Heads up corrupt officials, conspirators, accomplices, and the likes!
Are you getting worried over getting caught of your mischievous acts? You no longer know what to do?
Well, fear no more! Here in our country, the Philippines, there is one great alternative. You would get caught, yes, but I assure you that you would not be punished a single instance, you will not even spend a single second in behind bars! But wait! There's more! If you spill the beans right now, you even get to be hailed a hero!
Yes! Unbelievable huh? Go to the senate or to the House of Representatives (take note: to the legislators not adjudicators or you might land in trouble). Then blow the whistle (accuse your friends and accomplices of doing the crime). Finally, reap the acclaims from the public for you were very brave at exposing these corruptions (the key here is that you admit your participation and acknowledge possible punishments).
Repeat after me. Go to the Senate. Blow the Whistle. Reap the Acclaims. Again. Go to the Senate. Blow the Whistle. Reap the Acclaims.
Chavit Singson did this. He actually was the pioneer of this method. I would even dare say Jun Lozada is a practitioner of this. Joc-joc Bolante should take a leaf out of their book. JDV jr is doing so, but he lacks the key which is to admit his participation.
Amazing, huh? Guns and Roses, WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
MRT Hell Ride
As a student of UP-Diliman and a resident of Pasay, I nearly have to pass all of MRT's stations except for the first and the last, Taft Avenue and North Avenue, respectively, every school day. This daily trip, rather than boring is a big struggle for me. More than that, it is a great opportunity for me to train my will power.
Why is this so? Just imagine. MRT is situated on EDSA. EDSA is the main highway and, as such, many people, to say the least, pass through it everyday. This makes EDSA the best place to put your advertisements, screaming billboards and all. Now why is that supposed to be a struggle? Simply, the advertisements these people use are indecent. (For my views on these, please refer to my previous post, Sexual (Im)Maturity.) Flesh shed indiscriminately, slogans with negative values taught, usually appealing to the senses and the appetite.
Every time I ride the MRT, I imagine myself as a warrior passing through menacing enemies all of whom I dare not look in the eye. What made it more challenging is that the only way to avoid these billboards is to look at the rails of the train which of course nausates me at times.
Then, why avoid looking at them? If you are indeed tough on your virtues, you could look at these and be not affected. Eeeeng! False. No matter who you are, you are not a stone, thus spaketh a good friend. What you see, affects your values, which affects your habits, then virtues, and ultimately your second nature. Most things start with what eneters us through our senses. So it is better, in fact best, to guard it.
To my fellow MRT riders, good luck to us. Let us just be eager in passing the Ortigas station where a charming figure of Our Lady stands. Ah! The best part of my daily MRT ride!
Why is this so? Just imagine. MRT is situated on EDSA. EDSA is the main highway and, as such, many people, to say the least, pass through it everyday. This makes EDSA the best place to put your advertisements, screaming billboards and all. Now why is that supposed to be a struggle? Simply, the advertisements these people use are indecent. (For my views on these, please refer to my previous post, Sexual (Im)Maturity.) Flesh shed indiscriminately, slogans with negative values taught, usually appealing to the senses and the appetite.
Every time I ride the MRT, I imagine myself as a warrior passing through menacing enemies all of whom I dare not look in the eye. What made it more challenging is that the only way to avoid these billboards is to look at the rails of the train which of course nausates me at times.
Then, why avoid looking at them? If you are indeed tough on your virtues, you could look at these and be not affected. Eeeeng! False. No matter who you are, you are not a stone, thus spaketh a good friend. What you see, affects your values, which affects your habits, then virtues, and ultimately your second nature. Most things start with what eneters us through our senses. So it is better, in fact best, to guard it.
To my fellow MRT riders, good luck to us. Let us just be eager in passing the Ortigas station where a charming figure of Our Lady stands. Ah! The best part of my daily MRT ride!
Friday, November 14, 2008
Norms of Piety then, Norms of Vanity now
Here is a list of the replacement of the Catholic norms of piety into norms of vanity. This post may be subject to change if I find other cases. You can contribute here and I will credit you for it. just leave it in the comment and I will add it in the post.:)
- Rosary in the pocket then; comb and mirror in the pocket now.
- Novena, prayer, and petition cards then; powder, cologne, and make-up now.
- Prayers upon waking up then; refreshing upon waking up now.
