Not just My Review of Brillante Ma. Mendoza's Thy Womb

If you want to `relax and see a movie,’ this film is not for you.

When viewing Thy Womb, it is best for you to leave any expectations of how or what a film should be outside the theater.

The film challenges you to drop - for at least 90 minutes - your long-held beliefs, both personal and cultural.

There are no dramatic confrontation scenes between Nora Aunor - the wife - and Lovi Poe - the "other woman"; when Bembol Roco’s character Bangas-An is shot by sea pirates, Nora Aunor – despite her thespic skills or maybe because of it – did not choose to be hysterical; the process of acquiring a new wife is business-like as negotiations between the bride and groom’s parties are simple and straightforward.

Thy Womb seemed to have Mother Nature included in its production payroll as the sun, the rain, a rainbow, a whale shark all appear or disappear on cue as if the film’s director, Brillante Ma. Mendoza, demanded them to. 

Whether these were due to sheer luck or divine intervention matters little in the end as Mendoza makes use of Tawi-Tawi’s picture-perfect nature shots to convey the film’s unsentimental approach to the ordinariness of extraordinary occurrences.

In one fell swoop, Mendoza weaves the personal (one’s notion of joy, sadness,  love) with the cultural (how one’s actions, choices, thoughts are dictated by the society one is in) and the national (Tawi-Tawi’s socio-political setting).  His sweeping execution is intensely subtle as emotions are felt without them needing to be coaxed out and particulars are known without them being preached.

If you are open to having your view of Mindanao challenged; if you are up to the idea of watching a movie that puts you in the discomfort zone; if you are willing to question your own judgments and deep-rooted principles, this film is a must-see.

Thy Womb touches you in places you don’t want to be touched but must, and the sensation - not just the memory - lingers on long after you’ve left the theater.

For the full review go to PEP.PH

Weeks after watching the movie, I read about how the poem "To a Mouse" got to be written by Scottish poet Robert Burns,

"The Scottish poet Robert Burns was plowing his fields one day and accidentally destroyed the home of a field mouse. He immediately felt regret for what happened but then realized that unlike people, that mouse would promptly forget the trauma and set about rebuilding his home. He also realized that unlike this tiny creature, he would relive day after day perhaps for years the trauma of having his own house destroyed, each time, experiencing that same initial pain and shock. This even prompted him to write his poem "Ode to a Mouse" to point out the prolonged suffering most of us endure long after a personal tragedy."  

and remembered Thy Womb. 

In the movie, Nora Aunor is resolute, firm but gentle and open. She is constantly weaving by hand a colorful "banig" while looking up to the heavens at night seemingly hoping and at the same time surrendering her fate to the universe. 

Her character is barren, old and delivers babies from other women's wombs. She accepts her inability to have a child of her own as a matter of fact.

But this does not stop her from creating lives or weaving the fate of other people's lives even at her expense.

When her husband played by Bembol Roco is shot by sea pirates, both of them did not just move on with their lives, they literally did not stop to react. They simply responded to the situation at the moment it happened as if it was the most normal thing in the world. They picked themselves up, tended to their wounds and proceeded with the affairs of the day, the week, the month. Nora Aunor specifically helped heal Roco's wounds, after which, she leaves him be to recuperate. 

She did not stop there though as she furthers help Roco with his quest to find a suitable woman to bear him a child by scouting for references and connections. 

Is she creating her own suffering or simply weaving life's circumstances to suit her and her husband's requirements and is finding joy in it?

Did she compensate for her impotency by arranging her husband's marriage to a fertile woman 

or 

was she expressing her own power by creating conditions that will allow other people to similarly express theirs? 

According to the film's director, Tawi-Tawi weavers have no planned design when they create these colorful "banig."  They go with whatever the weave, the moment, the color takes them. Whatever is laid or overlaid happens and simply just IS. There is no attachment to the result. There is no need to exert control. They allow the weave to cross or intercross naturally. They weave with calmness. They finish with calmness. The process is neither personal and impersonal.  It is just what the moment calls for and they work with it. 

