Saturday, April 23, 2016



Think about it. Is change an individual effort that we should "change from within"? Or, are we the type of people driven by our leaders, our society, our culture? Is change, considering these factors of leadership, society and culture, a collective effort? Should we be willing to change ourselves or should there be a driving force for us to change? Or, both?

They say, real change starts from within. Does it, really? Do we simply decide that we change for the better? Or, do we decide to change because it's what our leaders, our society, and culture demand from us? Or, is it simply demanded by these changing times? 

Do we drive change? Or, are we driven by change? Are we the type of people who choose to follow? Or, are we a society of leaders? Are Filipinos the "change from within" type of people? Or, are we "leadership by example" kind of people? Do we follow our leaders because we want to? Or, do we follow our leaders because we need to? Want, need, or both?

Change, change, change.

"We want change." The most overused "battle cry" during elections.

Change. What is it, really? From whom? For whom?

Tuesday, April 05, 2016

The Buzzing Bees!


Oh, just some random thoughts on Philippine politics and current events.

On "truths", the rule of law & the accused.

+ Bombard people with unbelievable figures, some, especially the noisy ones, will accept the figures and the implications as truthful facts. So, next time you go accuse someone of corruption or wrongdoing, make sure the amount/accusation is so shocking and unbelievable that it would make people believe it. Shock makes unbelievable facts as truths. The more shocking it is, the truer it becomes. So, yeah. Let's all ignore the law and the rights of the accused 'cause you know, what they allegedly did was soooo shocking and horrifying that not believing it is never an option. In the Philippines, being accused of something is the worst thing that could ever happen to you. Accusation has become proof. Thus, accusation means your guilty. Sad reality. Exaggerated? Oh, yes. Still, reality.

On "Panama Papers", the Yellow Media & Journalism
+ "Using information/documentation unlawfully obtained is a crime."

Ah, the media does not care. Not many people actually care. It's been decided by the media: the goal is to paint all world leaders on the list as corrupt at all cost. The rule of law is inferior to their truth. The assumption is all global leaders on the list are corrupt. The non-global leaders are tax evaders. All these assumptions even when the list does not actually say they are.

So much for fair and balanced media.

+ In the Philippines, tax avoidance and tax evasion are not synonymous. Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is illegal.

+ Lionel Messi and Jackie Chan are on the list. I dare you to call them tax evaders. If we follow your "condemning without hearing" logic, you wouldn't spare them. Issues based on personality should stop. Don't jump into conclusions just because you don't like a person.

+ So, what happened to "objective, impartial and balanced presentation of facts"? It took a click-bait headline on bits of information from a certain "Panama Papers" to ignore this. Lucky enough if they actually even bothered reading it in full. What a way to shame the people you already hate, huh? Leaving out other familiar names in your headlines, no? The SYs are on the list (You know SM), Ramon Ongsiako Cojuangco, Jr. and Miguel Ongsiako Cojuangco are on it too (related to your beloved Conjuangco family). Oh, of course, our media will leave them out. The focus will always be the surnames "Marcos", "Ejercito" or just simply connected to that family. Instant headline-worthy.
Some people will take everything as facts. Worse, they'll take it as if they already did something wrong even if nothing has been proven yet.

HIGHLIGHT THIS: "There are legitimate uses for offshore companies and trusts. We do not intend to suggest or imply that any persons, companies or other entities included in the ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database have broken the law or otherwise acted improperly."

Next time you ask for an objective, impartial and balanced presentation of facts, make sure you can stand by it. Hindi siya for political convenience lang, media.

On Philippine Elections & Change.

+ Next time, vote for a candidate (running for the highest office) who desires to give public service with no political ambition. Wait, what "next time"? Filipinos have been doing that for years!!! Tapos, sasabihin nila, "WE WANT CHANGE". Let's effin' vote for him/her because he/she is soooooo simple. He/she's sooooo mabait. He/she is sooooo madasalin. He/she is soooooooo walang ambisyon maging Presidente. Sa inyo na yang "change" na yan. Gasgas na gasgas na gasgas na gasgas na yan. Dalawang dekada ko na narinig at nabasa iyan. It's probably why I stopped advocating for it. Simplistic. Repetitive. Uninspiring.

On Kidapawan & the Yellow Silence.