- Prayers before sleeping then; cucumbers in the eyes before sleeping now.
- Going to the mass on Sundays then; going to mall on Sundays, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursday, Fridays, and Saturdays now.
- Gathering indulgences then; gathering pogi points now.
- Examination of conscience then; examination of visage now.
- Confessing sins to priests then; confessing figure problems to dermatologists and Vicky Belo now.
- Visiting the Blessed Sacrament then; visiting the spa now.
- Monthly recollection then; unnecessary monthly parlor now.
I am not of the opinion that certain activities I described are essentially 'norms of vanity,' they become so when you do them with the intention of just trying to look good, to attract lovers for example or just for the simple sake of looking good and fishing compliments. In fact, many of them are indispensable if you want to develop a holistic you inevitably includes looking at least appreciable on the outside. Just think for example if the Pope does not brush his teeth, then he may lose some authority.
Again, moderation and correction of intention is what is needed.
Again, moderation and correction of intention is what is needed.
Idealism versus Realism
I will be discussing a fallacy happening even in the lower cellars of society. This is the misconception of what is ideal and what is real. Ask anyone and surely you would get an equation of idealism to impossible, and worse, realism to brutal. Trivial as it may seem, this keeps us from achieving the greatest form of happiness in any endeavor. This prevents us from going for the gold, instead we satisfy ourselves with silver under the brutal reference of the fake 'truth'. This chains us from achieving our dreams. In this post, I will expose my theory why is this and how this should be addressed.
Perhaps the best way of approaching this is by looking into how the words or concepts 'idealism' and 'realism' were formed as opposed to how they are being used now. Originally, idealism pertains to a philosophy that the ultimate nature of the world exists in ideas. Kant goes to saying that ideas only are what we can know for certain. Thus, this can be extended as to how the world should be because this is what we can comprehend clearly for these are our creations. Ideals in short originally meant what the world should be.
Realism on the other hand originally meant what we immediately see by our senses. This is external, contrary to the internal idealism. This is what is.
Well, then, if those are the original meanings of the concepts, why is impossible now attached to idealism and brutal to realism?
Let us, this time, start with realism. How did it achieve its brutal nature? I propose we look at the early philosophers understanding then. They base upon what they observe. And observation in nature will lead us to an understanding of the wretched way realism was perceived. It is just brutal to see animals devour each other in the jungle but this is of course due to lack of understanding of the balance of life. Thus, theories like the social-contract theory emerged which is founded on the assumption that the state of nature is a wretched state with members experiencing short life and insecurity. The real thus becomes brutal. Anything otherwise is surreal. Anywhere applied, be it on poetry, literature, art, philosophy, and politics, the real is necessarily brutal. Such a conception of real provides man no comfort giving him only reasons to appreciate his wretchedness and to wallow in hopelessness.
Idealism on the other hand, became stringed with impossible and not practical when it was used by Thomas More in Utopia. Utopia defined from its roots roughly means 'not place'. Therefore, Utopia, which in the book is a city of ideal socio-political-cultural structure, does not exist. As a result, idealism is now used pejoratively. When one is described as idealistic, he is talked about with a degree of contempt and sometimes humor for he thinks of how things should go, he dreams of dreams not yet seen by the world, thus not realistic. Often, this type of behavior to those idealistics lead to the depreciation of their ideals. A friend of mine wrote, "Ideals should not be lowered, people should be elevated." Needless to say, I agree. That is how it should be. Of course, some will reckon that that in itself is too idealistic.
What I now want to point to therefore to address the dilemma is the use of not practical and impossible. Also, take note of the polarization of the ideal from what is real.
On the first distinction we have to make, an impractical thing is not necessarily impossible. It is just that impractical to do. It is doable but doing so will cost more than the gain. As opposed to impossible where the only gain is that we tried. This is one of my major contentions, people should know how to separate impractical from impossible especially in describing an ideal. An impossible idea or plan cannot be an ideal. This is because by the very fact that it is impossible. It will no longer be the ideal because in pursuit of it you would lose things and gain nothing. The same goes of course with the impractical only that we have to look at it on a case-to-case basis.
