is quirkily serious about LIFE, LOVE, LEARNING and entertainment.
email me at cheezmiss@gmail.com
Terms and Conditions
All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.
This policy is subject to change at anytime.
From kinder to grade 6, I grew up watching Eat Bulaga every afternoon during lunch break.
From kinder to grade 3, I was able to watch the show in its entirety until 130pm.
From fourth grade to sixth, because I lived a few blocks from the Catholic elementary school my parents enrolled me in and I went home to eat lunch at my grandmother's house, I was able to watch Eat Bulaga until 1pm.
I didn't watch the show because I wanted to, I watched it because the adults in our house did. And I don't remember anything else memorable on TV during lunch at that time. I remember that lunch time until 3pm was "patay na oras" or downtime where one either slept or watched old 1950's-1960's Sampaguita movies.
Eat Bulaga was a show you watched while you did nothing or while nothing was happening.
Now, it is a lunch time staple. It is like rice to mainstream society's "ulam" or `viand' (according to my fourth grade teacher).
In one of the Eat Bulaga episodes I remember,
my father was laughing at Vic Sotto - who was pretending to cook a dish with the help of a male assistant who had a cleft palate.
I didn't understand why my father found it funny when Vic Sotto asked his assistant to check if the oil on the frying pan was hot enough, the assistant waved his hand above the pan but Vic Sotto dunked the assistant's hand in. The assistant, from what I can remember, said - in all seriousness and in his cleft-palate-affected speech - "Walang ganyanan."
I couldn't understand why Vic Sotto and my father found it hilarious.
I did find Aiza Seguerra cute and so it was easy for me to become her instant fan when I saw her in Little Ms Philippines.
It also didn't strike me as odd - at that time - when Joey de Leon wore his street clothes on national TV.
It was in the late 80's that I finally saw what everybody did - the show was inherently / organically, albeit playfully, subversive.
In one of the show's contest - She's Got the Look - a beautiful female contestant was called for her turn in the Question & Answer portion. It was obvious that everyone was awed by her elegance. When she reached the center stage, host Joey de Leon asked the usual - and at that time not yet over-used cliche'/ patronizing question -
"What is your motto?"
The contestant replied, "To be a doctor."
The audience screamed, the contestant smiled but mild panic was all over her face.
Meanwhile, Joey de Leon whispered to the mic while one of his hands was on his face: "Sinasabi ko na nga ba."
The contestant looked to her side and then - probably coached by someone backstage - spoke to the mic, "Time is gold. Time is gold"
In Pinoy Henyo years ago, a male contestant was guessing the word "Kuko."
He couldn't (ermmm) "nail" the word so Joey de Leon helped.
Male contestant 1: Pagkain ba `to?
Contestant 2: Hindi
Male contestant 1: Tao?
Contestant 2: Oo.
Male Contestant 1: Parte ng katawan ng tao?
Contestant 2: Oo.
Joey de Leon: Kinakain din yan.
Male contestant 1: Suso?
More recently, in Eat Bulaga's Juan for all All for Juan segment where Vic Sotto called a contestant via a cellphone and the call gave out a high-pitched buzzing feedback, instead of asking the contestant to lower the volume of her TV, Vic Sotto enjoyed the annoying sound the way a druggie gets his fix - with the technical echo adding to his "high."
Most recently, about six days ago, a Juan for All All for Juan contestant made an error by calling one of the segment's host Wally as Willie - and even mentioned the full, complete name of Willie Revillame. Instead of immediately correcting the mistake, Vic and Joey rode on the error and milked it for all the laughs it could get - with the help of everyone else's genius namely Jose Manalo.
Currently, there is nothing else as relatively edgy and funny on mainstream TV as Eat Bulaga.
Do you remember the time when there were at least one or two local sitcoms shown on primetime TV everyday?
Have you noticed how there are very few now? If there are sitcoms, they turn into gameshows halfway through one season.
Eat Bulaga so far is the only show where funny is allowed. The way mainstream funny is usually permitted to be - lightheartedly offensive but offensive still.
Though I know that me saying this to you is similar to me telling a pedestrian in Manila, "You'll be safe,"
you also know deep in your heart of hearts that being in the relationship you were in is akin to you crossing the street despite CLEAR WARNING SIGNS that doing so would cause death.
And now you feel intense regret, anger for doing so.
The feeling of despair, sadness, remorse, shame is so powerful you cannot shake it off your mind, your body, your self.
It is as if you're trapped in a fog and everywhere you look, everywhere you go you can only see and feel pain. You feel like a walking wound - not wounded. You feel like a wound.
You do not feel like a person.
You feel like you've been dumped on, used, abused, violated, your trust betrayed, lied to, manipulated.
You feel you are a victim.
You do not know what to do.
All you want to do right now is cry.
Then
Go cry.
Go sob.
Go gasp.
Cry and wail from your gut.
Let your tears flow, let your snot go.
Beat your pillows - or beat the hotel pillows. Go anywhere you can do all these freely and away from the eyes and ears of people who might worry that you're losing your mind.
You have lost your mind saying yes to that relationship, now you're just getting it back.
You're getting yourself back. You're also getting your spirit back. But you need to clear the grief and anger from your body first.
Feel free to be sad, be mad. Be all of the above.
All you want right now is to shout.
So go shout.
Go scream.
Let it all out.
Scream from the top of your lungs.
Then maybe, if you listen to yourself hard enough, you'll hear yourself say, "I had a hand in it."
If you look at yourself hard enough, you'll see how you walked yourself to the place where you are now.
And your regret dissolves.
You become kind to yourself.
You see the gift in the pain.
You see, feel, realize that you have received a priceless treasure.
You have been given YOU.
You've been shown the ways,
you have lived the ways of how to NOT love you.
You have been given the gift of your Self.
You now know what to do to LOVE YOU more - the AUTHENTIC YOU - not the You created in your mind, not the You others have created in their minds, not the You which you think You should be.
The YOU just as YOU are.
