I Resolve That This Time...

... my birthday will be a blast.

I'm done moping around for the past couple of years. No more.

I'll post some other time.

Project 52 (39/52): On DIY (And Why CD-R King Will Someday Rule The World)

.:Project 52 (39/52): On DIY (And Why CD-R King Will Someday Rule The World):.

Let's get this out of the way right away, guys: I am not a DIY kind of guy. I'm rather inept when it comes to that stuff, and I really don't think it's something I'm particularly interested in doing on a regular basis.

That being said, when I bought a television for my place recently, I wanted to get a TV stand to go with it, and given my limited budget, I decided to go for a CD-R King TV Stand.

It went for a trifle 3,990 bucks. Most tables elsewhere start at 9,000.

So after unpacking the two boxes, I sat myself down and got to work. It was a veritable mess of instructions that I didn't really understand, if the very helpful dude at CD-R King didn't actually help me out. I know, I know. They're notorious for being very surly people, but on this particular day, they were extra nice!

Stage 1, done! A portent of things to come!

So I managed to assemble the base of the stand after a couple of tries. It was pretty easy once you figured out the internal logic of the parts: which needed washers, which needed to be screwed on, and all of that. It was pretty fun trying to figure out what goes where, and while going through it, I began to feel more and more confident as things started to... well, fall into place.

It was at that point that I managed to assemble the rack where the TV was going to end up on. Yeah, I know, this post is not as joke-filled as the usual stuff, but there has to be something funny about the fact that they didn't even stick a warranty sticker on my TV stand when I got it...

I know what you're thinking: just wait 'til it collapses, Kel!

Well, from there, I had to bring out the television already. It was a Sony Bravia, and it was pretty lightweight, so I had very little trouble mounting it.

The best part? It came with a metric effton of bubble wrap!

With very few pieces left, it didn't take much to know which went where anymore. This was actually the easiest part of setting up the TV stand, except for one little thing...

And no, I'm not referring to my room.

You see, the problem with the new Sony Bravia (The 32-inch LED one.) is that the geniuses at Sony decided that the HDMI and power slots of their brand new TV go very well right in the same columns as where the slots for wall rack mounting would go. That meant that mounting the TV would mean you outright blocked your HDMI outlet from access. Which I discovered the hard way, really, and it forced me to make some adjustments...

Yes, it's a Justin Bieber song. Don't judge me.

You'd notice that I moved the TV to the side just so I could plug the HDMI port in, but the first port, the one that you can use to connect to your phone? That's actually completely inaccessible because of where they decided to place it. Still, I managed to come out on top with this one, and considering that none of these inconveniences were even remotely CD-R King's fault, I have to admit, this was quite an experience.

Gangnam Style, Tagalog/Capampangan Version Lyrics

.:Won't Be Too Shocked To See Someone Record This Or Something...:.

I know, I know. Everyone and their mother has heard of and done a lip-synch video to Gangnam Style by now. 

What nobody has done, though, is to make a Tagalog version. And that surprises me, considering how someone did it for "Teach Me How To Dougie" and other similarly popular songs. I expect the Christmas Mix this December, but a Tagalog version hasn't even been written yet.

Until now.

Yes, I came up with this, and yes my Capampangan is probably rudimentary at best, but I'm pretty proud of it. If you think the lyrics need work and they don't fit as perfectly with the tune as I hoped they would, feel free to tell me.

But yes, if you'd ever record this, and I'd end up hearing this song on the radio, please don't forget to tip your hat to me, at least. That goes for you too, Tito Sotto. ;)

Pampanga Style
translation by Kel Fabie

hO Pampanga Style!
Pampanga Style!

Ang saya sa Pampanga, lahat ay nalolosyang
Pagkain pa lang, tiyak walang sinabi ang hopya
Daming handa, mula San Fernando hanggang Guagua
Maraming gaya-gaya, ngunit hindi makopya

Mga Cabalen!
Mekeni na’t mangan dito sa amen mga Cabalen!
hAndami naming handa, ang saya-saya Cabalen!
Bata man o matanda, manyaman ang pagkain Cabalen!
Puro Cabalen!

Sanikulas ni Borromeo
Tocino (hey!) at Kamaru (hey!)
Sanikulas ni Borromeo
Tocino (hey!) at Kamaru (hey!)
Betute Tugak, Bulanglang, Balu-Balooooo

hO Pampanga Style!
Pampanga Style!

hO Pampanga Style!
Pampanga Style!

Ehhhhhh, Potang benge!
hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp
hO Pampanga Style!
Ehhhhhh, Potang benge!
hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp
hO Pampanga Style!

San Luis, Mexico, Angeles pati na Santa Ana
Macabebe, Sasmuan, sama mo na Candaba
Minalin, Mabalacat, hanngang sa Floridablanca
Kuha mo, Masantol? O siya?

Mga Cabalen!
Mekeni mangan tamu dito cabalen
Dacal a anda masaya cami cabalen
Bata man o matand, manyaman ing kanan cabalen
Puro Cabalen!

Sanikulas ni Borromeo
Tocino (hey!) at Kamaru (hey!)
Sanikulas ni Borromeo
Tocino (hey!) at Kamaru (hey!)
Betute Tugak, Bulanglang, Balu-Balooooo

ho Pampanga Style!
Pampanga Style!

ho Pampanga Style!
Pampanga Style!

Ehhhhhh, Potang benge!
hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp
hO Pampanga Style!
Ehhhhhh, Potang benge!
hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp
hO Pampanga Style!

Tingnan niyo, sarap maghain ‘to
Baby-baby
Kaya si Gloria tumakbo dito

Tingnan niyo, sarap maghain ‘to
Baby-baby
Kaya si Gloria tumakbo dito

hYou know hwhat hI’m saying!

hO Pampanga Style!

Ehhhhhh, Potang benge!
hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp
hO Pampanga Style!
Ehhhhhh, Potang benge!
hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp, hOp
hO Pampanga Style

Project 52 (38/52): On False Equivalence (And Why It Gets Tiring Sometimes)

.:Project 52 (38/52): On False Equivalence (And Why It Gets Tiring Sometimes):.