Nora Aunor's character IS Thy Womb. 

She creates, she weaves and she releases and lets her creation go. 

Despite being literally barren, she is the ultimate creator. 

If you're religious and Catholic, you could parallel Nora Aunor's character - Shaleha - to Jesus Christ or the Christ Consciousness -- aka as LOVE: the highest level of consciousness. (If the @CBCP endorses this movie to be watched by its flock - despite the film's characters' worship of Allah, and the absence of pale white male vampires and/or half-naked werewolf dudes - Nora Aunor's Elsa would be dead wrong in its claim that "Walang Himala!"

If you're a New Age Hispster, you could see Shaleha as the ultimate feminine energy - the one that creates and nurtures unconditionally,  that is why she's always looking at the moon you see.

If you're into feminism, you could rally against the patriarchy prevalent in the society she's moving in as well as scoff at Shaleha's efforts and her dysfunctional codependent personality.

If you're into movies like A Secret Affair, No Other Woman, The Mistress, you might think Shaleha's stupid for giving her man away on a silver platter to a girl less than half her age.

If you're still here reading this --  guess what? -- at whatever level of perception you're watching the movie, you might be correct.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.

Because I heard, and agree, that the movie could just as well be an MMK episode entitled PUSOD.

Why Manny Pacquiao lost to Marquez

My guess is as good as Mommy Dionisia's, Jimmy Kimmel and probably your's.

Mommy Dionisia's guesses:

Minutes after her son lost to Marquez, Manny Pacquiao's mother blamed the pastor who converted Manny to the Protestant faith



and the fact that he didn't carry the holy rosary during the fight.

Here is Manny's mother scolding him for abandoning the rosary. Pacquiao respectfully tells his mom to shut up as the issue is for their family to discuss and should not involve the entire country.



Remarkably, Mommy Dionisia is not alone with this sentiment as an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer dated June 2012 echoed her beliefs or probably foreshadowed Pacquiao's Dec 8 2012 loss.

“Manny Pacquiao tends to listen to these pastors more than to his advisers and friends from political and boxing circles,” one of the sources claimed.

Those from political and boxing circles, the source said, believed that Pacquiao’s involvement in religious activities has hurt his boxing career.

Before, the source said, the distractions in Pacquiao’s life were his gambling and drinking buddies. “Now, the distractions are the pastors and they are far more costly than the previous ones.”

“The old Manny Pacquiao is gone. Atop the ring, he is no longer as ferocious as before. Unless he learns to temper his newfound passion and obsession, we would no longer see knock-out victories in his future fights,” the source averred.

Jimmy Kimmel's guess:

"The last time you were here, you said you quit drinking, you quit gambling and you quit cockfighting and then for the first time in 7 years, you lost the fight...are you going to go back to drinking, gambling, cockfighting."

Since Pacquiao's much disputed win against Marquez back in 2011, Pacquiao had a change of heart and decided to go to religion full time - as a replacement to his previous vices perhaps?

He also reportedly shunned extra-marital affairs and was preaching the "errors" of his ways.

Back then, circa A. K. (after Krista) - the Filipina actress he reportedly had a fling with - Manny could easily joke about his misdemeanors publicly. In a party with the Philippine press, he joked about a woman resembling `you-know-who-wink-wink-nudge-nudge' who was present in the room.

But flash forward to circa A.P. (after Pastor), when Manny was interviewed during his training at Freddie Roach's gym by a GMA News reporter and he was being watched by or was within the vicinity of a beautiful full-breasted woman, Manny couldn't even look at her or acknowledge her presence and jokes with the reporter not to say bad words or something to that effect. (Apologies, I cant find these vids online)

Does Manny Pacquiao need to go back to his old ways so he can get his groove back?


My guess:

Wait a minit, wasn't Pacquiao's mojo already waning in 2011 when he won against Marquez? A win that Marquez fans thought was rigged. Though Pacquiao technically landed "more strikes, 176 to 138, and land(ed) more power punches, 117 to 100"  his win wasn't really that convincing thus the 2012 rematch to prove who really had the best mojo?