You now recognize the You who didnt know any better, the You who was working at the level you knew - the level you were used to or grew up into; the level you think you should be in; the level others before you were also in and so you thought you should also be into because you believed that is what you're supposed to do.
Your pain is now telling you to LOVE yourself more.
Go look at yourself in the mirror.
Stand in front of the mirror and look at yourself.
Look at yourself in the eyes and
Tell yourself, "I love you,"
and
"I'm sorry."
Mean it. You know you do.
How does it feel to now realize that the dude who said he loved you really didnt?
how does it feel to now know that he couldnt love you?
How could you choose someone to love you when you didnt even love your self?
Now that you know that you didnt love yourself, how could you love others too?
Do you now know that you were in pseudo-love with him as much as he was to you?
And no, love is not giving until it hurts.
Giving is giving. It is not loving.
Helping is helping. It is not loving.
Love is simply loving.
There is no requirement to love. It just is. It does not expect.
Love is not a business transaction. Love is not giving X because you were provided Y.
Love is not doing Z because you were made to feel X.
Love is not giving yourself crumbs and offering the entire cake to others.
"Magtira ka para sayo." is not a loving thing to say or do to yourself.
If you leave crumbs for yourself, you can only give crumbs to others.
Love yourself enough to enjoy the cake. You can only share to others what you yourself have.
You also now know that a decent / mature person - no matter how much codependent / generous / willing you are to give too much of yourself / to allow yourself to get hurt / how poor your self-boundaries are - does not take advantage of your vulnerability/ does not get abusive / disrespectful / cruel.
You also now know that however painful, gut-wrenching, wounding everything is,
your soul is safe.
You have crossed the street
and You are alive.
Be thankful too that you now know there's always an overpass you can walk on to help you get there safe, relatively risk-free and sound.
Grief – authentic ones – take over you. It’s there. You do not need to tell yourself to “remember” the sadness and anger or remind your "Old Man" self of the pain and that it is – according to you – “horrible” - if indeed the horrible-ness affected you.
You only tell yourself to remember a heart-wrenhcing event and have the gall to refer to it as a “souvenir” when you’ve kept the memory of it in your head not your heart. Your head may knows the facts, the details of where you were, where you've been, what you did, what you will do. But the head can only memorize and not assimilate the experience.
Do you remind yourself of these details because you cannot feel it and making an audio-visual note of it is the least you can do?
Why do you need to have yourself remember "this hardest thing" you're going through when it is easier to NOT forget them? Reportedly, a father who had no choice in the decision to have his child aborted
If pressed and made to `fess up that you were suavely valuing and devaluing her, that you were destroying her life or that you were extracting revenge under the guise of - and using as a red herring your - pseudo-grief, blame GMA7.
But deep, not in your heart but, head - you know you're not really sorry, remorseful or in grief. You are in mourning but not for the reasons you claim. You're grieving because you're not the main character in her life anymore. You have nothing to make her still attached to you the same way you've gotten your previous girlfriends - as well as the mother of your child - still communicating with you in any manner, type or form.
You're left with no reason for her to come back to you or want you or even speak with you.
This is old news but it's something we could all learn something from.
Is there a John Lloyd in your life?
Are you acting the way Ruffa is acting?
Do you feel as "insecure" as Shaina?
A disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed on this post are based on details, news which are readily available on mainstream and social media. None of these details are invented and so are appropriately referenced as necessary (and if possible).
The story went: Ruffa and John Lloyd became a couple (which they never admitted) after they worked together in the show Betty La Fea. They were even spotted together at a hotel in L.A. in 2009 but they still admitted to nothing.
In 2010, John Lloyd is now being publicly seen and linked with Shaina. He admits his relationship with Shaina but denies contacting or still calling Ruffa. But Ruffa confirms - and Dr. Vicky Belo too - that John Lloyd is still calling her. John Lloyd releases a statement to the press that he will stay away from Ruffa. Ruffa exclaims that John Lloyd should walk his talk and to `fess up and stop with his "indecisions."
In 2011, John Lloyd and Shaina celebrate their 1st year anniversary. On a bday party of another celebrity, Ruffa, Shaina and John Lloyd meet. Ruffa says she received an angry text from Shaina but Shaina claims it was Ruffa who texted her first. Ruffa tells the couple to leave her alone. John Lloyd and Shaina allow themselves to be interviewed about the incident. Ruffa reveals that John Lloyd is a drunkard. Ruffa now claims that the couple are no longer bothering her.
See ABS-CBN's interesting interactive timeline of the issue - because they care enough to give us the very best.
Minus the details, the summary of the story goes: guy is in a relationship with girl1 but never admits to it. He proceeds to be in a relationship with girl2 but is still holding on to girl1 - but never admits to it. Girl2 is confused and bewildered guy can't let go of girl1 and feels insecure about herself and/or the status of their relationship. Girl2 gets angry at girl1 not at guy. Guy escapes the cat fight and washes his hands off the incident. Girl1 gets back at guy by revealing to the public that boy-next-door is actually a drunk and a womanizer. Girl1 claims guy and girl2 is no longer bothering her.
And the lessons we could all learn from @iloveruffag, Shaina and John Lloyd are:
11 Be wary of a man who has a pattern of having a string of ex-girlfriends he cannot seem to let go off.
Why?
First off, there is nothing wrong when a dude is friends with his ex. There is something wrong when the dude is still extracting supply from his ex and is using friendship as a convenient guise to do so.
When a dude is addicted to the supply he gets to receive from an ex-gf, he will continuously and constantly communicate with her as long as an ex-gf is giving him what he wants. His constant calls / communication is an attempt to hook you still, to keep you hooked, to hold onto you
not because "Iba ka magmahal,"
not because you are special,
not because you are the only one who understands him,
not because you're different,
not because you have that unique one-of-a kind something that keeps him coming back for more,
not because you can give him something his current gf can't give him,
it's because you're still accepting his call and giving him attention = supply.
It's because the man is an addict.
It's because the man cannot help himself -- not because you're gorgeous, loving, yummy --
it's because he cannot help himself.
You are his dealer / supplier.
