductive Health Bill, it's your future at stake here, the future of your children, and the future of the Philippines.
UPDATE:
I recently found the petition against the Reproductive Health Bill online and thought I'd share it with you and give you my thoughts.[/FONT]

To: Congress of the Philippines

We strongly oppose the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043) for the following reasons:

1. AS EMPLOYERS, we do not want to be compelled to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to our employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or a fine, for every time that we fail to comply. (Section 17 states that employers shall provide for free delivery of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers more particularly women workers. (Definition of Reproductive Health and Rights Section 4, paragraph g, Section 21, Paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties)

2. AS HEALTH CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or a fine, if we fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving information on family planning methods and providing services like ligation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient's civil status, gender, religion or age ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraphs 1 to 5 and Section 22 on Penalties)

3. AS SPOUSES, we do not agree that our husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without our consent or knowledge. (Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraph 2)

4. AS PARENTS, we do not agree that children from age 10 to 17 should be taught their sexual rights and the means to have a satisfying and "safe" sex life as part of their school curriculum. (Section 12 on Reproductive Health Education and Section 4 Definition of Family Planning and Productive Health, Paragraph b, c and d)

5. AS CITIZENS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against any provision of this law, if such expression of opinion is interpreted as constituting "malicious disinformation" ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Paragraph f and Section 22 on Penalties)

6. We also oppose other provisions such as losing our parental authority over a minor child who was raped and found pregnant (Section 21, a, no.3)

7. We also do not agree to the provision which reclassifies contraceptives as essential medicines (Section 10) and appropriating limited government funds to reproductive services instead of basic services (Section 23)

Thus, we urge you to immediately stop deliberations on the bill and stop wasting taxpayers money.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned
[/SIZE]
NOW MY THOUGHTS:
1. With the ridiculously low average wages and salaries nationwide, it is imperative to provide these services to your employees. You may find it an unjust and unnecessary expense but you could not be further from the truth. Would you rather have to pay your employee severance pay while they are pregnant and unable to work until potentially months after the birth? Or perhaps to fire this employee for their inability to continue working due to their pregnancy, possibly resulting in a lawsuit? Or to keep them working up until pregnancy and risk possible complications to the mother and/or baby? These inclusions will inevitably complete any decent health care package making an employee's working conditions suitable and sustainable- a healthy employee is a happy employee and a happy employee is a long-term hard worker and asset to any company. Would you rather have to pay excessive health care bills for your employee when they need medicine and hospital care for an out of control sexually transmitted disease or would you rather provide them with cheap pieces of plastic(condoms) which would prevent the pain and suffering and medical expenses. Or perhaps have to increase a worker's salary as their current wage is not sufficient enough to support their ever-growing family.
2. Is this one a total joke? As a health care provider it is YOUR JOB to provide this information. Your job is to look out for the best interest of your patient and if they so desire information on family planning you simply must provide it. Shit, I would have you arrested in a heartbeat if I or anyone I know was turned down for any of these necessary services. A vasectomy or tubal ligation is not a very expensive procedure and would help the prevention of any future pregnancies with a couple that doesn't want or need any more children. Why bring another unwanted child into this world if it can be prevented? Plus, this should all be things covered in a health insurance plan which the employee's company pay's for(which comes out of the employee's pocket anyway in taxes)- Hey Philippines, welcome to the 21st century, these things you speak against are a part of modern day life and have survived the test of time in all other societies that have implemented them, so stop being cheap-ass bastards and care for the people you serve and who serve you.
3. As an adult, you are entitled to make your own decisions regarding your own body and no operation (unless in the case of a life or death situation where the spouse is unable to speak for themselves)should require the authority or co-sign of the spouse. It is up to the couple to discuss any future plans regarding this topic and not the hospital or clinic. If a spouse doesn't discuss this very important topic with their significant other- that's THEIR problem. A loving couple should discuss these matters as it is the morally correct thing to do and has nothing to do with legality.
4. Alright, I have to put this in quotes, "the means to have a satisfying and "safe" sex life". That is NOT what sex-ed teaches you in school. It teaches the basics of the reproductive system, pregnancy, hormones, STDs/VDs, prevention and protection, etc, etc. I know about this firsthand I had sexual education twice in the states, once in grade school and once in high school and I guarantee that none of you who are speaking out against this had sex ed in school and therefor don't know what the hell you're talking about. They don't teach you anything about having a satifying sex life, in fact, they teach you that abstinance is the best idea for many reasons, not "How to give good head 101."
5. Well, if you are spreading "malicious disinformation" than perhaps there should be a price to pay. I don't believe that the statement above is accurate as that is comparable to taking away a person's freedom of speech which is legally protected by the constitution. The truth with set you free, not lies or "malicious disinformation".
6. Well, this is a tough one. The child is a minor but rape is a very adult crime and pregnancy is very adult situation. Parents should have a right to know but not necessarily to decide what they think is best for the victim. A girl who is old enough to become impregnated from a rape is old enough to decide on her future, certainly for something as large as pregnancy. Having a child could ruin any chances for her to finish her education and get a career not to mention being reminded everyday of the horrible crime committed against her. If you are the parent of a pregnant rape victim and make her have the baby against her own wishes, you are potentially ruining her life and your relationship with your daughter. She should have that right in such an unfortunate circumstance.
7. I think that this one was probably taken out of context above because it really doesn't make much sense to me. Contraceptives in many regards should be considered essential medicines, I can agree with that in the same way I would view vaccines, they prevent something that is unwanted or undesired which could be harmful to the wellbeing of the patient. I would like to know more specifics that refer to these basic services mentioned above. If government funds are being used for family planning and not basic medical services than this country has a lot more problems than I thought. Family planning should be A PART OF health care and not a replacement for any other very essential parts of the whole. A well-rounded plan is necessary and I don't think that the government would consider reproductive health care before basic health care. Again, I will look into this further but the above sounds very much taken out of context or misquoted or something. They probably don't expect their supporters to look any further into the matter as they have already decided what they support and could care less about whether their information may be misleading. I really don't give a damn about those against the bill, I care about those who read through all of the sites, blogs, and articles in order to find out as much as they can so as to make an informed decision on whether to support the bill or not. [/SIZE]