I really wanted to talk about either hosting Best Of Anime last weekend or the brand-spanking new Anti-Cybercrime Bill, but I couldn't bring myself to cover that stuff just now.

So let's do this one instead.

Shortpacked: right again, like always. Click image to enlarge.

I have noticed a pattern.

It seems to me that every single time a discussion about sexism comes up in any of the fandoms I’m a part of, there will always be people who are so quick to dismiss the issue with a simple “I don’t see it as a problem. Ergo, it’s not a problem.” It points back to the whole deal about dismissing issues just because they don’t matter to us that I wrote about a few weeks ago.

When the issue matters to you, though, it becomes incredibly frustrating. And to me, equality does matter. A lot. Having been indoctrinated by safe spaces like Scans Daily, I feel rather uneasy whenever I see instances of sexism because you know what? They aren’t few and far in between. They happen often enough to be cause for alarm. In fact, they happen so often, and their presence in most forms of media is so pervasive, that we are actually surprised when they’re not present.

One of the common defences against sexism in comics or video games is that while yes, we have women with impossibly sexy bodies and much-abused backbones due to all their swaying, men have it “just as bad” because they are all impossibly handsome and well-built muscled hulks, and frequently wear their underwear on the outside.

That’s a nice defense, until you realize that it’s false equivalence: yes, the two are idealized, but the question is: for whom and by whom?

When you see Psylocke posing in a mind-boggling way where her chest and her behind are facing you at the same time, this is a fantasy put into play by the male artist to attract the male reader.

Hey, it’s Psylocke in a physically impossible pose! Must be a Tuesday.

When you see Superman as the epitome of masculinity, his well-chiseled face and his Adonis-like physique striking a powerful pose on the cover of a comic, this is a fantasy put into play by the male artist to attract the male reader.

Superman gets so boring sometimes, even the caption is more of the same.

See, therein lies the rub: at no point in either case were the desires of a woman taken into consideration. Do women aspire to be able to show off their chest and their butt at the same time? Probably not, but even if they did, obviously, nobody consulted them about it.

On the other hand, being a man, when someone draws an idealized body of Superman or Batman, then that is a power fantasy and aspirational in nature. Even if some people might find Superman sexy, the intent isn’t to be sexy, but to evoke strength and power.

Not that there’s anything wrong about being sexy, mind you. It just becomes a problem when women in comics and video games statistically become all about being sexy. Why the lack of variety? Contrast that to the range of men who are sexy, men who are powerful, men who are average, and just about everything in between, while women are just all sexy? Are there exceptions? Yes. But they are so few and far in between that one cannot help but ask the awkward question why the representation and the variety is so ridiculously skewed.

So we’ve pretty much established that the kind of objectification and idealization women in comics and video games receive are still every bit as male-centric as the kind that men in comics and video games receive. Both are bad, but to say that the fact that men don’t complain about these things means women shouldn’t either is just being disingenuous. Of course they wouldn’t complain! It doesn’t harm them the way it harms women!

As a matter of fact, when there is true equivalence and men in comics or games are indeed sexualized the exact way women are, these very same men who claim they won’t complain actually do. Case in point:

Whoah! Call the waaangbulance!

Here. Have a closer look.

Obey.

Yep. That noticeable bulge isn’t really a power fantasy anymore, eh? Still, it’s definitely realistic. You wear something as tight as spandex, something’s gotta well, manifest itself, yet more often than not, as Spider-Man can show you, it doesn’t really work that way in comics.

The real reason why Peter and MJ aren’t married in the comics anymore…

So apparently, the men get every bit as outraged when they get “exploited.” They complain about how uncomfortable they feel with the artwork, and project all sorts of homophobic sentiments while they call the art out. Yet when it happens to women, they have the gall to say that “it’s nothing?” And they wonder why comic book and video game nerds get a bad rep.

Speaking of “realism,” that was the excuse people used to handwave the fact that Arkham City’s thugs called Catwoman a “bitch” so many times that it would ring in your ears. Funny how that “realism” isn’t necessary for crotch bulges, but suddenly, it’s integral when using gendered slurs. How utterly convenient. So in a world where people dress up as bats, cats, have freeze guns, can resurrect themselves by being dunked into a mystic pit filled with mysterious liquid, it’s important for hardened criminals to call Catwoman a “bitch”, but you can’t have Batman or Robin have any crotch bulges?

WOW.

The sad part is, only one of two things will happen after I bring this whole thing up again: either people will argue with me and try to shout me down, or it will all fall on deaf ears because “women should be happy they can already vote.”

Sometimes I wonder about this planet, really.

Addendum To The Cosplay Wordmark Brouhaha

.:In Response To The Official Statement:.

Cosplay.ph has released an official statement, as I intimated in yesterday's post. Well, that came faster than I expected it to, based on my conversation with Tanya yesterday.

I'll say this much. Given the nature of legal issues, they were well within their rights to act vigilantly and pre-emptively by wordmarking "cosplay." I'm sure there are a few people worried that cosplay.ph would selectively enforce its trademark against people they don't get along with, but at this point, that will probably result in actual legal action, and that will make or break the trademark in practice.

The argument they are making is a "necessary evil" argument, and to be fair, given what they have explained in their statement, it isn't a very far-fetched thing for them to do.

It seems unfortunate that we have a perfectly plausible situation that forces a necessary evil, especially since no matter how much good will there may be for cosplay.ph, no consensus-building was reached to give them this responsibility. Value judgments aside, the political process, as unsavory as it is, was still bypassed and the responsibility was assumed by cosplay.ph on their own accord.

Now, whether this is a case of Messianic complex or simply a matter of course is all a matter of opinion. I can assume all the goodness I want about cosplay.ph, but I'm just one person. I can't speak for everyone else, which is exactly what the critics of this move are worried cosplay.ph is now capable of, by default.

Sure, they have not enforced their trademark, but they are not legally obliged not to. That is enough cause for concern because on legal matters, "take my word for it" means absolutely nothing, and if you don't know who cosplay.ph, or if you don't get along with them, then of course you'd be worried.

Sure, they enjoy the trust of a lot of people, but what people don't realize is that this sets a precedent. They protected their brand. Well and good. What if, say, Best Of Anime decided to protect theirs by registering "anime," hypothetically? How about "otaku?" The worries of people may seem like fear-mongering, but when something big like this happens this secretively and it took a year for it to come to light, could you blame them?