And if you stop supplying. He will stop taking his fix from you and he will jump to someone else.
You are expendable to him.
You are not an individual to him - you're just a source of whatever it is he needs to feel full, to feel high.
Do this: stop giving him what he wants. Cut off your ties with him. Sever it. STOP CONTACT.
If he knows he cannot get something from you, if he can no longer get what he wants from you, he won't care for you because he never has. He will jump to the next one who can and wants to give him supply.
We can only guess though if this news article is true or not and how half-meant is Willie Revillame's question to John Lloyd at 3:33, "Pano mo napapagsabay-sabay?"
2 Be wary of a man who has a pattern of not defending / who does not stand up for the women he has or has had a relationship with.
This should be taken as a sign that the relationship will highly likely get ugly. When a man does this, this means he only values himself more than he values his partner = he is selfish = self-centered = is more than willing to hurt someone else for his own benefit / gain.
This alone indicates there is no partnership in the first place, if you think there is - the pseudo-partnership is seriously damaged or is in the brink of destruction.
3 Be wary of a man who gives you a warm hug but only does so in exchange for sex, your attention or "love."
Any act of "kindness" or "love"
any "gift"
any "token"
must be taken as it is - an act of kindness/love, a gift, a token.
Do not equate it with a genuine gesture of change, apology, regret, shame or guilt.
To be able to know if these "acts," tokens or gifts are sincere, the least you can do is express and give your appreciation - NO MORE - NO LESS and NOTHING ELSE. If he expects more than this, he is expecting a business transaction and not an authentic, sincere heart to heart interaction.
Remember, just because he did ABC does not mean/ it does not oblige you to do XYZ.
4 Just because he's not physically hurting you does not mean he's not abusing you. If he is abusing you and you're allowing it, you are abusing YOU too.
is equal to: "Hindi naman kelangang pahalagahan niya ako, ok lang yun. Kung hindi niya aaminin ang papel ko sa buhay niya, hindi issue yun. Sino ba ako naman ako. Kung wala akong kwenta sa kanya, ok lang. Pwde pa rin naman nya akong tawagan kahit kelan nya gusto. Lagi pa rin akong nandito para sa kanya. Magkaibigan pa rin kami."
is equal to: "Okay na yung lasenggero kesa nambubugbog."
5 If you feel "insecure," find out if your insecurity is a long-standing issue you have with your self or is it something you feel has been recently brought out by something or someone.
Remember though that nothing or no one could make you feel insecure without your permission.
6 In the words of Tita Oprah: "If someone tells you who they are, believe them." Do NOT give him/her the benefit of the doubt because you have just received a GOLDEN gift straight from the horse's mouth.
Remember to treasure the knowledge others give to you freely and act on this knowledge. This is heaven's gift to help you make the choices that is right for you.
Have you learned anything from Ruffa, Shaina or John Lloyd? Share naman `jan.
"The Wizards Project (formerly called the Diogenes Project) was a research project conducted by Paul Ekman and Maureen O'Sullivan that studied the ability of people to detect lies told by others. The project was originally named after the Greek philosopher who would look into people's faces using a lamp, claiming to be looking for an honest man."
Paul Ekman is a psychologist who has been a pioneer in the study of emotions and their relation to facial expressions.
****
Note that the Truth Wizard I asked lives in - and is from - the US, speaks English and does not understand the Filipino language.
She therefore has to rely only on facial expressions shown by Ramona Bautista on the vid below.
I asked what she could discern from Ramona Bautista's facial expressions. I explained that in the video below, Ramona is describing what she saw when her brother was murdered.
With EyesForLies permission, she observes - absent of any translation - that Ramona Bautista is "emotionally dull" -- not a natural thing to be after witnessing the murder of a sibling. She said she had to google Ramona Bautsita's name to know if Ramona was indeed talking about a murder and found it interesting that Ramona is being tagged as a suspect.
EyesforLies is a Truth Wizard. According to her blog, she "has a 97.3% accuracy rate (to date) after identifying truth and deception in 37/38 people before the truth was known by watching media clips. Eyes for Lies is not psychic."
She relies on subtle facial expressions, microexpressions, verbal cues and a host of other minute details the average person mostly cannot see, usually dismiss or conveniently explain away.
"...we don't know why they're so good...they're uncanny...They don't miss anything. Every aspect of your speech, mannerism, what you're doing with your hands. They're continuing to generate hypotheses as they go along. "
If a murder did not happen, you'd think she's telling the plot of an action movie.
I can't help but think that this is her audition tape for Pinoy Big Brother.
Is that why the related videos shown by YouTube are also PBB-related?
Why does she pause at 1:04? when telling the story of how a man is standing at the door of his brother's room?
What is she trying to remember "correctly?"
When she says, "Hindi ko iniwang bukas yung pinto. Hindi po ako nagbukas." this is probably true
"Hindi ko trabahong i lock ung pinto dahil hindi ko naman alam yun e."
"Si Janelle po ang katabi ng pinto. Dapat sya po ang maglock."
It is as if she is cleansing herself from sin and that it was whoever opened the door who was at fault for the murder because the one who opened the door welcomed the perpetrator.
"..andun yung lalake sa pintuan nagulat po ako."
No she was not startled because her voice does not say so, it seems she has been expecting the man-by-the-door to appear. Also, that sentence is awkward.
"..andun yung lalake sa pintuan nagulat po ako."
That statement shows she is trying to remember something from the memory of what she saw and not from what she felt when she saw it - if indeed she was authentically startled. If she really was "nagulat," won't she or anyone naturally / normally say:
"..nagulat ako...may lalake sa pintuan."
Why did she say
"..andun YUNG lalake.."?
What's the difference when you refer to someone as "Yung lalake.." (doesn't this suggest familiarity?)
compared to "May lalake.."?
Why do I have the feeling that empathy does not run in the Revilla family.
To be fair, Ramona Bautista is so lucky to not have been hurt by the perpetrator. She really should thank his brother for "saving her life."