Now, let us address the polarization of realism and idealism. First of all, realism is grounded on fallacies resulting from poor understanding, discussed earlier. Nevertheless, even if realism is indeed true, idealism can and should hold ground. If we see the world as brutal, nothing can be more tragic than doing nothing about it for we are gifted with ideas. These ideas we could and should use to create our ideals. Realism then is on our assessment stage, remaing in this stage is a reactive stance. Idealism is our solution-finding stage, the proactive stage. Of course, these are just foundations. We have to follow up with actions and virtues.
The message I want to forward is that resigning to the real, especially if brutally understood, is not an act worthy of human dignity and potential. Ideals should be revitalized as our starting point, only then can we achieve a harmonious society where everyone is going for the good.
Perhaps the best way of approaching this is by looking into how the words or concepts 'idealism' and 'realism' were formed as opposed to how they are being used now. Originally, idealism pertains to a philosophy that the ultimate nature of the world exists in ideas. Kant goes to saying that ideas only are what we can know for certain. Thus, this can be extended as to how the world should be because this is what we can comprehend clearly for these are our creations. Ideals in short originally meant what the world should be.
Realism on the other hand originally meant what we immediately see by our senses. This is external, contrary to the internal idealism. This is what is.
Well, then, if those are the original meanings of the concepts, why is impossible now attached to idealism and brutal to realism?
Let us, this time, start with realism. How did it achieve its brutal nature? I propose we look at the early philosophers understanding then. They base upon what they observe. And observation in nature will lead us to an understanding of the wretched way realism was perceived. It is just brutal to see animals devour each other in the jungle but this is of course due to lack of understanding of the balance of life. Thus, theories like the social-contract theory emerged which is founded on the assumption that the state of nature is a wretched state with members experiencing short life and insecurity. The real thus becomes brutal. Anything otherwise is surreal. Anywhere applied, be it on poetry, literature, art, philosophy, and politics, the real is necessarily brutal. Such a conception of real provides man no comfort giving him only reasons to appreciate his wretchedness and to wallow in hopelessness.
Idealism on the other hand, became stringed with impossible and not practical when it was used by Thomas More in Utopia. Utopia defined from its roots roughly means 'not place'. Therefore, Utopia, which in the book is a city of ideal socio-political-cultural structure, does not exist. As a result, idealism is now used pejoratively. When one is described as idealistic, he is talked about with a degree of contempt and sometimes humor for he thinks of how things should go, he dreams of dreams not yet seen by the world, thus not realistic. Often, this type of behavior to those idealistics lead to the depreciation of their ideals. A friend of mine wrote, "Ideals should not be lowered, people should be elevated." Needless to say, I agree. That is how it should be. Of course, some will reckon that that in itself is too idealistic.
What I now want to point to therefore to address the dilemma is the use of not practical and impossible. Also, take note of the polarization of the ideal from what is real.
On the first distinction we have to make, an impractical thing is not necessarily impossible. It is just that impractical to do. It is doable but doing so will cost more than the gain. As opposed to impossible where the only gain is that we tried. This is one of my major contentions, people should know how to separate impractical from impossible especially in describing an ideal. An impossible idea or plan cannot be an ideal. This is because by the very fact that it is impossible. It will no longer be the ideal because in pursuit of it you would lose things and gain nothing. The same goes of course with the impractical only that we have to look at it on a case-to-case basis.
Now, let us address the polarization of realism and idealism. First of all, realism is grounded on fallacies resulting from poor understanding, discussed earlier. Nevertheless, even if realism is indeed true, idealism can and should hold ground. If we see the world as brutal, nothing can be more tragic than doing nothing about it for we are gifted with ideas. These ideas we could and should use to create our ideals. Realism then is on our assessment stage, remaing in this stage is a reactive stance. Idealism is our solution-finding stage, the proactive stage. Of course, these are just foundations. We have to follow up with actions and virtues.
The message I want to forward is that resigning to the real, especially if brutally understood, is not an act worthy of human dignity and potential. Ideals should be revitalized as our starting point, only then can we achieve a harmonious society where everyone is going for the good.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
To Arrive at Interior Peace (article taken from http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=269)
"Humility is another good way to arrive at interior peace. He has said so: 'Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart: and you will find rest for your souls.'" (The Way, 607)
- Prayer is the humility of the man who acknowledges his profound wretchedness and the greatness of God. He addresses and adores God as one who expects everything from Him and nothing from himself.
