Breeding Grounds for Electronic Inks

You Are The Sunshine of My Life

2009-04-14T06:53:00.000-07:00

You Are the Sunshine of My Life - Stevie Wonder

You Are The Sunshine Of My Life
That's Why I'll Always Stay Around
You Are The Apple Of My Eye
Forever You'll Stay In My Heart

I Feel Like This Is The Beginning
Though I've Loved You For A Million Years
And If I Thought Our Love Was Ending
I'd Find Myself Drowning In My Own Tears

You Are The Sunshine Of My Life
That's Why I'll Always Stay Around
You Are The Apple Of My Eye
Forever You'll Stay In My Heart

You Must Have Known That I Was Lonely
Because You Came To My Rescue
And I Know That This Must Be Heaven
How Could So Much Love Be Inside Of You

You Are The Sunshine Of My Life
That's Why I'll Always Stay Around
You Are The Apple Of My Eye
Forever You'll Stay In My Heart

You Are The Sunshine Of My Life
That's Why I'll Always Stay Around
You Are The Apple Of My Eye
Forever You'll Stay In My Heart

Three Little Birds

2009-04-14T05:27:00.000-07:00

Dont worry about a thing,
cause every little thing gonna be all right.
Singin: dont worry about a thing,
cause every little thing gonna be all right!

Rise up this mornin,
Smiled with the risin sun,
Three little birds
Pitch by my doorstep
Singin sweet songs
Of melodies pure and true,
Sayin, this is my message to you-ou-ou

Singin: dont worry bout a thing,
cause every little thing gonna be all right.
Singin: dont worry (dont worry) bout a thing,
cause every little thing gonna be all right!

Rise up this mornin,
Smiled with the risin sun,
Three little birds
Pitch by my doorstep
Singin sweet songs
Of melodies pure and true,
Sayin, this is my message to you-ou-ou:

Singin: dont worry about a thing, worry about a thing, oh!
Every little thing gonna be all right. dont worry!
Singin: dont worry about a thing - I wont worry!
cause every little thing gonna be all right.

Singin: dont worry about a thing,
cause every little thing gonna be all right - I wont worry!
Singin: dont worry about a thing,
cause every little thing gonna be all right.
Singin: dont worry about a thing, oh no!
cause every little thing gonna be all right!

Blue Moon

2009-04-12T11:47:00.001-07:00

Blue moon
You saw me standing alone
Without a dream in my heart
Without a love of my own

Blue moon
You knew just what I was there for
You heard me saying a prayer for
Someone I really could care for

And then there suddenly appeared before me
The only one my arms could ever hold
I heard somebody whisper, “please, adore me”
And when I looked the moon had turned to gold.

Blue moon
You saw me standing alone
Without a dream in my heart
Without a love of my own

Blue moon
You knew just what I was there for
You heard me saying a prayer for
Someone I really could care for

And then there suddenly appeared before me
The only one my arms could ever hold
I heard somebody whisper, “please, adore me”
And when I looked the moon had turned to gold.

Blue moon
Now I’m no longer alone
Without a dream in my heart,
Without a love of my own
Without a love of my own
Without a love of my own
Without a love of my own

Controlling the Population Control

2009-03-15T07:25:00.000-07:00

On December 10, 1974, the United States (US) of America promulgated the National Security Study Memorandum 200, dubbed The Kissinger Report. The report detailed an aggressive strategy in promoting population control in 13 developing countries: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia. The policy would make it easier for the US to exploit the resources of these developing countries (Clowes).
Apparently, the US could gain more minerals by limiting the population of these developing countries. The problem with mineral acquisition is not its scarcity but the division between the countries involved. The less population a country has the fewer minerals it needs. Thus, US’s hyper consumerism could be sated.
Mineral acquisition is not the only prospective gain with the population policy. There are a lot of other issues but one common factor among them is that the report acknowledges that a population policy in these 13 countries would benefit the US. Up to now, the memorandum is still in effect.
The concept of population control has been around since 1798 when Thomas Malthus first published his book titled, An Essay on the Principle of Population. However, it was more popularized when Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, a book forecasting the doom of overpopulation, in 1968. But The Kissinger Report appears to be the first opus that details how such a policy could be promoted in the international field.
Imperialistic as the US nature of population policy may be, it could not be dismissed easily. Not even a responsible Catholic should dismiss population control despite the Church’s clear stand on population control without examining it. Not even in the Philippines, virtually a Catholic country.
Congressman Edcel Lagman drafted a bill supporting reproductive health. It, more than anything, advocates contraceptives and intends to use state funds for it; and promotes two as the ideal child number a family making it a very subtle form of population control. The blatant disdain toward the Catholic teaching, particularly Pope Pius XVI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, drew staunch opposition from the Church, which comprises 82.9% of the Philippines’ 88.57 million-large population from the last 2000 survey.
In defense, Lagman draws from the age-old Malthusian doctrine that unless population is controlled, its growth would outstrip the food production of the world. Lagman, like most other supporters of population control, begins from the assumption that the Philippines—or the world at that—is overpopulated. This overpopulation theory captured the imagination of the world when Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. Ehrlich warns the world that humanity is procreating toward oblivion (Hartmann 3, 13).
These two beliefs has become too indoctrinated that it has become conventional wisdom (Hartmann 3, 13). People easily declare that the world is overpopulated without batting an eyelash. Debaters could easily use overpopulation as an argument without reference to raw data. In fact, virtually, no one challenged these doctrines for more than a century—other than the Church.
The Church’s doctrine on the infallibility of the Pope regarding faith and morals is one of the most important parts of the creed of a Catholic. This is also one of the defining factors to call someone a Catholic faithful. However, in this era where everything is doubted unless explained scientifically, such a doctrine is hard to swallow. As such, it would require a great deal of reasoning to discredit population control. That is what this paper seeks—a rational explanation why population control is counterproductive.
It is clear that this issue should be tackled at its head. Population control purportedly promises a stable if not progressive economy. It assures us that scarcity of food would not be a problem. This paper attempts to prove it wrong. However, in such a case that it fails to do so, population control would still be something despicable from a political science viewpoint. Many checks regarding the relationship of government and the state are violated by population control programs. It strikes even the ideology championed by its originator, US liberal democracy. With the politico-economic perspective, a basic principle of psychology and anthropology should offer us a scenario that exposes to us the anomaly of population control.