It is also fair to say that she probably did not drink the appropriate amount of milk when she was growing up because of the evident memory gaps in her statement as published by Pep.ph on November 4.
Her body language in the news video below contradicts Ramona's own statement in the same video where she says "Her conscience is clear."
Why is she covering her face with her hair and why can't she keep her head up? What is she ashamed of? She says she's ashamed she left her brother and his gf dead. She also cried in an interview when she said she heard the news that Janelle was still alive.
She cried when she heard the news that Janelle was still alive?
Did she cry because she knows that she now has to make her statements consistent with the survivor?
Also, it is not just me who thinks and hears Ramona's voice is devoid of sadness when relating the story of his brother's murder.
Maybe crying on cue with no tears also run in their immediate family - like Mother like Daughter.
Note that I am not privy to any personal detail or information about Claudine Barretto save from the news and information she readily and generously makes available to media (social and mainstream).
Note that my interest on this issue is from an educational viewpoint because we could learn a lot from what we see and hear. You might even discover that there might be a Claudine-Barretto-like person in your own life.
Can you see a pattern here?
It was September last year when Claudine Barretto sent out angry tweets to an un-named person who apparently was destroying her home/family/marital life. Her rage reached the point where she issued grave threats:
"[P]apatayin kita. You don't deserve to live. Suntukan tayo ngayon na."
Eventually, she named the target of her rage as Angelica Panganiban.
And rightfully so, Angelica's home network issued a demand letter to Claudine.
Claudine kept quiet after this legal shocker.
She also kept quiet when the man she used to call as her second father, Star Magic head honcho Johnny Manahan, called on Claudine's threat to see them all in court: "Go Ahead. Sue, Claudine. Make our Day! Para Bellum."
At almost the same time this year, Claudine was not saved from her own tears, rage and fears when she called a GMA News Team to a bank in Quezon City after learning that her bank account went from an alleged 5million-peso to a Zero.
I know it is not just me who thinks that if Claudine were the aggrieved party, she will not be flaunting her rage for all her fans and endorsers to see. It is obvious though that she clearly thinks that it is she who has been aggrieved. If I were the injured party, I'd flaunt pity, not rage.
It also does not make any sense how a bank would lose millions of pesos from a client's account and despite the account being a joint bank account of husband and wife, the news has conveniently left out Raymart's side - other than the damage control press release statement issued by the married couple who claim they are "still very much together."
I know it s not just me who finds these details inconsistent and not making any sense at all.
I have a feeling Claudine Barretto does not easily back down and always wants to get the upper hand on anything.
In the interview she and Raymart did on Showbiz Central's Don't Lie to Me on July 2010,
see Raymart cower and submit to what Claudine thinks is her correct knowledge on a flimsy detail (4:27-4:37).
In this clip, Claudine mentions the burial date of their pastor friend who passed away and looks on to Raymart for confirmation.
Raymart volunteers the information "Today"
Claudine interprets it as "Tuesday pala"
Raymart corrects her again and speaks to the mic this time to say, "Today, today."
Claudine gives an expression of surprise, "Huh?"
Raymart reluctantly and reiterates "Today"
Claudine insists what she knows: "Hinde. Ang alam ko tomorrow."
Watch how she does not waver and sticks to what she thinks she knows is right while Raymart sheepishly gives in.
Has Claudine Barretto always been this angry?
I do not live with her 24/7 nor was I present when she was growing up. But I did watch on TV her live interview about Rico Yan's death and re-watched it again via the uploaded video on YouTube below:
In this exclusive interview, Boy Abunda asks Claudine to relate the details of how she knew of Rico Yan's death.
I have the feeling that Claudine is 100% telling the facts from 0:27-1:41 and her facial expressions and words are telling us the truth.
When Claudine saw her mother pale and asks her mother why this is so (0:50-0:57) , Claudine rolls her eyes in annoyance and irritation as she tells us her mother's answer.
When she finally reaches the point of her story where she now knows that "Rico has passed away," (1:31-1:37)
notice how she says: "yun, yun lang"
-- could this be her exact same sentiment about his death?
Her apathy is striking.
Imagine that you were in a close and intimate relationship with someone who has just died - regardless whether the relationship was loving or abusive - and see yourself relating / re-living the moments you learned of his or her death. Would you also remember / re-live the feelings you felt at those moments? More than remember, they would surely come up on their own provided that you did feel those feelings.
And her non-feeling was confirmed by Claudine herself when asked by Boy Abunda at 2:36: "Were you hoping if he was still alive?"
Claudine responded at 2:47: "I was hoping he was still in the hospital. I don't know what I felt exactly."
Notice that Claudine was more emphatic when she was relating what her mother said as the reason of her mom's paleness: "Nahihilo lang daw sya" (0:55-0:58).
What was most telling was 2:53-2:54 when she re-stated her exact feelings about her ex-lover's death:
"This cannot happen to ME."
and added as an afterthought - remembering how that statement would reflect on her -
"or to him. More than anything, this cannot happen to him"
She also grits her teeth (this is an expression of anger which she is trying to hold back) at 3:49 and at 4:28-4:29 in reference to the problems she and Rico were facing as already forgiven, "we forgive each other na."
And why does she like to pick fights?
I have the feeling that ABS-CBN knows of Claudine Barretto's attitude and has expertly maneuvered, protected and built her soft, wholesome image. They have also performed tons of damage control.
Now that she is being handled by GMA - who relatively knows little of Claudine's probable Histrionic Personality Disorder - it is anyone's guess what will happen next in her career.
I - along with everybody else - managed to get inside a jeep.
Unlike most everyone though, they managed to get seats.
Fortunately, there was a vacant sliver of space available and I managed to push myself within it but was deliberately pushed out by a female uniformed- college student.
"Naka-reserve na `to." she says.
CheezMiss: "Reserve?! Ano `to sine?"
"May naka-reserve na dito!" she insists.
And lo and behold, the man of her dreams enters the jeep and conveniently sits his happy ass on the vacant space.