So for now, there is no practical problem, even if a legal snag undeniably does exist. There are valid reasons for cosplay.ph to want and to hold onto the wordmark at this point, but the fact that we know the people behind cosplay.ph and we personally like them should not be one of those reasons. When it comes to matters like these, personal feelings on parties involved should be put aside, and people have to stick to the issues alone.

I believe doing anything else would be a huge disservice to everyone concerned.

On Trademarking The Word "Cosplay" And Double Standards

.:On Trademarking The Word "Cosplay" And Double Standards:.

And here comes this issue just after I do my Project 52 for the week. And it's not like I can hold off on writing about this until next week, considering how much discussion the issue has engendered. I see that Gameops has written about this already, but what the hey. May as well get my two cents in.

But first, let me show you what I'm talking about.

The legalese had me going for a while, too. Click to enlarge.

In the interest of disclosure, if I actually had a horse in this battle (And I don't.), it would actually be the one who filed for the trademark, Tanya Bairan. I have had nothing but pleasant experiences with her through my dealings with cosplay.ph, and if somebody had to own the trademark of the word "cosplay," then I wouldn't mind it at all if it were them.

Buuuut I don't really know if anyone has to own the word "cosplay," in the first place. At least, not on a legal basis.

This isn't an ethical or moral issue, so the fact that it was Mike Abundo who brought this "issue" (Notice the air quotes, because I personally don't think it is one. Yet.) to light isn't exactly the favorite person of the cosplay community is irrelevant. Nobody is beyond scrutiny, after all, regardless of how much we like or dislike the person in question. This is a purely legal matter, and since I'm not a lawyer, the implications of the trademark, as well as its merits, completely escape me.

I have seen similar efforts happen before. A few years back, someone tried to form a National Bloggers' Association without consulting bloggers nationally. What a novel concept! A group that seeks to represent bloggers completely ignores the very people it represents?

What next? Will the CBCP trademark the word "Catholic" now? Oh, wait.

It's okay, Abante fell for it, too.

That being said, I categorically don't approve of assuming the worst of cosplay.ph and their intentions, because whatever the case may be, her side deserves to be heard before we even try to cast judgment on this issue.

Yes, the timing of the issue cropping up is suspect: Cosplaymania is coming up on September 29, yet the trademark was filed in 2011. Why now? Is it an attempt to stir up controversy to discredit the event? Well, I can't assume anything about Mike's intentions, either. I think it's unfair of me to do so since I haven't spoken to him about it yet.

Furthermore, if that were really the intent, well, expect it to backfire, because if anything, this kind of "issue" would only spur more people to attend Cosplaymania. As you should. The event has a pretty good track record in the past few years it's been running.

It's tempting to sneak in a plug about the cosplay event I'm hosting this weekend right here, but I will resist the urge to tell you that Best Of Anime is happening this weekend in SMX. I'm above shameless self-promotion like that.

;)

Aside from "cosplay," the phrase "cosplay Philippines" and the website plus logo for cosplay.ph were also trademarked.

I am willing to go by the doctrine of charity and assume the best of intentions and the lack of any ill will in what cosplay.ph has done, but I am alarmed by the double standards some have employed to blindly defend them from being so much as questioned about this. True, cosplay.ph has a good reputation established over the years. True, I think highly of them. But if, after careful consideration, it is established that nobody should own the trademark to the word "cosplay" (Which has yet to happen, might I say.), then we can't look the other way just because we like the people involved. Nobody is beyond reproach or question. Especially not when we criticize PNoy for supposedly doing just that with Rico Puno.

This hypocrisy alarms me, because some of my closest friends have been subjected to these double standards, not to mention the rampant slut-shaming I see prevalent in the cosplay community whenever a pretty cosplayer gains some measure of popularity. No, wearing skimpy clothing doesn't make her a "slut," nor does accepting money for being a cosplayer/model at an event make her a "whore." Especially if we turn around and praise people we happen to like for doing the exact same thing, when given the chance.

And yes, I'm talking about people like Alodia or Chienna or Myrtle (Who I don't even personally know.). It seems like to certain people, these people can do nothing right, no matter what costume they wear, or whatever they say or do. Always something wrong with the costume. Always clamoring for attention. Always getting the character wrong. Always misrepresenting cosplay. Huh.

Some people would even go as far as to say they're not cosplayers because cosplay should never be about money (Which clearly contradicts the trademark, based on the text.), because the word "play" is in the term.

Yet the NBA is home to some of the highest-paid basketball players in the world, and nobody bats an eyelash at that "injustice?" For shame!

To some people, the overall message is that because these cosplayers are now actresses or models or whatever else, they no longer "deserve" to be called "cosplayers."

Why not?

Who sets these standards?

Who elected these people to set these standards?

What checks and balances are in place to assure that these standards are fair and properly observed?

I ask, because if these so-called defenders of the "purity" of the "art form" merely appointed themselves, then such a practice is specious at best, and downright discriminatory at worst.

I also ask, because the exact same reasoning was given by someone who defended the trademarking of the term "cosplay": to protect the word from misuse by douchebags. If we were to listen to the people speaking for Tanya and the rest of the cosplay.ph, you'd think that these actions are to "save" cosplay from the evil clutches of the "dastardly" Mike Abundo. A little overdramatic now, aren't we? Besides, what is up with that Messianic complex?

Nearly the same questions apply.

How is the word misused by douchebags?

Who are these douchebags?

Who determines when something is misused? Who determines who are douchebags? Are these going to be the same people?

Who elected these people to set these standards?

What checks and balances are in place to assure that these standards are fair and properly observed?

Yet again, that's merely someone speaking ahead of Tanya's turn, so for all we know, that reasoning may not even be applicable at all.

That being said, I refuse to talk about whether or not she has any merit to the trademark claim until she has aired her side, and as of my call to her earlier this afternoon, she promised that she will issue an official statement soon enough. I believe she is due the respect and accord to air her side, so for that, I will hold my piece, especially since my stake in this matter is limited at best.