Could Manny turning to bible studies and God his way of cleansing himself from potential losses and unsatisfactory win and is his way to bring himself luck?

Maybe, maybe not.

But insiders claim that his new found faith is similarly a vice, the same way gambling was.

"A source close to Pacquiao told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that these pastors have been abusing the man’s kindness and generosity.

“They are making our boxing idol a milking cow. The real Manny Pacquiao doesn’t know how to say no."

Is it because he's a boxer thus his poor boundaries? or is it because he's a regular dude - regular dudes have difficulty saying no for some reason, specially dudes who are concerned with what people will think of them when they do.

Does Pacquiao need to go back to his vices so he can get his energy back?

I think it's not that he needs to go back to his vices but that he should acknowledge his desires for these vices. Maybe him repressing his desires is taking a lot of his energy - which he could channel instead to the fight.

But then, if he did go to his old ways and still lose, him being in a vice might be seen as the cause of his loss.

Or maybe a boxer's career really is short and sweet the same way music producer/singer/composer David Foster says about musical artists: `they could only make Billboard-topping music for a specific amount of time after which the magic just fades.'


As an experiment, I wonder if Manny Pacquiao is open to trying out gambling, cockfighting again and carrying the rosary, let's see if he wins next time.

Or did the gay community hex Manny's fights because Pacquiao called all of them "sinners"?


Whatchathink?

What Air Supply's Making Love Out of Nothing At All is all about

And I found out when I accidentally listened to the song inside a public utility vehicle because the driver was listening to a radio station which played it. 

And when the lyrics rolled off I was mesmerized that - all this time - this was what the song was all about.

Play the song below and you'll get it too.

It's about a man (let's say it's a man because the song is being sung by a man) who knows exactly - up to the infinitesimal detail - what to say, how to say it, when to say it -  to his significant other / partner / lover to make her (let's say it's a 'her' because the song's original music video says it is) have sex with him.

"And I know just where to touch you,
And I know just what to prove.
I know when to pull you closer,
And I know when to let you loose.
And I know the night is fading,
And I know that time's gonna fly.
And I'm never gonna tell you ev'rything I've gotta tell you.
But I know I've gotta give it a try."

If he needs to lie, scheme or be a fake - so be it. These are necessities to his end goal. If there is collateral damage because of his use of these techniques, he really couldn't care less.

Though he could tell the truth too, he only does so when he feels the need to and when he thinks it will be for his benefit.

And yes, he could dream, just like everyone else but the difference is that he knows WHEN to dream.

As if he has planned everything - every minor and major detail.

He recognizes which strategy to hatch and when to implement it

The same way he has MEMORIZED where to touch his lover and what body part, and for how long.
He has studied all these with a specific goal in mind - either to give her pleasure  and / or because he has something to prove.

If this song is about how to succeed in business, how to land that account or how to rule the world - all these calculations make perfect sense. 

But it isn't.

It's about making love

and his dilemma is that he can't FIGURE OUT why his partner/lover can make love out of nothing at all and he can't.

He knows he can only do the following:

feign making love;

NOT surrender to the moment;

act / do the motions associated with having sex;

pull from his memory specific mental images and/or all the should's, would's, could's he believes he must do/must happen/he believes she must feel, etc.

make meticulous, planned "love";

ape spontaneity;

move, act, do as according to what he KNOWS and what he thinks as based on his past and/or his plans for the future.

be disengaged with what is happening now.



And he can't understand why she can simply make love even in the absence of all these mental machinations.  Simply put, he doesn't get her. He can't even accept her for what she is as he is continually processing her mentally on his head in an attempt to UNDERSTAND what she is all about and how she can make love from scratch aka spontaneously aka without thinking about it - she just does.




"And I know the roads to riches,
And I know the ways to fame.
I know all the rules and then I know how to break them.
And I always know the name of the game.
But I don't know how to leave you,
And I'll never let you fall.
And I don't know how you do it,
Making love out of nothin' at all." 