A kind passenger offered a sliver of a sliver of a vacant space which I sat on but could not. The sliver of a sliver of vacant space won't let me and my knees and legs are letting me know that how ever hard I try to sit, it is humanly not possible to do so.
The jeep drove on, the jeep moved on. I also tried to.
"May bababa naman jan pagtawid sa highway." The kind passenger offered to say. It was the least anyone could do.
The least I could do was hope that someone would go down anytime now, anytime. My knees and legs were hoping too.
And then I heard myself say
"Fuck it," and
saw myself sat my happy ass on the legs of female uniformed-college student.
She yelped.
"Sorry, walang maupuan eh." I yelped too.
Now I have moved on, along with the jeep.
And no one went down when the jeep crossed the highway.
No one went down until I was more than halfway home.
When a few passengers did, I placed my ass on the now vacant space and thanked the female college-uniformed student.
She didn't look at me.
And she probably never in her life hoped she'd be sat on by someone else other than the man of her dreams - and a girl to boot.
And my happy ass is probably the universe's way of telling her: Put your self first girl, not a dude, even if it's the man of your dreams - because the authentic man of your dreams won't let you put him first & he allows you the freedom to put you as the priority, not him.
And his happy ass is probably the universe's way of telling me, if I had hoped, if I had given to the tug of hope that someone would go down the jeep in 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes,
I'd probably miss the point of the moment.
Hope keeps you clinging, hope keeps you attached to the outcome, hope keeps you alive but in suffering, hope keeps you happily miserable.
Hope keeps you distracted and away from the richness of the now and the spontaniety, awareness of the moment.
Hope keeps you in the my-day-will-soon-come attitude.
If I had clung to hope, I would have been able to sit but not until my knees and legs throbbed in discomfort. Then, I would have festered in anger at the uniformed-college student's and her boyfriend's attitude. I would have went home with my anger still festering and probably would have slept with my anger turning into a nightmare, and none of us would have learned anything from the experience.
I feel, there is wisdom in the now.
Being in the moment leaves you no choice.
Being in the moment allows you to be authentic.
Being in the moment gives you the freedom to experience the now and not expect anything from the future or think and live off the past.
Note the difference between a moment / the now, and the call or impulse of giving in to immediate gratification.
The latter desires, wants, and expects fulfillment.
The moment just does.
It acts.
The moment comes from awareness. Awareness dissolves choice. There is no conscious decision, just a flourish of an act which awareness has made possible to come, to arrive. It is just there. You see yourself going there, you see and hear yourself there. And you are. It happens not in a minute but just a split second. And the moment has arrived. And then it goes. Best to just allow it.
And hope represses this allowing of the moment to rise of its own accord.
With awareness, hope dissolves. Hope becomes unnecessary. What is left is trust and the deep knowing that the moment alone will take care of itself as long as you let it.
Alas-sinko ng hapon, si Manong Pare sumakay ng jeep sa Pasay Road na pa-Liberty.
Mukha syang average na taong kagagaling lang sa trabaho at gusto nang umuwi - nka-polo, slacks at may laptop bag pa ang arti.
Pero pagka-upo ni Manong Pasareho, bigla syang nagbago.
Si Manong naging Pastor Pasahero!
Ops! Wag daw po tayong mag-alala sabi ni Papa Pastor, wala daw syang hihinging money. Wala rin daw siyang bibigay na kahit anong pamphlet. Ang tanging ibibigay nya lang daw ay Words ni Lord.
At binigay nya nga, and more.
Take note, nag-preach din daw sya sa tren kung san iilan lang daw ang pumalakpak sa beauty niya.
Baket ganun?! say ni Papa P. Kung si Ate Guy daw at si Kuya Robin pinapalakpakan ng todo-todo, bat yung words daw ni Lord ni hindi man lang natin pinapansin. Hindi ba si Lord ang nagbigay ng hangin na libre nating bini-breathe?
O diba, kung na-guilty ka, papalakpak ka talaga.
At kung may bisyo ka, dapat ka rin daw na ma-guilty.
Sabi ni Papa P., nahumaling daw sya dati sa ABS-CBN.
A - Alak B - Babae S - Sugal C - Chismis B - Bungangera N - Nagger
Aba, "pati katulong namin tinira ko! Nahuli nako ng misis ko, ayaw ko pa umamin! Nahuli nako, talagang di ako umamin!"
Kaya sabi ni Pastor Pasahero, `Halika't magdasal tayo. Pagdadasal ko kayong lahat na mabigyan kayo ng promotion, na dumami ang pera nyo, na makuha nyo na ang minimithi ng inyong puso, na maayos kayong maka-uwi sa inyong mga tahanan. Isara natin ang ating mga mata...
pwera ikaw Mamang Driver.'
At nagdasal nga si Papa Pasahero. Binless nya ang lahat na nakasakay sa jeep at nang matapos ay nagpasalamat sya at pinalakpakan din sya ng karamihan sa mga pasahero.
Ang mga hindi pumalakpak, "Ano ang gagawin natin sa kanila?"
`Bahala na ang Diyos sa inyo."
At bumaba na siya sa riles sa South Super Highway. May mga nagpasalamat na pasahero din kay Pastor P.
Pero ang iba, dedma. Ang iba pumikit at nagtulug-tulugan. Ang iba nag-text. Ang iba, walang kebs.
Para kasing komersyal si Pastor Pasahero - unsolicited, intrusive, annoying.
At tulad ng komersyal, kelangan nyo syang pakinggan,
kelangan nyo malaman ang mga sinasabi nya,
kelangan pansinin nyo sya,
wala siyang pakielam sa estado mo o kung may pinagdadaanan ka,
wala siyang pakielam kung gusto mong pakinggan siya,
ang mahalaga marinig mo ang sinasabi niya.
Syempre one-way communication lang. Tulad ng komersyal sa TV, radyo at mga billboard. Wala silang kebs kung gusto mo silang makita. Ang importante, makita mo sila. Wala silang kebs sa inyo. Kebs lang nila ang sarili nila.
Of course, kung may karapatan silang magpakita, magsalita at mag-ingay, may karapatan din ang iba na wag siya/silang pakinggan.