Aside from the whole hoopla over the trademark itself, I really wanted to write this to decry the double standards being demonstrated by certain people within the community. It's been getting to me for years already, because even some of the people I'm closest to seem to just have a logic block when it comes to these standards. To a guy like me, who's mainly outside looking in, it feels petty and vindictive to apply one set of standards to an Alodia Gosiengfiao and to apply a completely different set of standards to a Jin Joson, solely because they like one and hate the other. These are people, too, and they deserve to be treated as such. They are not whores. They are not sluts. They are not your property. And they certainly do not exist for your amusement alone.

For now, I am vouching for Tanya's integrity, and eagerly await the official announcement, because it will definitely clear up a lot of things. As useless as it may seem, this fence-sitter hopes both sides won't resort to mudslinging and rumor-mongering at this point, because it's a disservice to a community that has grown by the leaps and bounds that cosplay has in the past few years.

P.S. I'm glad I'm hosting Best Of Anime this weekend, and not Best Of Cosplay. Wala lang.

For the addendum post made after the official statement came out, please go here.

Project 52 (37/52): On Passive-Aggressiveness (And Why I'm Doing It A Lot Lately)

.:Project 52 (37/52): On Passive-Aggressiveness (And Why I'm Doing It A Lot Lately):.

You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you...

Woo-hoo! Passive-aggressiveness! I think I've gotten better (Or worse, if you've been on the receiving end.) of this whole thing over the years, mostly because I've tired of confronting people who never learn.

I will freely admit it's not the healthiest thing ever, because with passive-aggressiveness, not only do you learn to sass in a way that seemingly casts a wide net which is in reality meant for only one target most of the time, it actually requires some measure of being able to keep a grudge, since you can't have it out the way you normally would if you were more confrontative.

But why the need for being snarky in plain view but not directly? I guess it's because while the issue is too much to just let go of, it's also not big enough to make a huge stink about it the way a confrontation would. And maybe that's not the way to go about it. It probably isn't the way to go about it. Unfortunately, sometimes, there's just no more room, no more will, no more motivation to even argue about it. The water has run dry, and all you could do is remember you're irked at someone, but maybe not even remember anymore why.

If I were a better human being, I wouldn't be doing this at all. I would forgive and forget and let all slights against me just slide and roll off my back. But I am not a better human being, especially not lately. So much has happened, so much has broken my faith that I no longer see any reason to just let it all happen to me and continue being someone people could walk all over. And yes, when I was more confrontative, ironically, people found it easier to walk all over me, because I definitely reserved confrontation as a last resort, but it takes a lot less to get me passive-aggressive over something or someone.

I'm especially approaching the point where except for a few exceptions, I simply do not find any reason to apologize to anyone when I know it wasn't even my fault to begin with. Not anymore. If it means sacrificing a "friendship" because I was too prideful to drop it, then it only goes to show I wasn't the only one, since the other party didn't extend that same courtesy, either.

More so when the other person's at fault, and it's not just a simple muck-up that was nobody's fault. Why should I be obliged to apologize back to someone who decided to lack empathy and sensitivity? Why should I be obliged to even accept a non-apology that is riddled with its own brand of passive-aggressiveness on someone's Twitter account afterwards?

I can be stupid and look the other way for some people, yes. Despite that, no, I'm not keen on doing that for just everybody. If it weren't for this one friend who constantly has shown me that she believes in the best of me, I doubt I would even be able to do this, to begin with.

Then again, maybe if I really cared for someone enough. Someone who filled every waking moment of mine with thoughts of her, and filled every moment in slumber with dreams of her.

Maybe that someone would be the one person who could make me lower my pride to a point I didn't even think possible for me. Someone Beloved to me, perhaps.

It's crazy, really, and again, it's not healthy. But let's face it: passive-aggressiveness is the only way I can cope with the daily insanity I have to put up with that gets in the way of me doing my job. I'm a professional, first and foremost, and when a person decides to be an immature and petulant douche towards you, you can only snark at them, but still give them the professional courtesy of not outing them for the immature and petulant douche they actually are, despite the fact that they outed you themselves already.

You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you.

And screw you, it is. We don't have to stay friends, let's pretend to be enemies.

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 (36/52): On Being Used (And Then Promptly Discarded Afterwards)

.:Project 52 (36/52): On Being Used (And Then Promptly Discarded Afterwards:.

We've all been through this, and I guess the past few weeks, I've been thinking about it a lot, as it kept happening to me.

For as long as I could remember, since I started with radio, I've had people crawl out of the woodwork and remember me just so I could announce something for them on the air, despite never having spoken two words to me prior to that. Then, as soon as I give them that much, they disappear again, never to be heard from once more.

I've had someone who once said she'd love me forever ask me to do her friends a favor. The very same friends who judged me and looked down on me.

I've seen someone run to me because she lost her smile, then run right back to the one who hurt her the minute she found her smile again.

I've been friends with someone who wouldn't give me the time of day, yet expected me to be at her beck and call every single time she needed help writing a letter of resignation or something.

You can't help but find out who your friends really are when you are going through the worst of times, and they're still right there, putting up with you. You realize very quickly who the fair-weathered friends are: the ones who don't give two s#!ts about you while you're going through Hades.

They're simply nowhere to be found after they get what they wanted from you.

I guess I just feel drained from all of this. It's also why I can't quite think straight as I try to write about this, yet in the end, here I am, dealing with the fact that I've allowed myself to be a doormat to people in general for so long that it makes me feel guilty when the thought of being used like this angers me, despite the fact that it well should.

And so, this week is spent in quiet contemplation.

Pictured: quiet contemplation.

Where do we go from here, really? Bridges have been burned, and tables have been turned, but I take no pleasure in seeing them turn to me and say "you were right, and you told me so."

All I wanted was them to come up to me, say "I'm sorry," and all would be well again. Apparently, that's too much to ask.

If you feel used and abused by your so-called friends, it's time to ask yourself if you're giving when you have nothing to give. While generosity is nice, if all you could fill yourself with afterwards are hurtful, self-destructive thoughts, maybe your generosity comes at too high a price at that point.

Where do we go from here, really?

So... Something Put Me In A Lighter Mood Today...

.:Random Goodbyes Were Never This Cute!:.

