Tears For Fears - Everybody Wants To Rule The World

Doggy Dog World Part 2

What brought on the previous article rambling on about the morality of caring for dogs more than fellow human beings, is because of a recent incident concerning the killing and eating of a dog.

Last year's Metro Manila Film Fest included a movie called "Oro". First things first, I didn't watch any of the offerings of the MMFF. I usually don't because they're usually garbage pushed by the big studios to promote their "products", both human and material. I heard the recent line-up was much better since it featured "indie" stuff. Whatever.

Oro had a scene which involved the slaughter and eating of a dog. Apparently, the scene was so graphic, that the Chairperson of the Film Development Council of the Philippines asked a representative of the film production team about it. She was told that it was  just a goat and some prosthetics. As it turns out, that was a lie and they really did kill and eat a dog.

Personally, I find lies much more offensive than the death of an animal. Nevertheless, this didn't sit well with animal rights groups. Social media, or the "outrage machine" as I like to call it, raised a big stink, as expected. The whole thing devolved to a he-said, she-said. Some say a pig was used. There was talk that two dogs were killed. I don't have the patience to dig into any more to this story because this story isn't the ultimate point. Besides, you probably already know how the story goes.

The point is this: there was outrage over the killing of a dog. In response to this outrage was outrage that the outraged people were more outraged over the killing of a dog than the outrageous killing of four people, which was a true story (The "Gata 4" Massacre) that the movie was based on. Taking the outrage a step further, and making it more topical, people expressed outrage that people are more outraged over the death of a dog than the thousands allegedly killed in President Duterte's  outrageous campaign against drugs, which is outrageous.

I hate social media.

If I may go off on a tangent, social media, I've observed, is just full of people signalling their virtue and trying to one-up one another in appearing more virtuous. The first group of the condescenderati wanted to appear all good and noble in protesting the dog slaughter as animal rights is still kind of chic. They were outdone when a second group protested the misplaced priorities of Philippine society in holding the lives of dogs higher than the supposed hundreds of people being killed every day. Taking it a step even further, and advertising their leftist street cred, some even argued that dog-eating is done because the poor do what they must to survive and its just those privileged bourgeois who whine about it and forbid the oh-so-noble Filipino "tradition" of eating canines. They never mentioned that in the Social Studies books.

I am aware of, and have no problem with, the dog-eating that happens in many parts of the country. However, I wasn't aware that people would go so far as to elevate it to some kind of proud cultural rite. Sometimes people are just hungry, you know?

So back to square one. Was all the outrage about the butchered dog, when our own countrymen are butchered, misplaced? Well the whole thing stands on a flimsy premise: that the people outraged over the dog are the same people who cheer on President Duterte's alleged killing of suspected criminals. It's possible to be outraged by both. They're not mutually exclusive. It's just cheap rhetoric. The outrage over the dog just seems amplified and high-profile while the outrage over the ever-rising pile of human corpses seems muted.

Perhaps the real kicker in all of this is that something was done about the dog but nothing is being done about the killings in the streets. With regards to the movie, people were reprimanded, people were suspended and awards were revoked. As for the humans...? That's the thing that really stings, eh?

Maybe we are really going to the dogs.

Doggy Dog World Part 1

A week ago, a stray dog wandered into the parking lot outside the office building. Normally, there's nothing unusual about a stray except that this was no ordinary mongrel. It looked like it had a breed; a Rottweiler by the look of it. It was a very big dog and would have been even bigger and more intimidating if it wasn't visibly starving. It was weakly limping about with its legs shaking. It's ribs and hip-bones were sticking out and its guts looked stuck to its spine.

Many regulars, myself included, felt pity for the creature and donations of food soon went its way. One of the security guards looked after the dog and even expressed his openness to the idea of adopting it. It was clear that with food and care, it would be a good dog to have. It looked like it would have had a good physical appearance, if fattened up, and it had good temperament as well. It was very, very friendly in a way you wouldn't expect from a normally mean-looking breed. Still, maybe it was just friendly out of desperation. It isn't wise to quickly trust a strange dog. The prudent thing would be to test it and see if it growls around certain types of people, if it zealously guards its food or if sudden noises and running set it off but I digress.

