The Political Life of the Call Center Generation

I just put in 11 hours today.  I’m either a workaholic, or I’m addicted to writing…

Or maybe I’m just pissed off.

As a twenty-something, I belong to that generation that lacks a name. Only two years separate us from Generation X and the generation after Ferdinand Marcos. What exactly are we? There’s no other way to put it: we’re the Call Center Generation. Almost everyone my age is employed by the outsourcing industry. We are the generation that saturates Ortigas Center, Makati CBD, and Eastwood. Beyond the bars, the skyscrapers, and the perceived glamor of Metro Manila’s three biggest financial districts is a world of headsets, lights turned on for 24 hours a day, the ocassional ampethamine, and proxy servers.

Yes, there is something definitely wrong with this picture.

Anyone who works in a BPO will definitely lose an edge when it comes to politics. I should know: these days, I think I have the political edge of a rubber prop knife. And I’m not even a call center agent.

I think the politically-passionate are right to condemn us, the Call Center Generation, for being party animals drinking buckets of San Mig Light every payday. Yet to understand the seeming apathy of my generation, you have to put yourself in our shoes. “Shutting yourself off from the realities of life” is a very poignant rhetorical device: a computer, a headset, and Skype is the absolute “reality of life.”

Emo? Say what you will about skin-tight jeans that prevent circulation to your genitalia, but it’s so effin’ true.

Karl Marx’s favorite metaphor, “chains,” takes a whole new meaning for my generation: electrical wires are chains connected to a computer network (which is a chain in itself) connected to a chain an entire ocean away. You are chained to your job because you’re lucky to have one; you don’t have to walk around wearing your best clothes carrying a brown envelope staving off your hunger with Hong Kong Style Noodle. You don’t know what to protect: your wallet, your cellphone, your reputation, or your resumé.

When people ask you about Meralco, Jun Lozada, or the rice crisis, you either don’t know, or you don’t care. Who reads the papers when your payslip is enough to depress you? Who cares about Meralco bids when your building has a backup generator? Who cares about Jun Lozada’s foibles when there’s the proxy server to get to know more about Jennifer Lopez? What rice crisis are you talking about, when there’s always McDonald’s or ala carte (the sosyalin version of street food) to eat?

Besides, we are cogs in the wheel of what? What is our contribution to history? What do we have a stake on when there’s a newly-opened BPO a few blocks away? What identity do we, the Call Center Generation, hold on to, when it is but normal to us to converse to faceless people on another continent using a faceless name just given to us out of standard practice?

We are no more departed from the self-deprecation that was Generation X, and the self-glorification that characterized the generation that became teenagers with Beyoncé. We are no more politically-passionate than Martial Law alumni, and no more politically-immune than people who were made aware that Fidel Ramos’ cigar was the Vice President of the land. We are a generation caught in between history. We are products of history. We are cogs in the wheel of absolutely nothing.

Emo? Say what you will about side-swept hair made stable by a dollop of Gatsby hair wax, but it’s so effin’ true.

A friend of mine has a rather strange, if not extremely accurate, phrase for it: “Life then is but a tormenting inferno of pain masked behind a fictitious smile in a quasi-state of reality.” Indeed, life for this generation is nothing more than a tormenting firewall behind that assumed smile that you assure some irate customer that you’re making a difference with a brand-new Panasonic DVD player that can play Blu-Ray… if you can place the order.

That – not “apathy” – is the damning thing.

X-List: Hollywood’s Most Beautiful

While I do read the occasional back-issue of FHM, I am not exactly into it.  If anything, women from classic Hollywood films appeal to me more than a Katrina Halili or an Angel Locsin.  While I do find myself crushing on some of the more current female celebrities, I look up to the women of classic films as stars.  It’s the kind of admiration that makes me wish I was there on film’s golden age.

Many of my friends say that I am extremely difficult to please.  Suffice to say, I am: I have to look at a girl I crush on and see some sort of classic Hollywood feature in her before I really fall.  I guess that explains it.

Everyone will have their own favorite celebrities… here are ten of mine.  Enjoy.

*     *     *

Marlene Dietrich

Marlene Dietrich is the classic Hollywood femme fatale.  In her Hollywood career, Marlene has always been considered an “outsider;” her foreign looks added more mystique to her image.  Marlene is, was, and forever will be a Hollywood legend: her presence in films like Morocco and Shanghai Express are most memorable.  If anything, what I really admire about Marlene is that glance – that look – that made her such an iconic image in popular culture, from The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper album to Madonna.