Say it with me right now: awwwwww!!!

It was a rough week last week. Lost a friend, on the cusp of losing another one as I write this, and, well, a whole host of other things.

Yet some bright spots remained, chief among them the fact that I feel a lot more corporately desirable than I ever have in my entire career.

And when I got to my spot this morning, I actually found a letter. Someone apologized to me. It still wasn't in person, but it was far better than what felt like a non-apology the first time around.

I left it at "we're cool," and that's the end of it. I doubt I'm going to regain any of the friendships I lost recently, nor do I even feel like I want to. Let it be my emotional spring cleaning of the year, especially since, like I said, I expected no less than a face to face apology here.

But whatever. I've felt so used and abused just this past week, giving people the support they need, then having myself discarded to the side when it becomes clear that I have outlived my usefulness. I'm tired and I'm disheartened, and I'm getting to a point where I'm beginning to be wary of really investing in friendships beyond the ones I already have. The new ones have almost unilaterally proved to be horrible missteps, and on a statistical level, we're looking at maybe one good friend after five to seven horrid ones.

Or maybe it's really me who's the problem. Either way, staying the eff away seems like the smartest thing to do.

But still, bad rash of run-ins aside, that video up there? It keeps this day from being a wash. That's just how great it is.

Oh, I just realized. It's September. Never a good month for me.

Project 52 (35/52): On Whether Or Not OPM Is "Dead" (And Why We're Asking The Wrong Question)

.:Project 52 (35/52): On Whether Or Not OPM Is "Dead" (And Why We're Asking The Wrong Question):.

Well, they're Original, they're Pinoy, they're making Music, and they don't look dead to me, so...

And friends are probably wondering why I'm not writing about Sotto after his latest screed. Yeah, I saw myself on Yahoo because of the issue, but the answer why I'm mostly ignoring him by today is pretty simple: writing about his plagiarism is exactly what he wants at this point, and I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of wasting my time.

But he does have one common thread with this issue I'm talking about, though: he was a part of VST and Co., one of the luminaries of OPM back in the day. If he resigned the Senate and reformed VST instead, he would have all my support.

I know I talked about Philippine radio, often the vehicle for OPM, tolling its death knells in 2010. Strangely, this whole issue brings all that to fore to my mind.

That being said, I know the issue itself is all but dead, but I still feel the need to chew on it some more. Yeah, I did an 8 List that is saying what I'm saying right now, but I want to expound my point further.

First, I think we're having a failure to communicate because when Leloy Claudio and Don Jaucian assert that OPM is dead, they seem to have a specific definition people like Zach Lucero and Jinri Park do not necessarily share.

For those who are outside looking in, commercial success is the standard for whether OPM is alive or dead. I doubt anyone would be deluded enough to say that every talented artist out there is getting a fair shake commercially. You probably can't even say that even during the boom periods of OPM, after all, but that gap seems a lot more obvious at present.

It's why I partially agreed with Leloy on Twitter: correct symptoms, wrong diagnosis. Otherwise, this blog, which hasn't really been a blog designed to make money, has been dead since 2002, and all modesty aside, I'm pretty damned sure that is not true. If I pretty much said that blogging isn't always about money or following, then I'd be a hypocrite to make it the only thing about music, too.

Buuuut... don't we all wish our favorite artists made more money for the beautiful music they make? I know I do. That's why I was agreeing with Leloy on this count. If it's all about the money, then the talented people are not getting enough of it. The capitalist in me agrees with what Leloy had to say, but not his conclusion.

There's also the notion that OPM is "dead" because the elites and the masses aren't singing the same song. Maybe, maybe not. I absolutely love Gloc 9 and I don't think he's a guilty pleasure, and I'm not alone in this among my friends. The masses clearly love him enough to keep him on top of the Myx Charts, too.

Cracked talked about this already: people who think OPM is dead think so because that is their perception, and for the mainstream, perception is reality. I don't think I've ever been to 70's Bistro with Leloy, so that speaks for itself, really.

What is "dead" to the mainstream is not necessarily "dead" to everybody else, but really, what does it mean for OPM to be truly dead?

The great Francis Magalona passed away a few years back, and yet, his music still lives on to this very day. Is his music "dead"? Of course not. The same can be said of any artist who has left their mark in OPM, living or dead. Contrary to Don McLean, there is no day when the music dies. It's an art form. "Killing" an art form utterly is pretty hard to do.

In the 90's, when a certain Senator tried to ban "Alapaap" from the airwaves, do you think our parents felt OPM was alive? I'm willing to bet those with protective parents thought the Eraserheads were polluting our minds, and were nothing compared to the OPM artists of their time who weren't singing about drugs. Like Pepe Smith or something.

Hey! Two straight-edge guys hanging out!

It's a question of perspective again. Just like James Soriano last year, which happened also, coincidentally, around the time of Buwan ng Wika. Seems to me it's always the older generation who thinks the new one is killing the good ol' days, and our rose-colored glasses refuse to come off.

Damn, it makes me feel old to realize I'm now part of "the older generation."

So yes, OPM is "dead" given a very specific definition that not everybody agrees with. OPM is also "alive", but it isn't optimal. I doubt anyone would deny that the situation could be better for everyone involved, and though piracy, the broken business model, and so many other issues may be to blame, what is not to blame is the lack of local musical talent. They're all there. We just need to look for them, and in the age of the internet, that might really be the secret demand that is expected of us.

Kung hindi mo alam na may magaling tumugtog diyan sa kanto, hindi ibig sabihin walang magaling tumugtog diyan sa kanto.

We expected the performers to change, but not the ways by which we came to know them. What if we were wrong? What if our tastes, the business model, the distribution model, everything about music, both OPM and otherwise, has to change in this new age? What if we're looking at it wrong if we don't change our expectations?

As a mentalist and a comedian, I know how it feels for your art form to be so out of the eyes of the mainstream that the first time they see a mentalism act, or watch Mike Unson or The Comedy Cartel perform, the first reaction after amazement is always, "I never knew mentalism/POV standup comedy even existed in the Philippines!" But was mentalism or comedy dead? Nope. We were always there. People just didn't see us yet. Incognito? Yes. Dead? Obviously not. Do I look like Bruce Willis to you?