+ Now, Jim Paredes cares about the facts, huh? You hypocrite you! If we follow your logic on Martial Law, you'd actually blame PNOY for the Kidapawan massacre. But, NO! You're blinded by your "yellow" love. You are outraged by the Mar Roxas memes, but not the Kidapawan massacre. You demand facts. You demand facts? You demand objective analysis? Facts you did not even care about during Martial Law. Objective analysis you have often dismissed when it comes to Martial Law. Oh, yes I will make that connection. He hates Martial Law and the Marcoses and loves yellow so much "to the point of insanity"! Let's not make this about politics my foot! You being concerned about the Mar Roxas memes is not politics, huh?

+ "We want a balanced presentation of facts." Add: "ONLY when convenient to our cause." Yup. Only when it fits their narrative. It's been their formula for 30 years, people! If you truly want a balanced presentation of facts, apply it equally to all. Huwag yung "ngayon lang".

Friday, March 04, 2016

An Objective Analysis of History


Is that too much to ask for? Aren't historians supposed to objectively analyze historical events? To at least have an unbiased way of presenting history.

I did not live through Martial Law. I know people who did and their stories vary. I lived through Agoncillo and Zaide though, especially Zaide. There's the anti-Marcos media, too. The kind of media that still exist up to this day. So, I take offense when the anti-Marcos crowd label us who support Bongbong Marcos (or, have a balanced view on Martial Law or the allegations of corruption, or even the Marcoses as a family) as "ignorant", "stupid", or "having no sense of history". Is that how simplistic these anti-Marcos people are?

Asking for an objective analysis of history especially the controversial ones, does that make me stupid? Does that make me a loyalist? Does that make me a blind follower? Does that make me a revisionist?

I don't think so.

When I say an objective analysis of history, I speak of Philippine History in general. It's not a specific time, date, event or person. A history not written by the victors, but one which has been thoroughly studied and analyzed by objective and non-partisan historians. Isn't that what historians are for? To have an objective analysis of our history.

Imagine if our historians did just that. We wouldn't have considered Emilio Aguinaldo a hero, right? Or, maybe we still would. You simply have to consider everything--the time, the laws, the circumstances, the existing ideologies, world events, the two sides of the story. It's easy to ignore facts when it wouldn't fit your narrative. This is exactly what are "historians" did. They have made up their minds. This is how they thought history should be presented. Their way.

It is only now that more and more people have actually realized that our history as it is written have not been telling us the whole story. For years! Half-truths. Half-lies. This is why we have never really learned anything as a nation. And now, we demand an objective analysis of our history and the anti-Marcos crowd call it revisionism?

Facts, backed up not only by documents but also by existing realities, want to be known. Stories by people who also lived during those times want to be told. The victors chose to ignore these facts and these stories. And now, it's coming back to life--haunting them.

I believe Mulder when he said,

"...the truth will out and that no one lie can live forever. I believe it still. Much as you try to bury it, the truth is out there. Greater than your lies, the truth wants to be known. You will know it. It'll come to you, as it's come to me faster than the speed of light."

History is neither black nor white.  So, it is truly wise to keep an open mind.

I hope they have it in them.

Friday, February 19, 2016

SOTW: Ho Hey, MSR! ♥


SOTW - February 14 to February 20, 2016

This is the perfect song of the week.

Ho Hey by The Lumineers.

Simply because...Babylon. This is the perfect Mulder and Scully song. 

I never thought I would actually listen to this song like I do now. Don't get me wrong, I liked it. I would listen to in when it's on the radio, but I won't put it on repeat. Then Bablyon came, everything changed. I love this song now. I could not even stop listening to it. It's the Mulder and Scully effect, I suppose. My OTP.

Wonders never cease with you

Hello there, you two! I belong with you. You belong with me. You're my sweetheart! ♫  That's what you call a mini music video. Right there. ♥ Valentine's Day present from the one and only Chris Carter. Well-done, sir. Well-done!

Thursday, February 18, 2016

TV REVIEW: The X-Files - "Babylon"



Babylon received a lot of flak it did not deserve. Well, for someone who loved the episode, I'd definitely say that. Let's just say, when Chris Carter writes a story about religion, faith, and humanity, it's something I take into heart. I love when he writes about these themes not because we're on the same page, but because his stories help me keep an open mind. For me, religion should not be black or white, nor should it interfere with one's faith and being. Yes, faith and religion aren't the same (for me). There must be respect for human beings regardless of ones beliefs, faith, or religion. I, however, will not go into that.