And he knows everything he needs to do, he needs to say, he needs to think to win / score a point / achieve his goals.

But he doesn't know how to stop himself from controlling the situation to suit him.

All he knows is how to control - his thoughts / other people's reactions / his environment.

And he can't understand how she can just let go and go with the making-love-flow.

He can't understand her because he can't feel her.

He can't even feel himself going through the motions - he can only think it through.

He can only think of her and see her as someone separate and distant from him. He can't comprehend her no matter how much he goes around in circles in his head.

"How could she do that?"  He wonders.

"Why can't I be like her?" He envies.

"Why cant I make love without thinking much into making love?"

"Why can I only pretend to make love but not really be in love? and why can she?"

"Maybe if I have her, I can have a little of her inner light, her genuineness, her uninhibited relax-ness."

And these are what he wants to tell / ask her but can't, he want to but he doesn't try.
The result: frustrating sex for him and / or the other. 

Because he can only think about how to have sex. He knows it by rote.

He can only control his actions and manipulate her reactions.

He knows what to say and how to make her believe why she should believe in him; and why she should stay with him. But he doesn't really mean any of these.

He can only know the following:


When he turns to point A, it will lead to point B;

if he pushes this button here, it will eject this X there;

and if he touches this area here, it will produce this Y reaction.

None of these he feels. He just remembers. He can only know control. It's like answering a multiple choice question and acing it but not really understanding the test. He just knows that if he takes it, it will get him to the next level.

He's committed all these to memory so that when he needs them, he can pull them out easily and use these to his benefit.

He really doesn't GET her.

But he needs her. If he at least figures her out, maybe he could at least have a part of her in him. Because he knows he's empty in some way. A piece of him is missing. And maybe she could complete him.  But she can't.

No one can.

Only he can complete him if he first lets go of his need to figure everything out,

 only then will everything make sense.


And that is why he's having nightmares. It's him messing with himself.

Every time I see you all the rays of the sun,
Are streamin' through the waves in your hair.
Find more similar lyrics on http://mp3lyrics.com/t9And every star in the sky is taking aim at your eyes,
Like a spotlight. The beating of my heart is a drum.
And it's lost and it's looking for a rhythm like you.
You can take the darkness from the pit of the night,
And turn into a beacon burning endlessly bright.
I've got to follow it, 'cause ev'rything I know,
Well, it's nothing till I give it to you.

What is happening to them? Even the sex act has become mental. They can only think about it; they cannot do it because doing will involve their whole being. And whenever there is any involvement of the whole, the head becomes uneasy because then it can no more be the master; it can no more be in control.


 you have to move in it forgetting all that you have heard about sex, studied about sex, all that the society has told you: the church, your religion, the teachers. Forget everything and get involved in it in your totality. Forget to control! Control is the barrier. Rather, be possessed by it; do not control it.


and love should not be a mind thing -- that you are continuously thinking of how to make love and then go to sleep. Love should be a deeper involvement of your whole being, and it should not be projected by the mind, but should come out spontaneously. 

There is no need to plan, there is no need to rehearse in the mind. There is no need to do anything in particular: just be loving and available. Go on playing with each other's energy. And when you start making love, there is no need to make it great. Otherwise you will be pretending and so will the other person. He will pretend that he is a great lover and you will pretend that you are a great lover ... and both are unsatisfied! There is no need to pose anything. It is a very silent prayer. Making love is meditation. It is sacred, it is the holiest of holies. So while you are making love to a man go very slowly ... with taste, taking in every flavor of it. And very slowly: there is no hurry, no need to hurry, enough time is there. THE OPEN SECRET, Chapter 4 - Osho And while making love, forget about orgasm. Rather, be in a relaxed state with the man, relax into each other. The western mind is continuously thinking about when it is coming and how to make it fast and great and this and that. The thinking does not allow the body energies to function. It does not allow the body to have its own way; the mind goes on interfering... Relax with the man. If nothing happens there is no need for anything to happen. If nothing happens then that is what is happening...and that too is beautiful! Orgasm is not such a thing that it has to happen every day. Sex should be just being together, just dissolving into each other. Then one can keep making love for half an hour, for one hour, just relaxing into each other. Then you will be of utter mindlessness, because there is no need for the mind. Love is the only thing where the mind is not needed; and that is where the West is wrong: it brings in the mind even there!  THE OPEN SECRET, Chapter 4 - Osho

AMALAYER Bow. aka Lessons We Could Learn from the LRT AMALAYER incident

Boy: Use AMALAYER in a sentence.

