As I write this, I sit in front of my MacBook lounging in the veranda, staring at the moon in between sips of coffee. I sift through my subscriptions, staggered by recent events. It’s been quite an eventful month — The Greek bailout, the Iranian Nuclear deal, the legalization of gay marriage, the Philippine delegation at the Hague, Japanese military shift, and many more. But for me, NASA’s New Horizon flyby of Pluto is by far (no pun intended) the most noteworthy. It’s a story more than a century in the making — one filled with twists and turns characteristic of a Hollywood movie. It’s a story that reveals not just the edge of the solar system but also the boundaries of human capability.

By now, most would have been able to read that the existence of the dwarven planet was first proposed by Percival Lowell in 1902. From 1905 to his passing in 1916, he searched tirelessly for the ninth planet in our solar system. In 1930, a young researcher named Clyde Tombaugh had done it. He found Lowell’s Planet X. It was promptly named Pluto, owing to a little girl’s suggestion and the initials of Dr. Lowell himself. Growing up, we were taught that there were nine planets in the solar system. Then, as knowledge advanced, we were told that there were only eight.

It was 2006 when the IAU decided to lay the foundations for future discoveries by formally defining the term “planet”. Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet — too small to have sufficient mass and a “proper” orbit. The “not-quite” planet was more at home with celestial bodies in the Kuiper belt, which featured many like it.

All of a sudden, textbooks needed to be reprinted, toy figures corrected, and researches updated. Now, the common icy dwarf became the laughing stock of popular culture — Pluto jokes abound. Yet, Pluto still matters. You begin to realize that Pluto was never a planet to begin with, and that’s completely fine.

More than anything, the outcast of a planet has pushed the envelope of human potential. New Horizons is a culmination of a century long effort to put an end to speculation. The mission to send a craft was an exclamation point. We needed to fathom the mystery 4.67 billion miles away. Scientists at John Hopkins and NASA take center stage for their perseverance. On more than one occasion, the project had experienced setbacks; fundings were cut, plutonium was insufficient, and many simply considered it unimportant. The resulting craft was a rather simple machine, one that utilized the most basic yet resilient of human technology. Nine and a half years later, we see the fruits of their labor. There is a wealth of data to be processed and the learnings are immense. Exactly a century after the Lowell Observatory first photographed Pluto, exciting times face the scientific community. Apart from technological spinoffs, images beamed from New Horizons broaden our understanding of the universe. As New Horizons goes beyond Pluto and delves deep into the Kuiper belt, so does our vista of the fabric of reality.

It really doesn’t matter whether Pluto is a planet or not. What the 2006 incident shows us is the vastly limited comprehension of the world around us. Mankind has come long way from the discovery of fire and the invention of the wheel. But there is still a limitless amount of knowledge to be made. We have no single word to aptly describe what Pluto is — scientifically, philosophically, sociologically, politically. Territory, planet, world, celestial body, potential home — There are important nuances in these terms, nuances that reflect the context in which they ought to be used. Yet, none of them manifest what Pluto really is.

“Being a planet is not really a state of being. It is instead a human construct, a categorical designation, and a slippery one at that. Which means that whatever Pluto actually is, its essential Plutoness, is not reliant on whether some humans who live billions of miles away from it decide to call it a planet” — Adrienne LaFrance

Our definitions, our constructs, our words are deficient. They are constantly challenged and updated to suit our ever growing consciousness. Pluto is special because it makes us question our grasp of the world.

In a world where bigger is better, it’s comforting to know that the little guy is still special. Quite fitting that such a thought ends with Pluto emphasizing “you are special no matter how small you are”.

That astronauts, astrophysicists and astronomers- finding a dwarf planet beyond a sea of asteroids- are astonished by its icy heart, is simply astounding. For the prefix ast, of greek origin, would mean star. And right now, the little guy is the star of the show because he brings out the best in us.

I go back to my subscriptions and breathe a heavy sigh. If only I could say the same about world affairs.

