In Defense of Internet Explorer

When you are running 90% of all the PCs in the world, it can be expected that all the ill-willed hackers in the world will be after you, searching into all your possible weaknesses and unattended backdoors, and exploiting them to try to bring you down. For this reason, Bill Gates is one big unloved person in the world.

This unfortunately is the case with Microsoft’s best-selling main products.

I have always used IE, since I broke away from the original and pioneering Netscape. And I have weathered through all the “slings and arrows” hurled at my uses of different versions of IE over the years, ably assisted by my trusty and always updated anti-virus, Norton. I do confess that I have not used the open-source alternatives.

To be fair then, IE has served me well over the years from the time it got bundled up with Win95, and thus assured the demise of Netscape.

One little detail I need to reveal. For my PC (from all the PCs that I have connected to my home LAN) that connects to the net, I have stayed with Win98, Second Edition, arguably considered the hardiest of all the WinXX versions.

My rationale has been quite simple. Like open-source whose penetration at present is still quite miniscule compared to Windows, active hackers of the world will not pay too much attention to the older Versions of WinXX knowing that most active PCs are now running the newer versions. Thus, in a very real way, most infections are now directed against PCs running WinXP and the immediately preceding version.

And lastly, for this PC I have kept its configuration as simple, as lean, and as an uncluttered as possible, leaving only the applications and add-ons needed for the purposes why one goes to the internet.

This option is practicable, of course, if you simply have to use, or stay with, Windows. Or you may at present not have the time or inclination or expense to try and go through the learning curve of an entirely new OS.

Blogging: On Being Opinionated

What is indisputably true is that the majority of bloggers create blogs to publish their own views and opinions on essentially any subject that interest them. In that respect, they are not your typical journalist reporting straight news. They act as pundits, dispensing their own opinions or editorializing on matters that pique their fancy. They are therefore your most opinionated group.

 And many will not be shy to remind any reader/commenter straying from the line laid out in the blogs about this sacrosanct right. In other words, their behavior is quite congruent with human nature. 

 As children, we always wanted everyone around us to think, feel, and act like we do, or we balked. We gathered people around us who shared the same interests we do. And even as we got older, we still preferred to be with like-minded people, forming our closely-knit circle of friends. Excluding most everybody else as outsiders. 

 Though, mind you, as mature persons we know that we should not think too highly of all our opinions. 

 That pride is at the center of our avid quest in promoting our own deeply-held opinions. Because we know that we should be open-minded and not too foolish to believe that we know all the answers. 

 Though we have learned to accept that when one listens to others, the better likelihood is that we can learn more, rather than when we are constantly promoting and defending our own set opinions. 

 Though we have learned also that at times, it is the better part of discretion not to express one’s opinions on all the things that are wrong in the world. And that listening and being silent work better toward peace and harmony. 

 That in most times, discussions center on the likes and dislikes of people, and are thus not that important to one’s life. 

 That it takes deep humility and delicate charity to restrain one’s deep urge to correct people and things at the slightest opportunity. 

That because of our inability to control this inclination so much hurt has been inflicted on neighbors all in the name of not compromising the “truth”. 

 That the control of the tongue is in many instances the greater virtue to practice, because we understand that peace is better prepared for in solitude and silence.

Farming In Bukidnon

Nestled at about 1200 meters above sea level close to the foot of Kitanglad Mountain range in the town of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, these verdant scenes of cultivated plots reflect the abundant rainfall in the area.

Needless to say, at that elevation the very cool climate is a very far cry from the excruciatingly hot environment of the City of Cagayan de Oro, which is only about an hour's leisurely drive away.

What To Do

In theory, most if not all of life's necessary lessons are laid out in neat and nice prose that leaves nothing much for equivocation and challenge. When one reads holy or pious books, or how-to books from home improvement to human resources issues for that matter, the prescriptions or precepts for how things are to be done, and done right, are usually neatly cut and dried, making one confident and self-assured in meeting the challenges of dedicating oneself to human perfection. Resolves usually are strongest and most determined at the start. They only start to wane when one proceeds with the execution of the tasks resolved to be undertaken.

The unnerving demands of reality start to make dents the minute one is confronted with the application of lessons that one thought would be relatively easy to apply and execute. Then confusion and doubts begin to eat away at one's being, evoking questions as to whether one has the wherewithal or constitution to do certain things right.

One finds that even the most resolute of determination one could possibly muster cannot match the ambiguities and ambivalence of real life or of one's natural aptitudes. For the religiously inclined or those devotees of spirituality, it is during those angst-ridden times that one is asked to turn to the supernatural or preternatural. To put trust in things or someone, both our senses and the acquired tools of logic and reason cannot readily discern or discover. We are asked to have faith therefore in things unseen and unproved because one knows and believes they are right and righteous.

Again, it is well and good at the reasoning phase of this rationalization. The suggested rationalization that when one finds one's natural means inadequate for the tasks resolved, one can try to bring to bear the higher means at one's disposal. But once one starts with the reckoning and proceeds again with the task, the many vagaries of reality can almost guarantee the eventual failure to accomplish. It would appear that human nature with the assistance it could harness from all possible sources is still no match.