Girl: Hoy, nagsasabi ako ng totoo! Tingin mo AMALAYER? Hindi ako sinungaling!

#######


Ah, the folly of youth.

Ah, the folly of stressed / low-paid security guards.

Ah, the folly of our colonial mentality.

Ah, the folly of equating the acquisition of college education with having ethics. 

Ah, the folly of misplaced anger aka displacement much?  

(Displacement operates in the mind unconsciously and involves emotions, ideas, or wishes being transferred from their original object to a more acceptable substitute...Displacement can act in a chain-reaction, with people unwittingly becoming both victims and perpetrators of displacement. For example, a man is angry with his boss, but he cannot express this so he hits his wife. The wife hits one of the children, possibly disguising this as punishment (rationalization)).

Ah, bless and curse citizen paparazzis, for we'd have nothing to talk about without their ever-ready phone cam recordings of regular people humiliating fellow regular people and themselves.

Out of the hundreds of people who gets poked, pushed, shouted at by security guards at LRT/MRT stations everyday  - including security guards inside malls - why did this female passenger take offense at whatever the female security did to her which the latter - after being scandalously humiliated by the former - already apologized for?

Lessons we could learn from the AMALAYER incident:

1   Just because it's on TV doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's on TV doesn't mean it should be emulated.

I honestly wonder what show / TV - movie character this girl in the vid thinks she is in? Who is she imitating?

Jersey Shore much? a rapper?

What TV shows does she watch?

2  Usually, over-the-top anger that is not equal to its cause has a reason that isn't what it's claiming to be.

Is the girl angry for the security guard's rudeness? 

The guard has apologized.

Yet the girl won't let the incident go.

Maybe it's not at the guard she's angry at.

The same way it was not the LRT personnel I was angry at for giving me an incorrect card when I bought one at UN Ave a year ago, yet I didn't let the incident go and insisted that they change it or refund me the money. 

I shouted and insisted that they made a mistake when I learned later on it was I who made the error and that my anger was not at the incorrect card but my destination - it was school.

But it was the card that was there at the time I felt I had reason to be angry and the LRT personnel was an easy target.  

Whatever the guard did or said was an emotional trigger the girl probably has yet to confront on her own - or maybe she's just rude who knows?

3  Education is not equal to ethics.

It's not the girl's fault for equating having an education with ----- 

actually she didn't connect it with anything.

She just dropped that information like a bomb after feeling slighted.  

But who hasn't dropped the education card in arguments with people who some feel is "less" than them. We've all done it. We've all learned it, duh. We've been taught were better with education than with none. Who hasn't heard that education is the most precious thing a parent could give a child?

The issue is not education. The issue is feeling higher than anyone and/or thinking that someone is lesser than them - education is simply a convenient excuse the same way money, cars, authority and popularity is.

The question is, people who feel high have been made to feel small and so they keep people feeling small so they can continue feeling high themselves - the girl is right -- she is returning the favor. The guard made her feel small. But someone else before the guard already did this and she is displacing that feeling onto someone easier to shout at / be angry with.

We've all done it.  Just because we have done it though doesn't mean we continually should. Now that we know, now that we are aware of it, now we can see its futility and un-necessity - why would we continually do it?

4  Poor English grammar or diction is no reason to bully someone.

But here we are trending AMALAYER because it was pronounced that way.  Because we have been similarly taught - laughed at even - for our wrong pronunciation.

e.g.

Colonel -- I mispronounced as Kolonel.

Combing -- I mispronounced KOM-BING.