- Faith is the humility of the mind which renounces its own judgement and surrenders to the verdict and authority of the Church.
- Obedience is the humility of the will which subjects itself to the will of another, for God's sake.
- Chastity is the humility of the flesh, which subjects itself to the spirit.
- Exterior mortification is the humility of the senses.
- Penance is the humility of all the passions, immolated to the Lord.
- Humility is truth on the road of the ascetic struggle. (Furrow, 259)
Humility, Christian self-examination, begins with recognizing God's gift. It is something quite distinct from shrugging one's shoulders at the way things are going. And it has nothing to do with a sense of futility or discouragement in the face of history. In one's personal life, and sometimes also in the life of associations or institutions, there may be things which have to change, perhaps a lot of things. But the attitude with which a Christian should face these problems should be, above all, one of amazement at the greatness of the works of God, compared with the littleness of man. (Conversations with Monsignor Escriva de Balaguer, 72, 4)
Allow me to remind you that among other evident signs of a lack of humility are:
- Thinking that what you do or say is better than what others do or say;
- Always wanting to get your own way;
- Arguing when you are not right or — when you are — insisting stubbornly or with bad manners;
- Giving your opinion without being asked for it, when charity does not demand you to do so;
- Despising the point of view of others;
- Not being aware that all the gifts and qualities you have are on loan;
- Not acknowledging that you are unworthy of all honor or esteem, even the ground you are treading on or the things you own;
- Mentioning yourself as an example in conversation;
- Speaking badly about yourself, so that they may form a good opinion of you, or contradict you;
- Making excuses when rebuked;
- Hiding some humiliating faults from your director, so that he may not lose the good opinion he has of you;
- Hearing praise with satisfaction, or being glad that others have spoken well of you;
- Being hurt that others are held in greater esteem than you;
- Refusing to carry out menial tasks;
- Seeking or wanting to be singled out;
- Letting drop words of self-praise in conversation, or words that might show your honesty, your wit or skill, your professional prestige ... ;
- Being ashamed of not having certain possessions ... (Furrow, 263)
Father, you told me, I have committed many errors, I have made so many mistakes. I know, I replied. But God Our Lord, who also knows all that and has taken it into account, only asks you to be humble enough to admit it and asks that you struggle to make amends, so as to serve him better each day with more interior life, with continual prayer and with piety, and making use of the proper means to sanctify your work. (The Forge, 379)
Powerful Legislators, Judicial Legislators
I do not know if I am mistaken but is that our Philippine Senate is slowly transforming into a powerful judiciary branch probing in all national issues which happen to be the same issues the media is after.
Remember Estrada's time, when the blue ribbon committee initiated its own hearing with the impeachment complaint well on the way? It did so despite Senators Francisco Tatad and Miriam Defensor-Santiago's reservations against the hearing under the guise of launching an inquiry 'in aid of legislation.' But what laws did they legislate? Several senators, according to Tatad's A Nation on Fire, joked it was actually 'in aid of reelection.'
Would I go wrong in saying that this is happening again? ZTE? Fertilizer Fund Scam? The senate conducting an inquiry in aid of legislation? I hope indeed there will be legislation.
Remember Estrada's time, when the blue ribbon committee initiated its own hearing with the impeachment complaint well on the way? It did so despite Senators Francisco Tatad and Miriam Defensor-Santiago's reservations against the hearing under the guise of launching an inquiry 'in aid of legislation.' But what laws did they legislate? Several senators, according to Tatad's A Nation on Fire, joked it was actually 'in aid of reelection.'
Would I go wrong in saying that this is happening again? ZTE? Fertilizer Fund Scam? The senate conducting an inquiry in aid of legislation? I hope indeed there will be legislation.
Monday, November 10, 2008
What a Pacman victory would mean
Manny Pacquiao's and Oscar De La Hoya's big fight has been receiving scathing comments from big boxing figures. The magic of Bob Arum once again proved amazing turning this near-impossible fight between two clearly mismatched opponents. He is feeding the media with comments in favor of Pacquiao to create an illusion of close competition between the two without which the fight would have been concluded trash even before the bell rings.
Perhaps, that is the very reason why no one is dreading what I am dreading. They all believe that Manny Pacquiao will be butchered by Dela Hoya. However, in the event that Arum, Roach, and Diaz are right that Pacquiao has a good chance to defy adversities and acquire legendary glory, this might mean future disaster for boxing.