No, kid. That was just Cueshe.

Despite the disagreements on both sides of the debate, one thing is clear: neither side wants OPM to "die". I doubt Leloy does. I'm pretty sure Jinri doesn't. We have people having the same desire, that OPM reach the heights it has reached before, if not greater, but with differing perceptions on where we are today. It's time to stop focusing on where they disagree, and to focus on where they actually agree.

That's why I believe the question should not be "is OPM dead or alive?" That's a divisive question that has engendered debate, yes, but there is no consensus to be built afterwards. All we have are flaring tempers, defensive snarkiness, and ad hominems from the outliers to show for it.

I believe the question should be, "should OPM be dead?"

The answer predictably should be, wherever you were on the side of the previous debate, "heck, no!"

Because if you think OPM shouldn't be dead, you find it your responsibility to keep OPM alive in your own way.

The simplest way is to reminisce on the good ol' tunes you used to love. Nobody went and erased your old favorite songs, and someday, even these new songs we think are utter trash will be the good ol' tunes of the next generation. (Justin Bieber will someday be a classic the way the Spice Girls now are... I don't know how to feel about that.)

Then, you can take it further and find new music you like. You have Route 186, '70s Bistro, SaGuijo, and a ton of other venues artists perform. You can even just watch the Myx OPM Countdown. Malay mo, trip mo pala pakinggan si Christian Bautista? We won't judge. Clearly, ignorance is not bliss when it comes to OPM, because those who willfully remain ignorant think OPM is dead and feel bad about it.

Then, if you really like the music, you can buy their album. We complain that our favorite artists don't get paid enough for the music they come out with. The least we can do is buy their albums. Or keep watching their gigs. That works, too.

Then, you can tell your friends about this band you like, and how they totally should give the music a listen. Oh, look. You're now making a notable dent without having to pick a fight with a senator. I know fighting for OPM isn't as glamorous as fighting for (Or against, if you're being silly.) the RH Bill, but there's very little opportunity cost here, so why should that be a problem?

Then maybe you're inspired now, and you realize you can actually write music. And you write a song, borrow a friend's Macbook and Soundforge, a few mics, then record a demo. Or you're a bit more well-off, and you have a friend you're willing to fund to do just that.

So now, you made your very own song. Or at least produced the song of one of your very dear friends. Cool, right?

Well, not always cool, of course.

It's Original. I'm assuming you didn't plagiarize your song from Sarah Pope's blog or something.

Oh, snap!

It's Pinoy. I'm assuming you're Pinoy if you've gotten this far reading this.

Unless you're Ako Si Chris, aka the father of JoePM.

It's Music. I'm assuming you at least have a bit of talent when you make that song.

Unless...

You. Are. Alive.

I think.

Congratulations! You just made sure OPM won't be staying dead!

Leloy Claudio was right: we should complain about the state of arts in the Philippines. The government is too busy granting idiotic lawmakers time to filibuster away our tax money to pay attention to OPM.

But that's why the power lies in us now. Why stop at complaining when you have the power to do much more? If you care about OPM's well-being, it becomes your duty to see to its well-being. You're free to not care, but don't be like the hypocrite who intentionally doesn't vote, then proceed to complain about how bad the government he got is. This isn't a closing of ranks: it's simply a bunch of people who wonder where you were while the deserving acts you say deserve better were languishing with nobody to watch their gigs or buy their albums. Because they were there.

He's also right that: internet + hard work = magic bullet to success is a work of fiction.

But that's why it won't take a single person to create success for any musician. I can't do that. Zach Lucero can't. Leloy Claudio can't. It's up to us as people who care enough about the music to make it succeed. Isn't that what we want? A chance to be a part of something greater than ourselves? The great artists of yesteryear didn't get to where they are today by not having any supporters.

If you think OPM is dead, but believe it shouldn't be, it's time to resurrect it.

If you think OPM isn't dead, and believe it shouldn't be, keep the fire burning.

If you care enough to feel that OPM shouldn't be dead, then it's worth fighting for. Oh, it's true! It's damn true!

I thought it was a microphone, so sue me.

Kay ganda ng ating musika. Ito ay atin, sariling atin.
- Kay Ganda Ng Ating Musika, by Hajji Alejandro

I Totally Wanted To Blog About Sotto Or OPM Or Something, But...

... I'm just too tired. Still, I think Leloy Claudio had the right idea of bringing this all full circle.

If Sotto resigned from the Senate and reformed VST, he'd go a long way to really keeping OPM alive/bringing it back to life.

That being said, here's what Fabucelles had to say about Sotto on The POC, and here's what I had to say about the OPM debate.

My ideas about the latter are still not as refined and simplified as I'd want them to. While I agree with Leloy's description of the symptoms, I don't necessarily agree with his diagnosis afterwards.

Why do these nationalistic issues crop up during August? Three years ago, I think we talked about someone whining how Jose Rizal was "just some sensationalistic blogger" while Andres Bonifacio's revolutions "never achieved anything." (Okay. Maybe not. That happened in June.)

Then, last year, we had James Soriano's brouhaha.

Now, we have "OPM is dead." Pretty interesting, really. I'm glad I managed to talk about it at length with Logan and Marf on The Disenchanted Kingdom yesterday, which made for a nice bit of contrast when we ended up talking about "18 Again", the vag tightening cream, this evening. Wow. Topic diversity.

Project 52 (34/52): On Anna Banana (And Why Her Rejection Of Derek Lorenzo Resonates With Me So)

.:Project 52 (34/52): On Anna Banana (And Why Her Rejection Of Derek Lorenzo Resonates With Me So):.

You. Know. The. Caption. By. Now.

Yeah, some of you might have already seen Anna Banana's rejection of Derek Lorenzo.

Yeah, I'm fully aware that it's a campaign by PLDT, and they're all actors.

No, I don't care. I'm still addressing this whole mess as if it were real.

Yes, I'm shirking from writing about Sotto and his alleged plagiarism. This feels much more important to me, believe it or not, because I definitely feel for Derek Lorenzo, seeing how I've found myself in the same position as he does now, more often than not.

