Thursday, February 12, 2004

.:On-Air Antics Once More:.

Although my on-air presence has effectively been removed from the Hot 10 by Louie D’s order, I guess things were still pretty okay for me today. We had quite a funny range of topics, and Lee of the Rusher’s Mailing List was actually in the booth for a short while. Nonetheless, I was feeling more or less fine, even though I did get a bit demoralized about this one. Maybe it’s a lack of confidence in my abilities, or some less drastic reason, but the Hot 10 is the Hot 10. It’s the one portion where I really wanted to be able to participate in on a regular basis for the longest time, and now, it’s out of my grasp.

It's been a rough, rough past few days, from the Tower GC, to the bungled contestant... errgghhh...

The off-air conversations with Chico and Delle were pretty fun. We had a nice talk about Survivor All-Stars, as well as the fact that just like Eminem, 50 Cent is anything but a good sport, posturing around the stage after Evanessence won best new artist instead of him. What a rotten sport. Expected stunt, yes. Classy, not even close.

That concept about calling a condom “Frenzy” has got to be plain ridiculous. So is this the standard accompaniment for E? I mean, E is the “party drug”, so since Frenzy is the “party condom”, do they go together, then? In spite of that, the slogan, “Get into it”, is admittedly creative, although Chico had a couple of rather less subtle suggestions…

”Roll it down your p**** and use it.”

“Put it on, put it in.”
(Or something to that effect…)

Today’s Hot 10 was interesting. I guess I can use it as a Top Five in the near future. It’s the “Hot 10 Signs That Your Partner Is In Love”.

I swear. The off-air stuff was probably even funnier than the on-air stuff… Delamar already caught on by now how annoying I found that Hallmark jingle… I mean, how repetitive can these lyrics get, neh?

I remember you/
You remember me/
We both know how good remembering can be...

I’m sure I’d remember most of the lyrics, but apparently, this isn’t 100% accurate. Still, you get the drift. It’s simply hilarious.

Chico was talking about nibbling ears at one point…

Chico: Oh. Nibbling on an ear is n…

Delamar: Were you about to say, “Nice”?

Chico: Hey, I just heard about it, okay?

Off the air…

Marcelle: So when somebody nibbles your ear and tells you it’s nice, that means you “heard it’s nice”, right?

I still am a bit taken aback that Sir Ian McKellen is gay, though. Hard to imagine a man as old as he is, still fixed on that orientation. He doesn’t exactly look as gaudy as Sir Elton John does, now, does he?

Funniest bit on the show when I went on air, though, was when I had no choice but to still participate in the Hot 10. Chico and Delle were talking about a very veiled “Bernardo Carpio”, and then Chico shifted the topic to “Bi-ag Ni Lam-ang” (“The Life Of Lam-Ang”. Sounds close to something pretty off-color in the vernacular, though.). We didn’t know what “Bi-ag” means, although we initially guessed, okay, I initially mouthed “epic”, which Chico mistook for “epilepsy”. It wasn’t before the text messages started coming in…

Marcelle: So I stand corrected then. I’m just a student.

Delamar: Aha! You were wrong!

Marcelle: You guys are older than me. You should know better.

Delamar: We don’t have an I.Q. of 178!

Marcelle: Do I?

Delamar: Apparently not.

I set myself up for that. I can’t believe I set myself up for that. To think that could’ve been one of the few times I could speak during the Hot 10, and I ended up decking myself… heh.

I might not go on air on Thursday, though. I feel so demoralized right now…

.:Hate Mail Again:.

From Hunter (0917-272907):

Marcel, you’re pure nonsense. Christina Aguilera is correct. It’s just a boob. Just shut up, you sound so jologs (lowlife vagrant), you make rx sound baduy (corny) – Hunter, concerned listener of rx.

Bug off, bastich. First of all, Christina Aguilera may have been correct, but she was saying it because she wasn’t exactly the center of attraction in spite of doing similar stunts like that “Dirty” video of hers. With that as proof, I can say without any doubt whatsoever that she had some amount of spite and envy in her statement, anyway.

Second of all, if it’s “just a boob”, what I had to say is also “just an opinion”. So I’m entitled to it.

Thirdly, assuming, not conceding, that I “sound jologs”, that makes you one of the snootiest persons I’ve ever heard in RX. You’re so rich naman siguro so you talk like ganito, dava? And if RX sounds so “baduy” because of me, then my goodness naman, why are you still listening pa? I’m not going to make alis naman just because you don’t make gusto me, eh.

Fourthly, how “concerned” are you, jabroni? Do you pay me? No. You’re a listener that doesn’t give me anything, whatsoever. In short, unlike the full-time DJ’s in RX, I owe you nothing. That’s pretty obvious. And why should RX concern you so much? Does your sperm count depend on it or something?