I’ve constantly been asked by younger writers about my writings — be it articles, essays, research papers or even speeches. Truth be told, I have yet to pinpoint the elements of my style. Articulating something as abstract as manner of expression is a rather difficult task. After all, each individual has a unique approach to written thought. Still, for those looking to learn from my pieces, I have but one word — Rhetoric.

Delivering a message in written form requires a particular fashion. Unlike informal speech, the art of writing requires careful, creative and calculated decisions by the writer. It is an art because the writer is a grand architect who fashions an opus using letters, words, and symbols. The proper use of rhetoric creates the difference between a wonderful piece of writing and an incomprehensible one. The proper use of rhetoric threads together groups of sentences, transforms a bland article into a striking one and brings a dead set of paragraphs to life.

Now, below are my most commonly used rhetorical techniques.

Creating Patterns through Repetition — Seconds and Thirds

Pore over the first two paragraphs of this article and you begin to notice the extensive use of repetition. The human mind is wired to pay attention, give value to patterns. Repetition in seconds and thirds, through parallelism or contrast creates that coveted pattern.

In two consecutive sentences, repeat the first phrase to drive home your point (as in the last two sentences of the second paragraph).

Create contrast. Make ideas standout by illustrating a divide (as in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph).

Lastly, the use of parallel thirds allows one to elaborate a thought without being too verbose. Two is company, three is a crowd and four is a riot. Take a look at the very first sentence (of the first paragraph) and the last sentence of the second paragraph. The addition of rhymes to parallel thirds only makes its use more profound (as in the next sentence).

Patterns are useful because they help frame the thought in your readers’ head through suggestion, precision and erudition.

Framing Devices

Admittedly, the most difficult part of writing is getting started. The perfect introductory sentence sometimes eludes even the most accomplished of writers. And this is intrinsically tied to the desire to create a coherent piece. From start to finish, we want an organic whole. We want seamlessly flowing tapestry. Not only does beginning in the best way possible guarantee a great hook, but it also guarantees a brilliant cascade of ideas. Framing requires that a writer outline his ideas using an appropriate conceptual frame.

Evidently, hollywood writers have mastered such a technique. Saving Private Ryan, Captain America: The First Avenger and Letters from Iwo Jima are just a few of the movies that have perfectly utilized one of the most classical of framing devices, flashbacks. Without enumerating every device ever invented, we also have the macguffin, foreshadowing, flashforward, cliffhanger, and the “story within a story”. Think of your story as the playground outside the window and the frame, the window pane itself.

“Begin with the end in mind” is a clichè I am reluctant to bring up. But it is a rather appropriate point. Without pre-empting the rest of what this article has to offer, pay attention to my very first sentence. After which, skip to the very last. Both are points of learning and improvement. And yet, the last sentence directly answers the question posed by the first. The article was the journey in between.

Achieving Tone and Voice: Words, Sentences and Punctuation marks

Without going down to the level of the letter, words, sentences and punctuation marks are a writer’s main tools. But it can be overwhelming. One can easily get lost with the technicalities of subject-verb agreement, proper tense usage and what have you. While these are undoubtedly important, something more fundamental must be understood — the value of a word.

There are words that need to be emphasized and there are words trivial enough to be glossed over. The key is in finding the perfect word. I scour the depths of the thesaurus searching for the most precise word I can find. Only then do I begin to construct my sentence, building my sentence around the specific word that encapsulates my idea. Take the word exceptional.

I can say:

She looked exceptional in that dress; or

She was exceptionally dashing in that dress; or

She was unexceptionably beautiful in that dress; or

Her unexceptionable beauty was heightened further in that dress

Your manipulation of grammar depends on how you want to portray your idea. Romanticize it. Satirize it. Hyperbolize it. You can also historicize, glamourize, formalize, desensitize and proselytize. The sky is the limit really.

Then there is the issue of punctuation marks. It’s a rather simple point — as the written equivalent of hand gestures, dramatic pauses, and changes in volume, they add further value to your words and therefore, your message.