It's one thing to be friendzoned. It happens to almost everyone, and really, no matter how much effort you invest in someone, you cannot expect that it will automatically be enough to win them over. People are free to decide whether or not they want to love somebody back, after all. What makes Anna Banana's rejection of Derek's original song particularly deplorable was the inherent meanness in her words: a simple "no" would suffice, but she had to insult the poor kid's dancing, then proceed to remind him that she's still hot (hot, hot). Yes, it mostly mimicked the original song, but after all the mean-spirited words, Anna Banana had the nerve to say "maybe we can just be friends?!?" Are you kidding me?!?

Of course, she's not obliged to fall in love with Derek. That's rather obvious. That's like saying Emily has to love this dude just because he carries his testicles around with a wheelbarrow.

Jim Morrison reincarnated.

Thomas and Derek had very sweet gestures. Earnest, genuine, a bit corny and cheesy, unfortunately permanent thanks to the internet, but sweet, earnest, and genuine, nonetheless. The objects of their affection are free to reject them, but there is such a thing as letting them down gently, and clearly, Anna Banana didn't do that at all. If you've ever had your heart broken, you'd know why the part where she pretty much rubs it in Derek's face really, really smarts. That's the part where I was frothing with rage in front of my computer as I watched the video.

And yes, again, I know it's all pretend, and this is all a campaign. But the campaign strikes a very real chord, which is more than can be said for a lot of other advertising or marketing campaigns out there, reeking of slick production values and manufactured emotions.

The hopeless romantic in me always long for a happy ending, and a simple "I love you, too." Sometimes, though, a simple "no, I don't feel the same way," would suffice, and there's no need to be mean-spirited about it. The other person just bared their heart to you and left you at their mercy. You didn't have to take that as an invitation to send them crashing down. It really isn't, and if the person is even just halfway decent, that simple "no" should suffice, once the pain of rejection has subsided. It's when you pile the pain on beyond just the rejection when things do get a tad problematic.

Ultimately, I think Derek deserves better than someone who would take his honest effort and turn it into a joke. That's kind of why I'm happy and saddened that he's moving on by trying to find "a new Anna," which almost feels like commodifying the Anna Banana's in our world and making them interchangeable. It's that kind of need to be in love with someone, anyone, that becomes the mark of someone who could very well be addicted to love, and not in a good way. Sort of like how 500 Days Of Summer ended with the guy walking into another love story, as if that's really what he needed to define him.

Hey, Derek. Hey, brah. You don't need a new Anna in your life. Maybe you just need to chill with your brahs some more, and forget about 'em ladies who'll just complicate your life and waste all of your time and money. Brahfist, dude! You are one righteous brah! Chicks, brah. Who needs 'em? [/douchebag]

Yes, it's a character he's playing. But sadly, my visceral reaction to this pretend pre-teen soap opera is more of a reflection on how much of myself I see in their story than it is about Derek, Anna, or the kids in real life who are playing them.

I highly doubt I'm alone on this one, though.

This Blog Is Approaching 10 Years...

And yeah, I know this is Buwan Ng Wika. Doesn't mean I plan to blog in Filipino all throughout August, though.

.:Who Would've Thought?:.

I haven't really made any concrete plans yet for my blog's 10th anniversary this October, but I'm definitely excited about it.

It feels like yesterday when I started writing in this blog, and you just know that I will probably have a massive retrospective when I get around to it. Still, this blog has been standing, has had its share of recognition, but ultimately, I've grown so much as a person in the past decade, and this blog has been no small part of it. From every mundane and elaborate transcript, to every promo I cut, to the eventual writing style I've been using since Cracked got a hold of my mind, well, there's just so much to be said about where my life would be if I weren't a blogger.

I doubt, for example, that I'd have spent three years in Nuffnang if I weren't a blogger. I also don't think I'd be working in digital right now as well, since my initial forays were in radio and the academe.

I doubt I'd have made friends with a lot of people if I weren't a blogger, either. I think it's pretty awe-inspiring to just think about the fact that people like Aileen Apolo or Filmphiler wouldn't be in my life at all if I didn't keep a blog. My life is much richer with people like them in it, so yeah, I'm pretty glad I do keep a blog.

Twitter and Facebook may be the dominant online hub for people nowadays, but blogs will always hold a place in my heart, much in the way that radio continues to do so for me. After over 3,000 blog entries from the past ten years of my life, who's to say where my blog will take me in the next ten?

.:Saltimbanco Ruled:.

Watched it last night. Loved it. Turns out, a friend of mine watched it the same night, but I never ran into her.

That being said, it was cool talking to her online and seeing how inspired she is to do something similar in the future...

.:So, I Still Got The Mentalism Touch...:.

Performed at a party today, and I'm pretty proud of my handiwork, if I do say so myself. Did a number prediction and a legit levitation, so that was great.

.:I Love The Part Where...:.

... you hurt me, but you're the one who cut me off. Yeah, I'm still pissed. But I have every right to feel that way.

.:Random Observation:.

So. I'm still steamed over Anna Banana, but I will not continue my running gag in this post. After all, you have to be a total dick to do that, and me? I'm not a dick. However...

What. A. Dick.

Well, I couldn't resist. I promise I will talk about her soon. I just wanna clarify that I'm hating on the Anna Banana character, but certainly not whoever the actress is.

That being said, while eating at Chic-Boy, I noticed their poster promoting their spaghetti. Is it just me, or was the kid on the left just pretending to like the spaghetti so they'd stop beating him up? He's bleeding something fierce. LOL.

It only hurts when he laughs.

Project 52 (33/52): On Epalwatch (And Why It's A No-Win Situation Sometimes)

.:Project 52 (33/52): On Epalwatch (And Why It's A No-Win Situation Sometimes):.

Epal: a common practice among public officers, whether elected or appointed, to append their names to public works projects which were either funded or facilitated through their office. –Epalwatch

Case in point:

I spy yet another Magsaysay… sigh.

Instances like this are pretty clear-cut. In the midst of relief operations, their face is plastered all over the truck, as if to announce “Hey, you undeserving peon! Gaze upon your salvation that is I, Jobo Jobo. For I am Jobo Jobo! People call me Jobo Jobo! Gaze, I say. Gaaaaazzzzeee!” Then there are cases where people get even more blatant, like this:

Oh, screw you.