The shallowness referred to by Sir F Sionil Jose in his September 12, 2011 article is institutionalized narcissism and this is helping our codependency operate.
It's like, "I care for you because when I do, I look good."
"I like to show you (and others) how I care for you. But I don't really care for you. I care only because other people are looking / watching me act good. And when people think of me as "good," I feel full. I feel full because I look good in the minds and eyes of others. I want to look good. Always. That is my identity. When people think I could be trusted, they will flock to me. They will always want to be with me. They will also care for me, always. And when they do, I have tons and endless supply of attention / love / care / compassion, etc. to mine."
Notice that the blatant examples F Sionil Jose presents as shallow are institutions or individuals operating within its system.
In choosing candidates for government, we value form more than content
Why should we complain about the highest positions in government being occupied by individuals who are more popular than they are capable when we voted for them in the first place?
Why did we elect Lito Lapid / Bong Revilla Jr / Manny Pacquiao?
Because we `know' them more than we know other candidates. We could easily attach a face and a personality to their names compared to - for example - attaching a face or a personality to the names: Danilo Lim, Jovito Palparan Jr or Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel.
In fairness, why would we vote for someone we don't know?
Because we can easily relate with most celebrity candidates, by them being in position, we feel their success is ours too.
It is like they are the better part of ourselves who managed to beat the system by being part of it. And so we not just vote for them, we root for them. And if FPJ is still alive, we'd root for him too if ever he delivered the State of the Nation address. We like him, we love him, he loves us - us as the "little people." He would defend us if necessary - or at least that's the impression they give. And that is more than enough for us.
And we've seen their movies, We know how they fight (the bad guys).
In our heads, they look exactly like we imagine we would look if we also fought the bad guys in our lives. We imagine that they are like us, `lamang lang sila ng isa - dalawang paligo.' We identify with them.
Why did we elect Noynoy Aquino?
Because we know his mother. His mother reminds us of a friend's mother or our grandmother. And we know his sister, we know his family. We identify with his family more than Dick Gordon's family. Who is Dick Gordon anyway? Does he even have a sister? Who cares about Noynoy's legislative performance? We have never known a political family as intimately as we have the Aquino's. His father was assasinated, his mother died of cancer, his sister had STD and he is a smoker like some of us. And we have seen his girlfriends. They're all pretty. We wonder why he isn't married yet?
See, we know so much about him that it seems we can talk about him as if he is our next door neighbor. We know more about Noynoy than we do other presidential candidates. The fact that we call him by his first name elicits for us a faint sense of closeness and casualness without us actually being close to him.
Why would we vote for someone we don't even know?"
Our "tendency" to choose and elect popular politicians this way was made possible by "a specific decision taken by Congress in the 1950's, which (eliminated) bloc voting...The elimination of bloc voting..(gave) the electorate greater, full freedom of choice. It also meant that `electability' became even more crucial; it meant that unless you...(had)...decades of political experience and national exposure, it would be just as easy for a celebrity to vault to the Senate as it would be for a politician climbing up the old fashioned way....
Immediately after bloc voting was abolished...matinee idol Rogelio dela Rosa was elected senator." (The Long View: The origins of celebrity politics by Manuel L Quezon III).
Philippine local mainstream movies value what (they think) we think
Philippine mainstream entertainment media - TV and film - is arrogant because it assumes that it knows what majority of Filipinos want to watch when the Philippine mainstream entertainment media itself does not know what it wants.
Where is the arrogance coming from? It's coming from the fear of not knowing deep inside what it wants so it looks outside of itself for something to fill what it thinks it wants. And the system carries over that fear to the people it makes movies for,
For the system, a mainstream Filipino movie is not a movie if it is not LIKE a Hollywood movie.
I learned the definition of the word "peg" and how this word should be used when I was attending brainstorming meetings for a mainstream local film production company. For instance, when "pitching" a story
- as in throwing an idea or "concept" (hoping it would stick in the minds of people who have the power to either turn it into a full-fledged movie or spend eternity collecting dustmites in filing cabinets) -
it is important to mention a peg for it.
Their quintessential question is: "Ano peg mo?"
And you respond with:
e.g.
"The character is like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman but she is the female version of Robert Pattinson in Twilight."
or the basic formula goes:
popular mainstream Hollywood movie + popular genre of a mainstream Hollywood movie + popular Hollywood movie character = local Filipino mainstream movie
At that time, I could not understand why there should be a peg. How could anyone create something "original" when the basic template of how a story and its characters are to be laid out must be something we have all seen/watched before?
But no one could argue against the system because it claims to know what "Aling Bebang" wants. Plus, it has has the box office receipts to prove it.
Notice that the system is looking outside for content instead of in. It is referring to foreign models, ideas, sensibilities, actors, apple-pie-eating movie characters to fill a 90-minute movie meant for south east asians who eat "bibingka."
Thankfully, their paradigm is now shifting thanks to the success of this quirky film originally disapproved for production by the mainstream powers-that-be.
And mainstream TV also works this way - with the exception of a very rare few.
Have you noticed anything familiar with the current local programs?
Some are franchise shows purchased from foreign production companies.
Because we do not trust ourselves enough to make something our locals would want to watch and so depend on something that is ready-made and has worked in other countries with the hope (coupled with strong PR & marketing efforts) that these too would work and be watched in our country and be appreciated within our cultural context.
Us who do watch these shows believe that by doing so, we put ourselves at par with other countries we look up to as "developed" and by our virtual association with them, feel that we are like them too - or at least we believe we are thinking the same way they do.
In seeming contrast, shows and productions made locally are popular in their own respect because they play off our wants/needs by exploiting these to the hilt.
In his ABS-CBN show, Willie Revillame exclaims at 0:53: "Ako bahala sa inyo."
When he transferred to TV5, he puts up a similar show and names it Willing Willie. He announces at 1:39 that their show will give everyone hope - the hope "YOU have long been waiting for."