I wasn't bullied because of my pronunciation, it was because I didn't stand up for my self, but you get my drift.

Who hasnt mispronounced English words? If you haven't, you're not a Filipino.

5  Just because you're speaking in English is no reason to bully someone

But for us who have been taught to speak ONLY English lest pay P1.00 for every Tagalog word spoken during English class or English week, now it's payback!

Unless English is the language you naturally speak at home, you probably won't see the reason to use your English language as a badge of pride.

But if you feel it would get your point across -- NOTE: You speak English not to be understood but to impress - impressing someone is your point, then GO!  

It's a free country -- DO WACHAWANT!

Just don't expect to be liked, though your English skills would probably be admired.

6  Pinoy humor rocks!

Miresa Regacho ‏@resregacho

“@marocharim: Amabitch, #AMALAYER, amachild, amalaver, amasinner, amasaint...”

Expand

6mMy Name Is Mavi:) ‏@mavi_mendoza15

“@OhGerald: BREAKING: Santolan station to be renamed as#AMALAYER station. "Papunta na sa AMALAYER station."”Lol xD

Expand

joms™ ‏@jomel_cruz

Girl from #AMALAYER video apologizes to the security guard she had an argument with. Apparently, she said #AMASARRY

My Review of Madaling Araw, Mahabang Gabi

This movie is a waste of my time.

Senior citizens who were watching along with me - it was a 320pm showing - left after 40 minutes. A few stayed on. I had to watch it in its entirety so I can definitively know if it sucks right to the end.

Surprise! It did.

Let's not be too negative.

The movie was saved by the actors:

Angelica Panganiban is the most beautiful and best gay-acting woman in the country.

Cherie Gil-Kean Cipriano-Edgar Allan Guzman's scenes are the ones which made the most sense.

Specifically, Cherie Gil and Kean Cipriano's performance were the most memorable.

More specifically, Kean Cirpriano, I heart U.

Buboy Garovillo, Dominic Rocco, Rocco Nacino, Glaiza de Castro, the guy who played the cynic Vietnamese refugee, Lou Veloso and all of the other actors made the movie watchable.

Plus, who knew Boobay is handsome as a dude?


If not for all of them, I would have left the theater or slept.

It was actually thirty minutes in when I realized the movie was a comedy.

It was a comedy?

The humor, if there was any, was not threaded in the story. It was just sprinkled on the surface.

The stories of the characters themselves seemed pasted on this tableau. As if there were a list of topics and life quotes the movie's creators wanted to say and they simply inserted it anywhere it fit the plot - at times even forcing it just so a character will have a reason to say "poetic" life quotes. Alas, the entire effort seemed done mainly for effect, not substance.

Proof: The unfinished game which Angelica's character began at the start of the movie and which drove the individual plots of the characters was left unfinished and unresolved - it was merely used as a superficial tool so the characters will have something to do.

The motivations of the characters for joining the game similarly didn't make sense.

A character joined the game even if the reward for it - 3 nights with Angelica's character's providing negotiable pleasure and P5,000 - is something he isn't interested in "Nabobosohan ko naman yan e." he says.

Yet this same character had the enthusiasm to rob a rural bank and even kill its guard.

I'm all for irrationality but the irrational still has to make sense - if not logically at least it should be humanly reasonable enough for me to think anyone could do the same thing given the circumstances.

I also understand if characters act on a whim. But these were just too fancy for their own good - simply put, the characters weren't grounded.

What's with the colorful texts floating on screen? Highlighting / emphasizing the dialogue? You need colorful texts to do that? The dialogues on their own aren't enough?

Wait a minute. There were no dialogues. Most of the characters were spewing monologues with others present.

Also, this is an independent film right? Then why are the movie's themes and lessons being spelled out for our benefit?

Not even the pseudo-poetic dialogue gave the movie depth.

Buboy garovillo's character: "Ang mga bata nakakalimutan na ang mga tradisyon."

Another character:  "Ang costume ang nkakapagbigay ng kapangyarihan sa tao."

