So... What Are You Waiting For? An Open Letter To Anti-RH Lawmakers

.:So... What Are You Waiting For? An Open Letter To Anti-RH Lawmakers:.

Dear Anti-RH Lawmakers (I heard there's so many of you guys, so I can't really name you all, but you know who you are.),

We get it, we really do. There is no point in debating issues with you because any attempts to respond to your points have been either ignored or outright rejected. You don't want to find out how wrong you are, and your colleagues in the Senate are decent enough people to not take pleasure in making fools out of you. That's kind of surprising since Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago is in your roster, but it is what it is.

So no, I'm not here to debate the points of the RH Bill with you. That achieves nothing at this point, since you clearly refuse to listen to reason, and your mind is made up. In fact, my stand on the RH Bill at this point is rather irrelevant to what I, as a taxpaying citizen, expect you to do, all things considered.

The bill has been met with so many delays that instead of addressing the pros and cons of the bill, people are now discussing how to stop filibustering on the issue.

For the pro-RH, filibustering means a rejection of the bill, by default. For the conscientious anti-RH, filibustering is a denial of the democratic process: the very numbers game that makes them think that because the Philippines is composed of 80 percent Catholics, then their values must be the Filipino's values. If the RH Bill is to be rejected, it must be because the people who voted on it clearly did not want it, not because time ran out on the bill.

You will notice that at no point are the pro-RH trying to delay the proceedings, for obvious reasons. They want the bill to pass, and for them, dealing with Sotto's woes on plagiarism is a very real opportunity cost: doing that, as Sotto himself has proven, will be yet another opportunity to stall progress with the bill. It has become a race against time.

Senator Enrile believes they have the numbers. Tito Sotto obviously wants the RH Bill "out of his hair." And even if they clearly aren't supposed to be dictating public policy since we are not a theocratic country, you don't need a link to know that the CBCP believes that God is on their side, and He will not allow something as dastardly as the RH Bill to ruin the Philippines the way it has "ruined" Italy (Where the Vatican is located.), Spain (Who introduced Catholicism to us.), Israel (Where Christ was born.), and America (Because screw America, I guess? I don't really know why they even have to be part of this.).

How lucky then, that the Philippines is the last standing bastion of morality! We're currently the only country where divorce is illegal! Are we the new chosen people or something? Surely, our high rate of teenage pregnancy must be some weird aberration: our cause is pure, right?

At this point, we've established four things:

1. The anti-RH camp believes their cause is just.
2. The anti-RH camp wants to lay this matter to rest.
3. The anti-RH camp is convinced that its arguments have been strong and irrefutable.
4. The anti-RH camp is confident it has the numbers to once and for all reject this bill.

So... what the Hades are you waiting for?!? Why is the RH Bill on the backburner yet again? Why are you interpellating yourselves when you can't trollbait the pro-RH into getting into long, protracted arguments with you? Or are we actually looking at the Rapture, come to take the rest of the Senate while you rambled on?

Pictured: A riveting debate between two men over what to do with a woman's body. 
Of course, they would be the ones to know best about this, right?*

Even the CBCP is open to putting the RH Bill to a plebiscite. After all, former President GMA is on their side, and she knows a thing or two about putting things to a vote. If you truly don't have time, why not leave it in the hands of the people, who clearly are the ones who will be affected by this bill the most?

You have everything going for you, as far as you're concerned, dear anti-RH lawmakers. So what the Hades are you waiting for? It's not like you had problems getting things done in a timely manner before. Just ask former Chief Justice Corona: he'd tell you.

Do not deny us the right to see this democratic process completed. Whether the RH Bill is accepted or junked, we aren't paying you our hard-earned money to have you merely stall this process out. If it's such a thorn in your side, then strike it down by putting it to a vote!

It has been way too long, and too many lives have already been sacrificed as you stall this law, hoping that the 2013 elections will make it all go away. Where is your confidence that your cause is just? Where is your belief that you are in the right? If you truly believe that you have the numbers, then you should get through the amendments with little incident, then proceed to voting on the bill upon third reading.

Surely, you're not afraid that the numbers aren't in your favor, right? You believe God is on your side. What more can you ask for? Are you questioning His divine power to validate your beliefs through a vote?

Then, and only then, can you truly prove that you are anti-RH, once you have taken this matter to a vote. Then, and only then, do you prove that you are not a public official who just doesn't want to do their job, instead malingering over the RH Bill issue so as to look busy while not actually accomplishing anything.

TL;DR. Let democracy prevail: whether in Congress, the Senate, or a plebiscite, quit stalling and put the RH Bill to a vote. We, the people, whether we are pro, anti, or undecided on the RH Bill, deserve that much. We are not paying our taxes to see you waste our time again and again on this issue.

Sincerely yours, it's true! It's true!
Kel Fabie

*Image from Kenneth Keng.

Project 52 (32/52): On Tolerance (And Why Intolerance Shouldn't Be Met With It)

.:Project 52 (32/52): On Tolerance (And Why Intolerance Shouldn't Be Met With It):.

What. A. Dick.

I wanted to talk about Anna Banana and how she broke Derek Lorenzo's heart today, but instead, maybe I'll save that for some other time. I know this is all some not-really-viral thing PLDT has cooked up, but really, I feel for the kid.

Anyways, onto more timely things, seeing as we have discussion on the RH Bill, marriage equality, and yes, chicken. For a brief moment, we could have added that "Anti-God Bill" into the melting pot as well, and today's topic would have fit it, too. At every single point, when the militant liberals were calling out the behavior of the conservatives, the one and only point the conservatives would always harp on would be "one-way tolerance." Whatever that means.

See, what most people don't get about tolerance is that it, harkening back to my earlier post, is all about Walang Basagan Ng Trip. If two dudes of legal age want to marry each other, I say let them. If a woman who doesn't have money due to her economic status wants access to these newfangled condoms and pills CGMA has more than enough money to have access to, I say let them. These are simple and basic rights that should be afforded to everyone, and not just to people who have the money for it, or have the procreating combination of gonads for it.

And yes, I am neither gay nor sexually active, so that does underscore what I mean about "tolerance," not that I even disagree with these issues. While Chino Liao may joke that this reflects "hypocrisy" on my part, I think the more appropriate term would be "empathy." Not every cause I support needs to have a direct effect on my life.

In any case, I have been less concerned about not hurting the opposition's feelings lately, even if I don't count myself as a militant when it comes to these issues. I guess it's because over time, I realized that their feelings aren't really that important in the bigger scheme of things. The feeling they get isn't even a feeling of oppression, but simply a tinge of guilt that they misinterpret as oppression. I think they don't understand the meaning of the word when they use it.

You see, the doctrine of tolerance simply states that people can agree to disagree and in doing so, nobody gets hurt. For example, I like Shakey's. On the other hand, this friend of mine likes Pizza Hut. We agree to disagree, and every now and then, I will tolerate my friend and eat at Pizza Hut even if my preference is clearly for Shakey's. That's tolerance, since both choices are equally valid and my choice does not in any way affect her choice.

However, when you demand that pro-gay people tolerate anti-gay people, that relationship does not have the same implication. For pro-gay people to tolerate anti-gay people in the way anti-gay people want them to, they are being expected to be perfectly cool with anti-gay people stripping them of basic rights that anti-gay, presumably straight (Though not all the time.) people already enjoy.

So no, don't expect them to tolerate your intolerance, because your intolerance makes basag their trip (Did I really just write that? I apologize!), while you tolerating who they are in no way affects you at all. You don't turn gay hanging out with them, you don't have to campaign for their causes, and you definitely don't have to marry another dude, either. Tolerating them means you live as you normally would, and you let them live as they normally should. Tolerating you, on the other hand, requires them to tolerate being treated like second-class citizens, and no, there is no reason to tolerate that.

I especially like it when these people claim that they are being "censored" and their "free speech" is being impinged upon when they are clearly whining about the things that they already dislike, anyway. What they don't like is the fact that saying these unfair and discriminatory things actually has consequences, like, getting called out on it. People actually have to be responsible for the things they say? Who knew, right?

This whole thing about the RH Bill has also devolved into a very ironic group of people, specifically, the CBCP, whining that corruption, not population, is the issue. In church. By dragging kids and using them to make their point, as if they haven't used altar boys enough already. And then, they have Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who is totally anything but corrupt, champion their cause.

So now, you have a bunch of people who collectively own the fourth largest BPI bank account in the Philippines, a default of goodwill and deference they feel entitled to, and having people say "hey, maybe their privilege to shove things down our throats shouldn't extend beyond their scope of power," and these rich, privileged, more than empowered, entrenched, and not even elected leaders claim they are being oppressed?

I remember the time Christians were actually oppressed. They were being martyred for their beliefs. They were being drawn and quartered and forced to renounce their faith. Nobody's forcing the CBCP to stop telling people to not have sex until they're married. In fact, in the general sense of tolerance, their intolerance is tolerated. They get to say it out loud, don't they? What they don't get, though, is that when people call them out for the idiotic things they have to say, that isn't a show of intolerance, but simply a consequence of them exercising their right to free speech, and their opposition exercising theirs.

Compare that to poor people who want to plan their families, but have neither the knowledge nor the money to. Well, guess what? The RH Bill addresses that. They can now make that choice, or they can adhere to what the church teaches, since hey, they made that choice after knowing what their options are.

In the end, that's all there is to it, really. Tolerance means that you allow people to live their life the way they want to, even if you don't like how they live. What it doesn't mean is that you do so at the expense of you living your life the way you want to. That's no longer tolerance, after all: that's plain martyrdom, except the Catholic church won't be canonizing you for it this time.

I Know I've Been So Quiet Lately...

.:I Know I've Been So Quiet Lately...:.

... but I guess that comes with the territory of being busy, busy, busy.

Last night, I had a last-minute magic show for an aunt of the awesome Andrada sisters. I was just as surprised as the people I performed for that I was there, but we made something pretty memorable out of it.

Tonight, I'm hosting and performing for Mike Unson's "Comedy Mayhem" in Capone's. It's absolutely free, and absolutely awesome. Mike will also be performing in Conspiracy Garden, Visayas Avenue, Quezon City, on Saturday night.

On Saturday, I am doing hosting duties for Alodia's Fantasy, which should be a pretty highly anticipated event. People who wanna catch it can go to that hyperlink and watch the show for themselves at the very comfort of their own homes, from 8 to 10 PM.

It's been quite a blur with Pancakes as of late, but I couldn't think of any reason I'd ever want to trade all of this in for the world. Guess I'm a lucky man, after all.

Next week, there's even more insanity lined up for me, since I'm going to be performing on October 29 in Subic Lighthouse Marina, then Nickelodeon's Halloween show on October 31 in Mall Of Asia. All I can say is, wow. The hits do keep on coming, so after over two years of bad hits, I'm happy to note that the good hits are now on a roll.

But for now, I'm officially putting into the backburner my intentions of writing a satire about satire, and I'm in no rush to write about the Batangas sign by Vilma Santos for Taal Volcano. It's pretty memetic, though, and I was amused to have been part of the initial volume of people to notice it. Nonetheless, for the POC, I did write an article about that silly dragons article.

Universe, please keep this up.

Project 52 (19/52) , And Non-Satirical Thoughts On Harapan

.:Project 52 (19/52): Another Brick On The Wall - Pink Floyd:.

In light of last night's debate on the RH Bill on TV, I couldn't help but think about this song, albeit I was hearing some changed up lyrics in my head. Instead of "Hey, teacher! Leave those kids alone," I was hearing "Hey, preacher! Leave those kids alone!"

Pink Floyd's only number one single to date, "Another Brick On The Wall," really takes it to the (mis)education system with style and aplomb, to the point that it ended up being quite an anthem that needed banning in a particularly country that escapes my memory at the moment.

And really, if you listen closely enough to the lyrics per se, it's not attacking just any kind of education, but the kind of indoctrination and brainwashing brought about by "thought control." That is, without a doubt, something that is highly dangerous and deserves a close look. There is so much thought control going on at present, and some of it has to do with the utter dominance of religious matters in what is supposed to be a secular world.

We need genuine education and learning, and human development. We don’t need indoctrination and blind devotion to an ideal, all the while throwing away any form of logic or critical thinking out the window simply because it’s far more convenient to do so. This Pink Floyd single had so much to say, and I’m pretty glad that not only does it have a very strong message, the song itself sounds great, as well. I could only imagine how much of a ruckus the lyrics caused back in the day, because even now, it still strikes a chord in us, especially in a third-world country where miseducation is far more commonplace than it should ever have to be.

There are so many things this world needs, but clearly, thought control is not one of them. Why is it that the closer we move to an ideal and good society, the closer we also get to a dystopic nightmare where all civil liberties come under threat? Surely, a balance can be found somewhere, right?

.:Thoughts On Harapan...:.

So tonight, the much-anticipated RH Bill debate on ABS-CBN, Harapan, finally aired on TV. Unfortunately, it didn't really take a mentalist to prove that you were going to see nothing but a whole lot of red herring arguments from the anti-RH side, instead of actual, compelling arguments to perhaps sway the opinions of those who just want to, you know, give women an educated choice with their bodies, as opposed to listening to a bunch of guys who supposedly took vows of celibacy on how one should comport herself in the bedroom.

I wish I could get all satirical or at least sarcastic. Really, I do. But I suppose all things considered, I'll just save it for some POC article down the road. For now, I'd rather just write while the feelings on the matter are still very fresh. Needless to say, Harapan was far more exciting than Pacquiao’s last fight.

There's very good reason why formal debates turn out much better than these ill-moderated, informal affairs on television. First of all, it's inherent to the structure of the debate that any arguments should always adhere to the issues at hand. Secondly, the existence of the Point of Information means if anyone said something patently stupid, they can quickly be called out on it. In Harapan, there were so many opportunities to correct the anti-RH side, especially when Congressman Golez used weasel words to get his point across. Because he didn't have statistics to prove his point, he instead relied on speculation, like "this *may* lead to cancer and *may* lead to immorality."

How would you know, Honorable Golez? Have you even tried it yourself? Why is it that you would espouse plaintives like "our population is our greatest asset" one minute, then quickly ignore the fact that our OFW's are working precisely because our country doesn't have enough opportunities for her citizens on its own? So your solution to making this country prosper is for us to be even more dependent on other countries for our livelihood than we already were long before this massive brain drain has hit us? Neo-slavery for the sake of economic progress? Wow. Just wow.

And from there, we were treated to splitting hairs on what is and isn't abortion, and a whole litany of irrelevant religious arguments that don't even cite one bit of scripture, and actually goes against the Pope himself, who has somewhat eased up on his stance on condoms. True, it could be better, but the church is only doing what you expect it to do when it insists on abstinence and sex only within marriage. That is well within scriptural grounds, but extending beyond that, particularly when it comes to affecting government policies for everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, is a different issue altogether.

Then the doozy came when the sex education discussion became pure speculation on things that weren’t there, like teaching kids about sexual technique (What school is that? Shagwarts Academy?), and casually ignoring the optionality of the module within the prescribed law as is. There was just so much obfuscation and misinformation going around, and yet despite clearly logical arguments in the face of appeals to emotion, appeals to moral authority, and ridiculous slippery slope logic, it still seems nobody’s mind was changed, and many people who actually need the RH Bill for their own sakes are themselves against the very law meant to empower them.

You know what's sad about it? I'm supposed to be one of those Catholic apologists you've heard about. Despite that, with each instance of their heavy-handedness in the face of changing times, with their resistance to the needs of the flock they’re supposedly looking out for, I begin to realize that I’ve been doing nothing but apologize for the Catholic Church.

In the meantime, the woman who doesn’t have tv or internet access with eight mouths to feed couldn’t care less about the debate, because whether or not the RH Bill gets passed, it’s practically too little, too late for the likes of her.

And after opening the polls to the texting public, who do you think won from the text polls? Why, Globe, Smart, and Sun, of course.

It’s rather telling that a lot of people miss the point of the RH Bill. It’s a solution, but at no point is it the only solution to the problems besetting us. Neither should “corruption” be a deterrent for us, when you consider that corruption will exist wherever, and excuses like these would mean we should never do anything because anything can lead to corruption. The RH Bill needs to come to pass because the issues facing our country right now do need solutions, and as Carlos Celdran pointed out, we’ve been doing it their way for 16 years already, to no avail.

Hasn’t it been said that insanity is doing something again and again, yet always expecting the results to be different?

It’s funny, because I actually am all for saving one’s self up for marriage and all that jazz. I just don’t want that to come with misinformation and slut-shaming in the event that someone doesn’t quite meet those standards. It’s a personal lifestyle choice, and while religion plays a factor, in governance, religion should take a backseat to sound, beneficial policy.

The core of the problem is this: our Catholic leaders do not trust their flock to do what they believe to be the moral thing, when presented with choices. Thus, they seek to crush the opportunity for these choices to be presented to their flock. By keeping them blind and miseducated, they will have some semblance of dependence on the church instead of learning to make their informed choices because clearly, the church is afraid that their flock is not strong enough to make the “right” choice.

How is that the government’s fault? Is it not the job of the church to strengthen the values of her flock, yet because she clearly can’t do her job, she now foists the blame on the government for giving her flock a choice they could potentially screw up on? Is that not the biggest display of hypocrisy, imposing non-universal standards on everyone just so Catholics aren’t given a chance to make the wrong choice? How does this make a Catholic a good person, when they are practically shoehorned into forever only doing the default, without knowing why they make this (non) choice?

Pointing back to Nicomachean Ethics, the truly ethical man is the one who has habituated the ethical action. It is a habit borne by one’s repeated choices, and not one that is merely brought about by indoctrination. Fast-forward to Kantian Ethics, and we still see the same theme: the ethical man is autonomous, and does what is good as a categorical imperative, because doing good is an end in and by itself, and not merely an ends to a means, like, say, winning the approval of the priests.

What the church is doing at this point is removing the free will that God has instilled in each and every one of us. That’s like saying God shouldn’t have given the ability to choose to Adam and Eve, so we’d all still be living idly but happily in the Garden of Eden to this very day. In effect, if one were to look at it this way, it wants to go against the very intent of God, to give the human person the power to choose and thereby, to learn and to deal with the consequences himself or herself. A man without free will is hardly a man, and more of an automaton. In stripping choice away from man, the church becomes guilty of attempting to create a flock of automatons.

And you know the most ironic thing about this? They do this because it’s a quick fix to their own deficiencies. Because they can’t impart the values that they believe their flock should share, they force their flock to not have any other choice but to be exposed to only church-approved values when the church can help it, even if it already gets in the way of church-state separation. As a way to make up for their inability to do their job, they disrespect the very nature of humanity in an attempt to remove the soul and nobility of doing the right thing by ensuring that they have no visible choice except to do the right thing.

Yet in the end, even with all these attempts, people will still ignore what the church has to say when in the privacy of their own bedroom. And as we have seen, without proper education, without proper values formation, then they will end up doing much worse, because they are not empowered to know any better. It’s this kind of twisted logic that has people believing that wearing seatbelts leads to more accidents because of a supposedly false sense of security. No, prayer has led people into a false sense of security far more than condoms ever could.

Because the church can’t do its job, everyone pays. Think about that, and ask yourself if that sounds the least bit altruistic or compassionate as the Christ you believe in would have been had He been alive today.

Hey, preacher! Leave those kids alone! All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall. The wall of ignorance. The wall that needs to be torn down.

Logical Fallacies 101 (Part 5 Of 6): Argumentum Ad Ignorantium and Slippery Slope Logic

.:Logical Fallacies 101 (Part 5 Of 6): Argumentum Ad Ignorantium and Slippery Slope Logic:.

The idiocy! It’s over 9000!!!