"Willing-willie ang lahat sa aming pagbibigay Ng saya at pag-asa na inyong hinihintay"
And in his current show, notice the lyrics of his program's theme song:
At 3:49, he again dangles the promise that their show is dependable, that it will never fail you. Your life will change thanks to their show. At 3:26 he sings:
"Maraming buhay ang magbabago"
And those of us who believe we cannot do these on our own, when we feel helpless, when we think there is nothing else to do but watch and depend on his show - we do.
F Sionil Jose says Education is shallow
I have no statistics or data about the quality of Philippine education save for the experience I had studying in a public school and a private Catholic elementary and high school.
I do know that - out of all the teachers I had - there was one who taught us Araling Panlipunan without talking down on us - Ms Manguerra.
But most teachers I had mainly based grades on how students are able to memorize the what's, when's how's of Home Economics, History, etc.
No one needs to know the why's.
Is it a mystery then why the same kind of what/when/where facts are valued now and not the why's of why we should care - or not care - about these facts at all?
Religion values what (they think) we (should) feel, act, do
he tells a story of a wife (Joanna) who was beaten up by her husband (Rosendo) because she failed to wash his pants. The wife - as dictated by her good sense and her natural instinct for self-preservation - went to the police for protection and to report the event. And the homily immediately "surmised" that by her doing so, "their marriage is on the rocks."
The homily did not "surmise" that the marriage was on the rocks when he beat her up just because she did not do laundry.
The marriage was on the rocks and "is (a) far cry from the ideal..community (full) of life and love" because "their case (is now written) on the police blotter."
In short, `nadungisan na.'
It is now blemished.
It is not anymore picture-perfect, not anymore "ideal."
"When Joanna reported the maltreatment by Rosendo to the police, the husband and the wife were...(now)...involved in the SCANDAL."
The issue is not the abuse, it is not the violence, it is the scandal of exposing a damaged "marriage."
The church does not care about the relationship. It only cares about the disfigurement of the marriage and how this reflects on them as the one who created and blessed this "ideal" institution.
And because the husband and wife are Christians and are therefore part of a Christian community, their scandal is now the community's scandal.
They consider people not as individuals but as extensions of themselves; of the church; of their identity.
"..the Christian community experiences cracks in its unity and the whole body suffers.."
And they "surmise" that this scandal is equal to exposing their children to public ridicule - not abuse or violence but that the kids will be vulnerable to humiliation.
It matters little that the children has been traumatized by witnessing the abuse inflicted by their father to their mother. The children's main concern, in the mind of the church, is how they will be perceived by the Christian community who now knows the embarrassing scandal about their family. (And if you're a narcissist yourself, you find nothing wrong with this.)
It does not matter that the children will have to deal with post traumatic stress disorder or the fear that their mother might be hurt again or if it will be the kids who'll be hurt by their abusive father, it is the RIDICULE of exposing the scandal that the children will suffer from.
Can you see all the false identities trying to rear its ugly albeit benevolent head in Philippine mainstream institutions?
False Identity = (Fill in the Blank) Identity
In an electoral campaign for a governmental position, there is candidate for President X, Senator Y or Congressman Z who is the sole main character. There may be other characters working in the periphery, but what matters is the identity being brandished by a certain BIDA X (feel free to fill in a person or name you feel appropriate).
When BIDA X promises to deliver services / goods to you and promises to make you as the priority and makes you think that you are the boss - this is merely smoke and mirrors.
The real fire is BIDA X. This is about him, not you. You are an expendable extra to the movie in his mind. You may be a real person, but to BIDA X you are existing only to make him look good. What matters is BIDA X and what you think of him. So he expends all efforts possible for you to prop up his identity as a future President, Senator, etc. with the help of your vote. You are a prop to a show starring him and only him.
Your identity - even if you have one - does not matter. Only his identity does. Every action is all about him, your thoughts should be about him. If anything happens to you, he might SHOW concern for you but all he is really concerned with is how his display of concern impacts the identity he wants everyone to see. You exist, you matter because he says you do. You are an accessory to BIDA X's goal. It does not matter if he is really brilliant or not, what matters is you think he is and that you don't double check his claims.
The same process works in media specially TV and film. When networks, when TV shows, when TV personalities, celebrities claim that they made the movie better "para sa inyo";
when they made the show more entertaining "para sa inyo";
when they exclaim, "Maraming salamat po, ginagawa po namin lahat ng ito para sa inyo"; "Kayo ang bida dito;"
it is NOT you they are doing this for. They are doing this to prop up their identity as a top-rated program/most-watched network/most-loved network/most popular celebrity. They only care about you in relation to how much you pay attention to them - be it good or bad - and how your attention is affecting them. You are needed to supplement their marketing/PR-manufactured identity.
Religion is the ultimate playground of narcissism and its narcissist angels. It does not matter that a husband beat up his wife. What matters is that their exposure brought cracks to the image of the church and defiled the institution it promoted as infallible. The church cannot see the abuse or violence or the hurt felt or experienced by the people involved, they can only see an event as how it affects them - in this case, it is a scandal. The identity of the church - the community - was hurt.
They don't see a community of people, they see a picture of an "ideal community."
They can not see people as people but extensions of the church's identity. When its members fail to act as according to the script of the movie the church wants people to see, it is a humiliation. The church feels no guilt, only shame. This is why they coddled and kept and hid priests accused of abuse. The accused priests are extensions of the church's "ideal" identity. Exposing them will destroy and humiliate the church's identity as an "ideal" community of life and love.
It is all about identity. It is all about putting up a good, ideal, picture-perfect show.
Narcissism and codependency are made for each other, they feed off of each other.
One has a lack that the other fills and vice versa.
Narcissism always makes sure it gathers enough people around him to build up his flimsy ideal while codependency makes sure its own feelings of emptiness are filled by being identified with the false identity built by narcissism.
As long as people believe they are not enough as themselves,
as long as they need someone stronger than they are (e.g. a powerful govt connection),
as long as they don't see the power they have and so depend on someone else to give this to them (e.g. a rich, generous celebrity),
as long as they are always waiting for someone or something to tell them who they are, what they are, what they should do, what they need to be - (e.g. a benevolent man of god),
they will always succumb to the enticing call of shallowness and narcissism.