"The lesser you know a person, the easier (to) fall (for him/her)."

"Hindi tanda ng katatagan ng isang tao ang kawalan ng paniniwala" (or something like that)

"If you want this night to be fun, you don't have to pretend to be kool."


This movie is pretending to be a fun film by acting kool. But all it does is flash its text-on-screen graphics, its cheesy humor, cliched dialogues and moral lessons as if its target market are 13 to 16 year olds.

Isn't this an independent (San Miguel & Red Horse beer-sponosred) film that is free from the opinions of producers (who think they know what is best for the mainstream audience)?  Why is it trying hard to be a mainstream movie?

The least this movie could have done is follow the dictates of its heart. But it seems its own heart is beating along with the sensibilities of the mainstream market.

I didn't see this movie as uncompromising, it was just cartoony. As if it was a concept pitched to local mainstream film productions and disapproved.

As an independent movie, I disapprove of it too.

The movie is like watching casual sex between a male virgin and a female prostitute. One is acting like he has done this before and the other is acting as if this is her first time. The result: both of them spew out lines to convince the other of his/her experience / non-experience; one pretends to be an expert at something and the other tries to be an expert of nothing. Ultimately, both leave with their desires - built up by their excitement and expectations - un-consummated. The viewer leaves the theater the same way - wondering, head-scratching & asking what went wrong and why s/he spent all that money for nothing.

Ang Pagboto ay parang pagtaya sa Lotto. Bow.

Ang pagboto ay parang pagtaya sa Lotto.

Paano kamo?

Nakaboto na ba kayo?

Ako nakaboto na,



dati noong nanalo kuno si GM Arroyo, bumoto ako.


Siya ang binoto ko.

Pero, sus ginoo, di pala sya ang dapat daw nanalo.

So parang may silbi na wala iyong boto ko.

Imbensyon na may silbing wala.

Nung nanalo naman si Erap, bumoto din ako.



Hindi siya binoto ko.


Pero, sya ang nanalo.

Ano magagawa ko?



Nagsalita ang mas maraming tao.

Pero pina-alis din sya -- hndi ng mga bumoto sa kanya kundi -- ng ibang tao.

Ano ba yun, tinupad pa ng di ko pagboto yung gusto ko mangyari -

na huwag si Erap ang maging pangulo.

Bukod sa presidential election, bumoto rin ako ng kapitan ng barangay.


Binoto ko - at ng mga kamag-anak ko - yung kapitan na madali raw lapitan.

Na madali hingan ng tulong.  Na di raw kami pababayaan.



Ayun, siya yung nanalo!


Yey!


Mula noon, siya na ang nangangasiwa magkabit ng jumper sa poste na malapit sa bahay namin.


Para daw sa mga kapitbahay niya na walang kuryente.


Anyare? BOOM!  Sumabog yung poste.


Muntik na atakahin lola ko na 90+ years old.


Pero nag-sorry naman si Kap.


Humingi ng tawad kay Lola at nagbigay pa ng FREE fire extinguisher.

O di ba, bongga!

Matapos takutin si Lola, pina-saya naman. Parang horror at comedy movie - 2 in 1.




Bumoto din ako nung nanalo si Noynoy the third Aquino.


Take note, hindi ko siya binoto.

Wait lang, parang may napapansin ako.

Bawat boto ko, wa epek.


Meron ngang isang nanalo sa taya ko pero,


NAMAN!


Dispalinghado.


Yun namang ibang binoto ko, di naman nananalo.



E kung tumaya na lang kaya ako ng lotto.



Ganun din naman.



Pipila ka pag-boboto.

Pipila ka rin pag tataya sa lotto.

Sa lotto, mamarkahan mo taya mo.

Pag ikaw naman boboto, ganun din gagawin mo.

Pag-tumaya ka sa lotto, inaasahan mo na mananalo numero mo.

Pag bumoto ka, inaasahan mo na mananalo yung taong tinayaan mo.

Tumaya man ako sa lotto o bumoto,

pareho lang probability na manalo yung taya ko o hindi.