First up, Agents Miller and Einstein. They are the "Mulder" and "Scully" of their generation. The believer and the skeptic/medical doctor. Miller's more laid back and Einstein's just really aggressive. I'd prefer Miller over Einstein. She's just not a Scully. Einstein is so full of her "I'm a medical doctor" status, but I applaud her for the placebo. Props to Robbie Amell and Lauren Ambrose.

I thought the Mulder-Scully-Miller-Einstein scene in the basement office was probably one of the highlights of the episode. Some fans hated it because they just hate the idea of a new "Mulder" and "Scully", but then again, Chris had done that before. He's probably just making a point that Mulder and Scully, David and Gillian are irreplaceable. It's just nice watching Mulder and Scully seeing themselves in others. It's funny.
Oh, and of course, "nobody down here but the F.B.I.'s most unwanted" coming from Scully was simply brilliant. We've all been waiting for that to come out from your mouth, Scully. 23 years!!! I thought it was a smart move.

There was also a moment when I thought that Scully calling Miller and Mulder calling Einstein were part of a Mulder and Scully plan for I really don't know what. I was wrong, of course. I guess they're just drawn to work with their opposites. It kind of challenges them. They have their reasons and it was kind of explained in the episode. I'll just leave it at that.

The Miller and Einstein moment towards the end was pretty cool too. Talking about the value of an open mind, the power of suggestion, and the nature of reality. These are the things we should contemplate on.

Mulder's 'Magical Mystery Tour' is one of the funny moments in Babylon. It had mixed reactions. I thought it was weird, but found it funny. Symbolism at its finest. Read this review. It best explains that scene. All I can say is, Mulder had a time of his life. The Lone Gunmen being there was priceless. A bit longer of the 'Gunmen' would have been better. I agree with the majority sentiment that Byers, Langly and my favorite Frohike deserved more than that tiny bit. Nonetheless, we were really happy to see them back on The X-Files.

Finally, in this world of political correctness, I understand certain critiques about the episode (I,  too have some), but the hate it's getting, I really don't.
When it comes to themes like faith, religion, and humanity, the message is what I'm after. It's probably why I loved Babylon. Thinking about perceptions, generalizations, faith, religion, and humanity. I have only read one review, which I have mentioned above, that really explained this episode very well. It's worth reading. It's an affirmation of what some of us have been saying all along, not in the open, just a small group discussion on why we actually like, or in my case love, this episode. The intricacies of Babylon not many people appreciate, we appreciate.

I'm not from/in the United States so I can't really comment on American stereotypes, but I can comment on stereotyping terrorists. Terrorism is a worldwide problem, after all. In my point of view, Babylon successfully presented that point--it's why it is receiving such flak. The good news is, we, as citizens of the world, were able to determine that. For me, that's basically the point. We see what's wrong yet we do nothing about it. We get mad, but not do anything about it. We are offended by what others say or do, yet we do the same to them. It took shows like The X-Files just to prove that point.

The final conversation scene between Mulder and Scully effectively summed up the episode, for me--the perceptions, the realizations, faith, God, religion, and unending questions. This is also my favorite scene from Babylon. Imagine, the shippiest moment yet from the revival came from an episode penned by Chris Carter who have always loved to troll with the shippers! It's not only shippy, it's very insightful.

Mulder: I saw things, though, Scully. Powerful things. I saw deep and unconditional love.
Scully: I saw things, too. I witnessed unqualified hate that appears to have no end.
Mulder: But how to reconcile the two? The extremes of our nature.
Scully: That’s the question. Maybe the question of our times.

That conversation alone speaks volumes about humanity. "Unconditional love" and "unqualified hate" are, indeed, the extremes of our nature. How do we reconcile these two? A question no one could truly answer.

We abhor terrorism, yet we spread hate in our own little way. Some days, we are full of love. Other days, we're full of hatred. In life, there's always a middle ground, but sometimes we just forget about it. It's a never ending cycle of our extreme nature. It seems Scully's right, we should just..."open our hearts and truly listen."

Truly listen.