The reason for sharing this is that it brings to mind a common criticism often leveled at dog owners or people who are kind to dogs in general. "Why can't you extend the same kindness to fellow human beings?" There are street dogs and there are street people. Is it wrong to be more caring to stray dogs than people?

It's easier to feel sorry for an animal than a fellow human being. Not all animals, mind you but those animals which are cute and are often made into pets. Dogs are probably the go-to for this. There's a certain "innocence" attached to dogs. There's this idea that dogs are just these good, noble and loyal creatures who would wait forever for you outside a Japanese train station. They are, after all, man's best friend. Hence, it's always a bad thing when a dog dies in a movie. There's nothing quite so deliciously villainous as the designated bad guy signalling his evilness by kicking a little dog.

 But yes, this particular guilt-trip is familiar. The life of a human being is more important than that of a animal. Yes, but is it more important than a dog? I say yes but only because that's something I agree to as a member of civilization. There are many people in society that are living arguments to the contrary. There are people who are no better than dogs. The President seems to believe so. There are people who literally act like dogs. Even this whole damn country is going to the dogs.

We owe human beings more than dogs because the lives of people are more important. I'm disturbed that I can't seem to articulate why this is so. The fact that I secretly question this is probably a reflection of my dwindling compassion, inner corruption and ever-warping sense of morality. I have to remind myself that if, hypothetically, me and a dog were both drowning and a person chose to save the dog over me, I'd be a little bummed.

How about a third option. Can't one be nice to both dogs and humans? Why should anyone care, really? The universe doesn't seem to care. God doesn't seem to care. The sun shines alike on both the flowers and the weeds, the good and the wicked. If good is being done, does it matter to who or what it's being done to or will the argument shift on how being good to an animal is not a sign of good morals? If actions towards animals are free of any moral color, does that mean it wouldn't be wrong to torture a dog?

This is getting out of hand.

How did feeding a stray dog turn into a debate on morality. Overthinking things is hell. The world is a frightening place, cold and gray. Sometimes all you can do is just do what you believe is right. Back then, giving the dog some food seemed like the right thing to do. So sue me,

A few days later, the stray dog disappeared. The security guard told me that it had simply wandered on, maybe to the next lot. It was a stray after all. It's either on it's next great adventure or stewing in some idiot's pot. Typical. Did our supposed acts of kindness even amount to anything? Does anything ever amount to anything?

Speaking of dog meat...

Work Hazard

What a way to start the new year; a lingering four-day illness.

I used to only get sick once or twice a year but ever since I began working in this dingy office building, it's once or twice a month now. The place is dirty and dusty. Prisoners and assorted poor people (yeah, I said it) come in and out and they're not the cleanest people on the planet. We work in cramped interiors where we spend the all day breathing on each other. There's no ventilation whatsoever and the windows don't even open. The storage room on the fourth fourth floor is full of cat shit and urine.

I should be getting hazard pay or something.

Start With a Bang?

The new year has barely begun and already half my new year resolutions are broken.

"Happy" new year, eh? I guess we'll just have to see about that, won't we?

What is it about the media's obsession with firecracker-related injuries? Statistically, they're insignificant. Yes, they happen. It's impossible to have zero firecracker injuries nationwide. But what's the point? Who cares?

Then there's the stray bullets. Tragic, true but then again, it just happens. People are stupid and fire guns indiscriminately sometime. Big whoop. A more interesting statistic would be injuries from discriminate firing. How many got hit by guns fired at them on purpose or are people in no mood for that during the holidays.

It's just one of the media potboilers. It's just another one of those standard things we're supposed to talk about. Unless the number of injuries even reaches close to the amount of people allegedly killed in the "drug war", I doubt there's any sense to a moral panic.

Yeah, just rambling to show I haven't died yet. 

Slow day....