Thus many are wont to regroup, revitalize, and begin again with the never-ending resolve to do a better job at life. This I find is the case with my own longings and struggles. There is never a day when one can afford to be complacent and self-assured in most any thing that happens daily in this world, regardless of how successfully one may have acquitted oneself on a similar situation in the past. There simply are no guarantees. Even practice does not make perfect.

Plus, one also has to account for the fact that one operates in a real-life environment where one cannot even expect harmony and cooperation from one's own family and relatives. In this respect, one stands as a solitary island in the turbulent quest for human perfection.

This to me is the essence of the lesson learned that in the final analysis what is reckoned is not that one arrives at one's destination, but how and what means one utilizes in undertaking the journey.

Get To Choose: France or The USA

One eye-catching recent topic in one of the local blogs was about which of the two countries above would typically have citizenry which is more informed and more attuned to the needs of both its own and those of the entire world.

Granted that the author of the blog and its more committed readers and commentators tend to be generally and typically anti-US, expounding typically on issues where the US could be portrayed in a bad light, especially with regard to the current government, the various views advanced still deserve some notice and rebuttal.

If memory serves me right, many aspects relating to each country were mentioned and compared, with France given complimentary nods in most if not all. It has be said though that the disparaging views expressed were essentially personal views culled from personal experiences, which thus would simply be anecdotal data. Though a referenced quote to a noted writer/columnist was made. The quoted person was Paul Krugman, writer of books on economics and noted liberal columnist of the NYT. It should be noted that Mr. Krugman is inveterately anti-Bush and has gone to great lengths to discredit his administration and most anything relating to the present US economy and its established institutions.

Funny, but Mr. Krugman was not this critical of the US when he served under a different past administration. He has been called to task about many of his current political and economic editorials and which in my humble opinion, he has not been able to satisfactorily rebut. Fellow economist Donald Luskin is one blogger who is on a crusade to expose Mr. Krugman's many gloom and doom predictions.

Now, back to the comparison about the US and France.

Various aspects touched upon where in the realms of economics, politics, culture, social and personal values, and even altruism. But many facets of these aspects are quite hard to quantify, much less dissect and comparatively analyze, especially to the layman's curious mind. And it might be difficult also to exercise impartiality, making an assessment that will not be colored by one's preconceived notions and personal experiences. Worse, who would be the qualified jurors who could sit in judgment to decide on the comparison? In this milieu, one man's judgment will have to be as good as another.

Considering this dilemma, it might serve us better simply to cite and relate easily observable and quantifiable data, and allow the readers to make their own assessment.

So here goes. But a qualification first. The US is a country of almost 300 million, composed of a very diverse set of minorities, while France is a country of about 60 million, which also has its own set of diverse minorities, mostly émigrés from its old colonies. The only familiar figure on minorities I have for France is the 5% which is its current Moslem population. But the US is definitely much more expansive and colorful. Close to 70% would still be white Caucasian (mostly European), 10% African-Americans, 5% all Asians, and the rest Hispanic, give and take a few percentages.

On the population aspects then, immigrants should be considered the most discriminating and serious judges on which country would be better for them and their offspring. Can France hold a candle to the US on the countless numbers of citizens of the world wanting to step on American soil? If we want to discount this clear lop-sidedness in favor of the US, we would have to impliedly dismiss all these peoples as unqualified to determine what is best for them. If it is any help, 2/3 of the total inward remittances of Filipino OFWs to the home country come from the US against 1/3 coming from everywhere else. Thus, it might not be too much of a stretch to extrapolate that the numbers even for the Filipinos favor the US.

With regard to the cultural aspects of the issue, it could be easy to see that France could hold an advantage, being a much older and established culture. The US could only point to its humble beginnings in the 1770's. Thus, one of France's main industries is tourism, citizens of the world visiting the many revered shrines of its rich histories past - churches, buildings, historic places, etc. But would age and old structures be reliable determinants for the superiority of one's culture? Or how does one reliably quantify which family and social values merit better approval over another? Both are avowed Christian countries, anyway, though some of France's political institutions adhere to some socialist practices like its universal medical care.

With regard to the educational aspects, especially those pertaining to the educational systems and the orientation and thrust of the studies emphasized, how should one go about trying to measure such subjective aspects? Still, one can point to the thousands of young men from countries of the world eagerly desiring to get an American education, and not just in new-fangled technology courses, or traditional technical courses, or military courses, but including the more traditional courses of the arts and humanities. For aren't the many Jesuit institutions scattered across the continent, usually on the lists of top choices for prospective foreign students coming to the US?

With regard to its economics, the numbers are decidedly in favor of the US. Its economy continues to easily outstrip the performances of most of the members of the European union, France included. But how does one measure the "happiness" or "contentment" indices to determine which country has the edge? Is the length of a typical vacation benefit for workers relevant or integral in determining quality of life? Does having more leisure time necessarily equate to a citizenry that is more balanced, more socially and morally attuned? Remember quality time over number of hours? Remember also that recreation and entertainment are two visibly huge industries in the US.

One would think, however, that one who has more in life, has better chances or opportunities of living a happy and contented life, over one whose main concern may be trying to make both ends meet. Also, altruism, definitely both in theory and practice, is apt to appear in communities with more to give and share. The last tsunami experience clearly bears out the leadership roles played by the affluent countries, most noteworthy being the US with its aid components of money and goods, and vital services provided by an ever alert and well-scattered military.

You be the judge.