*     *     *

Zsa Zsa Gabor

In the history of Hollywood intrigue, if you get married nine times, get divorced seven times, have one annulled marriage and are currently married to a rather strange guy, you must be a real legend.  Zsa Zsa Gabor is one of those legends.  There’s just something about old portraits of Zsa Zsa that speaks to why she really is that famous: those arching eyebrows, those high cheekbones, that socialite grace.  In this day and age of kikays who go clubbing on a Saturday night, they can always learn a thing or two from Zsa Zsa.

*     *     *

Rita Hayworth

I think that no other actress can wear the slinky red dress better than “The Love Goddess” herself, Rita Hayworth.  Rita can do it all: she can dance, she can act, she can sing, and she’s one of the sexiest sex goddesses of classic cinema.  Her enduring grace and passionate performances are the stuff of legend.  Who can forget Rita in Gilda, where that one glove she removed became one of the sultriest and most electrifying things that came off the silver screen?  I wouldn’t mind having a poster of Rita Hayworth a’la The Shawshank Redemption, although there would be more reasons for me to stay in prison than to tunnel out.

*     *     *

Marilyn Monroe

There’s just something about Marilyn.  Far from being the stereotypical blonde bombshell, Marilyn’s tragic death only served to highlight her remarkable life.  That skirt-blowing scene in The Seven Year Itch is something to remember; so is her song “Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend.”  To be honest, the only reason why I read the plays of Arthur Miller is because of Norma Jean.  And there’s just something about how you say that name – “Marilyn Monroe” – that still reminds you of how much a superstar she is today as she was back then.  Then again, everything about Marilyn will always be a mystery… that’s why she’ll always be a star, a legend, and an icon of the silver screen.

*     *     *

Lauren Bacall

Ah, Lauren Bacall.  That penetrating gaze, that voice, those smart remarks.  In these days of “dumb bimbos” and all-out stupidity in weekend showbiz shows, our local celebrities can – and should – learn a thing or two from Lauren.  “Looking at yourself in a mirror isn’t exactly a study of life,” she says, and it still holds true today.  The many things she has to say about her ex-husband Frank Sinatra are stuff that should right now be on Friendster shoutouts.  A journalist once called Lauren: “Slinky as a lynx, hot as pepper, cool as rain, dry as smoke.”  Suffice to say, that’s a good way to describe Lauren Bacall.  Among other things, she is truly a legend of the silver screen.

*     *     *

Sophia Loren

“Everything you see,” said Sophia Loren once, “I owe to spaghetti.”  There must be more than spaghetti that explains why Sophia’s legs go on forever.  Whether or not she had an affair with Cary Grant is something we may never know, but if they ever did, Cary must be one lucky dog.  What exactly is in Sophia Loren, I do not know.  Millions of men would have had fantasies and dreams of Sophia Loren.  Even I did; to be perfectly honest, I fall ever-so-often for girls who have the eyes of Sophia.  Not too many girls could have the kind of figure Sophia Loren has, even at 73.

Edit: Photo © Archivio Cameraphoto Epoche srl / www.starsinvenice.com.  Original source at http://www.flickr.com/photos/view-finder/1165633328/in/set-72157601532477672

*     *     *

Greta Garbo

In this day and age of Paris Hilton’s, Britney Spears’s, and Lindsay Lohan’s, few celebrities will ever have that defining mystique that becomes Hollywood glamour at its finest.  Such is Greta Garbo.  She was intensely private; she didn’t sign autographs, she didn’t give interviews, she didn’t divulge much of her personal affairs.  Even in her silent films, her introverted disposition gave her a mystery that is the stuff of Hollywood legend.  As a star of silent films, Greta let her actions do all the talking.  Hey, nobody’s complaining.  When you are an actress the caliber of Greta Garbo, you don’t need publicity stunts.  If anything, Greta is the ideal actress.

*     *     *

Ingrid Bergman

My favorite classic movie – period – is Casablanca.  Not only because of that painful heartbreaking story, but because of Ingrid Bergman.  While gin joints and piano bars are a thing of the past these days, Ingrid Bergman forever remains to be one of the best actresses of classic film.  There’s something about Ingrid: her voice, her presence on camera, her many award-winning performances, her timeless beauty.  Or that song she told Sam to play again is a good metaphor.  As time goes by, she is that legendary actress that few will ever match, much less surpass.  Then again, they’ll always have Paris… and we’ll always have Ingrid.