2 comments

A Declining Peso Can Actually Be Good Sometimes

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:19:02 AM

philippine peso, OFW, ex patriot, Philippine industry ...

I know what you must be thinking, "This guy is fucking crazy!", well in some regards you would be correct, but not in this case however. Of course, I am not saying that it's all good, there's two sides to every coin but, being an American ex-patriot who makes dollars and not pesos, please hear me out on this one. Yes, you can already guess why I support a declining peso value, it means more money in my pocket but there's more to this issue than just the obvious. Keep in mind that there are millions of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) all over the world that send money back home, money that is a major contributor to the overall economy here. When that money has a more favorable trade value, it buys more pesos- pesos that will go right back into the economy. Generally speaking, when more money flows back into an economy the stronger the economy will be. Don't think that I am not considering the negatives such as foreign exports costing more, I am not forgetting that but where is the majority of these exports coming from? I don't have exact numbers on this but I know that China is a major player. Just think about that for a second, Chinese goods or as I like to call them "Piece of Shit Chinese Garbage", look at powdered (toxic) milk for example, are the most commonly imported goods in this country. These are among the poorest quality goods on the entire planet and this country is buying them up like crazy, well, many countries are so that so many megastores can score a quick profit. I used to see goods selling in the US with the "Made in the Philippines" label and would assume that it was all the same, just like the "Made in Taiwan" or "Made in China" labels. Basically I thought that if it was made in Asia, it was cheaply made crap. Well, I know now that this is not the case as Filipino export goods are actually of good quality overall. The problem with the economy here, as I see it, is that the workforce is mostly based in the service industries. You know what I'm talking about here- call centers, nursing, hotel and restaurant management, etc. This is the result of so many foreign (mostly American multinational) corporations "outsourcing" jobs to other countries in order to save them money which, in turn, takes away jobs from the host country. The focus needs to change in order to see any real improvement in the economy, that from a service-based economy to a manufacturing-based economy. One thing that I noticed after having lived here for a while is that Filipinos are very mechanically inclined and good with their hands- it seems to be a gift that most of you are born with, us white people aren't quite so lucky in that department. This plays out in BOTH the service and manufacturing industries. Something else I have seen here, which I find quite disturbing, is the growing unemployment rate and the extreme lack of jobs. Overqualified people with degrees are practically fighting for jobs that even a monkey could do. Why the hell would you need an associates degree to be a cashier?- that's fucking ridiculous. With the population of the Philippines continuing to grow at an alarming rate, poor families having 10 or more children, what does the future hold? If there aren't enough jobs now what will happen when all of those children grow up and have their own families to support? OK, I know I'm getting a little sidetracked here but it all goes towards my original point. If you are a member of one of these grossly oversized families, how can you expect to go to college so you can get a rewarding career or perhaps become a successful entrepreneur- I'm not talking about a street vendor here. Well, much of the power lies in the OFW. Take for example if a OFW sends 100USD home to his family every month; When the dollar is only worth 40 pesos, that family only gets 4,000 pesos each month but when the peso value is less, like 50 pesos per dollar, that family gets 5,000 pesos per month. That extra money can be used for anything from more food and new clothes to a college fund savings account so the children born into these families can have a chance at a better life than their parents. The quality and diversity of programs offered by institutions of higher learner are on the rise and yet a quality education overall seems to be more of an option than a necessity. This extra money can be used for just this purpose. It does appear that the economy is improving but not at the rate that PGMA (President Arroyo) would like you to believe. I will say it again, in order for the economy to