Considering I’m so hooked on radio myself, I think I just have to say, simply… get a life, jabroni. At the very least, get something better than that pathetic excuse you have for one right now, because people who debate with student trainees on something they really don’t know much about are sure in need of a life, so don’t go having a cow. You curse the radio when I go on air, don’t you? Big deal, get a clue. You can’t see me. You can’t see me. The basics of Thuganomics is that you’re nothing but some annoying twit. You want to run your mouth off, well you reek of… ::points microphone to the audience::

Boom had sensible advice for me about it, though. While it affects you at the start (And it admittedly does right now.), you have to block it off eventually, then take them constructively. Well, I’m not yet there, so I’d rather ridicule them while I find something constructive from their criticism. Dior was all ears about it, though. She’s pretty much doing well at this juncture… good for her.

.:Philosophy Mayhem:.

Kant’s first categorical imperative is simply: “Act in such a way that the maxim of your action could be conceivably willed as universal moral law”.

Therefore, if I want to find out if an act is moral, I have to make a maxim out of it, and see if it can be thought of as a universal moral law. For instance, let us say, stealing. A priori to any circumstances and qualifiers, is stealing a morally acceptable act? The maxim of the act of stealing is, “I should steal something every day.” Translated into universal moral law, it becomes “Every person should steal something every day.” By common sense, if every person steals something each day, then the concept of property rights is undermined. At the same time, there is an internal conflict of logic in the whole setup, as stealing is clearly not congruent with good action, per se, although the exact stipulations escape me right now.

But here lies the problem: what if, say, Mich was thinking about the moral course of action to take upon graduating? She wants to be a journalist. Therefore, the act of becoming a journalist, as a maxim, is “I should become a journalist.” Universally speaking, “Everyone should become journalists.” Is this morally acceptable?

Mr. Bulaong: So Memoy, it is immoral for you to teach Math. So Marcelle, it is immoral for you to teach Philosophy.

There he goes again. But I had a good laugh from this one, though. That, plus the fact that Arthur used this logic to start justifying masturbation, which was a hoot, because he had to formulate the maxim and the universal moral law for the act…

Mr. Bulaong: So what’s the maxim, Arthur? I want to hear this.

Arthur: That I should masturbate at least once everyday. Universally, everyone should masturbate at least once everyday. See, sir? It doesn’t hurt anyone, so no problem.

Ah, but that’s where the second categorical imperative of human beings as ends and never as means would come into play assuming that you do it while fantasizing about someone. At the same time, not all issues can be tackled by Kantian morality. There are issues on pragmatics, ethics, and morality. Only morality should be subjected to Kantian morality (Well, duh.). Therefore, questions like “How do I bake cheesecake?” and “Should I teach Philosophy when I graduate?” are not moral questions. The former is a pragmatic question, considering the “how to do it best” of something, and the latter is a question about self-development (Or otherwise.), which may or may not affect others.

But Arthur just refused to stop, and even jumped to the fourth categorical imperative, even if we weren’t even done with the second. We had questions about lying (Immoral) to save someone from dying (Moral), among other things, and then this. Essentially, Kant’s scope is outside of consequentialism. Really. That’s no longer his area, and yet they still want to apply him to it. And then Arthur rants on and on about how a perfect society, a kingdom of ends, can easily be toppled by a single deviant, like a house of cards. What a faulty analogy. If anything, the more apt analogy is that of the kingdom of ends as the logos, which some may or may not follow. Just because some don’t follow it does not mean that the logos is destroyed.

I guess I understand why Annie was visibly annoyed, as around half an hour was eaten up debating whether or not the kingdom of ends (Which in itself is an ideal that cannot be reached on Earth.) is truly akin to a house of cards. I guess she had every right to complain, considering how it wasted our time, which could’ve been better put to more lectures and the like. Ah, well. It’s like the WWE: the Invasion storyline was really bad, yet that didn’t topple the McMahonopoly, did it?

.:GTO Again!!!:.

They just finished a pretty long story arc about Great Teacher Onizuka, wherein he was framed up by Miyabi Aizawa of embezzling the student funds for the field trip. It was a pretty interesting storyline that showed how great the archetype of “perverted hero with a heart” really works when people try to put their minds into it. I loved this storyline, as now, Miyabi has to recognize that she owes Eikichi Onizuka big time, yet she still refuses to do anything about it. I swear: Miyabi is the kind of character you just want to strangle, for all her meanness towards a person who does not deserve the treatment just because he is in the same profession as the offender. At the same time, Kanzaki is pretty scary when she’s angry.

I have yet to find out what her little secret is, though. Is she a test-tube baby or something, which explains her intelligence? Ah, well. GTO rules, what can I say?

I hope I end up being “GTM” myself, someday…

No comments: