2-Hot-4-8List: 8 Stupid Ways We’ve Been Defending Manny Pacquiao

(2Hot 4 8List are lists that for various, often obvious reasons, need to be published on a personal capacity, rather than as something that de facto represents the website I love to write for. I hope you enjoy it, because whether or not they ended up on the site, I still worked pretty hard on them, minus the epic graphic design you've come to know and love from the 8List.)

.:2-Hot-4-8List: 8 Stupid Ways We’ve Been Defending Manny Pacquiao:.

Manny Pacquiao is a boxing legend, and a man who has nearly single-handedly put the Philippines on the map. He has used the millions of dollars he has earned to give houses to his constituents in Sarangani. He is a devout Christian, and a renewed husband and father who seems to have left behind his past of gambling and carousing behind in favor of Bible studies and family time when he’s not training for his next blockbuster fight.

Sometime last week, almost all of that fell to the wayside when he was quoted as saying that same-sex relations were “mas masahol pa sa hayop.” Multiple rebukes  and Nike dropping its sponsorship deal later, the backlash against Manny isn’t even done yet. He currently runs the risk of disqualification due to the unfair media mileage he gains from his next fight, which none of the other senatoriables can hope to match. Furthermore, former pro wrestler Dave Batista did not take too kindly to Manny's words, and the guy frigging calls himself "The Animal."

If you’re a huge fan of Manny Pacquiao, you might be appalled at this point how far things are going south for him, or maybe even thinking that he will be blessed in heaven because people who are persecuted for their faith, according to the Bible, will be rewarded.

Except if you actually take a moment to read your Bible, you might disagree with that, too, because Matthew 6:1-3 is pretty clear about that... 

1"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. 2"So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3"But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,…"

It seems like a no-brainer to defened a man who fought his way out of poverty and brought us so much pride as one of the best boxers in the world of all time. Unfortunately, his past achievements do not grant him a pass for any stupid shit he might do, because why the hell would it?

Here are 8+1 specific ways people defending Manny Pacquiao air out their ignorance...

Honorable Mention: "You are bigoted towards bigotry. That makes you a hypocrite."

Logical Fallacies Involved: Tu quoque, ad hominem, non sequitur

First of all, allow me to introduce you to the realization that policing my tone is bullshit. If Manny didn't police his tone for the benefit of the LGBT, why should I? I will be as abrasive as I want, not only because he didn't earn me being nice to him when he spoke that way, but also because being nice never won any revolutions. The suffragettes didn't get their vote without a lot of protests. The black people in America didn't get emancipation without a frigging civil war, and they had to fight a bunch more just to get equal rights, too. We didn't drop Marcos like a bad habit by asking him nicely, and the EDSA revolution was as "nice" as revolutions can get, but we sure didn't do it "nicely" just because nobody got killed. It's not like those chants against Marcos were positive slogans of encouragement for him, were they?

Secondly, my intolerance of intolerance isn't an act of hypocrisy, because doing the opposite would be an act of cowardice. When a bigot says they hate a race or a gender, they do so with no logical reason behind it (no, the Bible in and by itself is not enough as a logical reason, by virtue of it being a book of faith). But when someone rebukes a bigot, they do so by arguing using logic and reason. Just because some people may act purely off of emotion does not erase the fact that the vastly overwhelming amount of dissent has been based on the logical counterargument that contrary to Manny's beliefs, animals indeed practice homosexual behavior. Factually correcting Manny isn't an act of bigotry now, is it?

As someone on debate.org put it succinctly:

"A bigot is someone who makes generalizations about a group of people and then acts on a hatred of that group of people. To act inhospitably toward such a person is not bigotry, because it does not involve generalization (emphasis mine). It is, rather, a reaction to the hatred of a single, particular person. Such an act, by definition, is not bigotry."

Lastly, if the word "bigot" upsets you so much, then why does it surprise you when the LGBT gets upset about being told they are "masahol pa sa hayop?" Have you considered that for a moment?

P.S. It also doesn't make me gay if I support gay marriage any more than supporting saving the environment makes me an eco-bag.

.:8. “You’re being oversensitive.”:.

Logical Fallacies Involved: Non sequitur, ad hominem, double standards

Just because an issue may not be important to us does not mean that it isn’t important, period. Some of us care about animal rights. Some of us care about the environment. Some of us care about human rights, of which LGBT rights clearly falls under.

Everyone has rights, okay?

If it alarms you that so many people were up in arms and so angry, please realize what was said. It was a comparison that likened the LGBT to being “more savage than animals.” Those were fighting words. You do not say those things endearingly. You do not say those things in a friendly manner.

Yet why is it that while people go out of their way to not make a big deal about Manny’s words, when the LGBT and their allies respond, people go out of their way to make a big deal about the responses? Suddenly, people who were okay with hurting the LGBT weren’t okay with hurting Manny, as if only Manny was deserving of protection.

Manny is a multi-millionaire. Even if every sponsor he currently has pulled out on him, he would still have a lot of money to live with. Meanwhile, the LGBT are fighting for little more than basic rights all of us straight people already enjoy. I hope you can appreciate the difference of what’s at stake here.

If anyone's being oversensitive, it's the people being all up in arms for Pacquiao as if he can't take it. He's rich, he thinks God is on his side. I'm pretty sure he'll be fine. Meanwhile, the LGBT constantly finds the church trying to take them away from the anti-discrimination bill because the church apparently needs to be given the legal right to discriminate against them.

.:7. “We have other issues to worry about, like China putting up missiles on our disputed territories.”:.

Logical Fallacies Involved: False dichotomy, strawman argumentation

People can care about more than one issue at a time. To say that someone talking about the Manny Pacquiao issue doesn’t care about China, or Syria, or ISIS is to create a false dichotomy where we can only care about one issue but not the other.

What exactly are we gonna do about China, in the first place? Oh, right. We don't really have solutions. We just want people to stop talking about Manny. Silencing! Wonderful.

Not even Heneral Luna is sure what we're supposed to do about them.

This realization that we can care about multiple issues at a time actually goes double for how we should vote during the elections. If the one and only issue you go by for electing your officials is whether or not they want to deny gay people their human rights, then you might want to expand your criteria a bit, because even if Manny Pacquiao’s politics agreed with you 100%, why would you want to vote someone who almost never went to work to do the job he was elected to do?

.:6. “Hindi ba si Miriam din, anti-gay? Diba sabi ni Rizal, mas malanasa pa tayo sa isda kung hindi natin mahalin ang sarili nating wika? Bakit hindi kayo galit sa kanila?!?”:.

Logical Fallacies Involved: False dichotomy, faulty analogy, strawman argumentation, non sequitur, argumentum ad absurdum

You will notice that most people who got angry at Manny were willing to set aside the gay marriage debate in favor of calling out his choice of words. Miriam did not use the kind of cutting words she is known for using when the topic was about the LGBT. This is because the LGBT and their allies, in trying to keep the peace, can and do respect opinions to an extent (even if really, they shouldn’t, if the opinion is woefully misinformed), even if their opinion is clearly being disrespected by the very choice of words of the people on the other side (protip: calling them abominations and Sodomites would never endear you to them.).

As for Jose Rizal, what he said was a statement about one’s love for the language. Whether one uses Filipino or not is a matter of choice, not an essential component of one’s being, and if it were, hey, who am I to stop anyone from being pissed at Rizal, right? When one says that homosexuality is “mas masahol pa sa hayop,” it means that the very being of a person (remember, you can’t choose to be gay any more than straight people chose to be straight) is being insulted.

Again, those are fighting words. You don't get to sugarcoat them now just to pretend he was being endearing about it. That's about as logical as saying "with all due respect, fuck you." May "due respect" naman, diba?

Don't make Yosemite Sam mad!

.:5. “Tama naman sinabi niya, eh! Nasa Bibliya iyan.”:.

Logical Fallacies Involved: Appeal to authority, double standards, factual errors, cherry-picking, non sequitur

There are a lot of things wrong according to the Bible…

Shall we prohibit slavery or shellfish? Let’s go with shellfish.

Yet people will go through amazing lengths to excuse all these other behaviors, kesyo Old Testament, kesyo context, and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, it seems only they can do that (hence, a double standard), because once someone points out the context of Sodom and Gomorrah, or points out that the only thing mistaken as condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament was actually about shrine prostitutes, and was never a direct quote from Jesus, who literally had nothing to say about homosexuality in the Bible, they magically insist that people should take the Bible on face value.

Pictured: face value.

As we can see above, let's not forget that it's Manny himself who just loves quoting Leviticus when he points out that the Bible says gays should be put to death, so he's clearly not discounting the Old Testament for his argument. But then, how does he weasel out of Leviticus 20:10, if that's the case?

10"If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Well, that's awkward. But, hey, that’s not the same, right? Only one side can look at context when cherry-picking which laws of the Bible should still be followed.

And, oh. Manny was also factually incorrect when he said that no animals engage in homosexual behavior.  If we made a bunch of 8Lists featuring these animals, it would take around 200 lists before we’re done.

Lastly, even if it were in the Bible, it’s irrelevant. Let’s be clear about one thing: there is a separation between church and state. Churches are free to never marry gay couples due to religious freedom and the separation clause. However, this also means that if the government decided to give equal rights to the LGBT on the topic of marriage, then the churches have no say on this. As they shouldn’t. The marriage we speak about here is a legal, civil procedure: not a religious ceremony. Please do not forget that.

We can't keep making up excuses for Manny Pacquiao while we keep making excuses against doing right by the LGBT who certainly are also made up of productive members of society. Why do we afford so much special consideration for Manny while we deny the LGBT the most basic of human rights? Because we don't like what they do with their sex life? That's pretty fucked up, if you ask me.

.:4. “Tingnan niyo: yung marriage ang ‘masahol pa sa hayop,’ hindi yung pagiging LGBT. Ang problema sa inyo, hindi kayo marunong umintindi.”:.

Logical Fallacies Involved: Faulty semantics, cherry-picking, double standards

This argument is ridiculous because of one plain and simple fact: Manny’s justification for calling something “masahol pa sa hayop” was that animals did not perform these things. If he meant marriage as “masahol pa sa hayop,” then it would be ridiculous, because straight couples get married too, but no animal actually ever gets married. No, really. Look it up. Animals getting married by their own volition? Not a thing.

Not pictured: the part where it was the dogs' idea to get married.

What does this mean? Well, this only means that, regardless of the full interview that supposedly “explains everything,” Manny was not in any way equivocating when he made his statements. It was pretty much gay sex to him which was “masahol pa sa hayop,” which again emphasizes the disturbing fascination LGBT detractors have over what happens in LGBT bedrooms.

You can insist on context all you want, but demanding context only weakens your point further: he is answering a question as a senatorial candidate, and not as a pastor. That was the context of the question. If he knew the difference between the two like any decent politician ought to, then he would know better than to compare the LGBT to being worse than animals, because no matter how much you try to sugarcoat his words, those words were fighting words. You don't say shit like that to people and expect them to just smile and say "yeah, you're right. Mas masahol nga ako sa hayop."

.:3. “Bakit nung binabanatan siya at ang kanyang nanay sa comedy bars, narining mo ba siya magreklamo? And why are you so bigoted against bigotry? Isn’t that being hypocritical?”:.

Logical Fallacies Involved: Tu quoque, ad hominem, false equivalence, hasty generalization,

If Yeng Constantino can say that not all Christians are like Manny, surely, it is easy to point out that not all LGBT are Vice Ganda. Vice Ganda is not the be-all and end-all of the LGBT community.

No, really. He's not.

And even if Vice were, that does not invalidate his point. That he jokes about looking like a horse doesn’t mean that it’s okay for people to now call him “masahol pa sa hayop” because of what he does in his bedroom.

Furthermore, the difference is pretty clear: Manny’s statements inform his legislative agenda, and are clearly a perpetuation of the continued ignorance of the separation of church and state in this country. A joke in a comedy bar will not achieve anything remotely like that anytime soon. It is the sheer impact of such speech that explains why so much more weight is placed on what Manny had to say. He is running for the Senate: he, of all people, should know better.

You really cannot argue that those two things are equivalent to each other, because they clearly aren't.

.:2. “Crab mentality! You are suppressing his freedom of speech and his right to an opinion, especially after you made Nike drop him as an endorser.”:.

Logical Fallacies Involved: Non sequitur, red herring

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech. In fact, the backlash Manny is receiving is proof that freedom of speech exists, because these other people are now using their freedom of speech to refute Manny’s assertions. Some might even say that Manny’s speech is no longer even protected speech because it could fall under “hate speech,” which, I admit, is debatable at this point.

Opinions aren't magic. Just because you claim something is an opinion, and just because you claim this opinion was formed by the Bible does not mean that it is beyond question and beyond criticism. It does not follow that your entitlement to an opinion means you are also entitled to not being met with any form of dissent for your ideas. Nuh-uh. That's not how this works.

Imagine if life had traffic signs for logical thinking.

It is also not “crab mentality” to want to rebuke Manny Pacquiao for his rampant homophobia. Ano yun? Kesyo “hero” siya, hindi na siya pwedeng pagsabihan? Hindi na siya pwedeng magkamali? Oh, please. The problem with this country is that we put too many people above scrutiny just because they've done something for us. No, they don't get a pass. Why should they?

Nike is not the government. And at no point in dropping Manny did it mean that Manny can no longer say what he wants, because he clearly still does. Manny Pacquiao’s freedom of speech is guaranteed insofar as people also have their freedom of speech to call him out on it, insofar as Nike could also use its freedom of speech to distance itself from Pacquiao.

This goes double for the people who are expressing their none too charitable opinion about Manny right now. Manny had his turn. Why do we want to deny everybody else their turn? Or do we only want freedom of expression for ideas we agree with, while others should remain censored and silenced?

Whether they did it for humanitarian or economic reasons is besides the point. Nike just did it: just as people who don't like what Nike did are free to burn their shoes. It's a free country.

.:1. “He is being persecuted for his beliefs.”:.

Logical Fallacies Involved: Non sequitur, red herring, ad misericordiam

You will notice that so many candidates also do not believe in legalizing same-sex marriage. If you listen to the  interviews, you would notice that most senatoriables actually share that opinion. Yet only Pacquiao was crucified the way he was over it. Why is that?

So oppressed, you guys!

This is because he was the only one who went the extra step of comparing the LGBT to animals. He was the only one who decided to include something decidedly hateful: a slur on a group of people not even for something they chose to do (I would have no qualms calling, say, ISIS, as a bunch of terrorists, but I wouldn’t lump all Muslims with them), but for what they are.

Yes, what Manny said is a slur. Please stop trying to pretend it isn't. You can say a person is black or a person is a n*****. They are both factually correct, but one of them is a slur while the other is not.

It is in going the extra mile to hurt these people, going out of his way to extend a message that is divisive and painful, that Manny now gets all the blowback he is getting. It doesn’t matter if he is a great humanitarian. It doesn’t matter if he brings Filipino pride. He is also human. He is also prone to error. And it falls upon us to correct this error, lest we turn Manny into a sacred cow who can do no wrong. This is especially dangerous when we realize that as an aspiring Senator, Manny Pacquiao is supposed to represent all of us, LGBT people included, and yet he doesn’t see these people as equal to him while representing them. He even sees them as worse than animals, if his words were to be believed.

Correcting Manny’s perceptions and of those who agree with him won’t be easy. Some might try doing it nicely, as not a few have. Then again, as Manny himself has demonstrated, not everyone feels the need to get their point across nicely. I obviously don’t. Not today. Not when I see so many kids who feel worthless because their boxing idol told them they were worse than animals. Not when I see suicide cases elevated in the case of the LGBT, because people refuse to acknowledge that words do impact people, even if they're "just words," and especially if they're "just words" of both a boxing icon and a potential legislator who will not work for their welfare, if at all.

In the end, Manny was not persecuted for his beliefs. He was persecuted for being an asshole. A religious asshole who does a lot of charity work yet has repeatedly demonstrated he is not fit for Congress, much less the Senate, yes. But an asshole, nonetheless.

Thank You, Alan Rickman

.:Thank You, Alan Rickman:.

Newsflash: human beings die.

Indeed, Lourd De Veyra is correct. that's what happens to all of us in the end, and even someone who always seemed larger than life as Alan Rickman did could not possibly be immune from this reality.

I suppose it's just comforting to know that there is more to life than just eventually dying, or else I have nothing else to write after agreeing with Lourd on that point.

You see, it always seems like such an easy idea to attack people who sympathize with the loss of someone famous because we generally don't feel this way about other deaths. After all, there were people who lost their lives in Jakarta on the same day, after all, right? The thing is, though, this is not a contest, nor is there a shortage of sympathy and mourning to go around. Commemorating the life and times of Alan Rickman is not mutually exclusive from denouncing the needless loss of life in Jakarta at the same time. Because indeed, human beings do die, and that's why we need to cherish the human beings who somehow made a difference in our lives.

Alan Rickman was one such man to me.

No matter where in life I may find myself, I will always look to Severus Snape as the distillation of one's indefatigable capacity for love. Among all the characters in the Potterverse, it was Snape who resonated with me the most. Misunderstood as he was, nothing was truer about him than his love for Lily Potter, as unrequited as it may have been.

I know the pain of unrequited love. I know it all too well. I know how it straddles the fine line between a hopeless romantic and a creepy loser, and ultimately, I realize that there is nothing easy about carrying a torch for someone you love for as long as Severus did for Lily. The kind of love that transcended everything and extended to his implicit concern and affection for Harry Potter himself.

Indeed, it's easy to look at all that and to dismiss it as disturbing or pathetic. Yet at the same time, one cannot help but respect, if not admire that kind of devotion, because it goes far beyond reason, yet never once dips into something sinister or harmful. For all of Snape's fault, it was because of his love and not in spite of it that he managed to be the way that he was, working against years upon years of indoctrination, of biases, and predilections just so he could continue holding his torch of love.

It is in this fine line of sweetness and hopelessness that I see solace with Severus Snape, and it was Alan Rickman's masterful rendition of this character that has allowed me to truly find what it is about him that resonates within me. As changed as it may be, as different as the circumstances may be, when one would ask me, "after all this time?"

Without a doubt, the response remains to be, "always."

Magic is a lot of different things to different people. To me, magic is about going beyond the possibilities, and making something more of yourself than anyone ever expected of you. In that regard, everything Severus Snape did was truly magic.

So yes, human beings do die, but newsflash; it is the lives that these human beings have touched before they have died that choose to cherish and remember their legacy.

Alan Rickman has indeed touched many lives, and one of those will indelibly be mine, and that is why I will choose to remember his passing.

Whether he was a villain as sinister as Hans Gruber, or a schemer as ruthless as Judge Turpin, whether he was a man who would take your heart as Colonel Brandon, or one who would cut it out with a spoon as the Sheriff of Nottingham, Alan Rickman has managed to touch lives in a way that only he could. Is it truly a disservice to acknowledge that difference he has made? Was it not he who precisely told us that being an actor makes one "an agent of change," and in being such an agent, he has indeed changed the world?

Every single time I watched "Love, Actually" in the last couple of years, I never failed to relish how Alan Rickman's Harry became the polar opposite of his Severus Snape: a man who was so drowned in the mundane that he has lost the meaning of love and tried to seek it elsewhere than his own wife. It was something that resonated with me not because I went through the exact same thing, but realized that the love never went away, so much as it was forgotten.

So I will refuse to forget.

I will refuse to forget what it means to love, even if it will not always be given back in kind.

I will refuse to forget what it means to seek to change the world, no matter how seemingly insignificant it is that we do. There is no opportunity too small to make a difference.

Ultimately, I will refuse to forget the fact that though human beings die, but they can also live forever, thanks to love and magic.

I mourn the passing of Alan Rickman not so much as it is because he is a celebrity that I know of. I mourn his passing because thanks to him, I got to know myself just a little bit better, and there is no greater boon a performer can bestow upon us than leading us down the path of self-discovery.


Thank you, Alan Rickman. When I think of one word that could best describe what you have inspired and enabled in me, I do believe that word would be "Love," Actually.

Alan Rickman (1946-2016): An agent of change. Thank you for the love and the magic.

The 2015 Year-In-Review!

.:The 2015 Year-In-Review:.

A crazy year, but one I'm glad I went through. Here's what I ended up realizing about the year that was...

1. What did you do in 2015 that you'd never done before?

I hosted a TV show. I'm hoping there's a second season, but the jury's still out on that one. It was on PTV-4, and it felt like I was doing something important there.

2. Did you keep your new years' resolutions, and will you make more for next year?

I didn't make any last year, and I don't plan to make any this year. As it has always been.

3. Did anyone close to you give birth?

Jaycie Tanseco, I guess? Can't really recall anyone else at the moment.

4. Did anyone close to you die?

Celebrity deaths abounded, but this year, I think I was spared the loss of anyone specifically close to me.

5. What countries did you visit?

Welp. Looks like I stayed in all 2015. :|

6. What would you like to have in 2016 that you lacked in 2015?

More shows as a solo performer. I slowly made headway into that this past year, but I've only just begun. Also, I ought to travel more. 2015 was pathetic for me, travel-wise.

7. What date from 2015 will remain etched upon your memory, and why?

December 18. The day Patty told me we were going to give this a try.

Insert cheesy quote here.

8. What was your biggest achievement of the year?

Hosting "Bara-Bara: Anything Goes" on PTV-4  was a big deal to me. I never would have thought I'd be doing that. I also managed to get a nameplate on Kick Engines for winning a big Legacy tournament.

9. What was your biggest failure?

Playing sidekick to someone who never once really knew the value of that. For years. Talk about sidetracking myself.

10. Did you suffer illness or injury?

Food poisoning a couple of times?

11. What was the best thing you bought?

Several Modern decks that really gave me a semblance of an MTG career!

12. Whose behavior merited celebration?

Ryan Rems Sarita, for winning "Funny One" this year. Cheers, mate. And for most of my friends in comedy and improv, seeing as a lot of them really stepped their game up in 2015. Also very proud of Rederick Mahaba and Vintendo, two of my friends from PWR. I think it's pretty awesome to see them live out their dreams as professional wrestlers.

Love, Rederick, love!

13. Whose behavior appalled you and made you depressed?

Oh, you know. The douchebag who thinks he owned my free time? The guy who apparently mistook me for his boyfriend. LOL. There were a few more, but I'm willing to accept part of that was my fault, so I don't really resent them for it.

14. Where did most of your money go?

MTG, Food and Uber, it seems.

15. What did you get really, really, really excited about?

Hosting a TV show. I will keep harping about it whenever applicable. And oh, definitely Patty. Hee!

16. What song will always remind you of 2015?

"Thinking Out Loud" by Ed Sheeran, but only because it refused to go away since 2014. If I had to pick an exclusively 2015 song, I would probably say "Hotline Bling."

17. Compared to this time last year, are you:

i. happier or sadder? – mostly happier
ii. thinner or fatter? – fatter
iii. richer or poorer? – richer

18. What do you wish you'd done more of?

Gigs, and actually writing for Cracked.

19. What do you wish you'd done less of?

Beating myself up over past failures.

20. How will you be spending Christmas?

Quietly spent at home.

21. Did you fall in love in 2015?

Absolutely.

22. How many one-night stands?

Nah.

23. What was your favorite TV program?

"How To Get Away With Murder," although the other shows I've been already watching still stand: Hannibal, Elementary, and Flash.

24. Do you hate anyone now that you didn't hate this time last year?

Yep. It's a wonder I put up with that one for as long as I did.

25. What was the best book you read?

"Mind Mysteries Guidebook, Vol. 1,"  but only because that's the only physical book I've actually read this year.

26. What was your greatest musical discovery?

I have a thing for death metal covers of really popular songs, like say, "Hello," by Adele.

Hello from the f*****g other siiiiiiiiidddddddeeeee!!!

27. What did you want and not get?

To go to Hong Kong with my old friend, Jan. Sadly, budget concerns got in the way.

28. Favorite film of this year?

It's either "Heneral Luna" or "Magic Mike XXL," or "Star Wars: Episode VII," but the last one is mostly just a reflex action from the guy named "mistervader."

29. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you?

I was actually at a wake when I turned 32.

30. What one thing would have made your year immeasurably more satisfying?

Getting started with writing for Cracked and actually having more shows during the -Ber months.

31. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2015?

Hats, hats, and more hats.

32. What kept you sane?

Cracked.com, the 8List, Switch Improv, Comedy Manila, Modern, Legacy, and video games.

33. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most?

For a fleeting moment, one of my castmates on "Bara-Bara." My lips are sealed. Then again, I could always volunteer Harriet Sugarcookie for this.

34. What political issue stirred you the most?

The Fallen 44 and the INC Protests.

35. Who did you miss?

So many people, but maybe the one whom I met only twice but pined after for a while.

36. Who was the best new person you met?

Patty. No contest,.

37. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2015.

Sometimes, you just have to dare.

38. Quote a song lyric that sums up your year.

"Ikaw na ba si Mr. Right? Ikaw na ba ang love of my life? Ikaw na ba ang icing sa ibabaw ng cupcake ko?"

It sums up my year in that it doesn't make a lick of sense, but it makes me smile.

Take A Bow

.:How 'Bout A Round Of Applause?:.

A standing ovation?

For the past thirteen weeks, I don't exaggerate when I say that secular me felt downright blessed to have been a part of "Bara-Bara" as one of its hosts. I've worked with old contemporaries like James Caraan and Red Ollero of Comedy Manila, as well as comedy legends like Leo Martinez and Kuhol, and made new friends in Phoebe Walker, Miggy Marty, Nikki Viola, and Kat Medina. This was, without a doubt, a show I loved doing every single time.

In about an hour, our last episode will air. Well, our last episode for our first season. What I don't know for sure is if we will have another one after that. Either way, I can't help but be grateful for the season that was.

I could regale you with stories about the things going on behind the scenes, of how the cast grew closer with each other with each passing episode, about our foibles and misadventures involving CSG and other hilarious stories that could let you in on the inside workings of a fledgling show that's been trying to find its spot in this world of entertainment that has mostly been unwilling to shine a mirror upon itself if the reflection wouldn't be completely flattering. In doing this, we ended up opening not just the minds of those who watched us, but even our very own minds, as we saw things we never saw before, when we merely consumed media and didn't think of the things that go on behind it. There were issues. Boy, were there issues.

We willingly called out these issues head-on, even if it also meant exposing ourselves to the very same pitfalls, simply because we wanted to open up the minds of those we could touch to the opportunity for critical thinking.

We aren't looking to make cynics out of our countrymen. We aren't looking to make them believe that the media lies while the government is a beacon of truth. We simply wanted them to question everything: yes, even what I say this very moment. Because in that questioning, the seeds of wisdom are planted, and we could all use that kind of healthy skepticism for ourselves: not just so we could be contrarian, but so we could be capable of defending the very positions we hold dear, instead of just saying it is because it is.

I will always be grateful for the opportunities I've gotten because of this TV show, but more importantly, the friendships I've built thanks to it. I would be remiss if I didn't specifically thank GB for having put me in the right place and the right time to be a part of this, thanks to the Open Mic in Uno Morato, and of course, the people behind the scenes in PTV-4 as well. It was an experience I will always cherish and be proud of, and while I fervently hope we would find the sponsors we need for a second season, I will have no regrets if tonight's season ender is our swan song for this show.

For years, I've always wanted to open minds as a mentalist: to unlock the potential of people via entertaining them through feats of mind-reading and psychokinesis and the like. In 2015, I managed to open minds through commentary, and that is something I am grateful to have been given the opportunity to do.

We hope to see you for our last episode tonight. And we hope even more to see you for our first episode for our second season in 2016, if the stars align for us just right. It truly has been a pleasure and an honor to be the host of Bara-Bara: Anything Goes for the past three months. 

Thank you. From the bottom of my heart.

No Christmas Spirit

.:No Christmas Spirit:.

Not this year, not at this point.

There's been so much good in my life this year, in all honesty, and I hope to write about them sooner than later.

But something has been bothering me lately. And it's been unshakeable.

I spoke with a friend about it: the fact that I hate it when I leave things on a bad note with someone. Maybe they were a friend. Or a romantic interest. Or anything else. But for one reason or another, it just got all messed up, and now, I'm not exactly one of they're favorite people.

Maybe I was misunderstood. Maybe I was taken the wrong way. Or maybe I was being an asshole. It doesn't matter at this point, because it is what it is. A time for me to just accept that I am indeed the villain in some people's stories, no matter how much I think of myself as a good person. I will be. Inevitably. And it's not an excuse for me to keep being the way that I am, but a reminder that I can't please everybody, no matter how hard I try.

And believe me, I try. Really, really hard.

So Justin Bieber is on loop right now as we speak, and here's all I could say on this eve of Christmas. A simple message.

Is it too late to say "sorry?"

I won't qualify. I won't offer excuses. If I have wronged you, and you are reading this, I leave it up to you to accept it or not. If you want to call my bluff, feel free to ask me to coffee and let's talk about it and bury the hatchet once and for all. Or not. It's your call, really.

All I know is that Christmas should be one of the happiest times of the year, regardless of creed or belief. But I don't think that's something I could focus on.

I'm sorry. Not for anything else, but because something is broken when it didn't have to be. I wish I had the chance to fix it, but that chance is not mine to give.

Thank you for indulging me. And a merry Christmas.