The definition from Epalwatch was very clear. It’s all about people who put their name and face to projects, goods, and services to claim credit, with the obvious intention of leveraging themselves for the next elections. Well before campaign period, you’d see faces on sardines, stickers, tarps, everything short of a big, honking billboard, in an attempt to grab your attention — and votes.

Whoops.

Epalwatch is a worthy cause. It keeps public servants on their toes and keeps them from willfully using their position of power to spend public funds in an effort to advertise themselves for re-election well before they even file their candidacy. It prevents other politicians from making a name for themselves at the expense of genuine public service.  I am also a writer for Blogwatch (the group behind Epalwatch), and I agree with the objectives of Epalwatch in principle.

However, in an attempt to stamp out this epal-ing phenomenon, overzealous advocates of the Epalwatch movement seem to have resorted to calling out anyone who is seen doing any kind of public service. This may do more harm than good, because even sincerely well-meaning politicians would fear having their name besmirched just because they want to help.

And yes, that includes the president: the very guy people frequently castigate for being lazy and doing nothing. Now, we’re criticizing him for doing something.

The man assured us of devastation.
Looks like he finally got something right.

PNoy can’t win. Not that I even like the guy, really. I don’t. But a mere four days before the unexpected monsoon flooding, a columnist was asking where Noynoy was. When PNoy declared that he likes keeping a low profile during tragedies so that he doesn’t look like he’s milking tragedy for political glad-handing, he was criticized for it relentlessly.

Booooo! Do something!

Yet, now that he makes an effort to actually go out there and do something, he catches flak for it, too. What do we really want?

Booooo! Stop doing something!

Meanwhile, Dick Gordon, a man who, in 2009, allegedly delayed distribution of relief goods during Ondoy so he could deliver a speech, got nearly universal praise for his efforts this time. The difference: as far as we know, he is not running for anything this time.

He also gets badass points for that ride.

There is no question Dick Gordon was doing an excellent job with rescue operations, and we know him to be the kind who is all business. He has very little room for glad-handing or waving around to people, even when he was running. But that’s Dick Gordon. Not everyone else can be as to-the-point as he is and get away with it. I would give nearly everything just to have Dick Gordon as a Comelec Commissioner. Any excuse to call him “Commissioner Gordon” would be awesome.

In contrast, PNoy and the other people who went with him were slammed non-stop for doing essentially the same thing Gordon was doing: helping out. Unlike Lanete Sardines or Jobo Rice, there were no stickers or paraphernalia in the goods PNoy and company distributed. Furthermore, surely you can’t expect them to go out there and wear luchador masks to remain anonymous, or be surly as they go about their business, nor can you expect people to not take pictures of them as they go about their business. And even if they did, you can bet they’d have been criticized for it, too.

Because these people are who they are, they simply can’t help anonymously, unless they are notphysically there to help. By now, we know that isn’t enough, since that was exactly how PNoy claims to have been conducting himself earlier on. In fact, with all the emphasis on PNoy’s supposed photo-mongering, why did nobody take notice of this picture?

Mar Roxas, photobombing only like Mar Roxas can.

That sure doesn’t look like grandstanding to me at all, and has got to be one of the most un-glamorous shots of the president I’ve ever seen. Despite that, people ignored this photo in favor of others that gave them the opportunity to weave a more lurid narrative about our president. While that may be their right, they should at least ask themselves, is this fair?

There are so many valid things to criticize PNoy about. I’m pretty sure I’ve blogged my fair share of criticism against him, too. However, his actions during this flood would not be one of those things.

Let’s go back to Epalwatch’s own definition of what it means to be an “epal.” When did PNoy or any of his group “append their names to public works projects which were either funded or facilitated through their office?” The definition did not cover the actions of PNoy and company! Was there a single sardine can there with Risa Hontiveros’s mug plastered on it? Were they distributing “Ruffy Rice” while Ruffy Biazon was reminding people to not forget him in 2013? Or was it simply a case of overzealous people trying to find political drama in the middle of tragedy, instead of simply accepting the service rendered by PNoy and company at face value for now?

Really now. What was the alternative for these people? What could they have possibly done that would have resulted in people saying that they were really just trying to help? We all know that if Dick Gordon mentioned something about running for public office again, there would have been a bunch of people attacking him for helping out, too. Do we seriously want to put political service in such a quandary?

Maybe they really were angling themselves politically. I don’t know; I’m just a mentalist, not a psychic. That doesn’t take away from the fact that they were helping people, and only instretching Epalwatch’s own definition beyond what it actually states can tongues even begin wagging, which implies one of two things:

1. Either Epalwatch made a mistake in defining what it means to be “epal,” or
2. The response to PNoy and company was simply a cynical, knee-jerk reaction to politicians in general, no matter what they do.

Or both. Probably both. It seems that as netizens, we shoot first, ask questions later. Cops get the same kind of bad press, and yet here they are, still reminding us why a lot of them still have jobs.

Cops are generally nicer to pedestrians than motorists, though.

Am I saying Epalwatch should stop doing what they do? Of course not. I won’t even tell them to tone their zeal down, for that matter. That’s their call, and I myself would be quick to share something to their cause if and when I see politicians clearly crossing the line. All I hope is that just as willing as they are to criticize public officials who grandstand, they would also be willing to accept criticism when they jump the gun. I’d give the same advice to even the sincerest of politicians: don’t stop doing what you’re doing to help, no matter how much Epalwatch may question your motives. The hope is that as both sides push and pull and argue over what it means to be epal, people in general become more critical-minded and don’t just jump the gun and assume the worst in politicians when they try to do something.

There will be time for finger-pointing afterwards. I just don’t think we needed much of that in the middle of the tragedy itself.I think Dick Gordon himself said it best, actually:

Dick Gordon as the voice of reason? Now I’ve seen everything.

Oh, by the way. Has anyone heard a peep about what Vice President Binay was doing during the monsoon? Because I didn’t, and I normally get five text messages at a time whenever he does something for this country.

I’m just sayin’.

If you wish to be more than just a Patriotic Filipino® and actually help out in the Filipino’s time of need, you can go here for a handy list.

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.