Remember the early days of UFC when they were still underground? There were no class divisions and my what strange match-ups I saw! The most absurd of which is a fight between a heavy weight sumo wrestler and a skinny jiu-jitsu fighter. The skinny guy was thrown out of the octagon! Now however, UFC seemed to have learned keeping strict weight divisions.
With Manny though, they find it hard to match him up to someone worthy of his speed and power. No one keeps up with his fast pace. Marquez sure can match him but the excitement of exchange is not there nor the freezing knock-outs. So now they are forcing a fight, all proper of course, since Manny will move up and Dela Hoya will move down to him.
My prediction here is thus if Manny wins, boxing will go the reverse way UFC did. A Pacman victory, either by decision or by KO, might mean future fights between mismatched opponents. A brutal loss for Manny though will blare as a warning sign against future similar clashes. Take note, brutal; a decision loss will not do.
Perhaps, that is the very reason why no one is dreading what I am dreading. They all believe that Manny Pacquiao will be butchered by Dela Hoya. However, in the event that Arum, Roach, and Diaz are right that Pacquiao has a good chance to defy adversities and acquire legendary glory, this might mean future disaster for boxing.
Remember the early days of UFC when they were still underground? There were no class divisions and my what strange match-ups I saw! The most absurd of which is a fight between a heavy weight sumo wrestler and a skinny jiu-jitsu fighter. The skinny guy was thrown out of the octagon! Now however, UFC seemed to have learned keeping strict weight divisions.
With Manny though, they find it hard to match him up to someone worthy of his speed and power. No one keeps up with his fast pace. Marquez sure can match him but the excitement of exchange is not there nor the freezing knock-outs. So now they are forcing a fight, all proper of course, since Manny will move up and Dela Hoya will move down to him.
My prediction here is thus if Manny wins, boxing will go the reverse way UFC did. A Pacman victory, either by decision or by KO, might mean future fights between mismatched opponents. A brutal loss for Manny though will blare as a warning sign against future similar clashes. Take note, brutal; a decision loss will not do.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Showbiz (Im)Maturity
It is apparent that there is a distortion of values and understanding of maturity among prominent showbiz personalities. And this is well-endorsed by dominant and, well, infamous magazine FHM and a growing breed in the movie industry called independent (indie) films. The FHM and several indie films (note that by definition alone we cannot generalize indie films as a distorter of value, there are certainly good and truly artistic ones) are providing avenues for artists to project a negative image of their craft.
Let us first take into account indie films. Though by definition, this breed of films differs from mainstream films solely on the fact that they are not funded by commercial producers such as GMA or ABS-CBN, thus, the name independent. However, loud talk and general assessment attaches nudity, gay relationships, promiscuity, bad language among others to the cult of indie films. And this is bitter for viewing public and film enthusiasts has long been looking for films of substance which could have come from indie films. Note that serious directors, those who really want to convey a message and are either unfortunate or determined, steer away from certain control (Mahiwagang Kamiseta legend) and poor artistry haunting mainstream films.
The trouble now comes because most of the messages this serious directors want to convey is that of immoral characteristic. Do I need to give examples? Come on! Sexual immorality disguised as art is the name of the game. Poor craft, art is. People are using it wrongly, subconsciously, hopefully, as an excuse to show flesh and same-sex intimacy in their works. Sex topics has long been proven as a sure getter. I was amused by a poster in UP by an advertising organization. It has in the center "SEX" all characters in bold red. Underneath, in relatively minuscule font, "We need only one word to get your attention" (Forgive me if I quoted wrong, I am of poor memory and the poster has expired.) That poster epitomized the power of sex to attract attention both from those who approve of it (wishing to see some) and disapprove (wishing to attack it.) While I am sure many will purr against that by saying that their intention is true art and not profit or to attract attention, the cold fact lies that whether you intend it or not the nature of the act provokes a negative resonance and casts a shadow of doubt on your artistic brilliance. Bluntly, true artists will prove their worth if they can produce art that will grasp people's attention without the use of this sure-getters.