improve, the focus of industry must change and a larger manufacturing industry is paramount. This will create many more jobs, decrease the dependency on foreign manufactured goods and increase Filipino exports, all adding to the GNP dramatically. More Filipino exports means more money coming into this country, it's just that simple. If the peso has a lower trade value, the exports sold to other countries will bring in more money overall if, of course, the county importing the Filipino goods is buying with their native currency. Perhaps there are pieces to this puzzle that I am missing, my research isn't as extensive as it could be but this is all to be taken as a synopsis of my overall impression. I am not a rich man by any stretch and a low peso has allowed my monthly pension to go from a low of around 14,000 pesos to a high of over 17,000 pesos and it all goes back into this economy. I know how hard it is here and that is why I "Share the Wealth" and buy most of my necessities from the smaller guys ie. street vendors and small, family owned stores, periodically changing who I buy from so more people can benefit from my patronage. I have some good ideas up my sleeve and have noticed that there are many things that just plain don't exist out here or are in low supply. Obviously a demand for something must be present but how can there be a demand if the product or service is rare or non-existent? There is so much potential for new (domestic) goods and services here that the possibilities are nearly limitless. I intend, someday, to bring my ideas to life and grace their presence upon the Filipino people. I want to do my part in improving this economy and will hire employees based upon desire and potential and not necessarily education. We have to break the cycle- if someone really wants a job, they should be able to get a job without having to worry about age/height/education discrimination. My wife actually got turned down from a job because she is only 4'11" tall and they require that you be 5'2"- talk about fucked up! I pledge to anyone who currently owns a business or is planning on owning one to take this into consideration. If someone is bright and energetic with a genuine need and desire to work to the best of their ability, HIRE THEM! You don't need a degree to be a cashier or a merchandiser- that's just silly, and you should never age or height discriminate. Why would you need to be 22 years old or younger to serve pizza at Pizza Hut? At 22 years old and younger you are just a kid, give jobs to responsible adults with families. I not only pledge to do this when I open my own business(es) but will spread my ideas like a virus. Please let me know what your personal feelings are about any part of this blog, I appreciate any comments, criticisms or concerns and welcome any joint venture invites or partnerships. I may not have the wealth but I have the ideas and the initiative. Let us all work together in the common goal of making the Philippines the next first-world nation in Asia and give our children and our children's children a chance at a brighter tomorrow. It begins now, with us!

3 comments

Why is America the fattest nation in the world?

Thursday, November 6, 2008 10:10:09 AM

food industry deception, weight loss, organic diet, america's obesity epidemic

I have been living in the Philippines since June of 2007, and in this time I have lost a great deal of weight and have undergone a nearly complete transformation of my body's composition. Just to give you an idea, in 2006 I reached my all time high weight of 230 pounds at just over 5'10". Suffice to say, I was fat and for the first time in my life I could have been considered "obese". I was round everywhere but the weight gain was mostly evident in my face and belly, the latter being equal or larger than that of my then 8-month pregnant sister. My energy was low all day long and I had hardly any energy or motivation to go out with my friends not to mention exercising which seemed out of the question at that time. I did manage to lose some weight after getting a job which required me to be on my feet and moving around all day. I had gotten down to a weight of around 210 pounds which was actually quite a bit less than my heaviest weight while in the Army of 221 pounds. Doesn't that strike you as odd that I weighed that much while doing Army physical training twice a day, each consisting of one-hour sessions? It certainly did for me, especially when I was truly, sincerely trying to lose weight and not merely "half-assing" it. Finally, in late May of '07, it was time for me to be re-united with my long time, long distance girlfriend in the Philippines, only this time it was to be for a much longer stay.