That’s all there is to it. If you enjoyed and learned from this rather short piece, do yourself a favor and aspire to surpass my works.

Do yourself a favor and read “The Glamour of Grammar” by Roy Peter Clark.

A Light-Hearted Musing of a student of Economics

More than anything, the title is an anti-thesis to every noble effort geared towards economic development. Inclusive economic growth, philanthropy, equal opportunities, enabling environments — all buzzwords of high moral standards in the overarching discussion of poverty.

But the eradication of poverty is a delusion.

This does not mean that civilization drop all efforts completely and let capitalism run amok. Quite the contrary, such efforts should continue, albeit understood in the right manner. When poverty eradication is the goal, it implies that it should end at some point. Thus, we modify the hook of this article.

You Can’t Eradicate Poverty But You Can Make The World a Better Place.

You Can’t Eradicate Poverty

Poverty encompasses all aspects of life: The political — freedom from and ability to influence; The economic — levels and asymmetry of resource distribution; and The social — conditions that determine order, including social stratification. In reality, these three, while theoretically distinct, are inseparable. They form a “trialectic”, indivisible parts of a whole. Regardless, one can easily pin point economic poverty as the most easily understood. Even simpler, is the equation of economic poverty as inequality; income gap in short. The lack of sufficient income leads to other forms of inequality. This shall be our starting point.

The current paradigm demonstrates the romantic clash of two variants: Communism (and all its branches) and Capitalism. In the quest to find the ultimate economic system, these two ideologies have emerged, warred and even fused. Governments have treaded the spectrum of these two extremes. Some have succeeded, some have failed…miserably. Yet, one observes that the two are trying to achieve one and the same thing — the eradication of poverty.

When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the capitalist system emerged as the undisputed victor. The fact that the populaces of North Korea and the former Soviet Union were living in abject poverty only cemented such convictions. It was the superior economic ideology, plain and simple.

Decades on, inequality figures (Ginii Coefficient) have been on the rise. Journalists report that the richest one percent would own more than half the world’s wealth. Economic research even suggests that economic inequality is an effect of a capitalist system.

What ever happened to “the most efficient system of the allocation of goods and services”? Something’s wrong here.

Some may be quick to point out concepts of government intervention, markets needing to be left alone to become efficient. Points well taken, but the Industrial Revolution could be enlightening. We arrive at the eventual conclusion that poverty is here to stay.

But You Can Make the World a Better Place

Two words should clarify the issue: relative and objective. There is a both a relative and objective notion of poverty. The former views society as a whole while the latter is focused on the individual. Part of the complexity of poverty is its varied nature in regions around the world; different social conditions, their concomitant income gaps, benchmarks and political systems. In the context of society, relative poverty corresponds with economic inequality. There will always be someone who is more affluent than the other.

But imagine, a state wherein the poor are able to afford three full meals a day.

When a person is denied basic rights of food, (proper) shelter, clothing, healthcare and education, he is undeniably in a state of poverty. While economic inequality is the cause of these shortcomings, political and social inequality take precedence in “objective poverty”.

Perhaps the confusion stems from the distinction between equality and equity. While poverty may be a given, the diverse range of factors that cause it aren’t. All else being equal, every person is able to achieve great things. Equity at its finest, Ceteris Paribus. Rather than reducing the income gap, society must reduce the advantages brought about by such economic privilege. A society hell-bent on equality will focus on the material — same income, same house, same car. But a society that believes in equity (egalitarianism) pivots on the fundamental.

State University or Ivy-League? Doesn’t matter really,

as long as both guarantee high quality education. Let the student decide. See, everyone is fundamentally equal, but the way each person maximizes the opportunities at his disposal could not be any more different. That’s the keyword — opportunity. The very natures of choice and opportunity breed inequality on a material level.

Here, we arrive full circle. This fundamental principle guarantees that poverty, relative poverty in particular, is…well…here to stay.

Social and political inequality, the world can fix. The more opulent neighbor? There’ll always be one. It’s a fact of life.