Parehong suntok sa buwan.


Pero, at least, sa lotto --- totoong magbabago buhay ko.

Kundi man magbago, milyon milyon naman pera ko.


Makataya nga sa lotto.

Mas sasaya pako.



Yey!!! BOOM.

Politicians have been befooling you. They have managed the whole strategy in such a way that you never become aware what is happening. You choose one kind of poison for five years; for those five years you have to suffer that poison....They are all available in all shapes and sizes, whatsoever suits you. But you will fall in the same ditch. Maybe there are minor differences between poisons, but poison is poison.

I do not see democracy as the freedom to choose between the politicians. To me, democracy means there are no longer any politicians around. You individually choose somebody you feel is the right person; there are no political parties. In a real democracy, political parties cannot exist; there is no reason why they should exist. People are intelligent enough to choose on their own.

The politician need not go and convince the people, "I am the right person and the other is wrong." And the other is also doing the same, and the poor people in their utter confusion somehow choose somebody.

I have never voted in my life, for the simple reason that all those politicians and political parties are basically the same. They want to exploit you, oppress you. And it is a good strategy that after four or five years when you get fed up with one party, you can choose another.

People's memory is not very strong.... Four years is enough time for people to forget. And you go on moving between two parties. There may be more parties in other countries, but basically two parties are in a deep conspiracy against the people: "Four years we exploit them, then we will give you four years to exploit them. And again we will come back."

In a real democracy what is the need of political parties? The real need is to make people more alert, more intelligent, so they can choose individually, not impressed by propaganda. And what small things impress you! 

Why was Nixon defeated by Kennedy? You will be surprised and shocked, because it will prove to you how idiotic you are: It was the television that made the whole difference. On television, the supporters, the advisors of Nixon, had insisted that he wear dark clothes "so your figure comes out clearly, strongly, because millions of people will never see you in person; they will only see you on the television." Nixon did not listen to them. He came in a gray suit, and that decided his defeat. Kennedy came in a dark, black suit. When they were together you saw that Nixon looked gray, weak, while Kennedy looked clear, strong.

Television has changed almost the whole political phenomenon. Before television, you were coming in contact with the real person. Now when you come in contact with a person, experts have decided his hairstyle, make-up, the color of his clothes. They have taught him how to walk, how to stand, how to look exactly into the eyes of the people; what to say, how to say it, when to make a gesture with his hand; when to almost shout, and when to almost whisper. Now it is in the hands of the experts to program him.

It has nothing to do with politics -- just two poison bottles, but one has a beautiful container, more modern. The other is an old container, out-of-date. Nixon looked lousy on the television. That decided his fate, and also made him learn that television has changed the whole situation. The next time he came like an actor, played his role well, and was chosen -- and he proved to you that he was a poison!

Choose the candidates you like. In fact, the candidate approaching the people and asking, "Please choose me," is ugly, disgusting. If he is of any worth, people should reach him and ask him, "Please take this responsibility for us. We want you to be in the parliament." Then a different quality of people will be coming into the assemblies and the parliament, people who will not have any political leadership of the party, its program. They will be free individuals acting out of their intelligence. They can choose the president, the prime minister -- anybody. And they will be deciding on every issue according to themselves. People have given them immense respect by sending them to the government; they cannot be exploiters.

A real democracy will choose the wise people. They are all around. But remember, a man of wisdom is not going to beg you for a vote. He is not going to kiss your children and shake hands with you. He is not going to act on the television screen so that he appears to be the way you would like your president to be. The wise man is not interested -- in fact, he will not be inclined to be dragged into this mess. You will have to persuade him. The whole scene changes -- not the politician persuading you, but you persuading someone to represent you.

The wise people remain out of politics. It is so dirty, stinkingly dirty. And it will remain dirty till nations dissolve and we have one world where there is no question of any war, no question of preparing for war.

The world needs to be free from politicians, only then can it be free from pollution.

Osho.





Note: Ang mga picture na nasa blog post na ito ay di ko pagmamay-ari.