Why the Thais can…

Contrary to what Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Anthony Golez thinks of Thais, I think they are more politically “mature” than us. Amazingly, within a matter of two years (or so) they were able to topple two corrupt and questionable prime ministers (Thaksin Shinawatra and Somchai Wongsawat).

I can’t help but envy the power of democracy in their country. Yeah, some may think negatively about the “rash” actions of Thai protesters, but isn’t that what democracy is all about? (Although this is sometimes taken into different levels; to some extent, negatively.)

I can’t help but ask, “Why on earth can they do it twice in such a short period of time? Why can’t we? Why in the world is the impeachment case always blocked in the lower house?”

Oh well, probably the Thais never stopped to embrace democracy (is it probably because this country has been in the hands of monarchs for the longest time?) while Filipinos (I assume) have grown tired of it.

Whenever people discuss about political issues (particularly on the streets, in barber shops, in tapsilogans, etc.) I would usually hear, “E wala namang nagbabago e [nothing has changed]”

Indeed, Filipinos have become apathetic over political issues in the country. This, I think, is the most prevalent reason why we can’t unseat the illegitimate and corrupt president (yeah, more than Thaksin and Somchai) who clings tightly in Malacañang.

In support of Ms. Mercado

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not going to merely spread my comments and [violent] reactions towards the Jennilyn Mercado-Patrick Garcia issue.

I’m not usually a “showbiz” person (and my students, friends, and family know this for a fact) But allow me to express my deep vexation towards Patrick Garcia and his coward acts.

First of all, I would like to express my support towards the decisions made by Ms. Mercado to move to America and have her child be far away from the guy who claims to be the child’s “father.” Secondly, I would like to express my awe to Mr. Garcia (the nerve)

Pro-life and pro-family people would strongly disagree with my arguments. They would say that it’s the child’s right to be in contact and know his/her parents. Moreover, they would say that for the sake of the child’s welfare, the parents should be given the rights to spend time with the child.

However, with the poorly-made decisions and alibis made by Mr. Garcia that led to the current situation, I believe that the decision of Ms. Mercado to raise the child by herself far outweigh the benefits of having the child be in contact with a coward and pretentious father—who is very much prone to repeat the same abandonment in the future.

Didn’t Mr. Garcia turn his face around and left Ms Mercado with the entire burden during pregnancy up to delivery? This, I believe, is more than enough ground to say that Mr. Garcia should not be given any privilege to be with Ms. Mercado’s child. The only contribution Mr. Garcia gave to Ms. Mercado is his sperm; no more no less.

Dereliction of responsibilities as father is a crime (or the root of a crime, at least).

Moreover, didn’t he accuse Ms. Mercado of having sexual relationships with another guy (in the persona of Mr. Mark Herras), and that he argues that the child isn’t his? Why is it that recently, he claims the child as his? Such a lame excuse adds up to the causes why this guy shouldn’t be given legal rights to be with Ms. Mercado’s child.

I can’t help but wonder, what really is the goal of Mr. Garcia? Is he probably trying to gain publicity, so as to revive his lost career? Is he trying to show “at least I tried” to the public?

(NOTE: The information regarding this issue are gathered from news items. The veracity of the facts may be questionable as we don’t really know their personal lives. At the end of the day, this blog addresses young couples in general—ahem** I hope I won’t eat my words in the future…)

When devils pray

Sadly, Christianity and Christian practices have been bluntly bastardized within Malacañang.

First, the press secretary’s name (Jesus) seems one of the biggest ironies. Biblically speaking, we all know that Jesus served the people; Dureza, on the other hand, serves GMA. Jesus was known to be temperate. He thinks first before he acts, and when He acts, He acts graciously. However, unlike Him, the (forsaken) namesake, acts haphazardly—not thinking of his prayer’s repercussions.

Second, the prayer itself was clearly pre-meditated—even if Dureza claims that he left his “script” and for that, he will be praying out of his heart. This makes everything clearer. If he really prayed “out of his heart” then his intention is truly to support GMA’s extension of term. But what irritated me more is on how GMA reacted. She tried to show “irritation” (by rolling her eyes and covering her face). But she undoubtedly favored Dureza’s prayer. If she didn’t, she should have reprimanded Dureza for such malicious prayer. From her body language, I should say that she was elated. Her reaction seems to be similar to that of a high school girl being informed that the cutest guy in campus has a crush on her.

I find it irritating. Is it really necessary for politicians to politicize everything—to the extent of using Christianity? Is it part of their job description? I wonder when these politicians would realize that more than politics, they are public servants; and that they were voted precisely to work for the people.

***

When devils pray, the intention is not to communicate with God—it’s to advance their personal and political motives.

Let’s pray a genuine prayer, a prayer for the benefit of the country, and not for the people who have led this country astray.

The martyrdom of Eliseo dela Paz & JocJoc Bolante

It has been a perpetual theme: sacrifice is the greatest act of love and loyalty that anyone can do.

With this in mind, I can’t help but ask myself how much love these two “good dogs” have for their bosses; how loyal they are to the god who feeds their mouths (as well as their bellies).

Can you just imagine a PNP general, once feared by his subordinates, accepting the entire fault? What’s more amusing is his "heroic act" of accepting all the tomatoes, stones, and everything pelted upon him, his wife, and the rest of the Euro generals. How noble. But if he thinks his act would lead him to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani in Taguig, he’s dead wrong. Soon, we would see dela Paz buried under his poorly constructed lies and alibis.

An even more “classic” type of martyrdom is Bolante’s, which could even outlast that of the GOMBURZA or the Trece Martirez—at least in the eyes of his boss, the one who led him to the road to perdition.