The world must acquiesce that poverty is, and will always be, present. That’s the beauty of it — always room for improvement.

In Retrospect

As with anyone, I’ve been asked a constant question in my younger years — “What do you want to be when you grow up?”. It’s standard fare, a question beaten to death, but an important one nonetheless. Like any child, I would come up with the mundane, the fantastical; Astronaut, race car driver, fighter pilot and what have you.

Despite all these shuffling ambitions, one career path would always stick — to be a Lawyer. It stuck so well that the answer to the most beaten question became instinctive, automatic.

There lies the rub. The ambition was too instinctive that I’ve only gotten to answering the follow-up question rather recently — “Are you sure?”. Underneath the very convincing affirmation, is an equivocating no. No, I wasn’t sure. I wasn’t even sure that I was unsure. The fact that my father was a lawyer only made it even more instinctive. It was this instinct that powered me up to this day.

What many people don’t know is this — pardon the language, but I was half-arsed with the entire endeavor. It took me many months to file simple applications, stretching what was possible with submission deadlines. I took the UP LAE waking up only two hours prior; the UA&P LSQT without any sleep; and the Ateneo Exam with an empty stomach, a necessary “evil” I had to take before starting my internship. This isn’t the level of commitment one normally attaches to the pursuit of law.

Political Science, Philosophy, Legal Management, Literature, I ended up in none of them for college. I spent those four years taking up Political Economy in a small but remarkable university in Pearl Drive, the University of Asia and the Pacific. It was a hasty decision, but one that truly helped me decide.

The study and practice of law is an acquired taste, one that requires at least a few years of self-discovery and consistent self-critique. My college years in UA&P were precisely that. In my first year, I would be recognized among my peers as an achiever, one who gets high grades without putting much effort. But I was just doing my own thing, doing just enough to pass, enjoying the company of my peers and other extra-curricular pursuits. So I shrugged such comments off. Truth be told, I’ve never really thought about the grades and still consider many of my block-mates to be more intelligent than I. Yet, over the past four years, I’ve gotten to know myself more and more.

Ending up on the editorial board for a publication, writing a book out of undirected self-confidence, I’ve learned that I do communicate my ideas clearly on paper. Participating (and winning as a “beginner”) in Model United Nations Conferences, both local and international, I’ve discovered that, like my writing, I speak just as well, and able to think on my feet. Simply put, I can articulate myself well, affirming the observations I had initially shrugged off. I can learn rather quickly, and explain in a manner that is understood by many. It all culminates in a moniker I’ve been given and reluctantly accepted — The Professor. Do not mistake this for bragging. Rather, it’s a skill set, or a set of talents that need to be honed and applied in the proper venue — law school. “You may want to go to law school, but is it really for you?” Only years of self-discovery can answer that.

All things considered, I choose to study and practice law because it is something I believe I will be genuinely good at; And, more than anything, something I will enjoy.

Now What?

As I write this, I’ve officially been admitted to two schools, faced with a decision of where to finally spend the fabled four years.

The magic of Pearl Drive is in the environment. The new combination of curricula, professors, and small scale made my stay a fruitful one. The uncertainty of a completely new environment pushed me to go beyond my comfort-zone and do the things that have cumulatively led to who I am today. Choosing to study in UA&P, I know that I am welcome and will have nothing to prove. I know that the personal level of instruction will do wonders despite having an undetermined performance at the Bar. Though, in my opinion, it could breed complacency. It will be like an extension of my college years — seeing almost the same people, same morning commute, same building, and even the same food. Only the content has changed. This, is what I am afraid of.

Moving to Rockwell, I will be faced with uncertainty anew — new people, new campus, new opportunities; the same uncertainty I was faced with first stepping in the corridors of Pearl Drive. It’s a new proving ground.

Perhaps it’s high time that I traded Mega Mall for Power Plant, Pasig for Makati. I’ll always be a Dragon at heart, but I think it’s time for the Professor to be an Eagle again.