Economic Suicide
Theories are tested by time. The Malthusian theory is no exception. One curiosity of our age is that Malthus’ forecast has proved wrong. Food production now has surpassed any recorded history (Kasun 26). Malthus’ assumption that food production increases in an arithmetic progression—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on—while population increases in a geometric progression—1, 2, 4, 16, 32, and so on—proved to be false (Hartmann 13). In fact, population growth hastened technological innovations that explain the rise in food production (North et al 8).
A simplistic explanation to this trend could be adopted. People, particularly those in the third world countries, produce more than they can consume. This is particularly true in agricultural countries.
But more than this, population growth encourages relentless innovation. A ‘continually growing population ensures a continually growing market.’ Thus, entrepreneurs become bolder in investing in innovative equipment. Because of the little risk of running out of customers, businessmen are willing to fly new heights in coming up with new methods or equipment to accelerate production (Spengler 24).
This can be easily explained by the law of supply and demand. In a large population, the demand for goods is so great that suppliers have an incentive to create new and easier methods of production to satisfy the demands of the market. Demand is a ‘major economic force (Seron 19).’
After seeing all these, one can easily conclude that population growth is the ‘prime mover’ of economic progress (Hartmann 14). Where there is no population growth, otherwise called zero population growth, there would be an economic stagnation. But population controllers, as what China and most other Western countries did, are actually promoting negative growth.
In China, they implemented a one-child policy. In Thailand, Lee Kwan Yew moved for a two-child policy. In Western states, there was really no definitive family size but it was conventional to stop at two. There is a problem with this because the ideal replacement fertility level is 2.1. This means that a family should, in an average, have slightly more than two children to replace the older generation.
To be more graphic on this, picture ten couples. Adopting a two-child policy, there would be a total of 20 children. Now, not all of these would live up to majority age of 18. Some may even die at birth. Some may choose not to marry. Some may have no capacity to bear a child. More than that, there is no assurance that the ratio of male to female is one-to-one. What we would have then is a smaller population, say 16, which is already a generous assumption. We have now only eight couples.
These new generation would then be the working generation. Our first set of persons is now old and is incapable of work. They would now rely on the pensions acquired from the taxes of the working generation through the social security system. Since the working generation is smaller in number, the old generation puts a heavy burden on them. Take also into consideration the scientific breakthroughs today particularly in the field of medicine which allows for a longer life but not necessarily a longer working capacity.
The hypothetical nation would then realize that negative population growth destroys their economy. So, they would start bringing up more children to reverse the situation. These children of the working generation are also incapable of work, and so they add yet another burden to them. In this very long span of time, the national economy would have suffered greatly, particularly the social security system.
The mental exercise above illustrates what happened to European countries that encouraged migrants to populate and work in their countries. This explains why US, for example, would pay a couple when they bear more a child. That is what people call, the ‘graying population.’
The Philippines, well-known for its skilled Overseas Filipino Workers, should not advocate population control for the benefit of the international community and its economic development. They are one of the reasons why Dr Bernardo Villegas, a renowned Harvard economist, forecasts a positive fate for the Philippines amid the global financial crisis. In a lecture, Villegas said that the Philippines would endure the crisis precisely because it has a large population who are capable of working in other countries. Money within the Philippines would also still continue circulation because the Philippines could sell its goods within itself. He describes the reproductive health bill as ‘economic suicide.’