I can’t imagine where he got such nerves to act as if he’s as innocent as a child—where in fact, his acting and dialogue are poorly rehearsed. Nobody was happy and nobody believed his claims about his innocence. More importantly, nobody believed that his boss has nothing to do with it.

Somehow, I also pity these two people, because it’s also possible that they would like to expose the people behind it, but they just can’t make themselves and their families the target of their boss’s bounty hunters.

Technically speaking, they may think that they are winning this game, but later on, they’ll realize (if they still have a conscience) how wrong it is to steal the money of the republic; how evil it is to use the supposed funds for projects beneficial to the Filipino people, in favor of their personal motives.

In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky espouses that the mind of the criminal would eventually torment him, and that is the greatest punishment anyone could receive.

This is the way to the truth: the hard way.

Jocjoc's joke isn't funny at all

Pathetic acting.

This is how I describe Bolante’s dramatic joke of clutching his chest for alleged chest pains upon arrival at the airport. Interestingly though, the doctors tell us that his problem is ulcer.

Can some theater arts group conduct an acting workshop on this scumbag? Can some prompter please shout, “Stick to the script!”

If he thought his “joke” made people laugh—or pity him—he’s dead wrong. Nobody believed that he was really suffering from whatever ailment—ulcer, hypertension, or hyperulcer for that matter. Nobody cares—or at least I don’t—whether he’s dying or what. After all, did he even care if the Filipino people were dying out of hunger when they squandered the 700 billion fertilizer funds to campaign his illegitimate boss?

The real people experiencing such pains are the Filipino people from which they have robbed. We clutch our chests for we can’t bare such poor acting, such lame jokes, such blunt corruption and outright crime against us. We squeeze our stomachs—together with our pockets—for we cannot fill ourselves with our immediate needs such as food, shelter, clothing, education, and health services.

BUKELYA

Whether you agree or not, it’s a fact: We have unconsciously developed a culture of ignominy over standards, rules, and regulations. We tend to console ourselves by saying, “If you’re not caught, then there’s no problem.” Somehow, this notion is acceptable—especially if you’re going to view “decisions” and “choices” from an existentialist’s point of view. But what appalls me is the fact that when people get caught, they are not so talented as to make up stories and save their sorry asses.

The recent discovery of PNP’s P6.9M “contingency fund” is one hell of a catch; and I should say that these men in uniform didn’t undergo any drama classes as they are so poor in presenting themselves in the Senate inquiry.

Indeed, everyone suddenly shifted attention from the economic recession, Meralco bills, and transportation fare issues to the junket-looking trip that our noble cops—sworn “to serve” (probably their big bellies) and “to protect” (their personal assets, perhaps)—and their wives have gotten themselves into.

But “getting caught” isn’t new.

We caught Erap on tape, having fun while gambling people’s money.

We caught Gloria over the phone talking to Garci, and asking him to manipulate the election in Mindanao to her favor.

We caught Jocjoc hoarding the fertilizer funds in favor of his ingrate boss.

We caught Ben Abalos profiteering from the canceled NBN-ZTE deal—and witnessed how the issue “bukoled.”

Indeed, the current issue about the disputed Moscow trip isn’t really “new.” We have proven since time immemorial that this country is run by greedy and corrupt officials who never had the conscience to consider that the money that they are squandering came from the sweat and blood of common people like us.

But I think we should never be contented by exposing their crimes. The issue will never be closed unless someone gets penalized for his/her wrong acts.

I just hope and pray that the Senate inquiry will lead into something fruitful, because it has also been proven that we’re just good in catching, but these big fish criminals seldom get punished. Why not remove the blindfold of that Justice statue?

Re-educating the Bloody Britons

I find it quite ironic. The nation that presented a culture of elegance and sophisticated etiquette is exactly the same nation that shows intolerable and offensive behavior.

True enough, the way BBC defends itself is a reflection of how boastful and conceited this nation has become.

This isn’t something new of course. Edward Said, author of the book “Culture and Imperialism” and proponent of the term “Orientalism”, has presented a lot of Imperialist nature from the literatures coming from European countries, especially that of England. Indeed, this nation continuously raises their pointed noses on top of the world.

The portion in a “comedy” show—where a Filipina househelper was commanded like marionette, making her the subject of laughter—clearly showcases the imperialist nature of the Britons. They even had the nerve to defend themselves by saying that the controversial show was “so far beyond the realms of reality as to be absurd—and in no way is intended to demean or upset any viewer.” (PDI, 10 October 2008)

Of course, any person would present an “It was not intentional” alibi for such matters that raises discrimination issues in the global community. But these Bloody Britons should have thought of that before playing god towards the Filipina househelper (and besides, it was them who defined “Filipina” as a brown-skinned househelper in a controversial dictionary. Correct me if I’m wrong.)

Moreover, even if they claim that it was not intended “to demean or upset any viewer,” nobody would believe them since their actions are not parallel to their words.

Come to think of it, when you unintentionally said something derogatory to someone, and you really didn’t intend it, your automatic response (if you don’t belong to the imperialist culture, of course) would be to say “sorry” and appease the person—make him/her understand that it was not your intention to hurt his/her feelings.

But the Bloody Britons kept their noses high, as if saying “We didn’t do anything wrong. Hence, there’s no reason to be sorry about.”

Should we hate the Britons? Not exactly.

I think we should re-educate them on the good manners and proper conduct that, in the first place, came from them.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Let’s continue to raise the Filipino voice and tell the world how disgusted we are about such actions.