Once in the Philippines I immediately began to lose weight almost magically. I figured that it was the extreme tropical heat of Manila that was causing this weight loss. Within the first 6 months, I had lost about 10 pounds, bringing me to around 200. While this may not seem like much, you should know that I did almost no physical activity as my days consisted of mostly internet research and watching television. In early January, we moved across the highway to a much less expensive, and consequently less convenient, part of Manila. It was here where I lost even more weight going all the way down to around 185, a weight that I haven't seen since I was 23…. over 7 years ago. I did a lot more walking in the hot midday sun and often the elevator was not in service forcing me to walk the stairs, The weight loss was certainly inspirational and I soon began working out at the gym and running stairs at my apartment building. This went on for a month or so, ending when other distractions started coming into play. Of these was the monthly financial burden of living in the city that we still hadn't been able to overcome. In early June '08, we decided that we were moving to Baguio, a beautiful provincial city in the mountains. The difference between the capital city of Manila and Baguio is like night and day. You would be hard-pressed to find as much as a tree in Manila and here in Baguio I am completely surrounded by nature. After having only been here in Baguio for 1 month, I had lost an additional 11 pounds bringing me to a weight of 174 pounds by early July. My activity level was increased and walking for an hour or more was done on a semi regular basis. Most of my food shopping is now done at the city market, rather than the supermarket, which consists of acres and acres of food stands with produce, meat, rice, etc. from local farms. My diet now is quite healthy but far from what could traditionally be considered "ideal". I still eat fried chicken, beef, pork, snack foods, etc., but I also eat a lot of brown and red rice, fish, fruit, and lots of vegetables. Aside from the meat part, my diet is not much different than the vegetarian foods I was eating while living at my parents house from October 2005 through late May 2007. While living there, I was almost completely vegetarian, only eating meat once or twice a week. Oddly though, I failed to lose any weight during that time aside from the weight loss that occurred from my increased activity level at my job. I have been thinking about all of this for quite some time now and I couldn't make much of it, it just doesn't make sense. I am no longer in the blazing tropical heat of Manila, (Baguio averages 75 degrees during the day with very little humidity) and haven't changed my diet and yet I am still losing weight. If fact, as I write this, my weight averages between 165 and 169, never going above 170. My face is no longer round, my abdominal muscles are showing but not yet fully sculpted and defined and my love handles are gone. I have some loose skin under my chin that used to be my "double chin". This seems to be the most difficult thing for me to lose but I am confident that I will not be plagued by this superficial skin for much longer. In a nutshell, I now look good and am proud to walk around without a shirt on. Oddly though, my girlfriend Melody does not share this same miraculous weight loss, of course she doesn't have as much to lose from the start anyway but it still is strange that I have lost 45 pounds and she has only lost about 3 or 4. Aside from the fact that I had MUCH more to lose is the fact that she has been living in the Philippines her whole life and I have lived in America for 29 years and just recently moved out to her neck of the woods.