*     *    *

Grace Kelly

No other actress possesses the kind of beauty and grace of the one and only Grace Kelly, Princess of Monaco.  Films like Dial M for Murder and On the Waterfront showcase her talents, and that statuesque, graceful, royal figure she has.  Not to mention that smile… how many times have I tried – and failed – to hold up on my stoic, unresponsive usual expression whenever I saw Grace smile on those pictures.  And those eyes… royal, yet at the same time ever-so-charming.  How many actors in Hollywood have fallen in love with Grace Kelly, I do not know.  One thing is certain, though: they had all a good reason to fall in love with her.

*     *     *

Audrey Hepburn

Breakfast at Tiffany’s is one of my favorite classic movies, and Audrey Hepburn is one of my favorite actresses of all time.  There’s something about Audrey and that little black Givenchy dress.  Audrey Hepburn set standards for fashion that to this very day are still emulated, repeated, but never duplicated.  Cuteness?  Timeless beauty?  Definitely understatements, for one of the greatest actresses ever on the silver screen.  Audrey was also a great humanitarian, which set the standard for almost every Angelina Jolie and KC Concepcion of today.  Yet it is her memorable performances – not just in Breakfast, but also in My Fair Lady and of course, Sabrina – that makes Audrey stand out as one of the greatest legends and most beautiful faces of cinema.  Besides, no one else can fit into that little black dress like Audrey.

 *     *     *

So there you have it.  There are definitely a lot more beautiful faces and potential timeless beauties in cinema today, but I think it would be hard to contest their beauty and grace.  I guess Lauren Bacall said it best:

I think your whole life shows in your face and you should be proud of that.

So true.  So very true.

*     *     *

Credits

Marlene Dietrich’s image from (http://www.meaus.com/94-marlene-dietrich-poem.htm)
Zsa Zsa Gabor’s image from (http://www.garboforever.com/Garbos_Lovers-Friends-08.htm)
Rita Hayworth’s image from (http://www.divasthesite.com/Acting_Divas/Rita_Hayworth.htm)
Marilyn Monroe’s image from (http://www.nilacharal.com/enter/celeb/MarilynMonroe.asp)
Lauren Bacall’s image from (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1479574)
Sophia Loren’s image from (http://www.flickr.com/photos/view-finder/1165633328/in/set-72157601532477672/)
Greta Garbo’s image from (http://pediafallen.blogspot.com/2008/03/greta-garbo.html)
Ingrid Bergman’s image from (http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_20152905_4,00.html)
Grace Kelly’s image from (http://www.biography.com/dead_famous/dead_episode_guide.jsp?episode=150123)
Audrey Hepburn’s image from (http://blog.pricegrabber.com/chicshopper/2007/11/27/film-fashion-breakfast-at-tiffanys/)

VotW #5: We Celebrate F4 Mania Today!

Let’s digress from political rants and just, well, spazz.  It’s a weekend and I’m bored.

My friend Erik says that my choices of Video of the Week are rather… well, disturbing.  I am told that some of my friends think that I have descended into madness because of my VotW choices (especially the previous winner).  On my defense, I have a very broad taste in music.  I listen to as much Smashing Pumpkins as I do Destiny’s Child.  If not for my work schedule, I would have memorized more Willie Revillame songs (even that new “Banana Split” thing that I just heard when I was having my laundry done).

Interesting (completely unverified and may be completely untrue) fact: today marks the sixth (or maybe seventh) year anniversary of F4 mania.  Are these memories best left forgotten?  Hmmm… try this on for size:

*     *     * 

*     *     * 

Yes, this week’s Video of the Week comes courtesy of Harlem Yu.  Disturbed?  I certainly hope so.

In case you have forgotten, “Qing Fei De Yi” was the opening theme of the original “Meteor Garden” series, when “Dao Ming Si” and “Shan Cai” were still household names.  This was a time when Vanness Wu’s haircut was extremely popular (not one of them side-swept cover-one-eye I-have-pubes-on-only-one-of-my-balls-if-you-check-my-nutsack-and-yes-my-penis-also-has-cuts-on-it-because-I’m-not-circumcised haircuts of today… whew).  These are the moments where I actually wish I actually watched “Meteor Garden,” for no apparent reason.  What pissed me off back then was that Josh Santana (whatever happened to him, anyway) became the Ted Ito of this generation, and made his own rendition of “Qing Fei De Yi.”  Surprisingly, I still memorized the Tagalog version,. which was entitled “Biyahe.”

Which basically means I don’t have to translate anymore.

Casting Stones

I was conversing with a friend who points out a rather interesting argument: the moment you “put yourself into ‘minority’ issues” (quotations mine) like alternative sexuality, people “automatically” (quotations mine again) assume that you have an alternative sexuality.  It becomes a piece-of-string thing, that maybe you (in this case, me) are, “in fact,” gay.

For someone whose college running joke has been “I’m in love with amoebas,” this assertion can go a lot of ways.  So could this rejoinder, but that’s just me.  After all, I’m a guy who takes Being-in-the-World to its practical extreme.

“Class,” when used in the economic sense, is monolithic.  While there is a very broad continuum for wealth and its connotations (sophistication, taste, fashion sense, and so on), there are only two things you should be concerned with.  It’s either you’re rich, or you’re poor.

“Culture,” as a word, is fundamentally ambiguous; it can mean so many different things.  The very notion of “difference,” to me, is rooted on the many different components of different culture where we, as different people, differ in so many different ways.

Bottom line: class is stratified, culture is flux.  Gender is not a class issue; rather, it is a cultural issue that has implications on class.  To treat a cultural issue, you need to see it from a cultural standpoint.  Not in terms of stratifications, but in terms of divergences.

This is going to sound offensive: “paglaladlad” is not an affirmation of liberation.  There is nothing liberating about gender roles, and the affirmation of gender roles.  Liberation and emancipation comes with transcending the limitations of gender as a perspective, and viewing society beyond gender roles.  Gender is a lot like Wikipedia: it is a portal to understanding the consequences of the class structure that defines the situation of everyone in a capitalist society.  This is why I take a very nonchalant, if not insensitive, view of “gender.”

I’m not saying that gender is a non-issue.  If it weren’t, there would not be an advocacy for it.  If it weren’t, there would not have been movements for it.  Yet we must remember that society is further fractured and divided along other different lines.  Discrimination is never a superficial phenomenon rooted only on something like race or gender or religious views.  I hope I do not sound “reductionist” here, but it is true that the economics of things will come into play.

Let me put things this way.  A woman, a lesbian, or someone gay is excluded from participating in production, i.e. work.  Do we protest the injustice on the basis of their sexual preference?  I don’t think so: we should protest the injustice on the basis of the injustice itself.  The moment I protest injustices on the basis of differences, then I am, in effect, being unjust to other people who are excluded from society where gender is not a concern.

Who speaks for the disabled?  Who fights for the rights of those committed to mental institutions?  Who will stand up, see a child sleeping on a cardboard box on the sidewalk on a dewy Saturday morning, and say, “This is injustice!”  Do we even engender those injustices?  Do we ask questions about sexual preference in the face of injustice?

At the end of it all, what we really need is freedom for all.  In a society that demands freedom, equity, fairness, and justice, it is an oppressive class structure that fractures our society the most.

Crispin Beltran

The only time I met Rep. Crispin “Ka Bel” Beltran was three years ago at UP Diliman, when he was a speaker at a University-wide student leader’s conference.  There I was: the idealistic, militant, vocal, arrogant, aloof, metaphor-spewing young student leader.  And then there was Ka Bel: in his twilight years, he was the first to offer his hand to me for a friendly handshake, complimenting me on a question that I can no longer recall.

Today, I have grown – I hope for the better – in terms of what I stand for, and how fight for what I stand for.  And then there was Ka Bel, who has just passed away today, at 75 years young.

To call this a “fitting tribute” to the memory and legacy of Crispin Beltran is to aim for the stars.  I only met Ka Bel once, back in the days where I found myself aligned with the militant street parliamentarians, of which he was the truest example.  Over the years, I found myself moving away from the streets and putting down my banners and streamers in favor of a crusade I can live with, on my own terms.

Yet even with that divergence, I believe that any young activist today should learn their lessons well from someone like Crispin Beltran.  There are many things that I will definitely disagree with, but I will definitely not oppose any argument made that Ka Bel is an activist, a street parliamentarian of the truest sense.  Ka Bel stood up for his beliefs so much so that he went to prison for what he believed in and what he stood for.

For everything that a politically-minded and politically-aware person will say about Crispin Beltran, I think we can agree on one thing: he is a man of principle.  Some will whine, moan, and bitch out on a pat with a truncheon or a half-hour in jail.  Not someone like Ka Bel, who has seen it all, went through it all, and still had his ideals intact at the end of it all.