Politically muddled
It is ironic that the US, champion of liberal democracy, is guilty of promoting a policy that is undemocratic. A population control policy, or to be more specific, the reproductive health bill, is undemocratic in two accounts. First, it is anti-poor. Second, it invades the private sphere.
The reproductive health bill is anti-poor. Underlying the crusade of population controllers is their blame of the ‘poor for their poverty and for their procreation,’ which causes the ‘population problem (Bondestam et al vii).’ In section 3, paragraph d of the reproductive health bill, the bill recognizes that manpower is the principal asset of this country. Representative Teodoro Locsin Jr. made an interesting inquiry as to why the bill is limiting population if it recognizes at the same time that manpower is the Philippines’ asset, which naturally comes from the population. The answer is that population control advocates see a certain part of the population as unproductive and does not contribute to the manpower of the country. This part of the population is the poor, also the handicapped (Locsin 14).
What the bill aims to do is to reduce the poor so that the rich could enjoy more wealth. Section 3, paragraph e: ‘the limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless.” Nothing could have put it better. Who is the burgeoning multitude? What is it in them that money spent for them becomes meaningless (Locsin 14)?
Second is that the reproductive health bill or any family planning program at that invades the private sphere. In a democracy, there are two spheres of life, the public and private. The public is where the government is sovereign but it cannot in any way invade the private sphere. When the government starts promoting contraception, it starts meddling in the method by which couples should have sex. This is an outright violation of the private sphere. This bill and policy is undemocratic.
One of the bill’s guarantees is its capability to give informed choice. It is here that we see the population planners distrust of the individual’s ability to make the right choice, even if in fact fully informed (Kasun 25). The bill heavily throws its weight on the promotion of informed choice yet allots a lot of space and funding for contraception. It compensates for natural family planning for example by simply saying that they would respect the individual should he/she opt for the natural method. But more outrageous than this is the mandatory sex education for elementary level pupils. Should parents disagree with having their child educated about condoms at school, they cannot do anything for it would be illegal if they withhold such information from their son. The bill guarantees a ‘freedom of informed choice.’
Speaking of informed choice, one of the most common misconceptions of IUDs, birth control pills, etc. with the exception of condoms is that these prevent conception, thus contraception. That is a mistake. The birth control pill, for example, simply weakens the uterine lining. The sperm meets the egg cell at the fallopian tube forming an embryo, which is already capable of life. After that, it goes back to the uterus to implant itself to the uterine lining where it would start growing. But since the pill has weakened the lining, the embryo cannot cling to it. The uterine lining along with the embryo would be excreted in the form of menstruation. Now that is killing a possibility of life. The 1987 Philippine Constitution guarantees the protection of the unborn from the moment of conception.

Psychological foreboding
Lee Kwan Yew of Thailand has promoted a two-child policy in his country not long ago. Now he saw what was earlier illustrated. He started encouraging women to have four children or more. But his new call was met with scorn. One of the stories goes that a woman told him to ‘try being a woman and get pregnant.’ This illustrates for us two of the main points of this paper.
The story confirms for us the economic damage population control may inflict. As what was previously illustrated, an attempt to correct the wrong would follow. But Lee Kwan Yew’s action emphasized the undemocratic factor of population planning. He effectively thought that he could yet again dictate to people the number of children they could have. He attempted to direct the women on how many children they should have—earlier, two; then, four. Nothing could be more blatant.
But why did the women of Thailand find it hard to readjust? A very simple concept in psychology and anthropology should help us understand.
Enculturation is the process by which an individual absorbs the requirements and values of the culture that surrounds him. Such values become deeply entrenched that it is very hard to uproot them. This is the danger we would run with the reproductive health bill. Even if it only moves for promotion of two children, not really coerces, the bill would create an atmosphere of valuing two children only.
In fact, it has become my habit to ask my friends how many children they want to have. You could try it yourself. What is your ideal family size? Many, if not all, answered two children. Now that may be surprising but if you look at it, the explanation is quite easy to grasp. Remember that The Kissinger Report was implemented in 1974. It was so subtly done during the Marcos administration. All textbooks, even kindergarten books, always depict families with a father, a mother, a son, and a daughter; occasionally there would be a baby but that is rare.
Such popular depiction of the family has been entrenched at a very early stage of life. The individual grows without realizing the effect those pictures had on him. This is the domain of psychology. This is propaganda.
People get used to what they see and what they are told that they no longer are aware of having acquired the virtue or vice. It is the same as the overpopulation myth.
Now, after all the exhausting yet limited arguments, could we still say that there is a promise in population planning? Why do we blame the population for poverty when there are numerous controversies and more pressing problems that contribute to poverty? Limiting population growth, even if it is indeed a cause of poverty, is just cutting off the grass. We need to be radical and go to the very roots of poverty.

Beyond the Sea

2009-02-21T10:53:00.000-08:00

beyond the sea robbie williams mp3 | lyrics

free music downloads | videos | pictures

Somewhere beyond the sea
somewhere waiting for me
my lover stands on golden sands
and watches the ships that go sailin

Somewhere beyond the sea
she's there watching for me
If I could fly like birds on high
then straight to her arms
I'd go sailin'

It's far beyond the stars
it's near beyond the moon
I know beyond a doubt
my heart will lead me there soon

We'll meet beyond the shore
we'll kiss just as before
Happy we'll be beyond the sea
and never again I'll go sailin'

I know beyond a doubt
my heart will lead me there soon
We'll meet (I know we'll meet) beyond the shore
We'll kiss just as before
Happy we'll be beyond the sea
and never again I'll go sailin'

no more sailin'
so long sailin'
bye bye sailin'...
move on out captain

Of Uselessness and Emptiness

2009-02-21T10:18:00.000-08:00

I wanted to write an emotion-binding poem or essay but I could not. It occured to me that my thoughts just does not seem to be in order. Come to think of it, I have been for always warned that I follow my emotions too much.