I just recently read a book by the title of "The Weight Loss Cure THEY Don't Want You To Know About" by Kevin Trudeau. If you haven't heard of him, he is an award winning author of several natural healing books that expose the corruption of the food, drug, and diet industries in America. As an insider, he has first hand accounts of the extreme corruption of these greedy, evil corporations. Basically, these industries work together in making Americans fat and sick, beginning the endless cycle that nearly 80 percent of Americans continue to suffer through day in and day out. These 80 percent are those that are considered to be "overweight". Sorry people but the synonyms fluffy, chunky, big-boned, pleasantly plump, etc., are not accurate, you, in fact, are fat….sorry! Some health professionals will say that it's not your fault and some will say that it is your fault. In general, it's the former and not the latter that are correct. We are poisoned daily by hormones and antibiotics in our meat, pesticides and herbicides in our genetically altered "hybrid" produce, and are exposed to thousands of dangerous chemicals in all of the foods that we eat, the worst being prepackaged foods which contain MSG, artificial sweeteners, and preservatives, all designed to make you addicted, fat, and sick. The food industry sells this nutritionally void, chemically contaminated and addictive food to you, making you fat which leads you to turn to the diet industry, an industry that sells nothing but a bunch of worthless crap, all of which never solve the root problem of your "disease". It is no secret that fat people are not healthy and get sick often which, in turn, increases the medical and pharmaceutical industries' profits. These industries and corporations are designed for one thing, profit, and could care less about your health. They want you to remain as a lifelong consumer of their products and have crafted this diabolically deceptive system to ensure that their profits continue to increase. The truth is that it's not the fat, cholesterol, protein, carbs, etc. that are making you fat, it's the man-made chemicals in your "American" food that are making you fat- I SHIT YOU NOT! You do not have to be a vegetarian to lose weight and in some cases it's actually worse to be one. Prepackaged veggie burgers are much worse than eating 100 percent organic beef burgers (which aren't bad at all), no where near as tasty, and are swimming in man-made chemicals, most of which are not required to appear on the label. I believe that human beings are omnivorous and living a vegetarian lifestyle may have repercussions not yet seen. If you eat a 100 percent organic vegan diet, more power to you, I however disagree with the philosophy of vegetarianism for health. If you are vegetarian for purely spiritual reasons, "eating a living creature for any reason is wrong", well, I respect that greatly. However, if you are vegetarian out of a concern for the environment, that is also admirable but ill conceived. You see, the rainforest is being destroyed for raising cattle, not organically raised cattle mind you, but for the "mass produced" cattle to be used for huge multinational fast food giants like McDonalds. Organic beef comes from naturally raised cows on small farms which would mostly otherwise have been put out of business by the commercial farms if it weren't for them finding a "niche" audience with organic foods. This niche audience should not be a niche at all; everyone should be eating this way. This will not only support the "small guys" but will reverse our adverse health conditions and will give the message to the food, drug, healthcare, diet, and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the government, that we are not going to believe their lies any longer. We have been eating an omnivorous diet for thousands of years with no apparent health issues. It has only been in the last 40 or so years that the obesity epidemic has surfaced and the dangers of toxic meat have been an issue. Vegetables from the supermarket are equally as bad and all food, unless certified 100 percent organic, is toxic and WILL make you sick. The food I eat here in the Philippines is organic and contains all of the nutrients that you would expect each food to contain in nature. There are no genetically altered vegetables and no hormones or antibiotics in meats. Farmers here cannot afford the pricey chemicals used on American farms and only use what they have access to, natural fertilizers like manure and compost. Nearly all foods here are as nature designed them to be, delicious and nutritious. My weight loss was not incurred by tropical heat or long walks, although those do help, it was because the food I eat is free of toxins and my body is finally "clean". I love America but am constantly disgusted and outraged by the things that go on behind closed doors. America is not a country, it's a corporation designed to make money at the expense of the average, unknowing citizen. This is just one example of how our government and all major industries deceive us, making our loyalty, trust, and patriotism a BIG FUCKING JOKE. They are laughing at us all the way to the bank and there isn't a damn think that we are going to do about it aside from educating others of these grave injustices through the only free, uncorrupted medium left at our disposal, the world wide web. I encourage all of you who have just read this to do your part to re-educate yourself and others and break free of the oppressive control of all areas of life. Society will crumble but humanity will live on. Those with the knowledge are those who will be prepared and survive the collapse. Peace, Love, Unity, Respect!

*UPDATE*- As of late October 2008 my weight is now down to 154 pounds, the same amount that I weighed as an 8th grader, 17 years ago. If you know me well and know what I used to look like in recent years you would probably assume that I look anorexic or something. Well, you could not be further from the truth. I have completely rid myself of that superficial skin under my chin and am nicely toned overall. I have begun lifting weights again and should, with time, get back much of the muscle that I had when I was 23 and working out everyday (I was a pretty big boy then at 190 with 16 inch arms and a 45 inch chest). So yes, I am a little smaller but when the muscle returns I will be pretty ripped as I have gone from around 27% bodyfat to just over 10% bodyfat currently and still losing. [/FONT]