Is calling people "shallow" enough of a solution?
I feel awareness of our feelings of needy-ness would be a good start.
Author: Cheez Miss
| Posted at: 8:28 AM |
Filed Under: dlsu manila,
personal
..out of something relatively trivial?
So what if DLSU Manila's Accounting Office do not accept debit payments for charges which are P500 or less.
So what if I had to withdraw cash at an ATM machine conveniently located just outside the office.
So what if - when I asked the second time if they accept cash - the accounting staff implied "no" yet did not give me a straightforward negative response and instead asked me to wait while he proceeded to serve the other customers who are in line. I do not understand why I sighed in mild irritation & decided to withdraw cash just to get things over and done with.
(Note to self: I wonder why I used the word "customers" when I was actually referring to students - though it does feel like I am in a Globe Business Center than inside the University Registrar. I also felt - while waiting in line at the Accounting Office - that I was purchasing grocery and not paying for academic forms. )
In hindsight, I was already mildly annoyed when I entered the Accounting Office that I failed to notice the writing desk situated at the center of the room which has a ready pen resting atop it. Instead, I proceeded to grab the pen lying on an accounting staff's desk as if I owned it and as if the staff who was sitting there owed me something. Prior to this, I was at the Registrars office waiting for my number to be called. When the number I was holding flashed on the screen, I was assisted by a smiling highly informed staff who expertly knows to a T the processes of where to get what form/from whom/how much/ and when.
I still do not know why I should be angry when everything is obviously so efficiently run like a well-oiled machine.
There are even easy-to-understand signs of where one should stand, sit or wait when paying for which/ asking for what or talking to whom that it is virtually impossible for anyone to make a mistake as university staff make sure everyone is guided as to where one is supposed to be and what one should expect.
The appropriate signs alone do the job just as dutifully that one instantly has no choice but to know their place in that world.
Also, the process of distinguishing what one is supposed to do and not do is made easy, accessible and so in-your-face that it is easy to feel ashamed if ever he or she fails to do so.
The system has allowed any deviation to be clearly and obviously evident that any slight aberration is immediately seen and judged as that - if ever such a thing occurs, one instantly becomes a walking, living, breathing red flag.
There are also metal detectors at the university gate entrance.
Book thievery detectors - akin to metal detectors found in malls - and an ID scanner are positioned at the entrance and exit doors of the university library. There are also railings, police-line-like tapes to guide you where to walk, where to proceed or where to stop when asked to.
The system makes sure everyone is properly accounted for.
The service is 99.99% seemingly efficiently excellent.
A kind Discipline officer even went out of the Discipline Office and chased after me despite me receiving a response from him that our transaction was completed - to which I appropriately thanked him for. He explained and made sure he corrected himself when he mentioned that I should expect the form I requested tomorrow - not in the morning he clarified but in the afternoon. He further made clear that the reason for this is because I submitted my request late in the evening. I thanked him eagerly and wanted to tell him that I will retrieve the form next week because it was not needed until next month so it wasn't such a big deal, but I didn't. I was so hungry I just wanted to get out of there and eat dinner.
Suddenly, I had the feeling that the system is eager to give everyone good service not because it wants to but because it is afraid not to.
It is as if the system wants everyone to not complain, to have no reason to complain.
The system does not want to have any faults.
The system wants itself to be perfect, un-flawed, ideal. Smooth.
Now, who does not want that to happen?
Who does not want to see someone be reprimanded by the system when he or she unfairly cuts in a long line of students waiting to have their turn at the Registrar's window? - which my father did when he was in a hurry to pass my application years ago.
Who in their right mind does not want to remove the possibility of anyone cutting in line in the first place? - which I sometimes do (and I wonder who else doesn't?)
Who wants to see library books stolen? (which a friend and I did at our Catholic elementary school - she stole a book on Lola Basyang & I stole a book on Snoopy)
Who does not want to hear that XYZ form would be available at this time and voila - it is!
The system wants to give excellent service not because it wants to but because it is afraid of the consequences if it doesn't.
Now, why should I be angry about that?
The system also expects that everyone keep in line so that everything will flow smoothly with no hitches. "It is for us as much as it is for you" the system seems to say.
Now why should I be angry about that?
Is it because in the "real world" that exists outside the university, such efficiency does not exist? Is everyone then being set up to be frustrated once they leave the confines of that academic world?
But isn't such a system already existing in the `real world' now? - albeit less efficient but it is trying to appear & make you think that it is.
Isn't such a system patterned from commercial establishments?
The organized efficiency I saw seemed to eerily echo the same kind of service from dutiful SM/Puregold/Landmark cashiers. The only difference is the flash of fear I see from the faces of hapless / submissive SM/Puregold/Landmark cashiers / baggers - if ever someone complains - is absent in the faces of the university's dutiful staff.
Instead, what is present is a kind of formalized tension swept under a veneer of self-preserving authority.
The fear present in cashiers and baggers are mixed with the hope and personal affirmation that "I can handle this" or "My manager / supervisor can handle this" or the unspoken "Please-don't-make-me-lose-my-contractual-job-just-because-I-placed-bread-inside-the-plastic-bag-first-and-not-the-1kg-brown-sugar" fear.
University staff have no such anxiety. What is present is the self-assured vibe that they will never fuck up. "Maybe you will, but not us." But all the same, "We are deathly afraid if ever we do but we make sure no one finds out, not even you."
But see, the kind of system large Philippine commercial institutions are doing their best to emulate in order to be considered "world-class" are those which come from first world countries - the kind where John Cleese is from. He has most likely seen and experienced what we're now doing our best to understand and live with - institutionalized control.
The system is afraid we are not conscious or self-aware enough to discipline ourselves, so they think they have to.
Is there a lot of fear now because there's a lot at stake?
For people who have no choice but to work in the system, what is at stake is their job - their source of income and livelihood.