I really wish I could write an essay that will be copied by a lot of people and send it to their loved ones. I really wish that I could write a poem that would be the cause of an interminable chain message. But, alas, I am a political science student who knows how to report, make rhetorics, and such but not honed to write a tearjerker.

No wonder why my emotions find no outlet. I could not write and let these emotions flow. It would be easy to say that when you write, passions flow from your heart to the hands. I can imagine that. But have it done? Let's talk about population control.

A Mirror of the Rain (stolen from Inday)

2009-02-21T10:09:00.000-08:00

What good is the truth when you have a good story? What good is reality when you can have a much colorful and pleasing version of it? What can you possibly get from knowing something unimportant to anyone? What good is the truth when it only serves as a constant reminder of what ifs and of silent rejection?

Nothing.

It is of no value. It is a totally useless possession that only occupies our souls. It is a parasite that chooses to comfortably settle in us until it has consumed every fiber of our strength. Yet, we treasure it. It is too important to discard. It is too precious to let go of because its roots can never be erased. The wide gap it would create would lead to a permanent space in our identity. And we would be forever torn.

Sometimes we choose to reconstruct it for other’s sake. We add sequins and glitters and papier-mâché adornments, partly to interest others, and partly to convince ourselves. But most of the time, the latter excuse fails.

When we have no one’s attention to get, when we have no audience to mind, the sequins slowly peel off, and the bemusing glitters dust away, and the papier-mâché adornments collapse, and we are left with nothing but a vast silence and the frail beauty of the truth.

We might even try to avoid it and hide from it. We might try to forget it. But usually, we can never manage to do so.

In our solitary dreams, it finds us; its filthy and unwelcoming presence reaches out to us, and we scream a blood curdling scream but no one hears us. Then we wake up, in the brooding stillness of the night when we could not see ourselves, or in the middle of broad daylight, when the sun hurriedly blinds us, and we cry of helplessness and fear.

The inevitable has dawned upon me. And I had no choice but to embrace the monstrosity of truth’s beauty….

The sun was bidding its last farewells to an austere horizon. My face caught a breeze; a lonesome harmony of a lost song came with it. It was ethereal, and it rang in my ear for a moment, or for an eternity.

On my lap, sat my hands, they were cupped against each other, as though protecting a delicate being from being corrupted by a harsh impending reality. I was wearing a garish dress; embedded with sparkling beads of unknown histories - like the story I created to turn my torment into artificial solace.

Several moments passed and I was still looking out into the horizon, now a deep azure almost ruled the horizon. The corner which contained me was already dimming with the sky. And I was still waiting for you.

A gentle rapping came all of a sudden, and it dominated the atmosphere. It was almost illusory, like someone walking on air. But it was building its presence with every daring dive it took. And so a perfect cadence resonated throughout the space.

But in the steady tempo of the rain, a different beat echoed. It was gaining depth with every sound, much like the rain, but stronger. It was approaching the semi-darkness of my existence. And, it was coming for me, the way I have longed for it to.

But I never expected that the bare naked truth would come with it.

The rhythm, your footsteps, halted. And I looked up to meet your face. There was no room for doubt in your expression. Then, you extended your touch towards me, willing for my hand’s embrace to break and join with yours. I have dreamt for it to happen.
Trying my best from cowering, I broke my hand’s union and entwined them with yours. I stood up, and you led me to the perfect clearing, to my dream and to my despair.

The perfect cadence of the rain dance gradually turned into a sweet-scented melody. You gingerly laid my hands to your shoulders, and gently pressed yours against my hips. Then, we drew circles onto the marble floor, so free in form, yet it so perfect in time.

It was like the movies, which I often treat with disdain. It was the part where the lovers turn to more than lovers and when they seem to soar into an unearthly trance. But, that was an acceptable exception; it was the only slow-motion romantic film, which I never anticipated to see the end credits.

I inhaled the perfume of the night to save myself from being saved. The air was a fusion of cinnamon and of an unrelenting coolness of a cloud. I took in as much air as I could with every breath, still, I felt so restricted, my blood pounding cautiously in my veins. Your touch was a whisper to my skin, reverberating in my soul, and sending ripples throughout my being.

My head turned feathery light; it felt like it was going to drift apart with the no recollections of definition. The only imagery in my mind was that of you, and the slow romantic film that I never wanted to end.

Then, the sequins began to peel off, and the glitters began to dust away, and the papier-mâché adornments were collapsing. And I was still there drawing circles on the marble floor with you. I did not flinch nor fidget, I simply found myself dumbfounded. The wind rushed to the minute void between us. And as it did, it delivered a careless whisper, soft yet undeniably audible. The unexpected package contained the truth. The truth contained three words.

I love you.

It was pristine. It was clear. It was bare. I could not take it back anymore. I could not deny it. I was left with no choice but to embrace it. And I did.
Suddenly, I felt so vibrant, so tranquil. Was this the haunting that I was trying to escape for so long? Was this the nightmare that I feared of? It was neither, for it was a dream, a long melodic enchantment that was a delicacy of my own.

I wanted to share it to you. I wanted to tell you that I have, at last, accepted my feelings, my weakness. I looked up to meet your gaze. But I did not see your gaze. I did not see your eyes. I did not see your smile.

It was missing.

Your familiar face was undisturbed. And, it mirrored the same blissful state that I was in. I was confused. I looked further to search for your eyes, to search for logic, and I found them, but they were not with me. As we turned again to complete yet another circle, I saw her. They were with a goddess. They were transfixed with her beauty. She was beyond words. Her beauty was quiet yet it was overpowering that it warped me to an elated state. I peered onto your face for the second time. Again, I did not find you. I knew I never will.

A draft filled the void between us – much wider that I thought at first. The void widened. Then, again, the sequins began to peel off, and the glitters began to dust away, and the papier-mâché adornments were collapsing. And a package was delivered. It contained another truth. The truth, again, contained three inevitable words.

You love her.

The sweet-scented melody tuned into pricking cologne, so taunting that my lungs were threatening to die of losing too much blood. The song was a soft whimper to my ears. We were still circling in time with the song, but I was circling down faster and faster alone, until my head was empty again, gasping for recollections of anything except you, your eyeless face, and the slow romantic film that I wanted to end.

I yearned for the song to stop, to save myself from crashing entirely to the ground.

This was the truth I was escaping. This was the truth that I have turned to stories. This was my haunting. This was my nightmare. This was the end.

The sweet-scented melody twisted to a perfect cadence of a newborn rain. This time, it was piercing through the stillness of insanity.

And I was faced with two truths. I had to accept both of them or the other would be futile. I had to. I chose to.

I swallowed the bitter-tasting potion of that night. I inhaled the piercing breeze of the rain. I listened to the anguished song inside my soul, and it played over and over again.

The rain must end, as the sun must lose. The lyrics soon ran out. The notes soon faded. And we stopped drawing circles on the marble floor. We parted with a void so vast. And the warm embrace was soon forgotten.

The clearing, my dream and my despair, was soon part of the second ago.

It was the truth of my dream that completed me. It was the truth of my despair that broke me. But, they were two different truths. They were two different faces. And I could not have had one without the other. No one could have the sun without the moon and life without death.

I would never be the same anymore, because those two truths are forever part of my identity. I should have seen it coming, but it was inevitable, as everything is.

I would never forget that night, when I drew circles on a marble floor, when I watched the rain turn to song and the song turn to rain. I would never forget that night when I have loved and let go.

Understanding Nationalism: From an Economical, Political, and Psychological Perspective

2009-02-03T05:30:00.000-08:00

Nationalism is unquestionably one of the most important concepts of this century. It has proven to be more powerful than any other creed. Great empires have broken down under its assault; wars and revolutions have been started in the name of nationality that has changed the face of the world (Doob, 1; Hertz, 1).
Immense controversy surrounds the political character of nationalism. On one hand, nationalism can appear to be a progressive and liberating force, offering the prospect of national unity or independence. On the other, it can be an irrational and reactionary creed that allows political leaders to conduct policies of military expansion and war in the name of the nation (Heywood, 2007).
German dictator Adolf Hitler is a nationalist, in terms of nation as Aryans. Mongol emperor Genghis Khan used nationalism to mobilize the entire Mongol empire as a ravaging war machine. These are examples of nationalism used to create a powerful conquering army.
But only a few people would declare nationalism as a concept to be killed (Doob, 1). The concept has to be understood in its fundamental senses: psychological, economical, and political. It cannot be properly understood from a single point of view (Carr et al, 1).
Nationalists see the economy as a way to increase the power and prestige of a nation (Hertz, 1944). This paper there does not need to distinguish the two, but this is to be understood if we are to separate patriotism from nationalism. Patriots do not see the national economy as a means to articulate political demands (Heywood, 2007). This regard of the nation also explains the controversy hovering nationalism.
Economic nationalism is conventionally understood to be guided by doctrines such as national self-determination, protectionism, and import substitutions. Generally defined, nationalism is a conscious desire to forward the strength, liberty, or prosperity of a nation by individuals or groups who recognize that they are members of that nation (Carr et al, xviii). Nationalism in economics, however, is taken to a higher perspective. The narrowest construction of economic nationalism is that it refers to a set of policies that give priority to domestic capitalists over foreign investors (Glassman, 41). It promotes economic isolation where everything is done to ensure that a nation is independent of another nation’s economy such as tariffs, import-export regulation, and any other foreign exploitation of local resources. These are done, purportedly, to advance the prosperity of the nation.
It is a widely debatable economic strategy where both sides, economic liberalism and economic protectionism, claim to be gaining strength. Renowned economist and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Paul Krugman commented on economic nationalism: “If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I believe in the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I believe in Free Trade'." However, Felipe C. Balingit suggests a different stand: “Love of simple life is love of country. Simple living is simple economy, and simple economy is tantamount to economic protectionism (160).” President Manuel L. Quezon also understood serving the country toward a progressive economy in a rather unlikely sense: “Ang Amerika ang siyang dapat kilalaning tunay na kaibigan ng Bayang Filipino at ang pulitikang dapat nating pairalin ay ang huwag makipag-alit sa bayang Amerikano (The Filipino Nation should recognize America as its true friend and the policies we must implement should not anger the American Nation) (160).”
The economic nationalism debate is fundamentally important for it continues to distort the characteristics of nationalism. We could see this debate as a struggle to nail nationalism in proper usage. A free-trade economist could claim that by improving foreign affairs, precisely, in export-import relationship, he is forwarding the prosperity of his nation out of dedication to the same nation. But in the same way, an economist of a closed country like North Korea may claim that a true nationalist would keep its economy to itself. Nevertheless, history has shown clearly who won. To use the words of Gerardo P. Sicat, economics professor emeritus of the University of the Philippines—the outcome of that debate had been settled long before it was fought in words.
Politically, nationalism appears as it is, a uniting factor (Abueva, 1967), but like what was first explained, could cause reactionary forces. Its roots can be traced back to the rise of romanticism. Romanticists long for freedom of fancy, emotions, and passions. They first devoted romanticism to the reform of poetry but then also directed it against the conventions of society, and lastly extended it to politics. Romanticism that begun as a revolutionary creed is now a conserving and even a reactionary force (Hertz, 353).
As Plato forewarned, passions should be subjected to reason. But romanticism blurred the relationship. A deep love for a nation is often unceremoniously rationalized. A mere emotional outcry is justified by a disillusionment of reason (Hertz, 354). Any kind of nationalism comprise elements of rationality and emotion, popular nationalism tends to be comprised of a greater component of emotion (Chan and Bridges, 129).
This conflict also arises because of the debate to clearly define nationalism’s role in politics. An imperialist nation may claim to be acting out of nationalism; previous examples had been made. A thoroughly reserved nation could also claim nationalism in the same way. In some extent, a goal of nationalism, specifically, that of the discovery and assertion of a nation’s cultural identity in a competitive world (Abueva, 50) may have contributed. Perhaps, the best way to politically understand nationalism is by looking at its action within the country.
Nationalism always foremost seeks to establish among the citizens a full realization of their political independence. This is fostered by giving them greater participation in their national and local governments as voters and as beneficiaries of the government (Abueva, 50-57). These concrete layouts stem fundamentally from a scenario where nationalism is best pursued.
Jose Ma. Sison identifies the conditions for the pursuit of nationalism: “nationalism is best pursued where the nationalist enjoys civil liberties to the fullest extent.” Sison defines civil liberties, as basically, the rights of expression and liberty (50).
Where the citizens have these civil liberties they could make demands. Where there are more or less uniform demands, which people in a society share; which arises from their nationalism; for which justifications exist and can be readily expressed; which incline them to make personal sacrifices in behalf of their government’s aims; and which may or may not lead to appropriate action (Doob, 6).
Sison suggested that any arising action out of such demands could lead to a nationalist movement. The civil liberties of a citizen of a nation are of such grave condition for nationalism, which is why these basic rights are among the fundamentals of a state, especially democratic ones, where accountability, especially in policy-making is held in high esteem. The impact of nationalism on public policy remains considerable despite any corruption and wastefulness that could attend policy implementation (Abueva, 50-57). That is how pervasive the spirit of nationalism is, proving its indispensability when it comes to running a nation.
The conflicts that arise out of political nationalism are, at best, yet again, a mere false allusion to nationalism. Nationalism is not aggression—nationalism is self-respect, and those who best respected themselves were the very best people to respect others (Hertz, 2).
When talking about perceptions and large scale devotion to the country, psychology cannot be left out of the picture. Nationalism and how it arises is of particular interest to psychologists. They have provided some explanations on how a sense of nationalism is established. Leonard W. Doob, in his book, Patriotism and Nationalism: Their Psychological Foundations, provided a concise track of nationalism starting from its “ingredients” to its “facilitation” and possible “internationalism.”
As far as a state aspiring to establish nationalism may be concerned, psychology has provided for us a means of inculcating the doctrines of nationalism. It has done so by first exposing the roots of nationalism—it is deeply rooted in people (Doob, 28). As such, the means of establishing nationalism has to arise from the people, ideally, a certain individual who epitomizes self-sacrifice out of the love for country—a hero, in short.
But is nationalism, after all the discussion, a virtue worth pursuing? Like what was earlier stated, the battle has been decided long before it began. There just appeared to be a misuse of the loosely defined concept. Aggression and conservation has been associated with the ideal of nationalism that created a web of debates particularly in its political and economic aspect.
As a conclusion, I would quote from Reynaldo Silvestre: “Filipino nationalism has progressed […] wherein […] it need not have an enemy around. It is now, therefore, but the expression of national purposiveness dependent on national resources of men and material to carry us forward to our desired goal (57)”

The Doubtful

2009-02-01T05:58:00.000-08:00

Old women sang the hymns as the stereotype of society assumes confirmation. Monotonous chants reverberated the cold halls. The knees dragged on. The old women looked at the familiar archway face.
He cocked his head reluctantly. The tattoos in his neck stretched. His scar under his left eye was ominous. It was shaped like a cross.
A cross. A very vivid cross. As vivid as the cross hanging from his rosary beads.
All stopped suddenly. A crack from a nearby forest was heard. He took a step forward.

The Ironic

2009-02-01T01:57:00.001-08:00

What job lay in front. The toil seemed incessant. Nevertheless, now she could rest. Folding her sleeves to her elbows, she looked up in the sun and the deeper her face scars seemed to be.
A call resounded. She heaved a sigh and went to pick up the axe with which she hacked the great Virility Tree day after day for a month now. The fruits of her labor were unsightly muscles on her part and a relatively small dent on the tree. But the damage is slowly taking place.
She smiled at it.

More Than You'll Ever Know by Michael Ruff (recently popularized by Christian Bautista)

2009-01-27T07:50:00.000-08:00

Take my hand
We'll walk awhile,
we'll talk awhile
Feel my love
Always there beside you
Be the one
I know you'll tell me everything
You are the one
I cherish more than anything
I love you more than
you'll ever know
I love you more than
you'll ever see
More than my heart could ever show
I love you more than
you'll ever know
Think of me
And know that I'll believe in you
There'll always be
This precious time together
With every tear
A love so strong
No words could ever say
A love to last forever
I love you more than
you'll ever know
I love you more than
you'll ever see
more than my heart could ever show
I love you more than
you'll ever know

take my hand
we'll walk awhile,
we'll talk awhile
feel my love
always there beside you
be the one
I know you'll tell me everything
you are the one
I cherish more than anything
I love you more than
you'll ever know
I love you more than
you'll ever see
more than my heart could ever show
I love you more than you'll ever know
0oooohhh....

Fell off the Horse

2009-01-27T07:08:00.001-08:00

You talk and you understand. You preach and you love. Go on. Tell them what you have in mind.
The sooner you would find out it is hard to walk the talk. But do not take it as a discouragement. It is a struggle. Get back on the horse.

My Dream

2009-01-25T10:47:00.001-08:00

My dream
Of a rooftop garden
Of a wind blow, sudden
My dream
Of a moonlight view
I would want to share with you
My dream
Is laid out in plan
Just need to scrape of some bran
My dream
Of a bench in my rooftop
Where I could see the starlight drops
My dream
Of a pianist playing Bach
With a lady dancing, holding my back
My dream
Used to be vivid
Used to be moving in speed
My dream
Of that gorgeous lady
Now seems to me very shady

October 2, 1991: The Day The US Spoke Erroneously Right

2009-01-25T10:37:00.000-08:00

Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince illustrates the three essential abilities for a prince to govern: to redirect others to his own advantage, to manipulate resources, and to have the opportunity to access power. The United States of America undeniably has these three making it a master of political power play.

This shows in USA’s meddling in the current war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Matt Swagler, in his Behind the War in Congo, concludes that the strife in Congo is a “logical outcome of intervention by Western governments and profit-seeking corporations.” He asserts that the USA is fuelling both sides of the conflict to protect mining interests in the country. Swagler explains:

"Even if the U.S. could…guarantee a more stable environment … instability since 1994 has actually been the means by which many foreign profiteers have been able to move into the region…Ernest Wamba Dia Wamba states…"many neighboring countries would rather prefer having a weak Congo around, especially if they can even benefit from…the looting of resources in the Congo."

Congo is just one country exploited by the USA. The infamous 1974 Kissinger Report is a study made by USA on 13 countries (i.e. India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, etc) regarding population control. It explicitly details how a big population in these developing countries, where “special U.S. political and strategic interests” are present, could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from the said countries to the USA. The report recommended a population management program to be largely promoted in the 13 countries. It even discussed how the United Nations could be used to cover up the scheme.

For so many years, the USA had been an adept power player and had been getting away with it, but as the proverbial saying goes, “a fish is caught by its mouth.” On October 2, 1991, then U.S. Secretary of State James Bakes delivered a speech in front of the Organization of American States (OAS):

"This junta is illegal. Until President Aristide's government is restored, this junta will be treated as a pariah, without friends, without support, and without a future. This coup must not and will not succeed. It is imperative that we agree for the sake of Haitian democracy and the cause of democracy throughout the hemisphere, to act collectively to defend the legitimate government of President Aristide.”

The remark was made after Haiti’s first democratically elected President Jean Bertrand-Aristide asked for U.S. aid following a violent coup d’état. Then U.S. President George H. W. Bush even backed Baker’s call for Aristide’s reinstatement. There was also an attempt by the OAS to broker an agreement between Armed Forces Chief Lt General Raoul Cedras, the man in control of the junta, and Aristide but it was scrapped the deposed president at the last moment.

Nevertheless, the October 2 declaration proved to be a mere propaganda to avoid the indignation of Aristide’s substantial supporters, largely from Haiti’s urban poor. As events developed on October 5 and 6, the U.S. began humming a different tune. Kim Ives, in his opus, The Unmaking of a President, opines:

Most likely, Baker and Bush…supported Aristide's return in that first week after the coup so as not to challenge the shock and indignation of Haitians and other Latin Americans against so brazen and ille¬gal an ouster. But, in concert with the press, the U.S. government soon began tempering its call. "It is the rule of democracy that we support," White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater announced on October 7.

Apparently, U.S. intervention did not stop there as it was, several years later, revealed that the U.S. had a hand in the coup:

“Emmanuel Constant (founder of FRAPH, a Haitian death squad whose goal is to stifle support for Aristide) is widely alleged, and himself claims, to have been in the pay of, and under the orders of, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the coup period.”

U.S. interest in Haiti is unclear but it would be well to note that Aristide’s administration was stopped at the height of his crusade against the aristocrats and the military officers who subjected Haiti under dictatorship, preceding Aristide’s rule. He was absorbed in weeding out these elite members that he even created a quasi-militia. He also promoted to high positions enlisted officers bypassing the military promotion system. This effectively earned the status of a dictator.

This status placed a threat to Haiti’s struggle for democracy. The USA, undisputable champion of liberal democracy, had to intervene to promote the western ideology. Edward Sullivan, then a Member of the Assembly, 69th Dist. Albany, writes to the editor of the New York Times:

A stable, democratic Haiti, developing economically, could be a lively trade partner of the United States, bringing profit to both countries.

It was also in the interest of U.S. that it tried to put on the reins on the junta that it allegedly constructed. In its bid to impose upon Haiti liberal democracy, the Clinton Administration supported a call by the U.N. Security Council to deploy 1 200 soldiers to help in the restoration of democracy. However, as The Progressive, a Haitian newspaper, pointed out in its 1993 editorial, the USA also extended protection for the military officers leading the junta should they choose to step down.

In all these events that transpired, it is crystal clear that USA knows what it wants and knows how to get it. The October 2, 1991 speech showed us how powerful U.S. could lay claim and adjudicate on international issues and be heard. It is also one standing proof of U.S. feel for the pulse of the public. Baker in his speech spoke erroneously right. Right in the sense that it was the most appropriate words to say at the political situation haunting Haiti; erroneous in that it contradicts itself and its next step.

The October 2 statement is a flagrant evidence of USA’s mastery of the political game.

Something's Amiss

2009-01-25T10:24:00.000-08:00

When I felt the conversation was taking too long and the words were fibbing and the distraction is echoing, I thought this would have to end soon. When I realized I failed to do my norms, I knew that this is going down the drain. When I looked at my boredom and randomly fired a question at you, I knew I was dead. Something was amiss. Or was it just pure stupidity.

The probable opprobrium of that comment should have triggered my intellect to crack its whip on my appetite. But something was amiss. Or perhaps, something went in place.

Emotional outbursts, like I said, should be controlled by reason. But it seemed I did not walk the talk. You caught me. Amazing. Stupid.

The merchant of Venice took a pound of my heart. It was all well. My reason was a pound less than the original heart I had. So it was a fair deal.

Now Plato, I know you would not smirk at me but could I imagine you smirking? Your thoughts and ideas pervade me now, not as comfort but as an insult. You were right, no good could come if the spirited element wrenches the reins from reason. You were bluntly right. Yet, mere knowledge of this does not seem to help much. Something is amiss.

Political Chruch

2008-12-16T08:32:00.000-08:00

Whenever a priest claims knowledge about politics and government in the pulpit, I become sorrowful. This is not because I think the clergy does not now anything about politics, in fact they do. A lot than I would dare imagine. SO they have some credibility to talk about these issues and to cry out protests.

Nevertheless, it hurts as a son of the Church to see my fathers having to tread grounds where they are vulnerable to criticisms what with the popular demand for separation of the Church and the State (which is poorly understood). They should not have to gather people to stop the RH bill. They most certainly should not have to gather forces for the Land Reform or for Anti-Cha-cha protests, which unlike the RH bill at least does not concern faith and morals. But they had too. Blame it on Cardinal Sin if you want but if you are a Catholic Church member, you should know better.

It is our fault, as lay of the Church why she had to move. We are silent amid the pressing threats to the country. We have the largest population of this country but we are silent and not united. Look at Iglesia ni Cristo, a small percentage of our population, only 2.3 % but they are solidly united and racous in campaigning.

It is our fault. If we talk as laymen, not necessarily as a member of the Church, then our fathers could tend and focus on their expertise as pastors of the Church. It is up to us. If you feel ashamed at what the Church is doing, then more shame on you. We have to protect the Church because we are its sons and daughters.

Winner Take All

2008-11-26T06:21:00.000-08:00

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!

MRT Hell Ride

2008-11-19T07:30:00.000-08:00

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!

Norms of Piety then, Norms of Vanity now

2008-11-14T19:10:00.001-08:00

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.

Idealism versus Realism

2008-11-14T03:23:00.000-08:00

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.

To Arrive at Interior Peace (article taken from http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=269)

2008-11-12T05:13:00.000-08:00

"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

2008-11-12T05:02:00.000-08:00

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.

What a Pacman victory would mean

2008-11-10T05:55:00.000-08:00

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.

Showbiz (Im)Maturity

2008-11-09T08:05:00.000-08:00

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.