Now, let us turn to FHM. I will be direct on this one. Many a showbiz figures has considered posing for FHM as the indelible mark that they have matured. I am strongly tempted to give examples but a description should suffice: a former child star wants to destroy the child star image to open new roles for her. An interview, I quote, "Napagdesisyunan kong mag-pose for the FHM to show people na I have matured already." Huh? Last time we studied values, maturity consists of prudence and several other virtues but nowhere did I read that maturity consists of taking off your clothes (well, perhaps in showbiz columns). In fact, it contradicts maturity! A child, innocent yet of malice, can run around naked but as she grows, she realizes she has to put on some clothes. Would you call someone mature if she or he poses for a magazine knowing that men and, perhaps, women would ogle at it and fantasize at you making you an object of their pleasure (a great emphasis on this! we are human accorded with dignity completely opposed to an object)?
The same, if not worse, distortion exists in indie films. This one I have to cite: Walang Kawala. Of course, I have not watched it but Tempo columns' description of it is clear enough. Polo Ravales and Joseph Bitangcol is now being lauded for they 'have matured.' Acclamations such as this are completely illogical with the term mature. To mature means to perfect your human nature. And it is not human nature to copulate with the same sex, not even animal nature! Our nature is male to female, absolutely not male to male or female to female at that. What they do is a distortion of true maturity by posing daringness as an indicator of maturity not hinting immorality and imprudence in it as a sure sign of immaturity.
They have the media in their hands, may they wield it properly.
Let us first take into account indie films. Though by definition, this breed of films differs from mainstream films solely on the fact that they are not funded by commercial producers such as GMA or ABS-CBN, thus, the name independent. However, loud talk and general assessment attaches nudity, gay relationships, promiscuity, bad language among others to the cult of indie films. And this is bitter for viewing public and film enthusiasts has long been looking for films of substance which could have come from indie films. Note that serious directors, those who really want to convey a message and are either unfortunate or determined, steer away from certain control (Mahiwagang Kamiseta legend) and poor artistry haunting mainstream films.
The trouble now comes because most of the messages this serious directors want to convey is that of immoral characteristic. Do I need to give examples? Come on! Sexual immorality disguised as art is the name of the game. Poor craft, art is. People are using it wrongly, subconsciously, hopefully, as an excuse to show flesh and same-sex intimacy in their works. Sex topics has long been proven as a sure getter. I was amused by a poster in UP by an advertising organization. It has in the center "SEX" all characters in bold red. Underneath, in relatively minuscule font, "We need only one word to get your attention" (Forgive me if I quoted wrong, I am of poor memory and the poster has expired.) That poster epitomized the power of sex to attract attention both from those who approve of it (wishing to see some) and disapprove (wishing to attack it.) While I am sure many will purr against that by saying that their intention is true art and not profit or to attract attention, the cold fact lies that whether you intend it or not the nature of the act provokes a negative resonance and casts a shadow of doubt on your artistic brilliance. Bluntly, true artists will prove their worth if they can produce art that will grasp people's attention without the use of this sure-getters.
Now, let us turn to FHM. I will be direct on this one. Many a showbiz figures has considered posing for FHM as the indelible mark that they have matured. I am strongly tempted to give examples but a description should suffice: a former child star wants to destroy the child star image to open new roles for her. An interview, I quote, "Napagdesisyunan kong mag-pose for the FHM to show people na I have matured already." Huh? Last time we studied values, maturity consists of prudence and several other virtues but nowhere did I read that maturity consists of taking off your clothes (well, perhaps in showbiz columns). In fact, it contradicts maturity! A child, innocent yet of malice, can run around naked but as she grows, she realizes she has to put on some clothes. Would you call someone mature if she or he poses for a magazine knowing that men and, perhaps, women would ogle at it and fantasize at you making you an object of their pleasure (a great emphasis on this! we are human accorded with dignity completely opposed to an object)?
The same, if not worse, distortion exists in indie films. This one I have to cite: Walang Kawala. Of course, I have not watched it but Tempo columns' description of it is clear enough. Polo Ravales and Joseph Bitangcol is now being lauded for they 'have matured.' Acclamations such as this are completely illogical with the term mature. To mature means to perfect your human nature. And it is not human nature to copulate with the same sex, not even animal nature! Our nature is male to female, absolutely not male to male or female to female at that. What they do is a distortion of true maturity by posing daringness as an indicator of maturity not hinting immorality and imprudence in it as a sure sign of immaturity.
They have the media in their hands, may they wield it properly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)