The activists have their heroes: Rolando Olalia, Lean Alejandro, Eman Lacaba, and today, Crispin Beltran.  Personally, I think that the only thing fitting about this short tribute to Ka Bel is this: unlike three years ago, I have done so first.

Blood Runs Cold

I was reading the papers (online, of course) this morning when I found myself seething.  My blood boiled so much that I can’t afford to flash a smile to workmates, to the nice lady at the canteen, or even think happy thoughts.  “Moved” would not be a good word to articulate exactly what I felt when I read about the massacres at Cabuyao and Calamba.  These are not crimes driven by anything at all.  Personally, I think even the Devil himself will stop short of lining up innocent lives, just to riddle them with bullets.

To be honest, I am not afraid of guns.  I am afraid of things that force a man to take up a gun and shoot without mercy.

And we can’t help but ask, “Why?”  The dead, in their final breaths, may have already taken with them the very reasons for their demise.  The murderers, with their complete lack of moral fiber, may begrudge us the very reasons for their inexcusable act of slaughter.  “Why” is not a question you ask in the event of a murder.  You don’t ask murderers questions.

I am reminded of the sickening, unreasonable death of a young man named Cris Mendez.  There was no reason for him to die, maybe except that the sorry, pathetic excuses for human beings who held that paddle the moment he died deserve every drop of guilt that drown their consciences at this very moment.  That they deserve the “prejudiced” opinions leveled against them.  That they should suffer a fate similar to Cris Mendez, only that there is a perfectly legitimate reason for every UP student, UP alumnus, and sympathizer to take a burning two-by-four wrapped in heavy chains, and to flog each and every one of them down to the last inch of their sad, miserable breaths.

Yet guns are a different story.  Just what kind of sick, miserable torture does anyone have in mind for those who murdered those bank personnel at Cabuyao, for those who shot that family – and the children – at Calamba?  Should we build a gallows, should we fashion nooses out of rusty old barbed wire, should we hang them by their necks while we let loose a million red ants on their bodies before we annihilate them with a grenade stuck straight up their rectums?  Even that’s not good enough.

Eighteen people – ten from Cabuyao, eight from Calamba – are dead.  Even the sickest, most disgusting act of torture that employs a rusty nailcutter, a used toothpick, and the lid of a freshly-opened can of sardines will not bring their lives back.

It is that which these murderers should be most fearful of: not only have they denied their victims their lives, they have duped us all of justice.

Which is why “twistedness” is the order of the day, why I seek vendetta.  Why today I read “justice” to be nothing more than a synonym for “retribution,” a synonym for “revenge.”  And if you are one of those people who are “not affected,” if again you bank on your apathy, you – unlike the victims, unlike the murderers – deserve to die.

But then again, like almost everyone else, there is nothing I can do.  Which makes it all the more frustrating.  Which makes it all the more irritating.  Which makes it all the more insulting…

Which makes it all the more disgusting.

Disgust.  Now that’s the word I’m looking for.

Chicken Huntin'

In almost three and a half years of blogging, I never wrote a single food review.  Maybe it’s because I have a very unsophisticated palate, and that my idea of “food” is limited to the mathematical combinations and permutations in a McDonald’s.

Then again, they say that a true gourmand will go at great lengths to get the best food out there.  On an idle weekend, when the urge to get some really good chicken gets to me, I will brave the chaotic Metro Manila south-bound route for the absolute best chicken in the world: Church’s Chicken.

Plate o' Chicken

Pardon my photography skills (and for you die-hard readers of TMX, my use of a camera phone), but I just want to demonstrate how much P120 will get you at Church’s Chicken.  The chicken portions are very, very generous indeed.  The chicken is cooked through, the breading is crisp, and the spiciness is just right.  What really impresses me about the whole Church’s experience is their flavored rice.  It’s damn sure flavorful: it’s definitely not gourmet, but it’s better than those rice-like lumps you get at any other fastfood restaurant.

Here’s the thing: the two branches of Church’s in Metro Manila (SM Mall of Asia and Starmall Las Piñas) are right next to KFC.  I’m not saying that you should all surrender Hotshots and that funky fizzy strawberry drink in favor of Church’s (mainly because I would be a hypocrite if I said so: I like Zingers and strawberry soda).  All I’m saying is that you should at least give Church’s a try.  I tell you, you won’t be disappointed.  Like me and my brother, you’d be coming to Church’s every weekend for the best chicken in the world.

Although maybe it wouldn’t hurt Church’s franchisers if they put up an outlet at TriNoma…