Philippine institutions are narcissistic and Filipinos are codependent (not shallow)

I repeat, one more time, again -- Filipinos are not shallow, most of us are codependent.

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.

Narcissism, in its real-world/practical/non-textbook definition, does not allow an individual to see others. In the mind of a narcissist, "other people are seen only as how they relate to the narcissist."

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."

Narcissism is concerned with having an identity and how to urgently and vigorously protect this identity.


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).

Notice that those who won a seat in the 2010 senate election still followed this pattern.


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

In a homily delivered by Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo on September11, 2011 for the Twenty-Fouth Sunday of Year A (Matt 18:21-35),

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.

I wonder why was I easily angered today

..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."

Is John Cleese right when he said: "I think there's much more fear now than there used to be, much more fear of failure"? Sure, John Cleese is not from here. He is white, he is an Englishman living in America. How would he know what our system is like?

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.

But what's in stake for the system?

"..Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don't do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren't lying) internalize the framework or belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions...and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization...most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thought, and so on."

Baket muntik na mawalan ng pulso si Tita Amy dahil kay Renato

Ganito ang kwento,

si Renato (tawagin natin siyang Papa Ren) may ka-live-in,

ang pangalan ng ka-live-in nya si Nelia. Tawagin natin syang Pamela-mela 1. Sabi ni 1, dati raw siyang "tomboy" pero ngayon in-love na sya sa lalake - sa katauhan ni Renato - dahil

"masarap" daw at "lahat binibigay nya."



Pero, si Renato meron din daw

Melinda (ang asawa daw ni Melinda nasa abroad) - may 5 anak. Tawagin natin siyang Pamela-mela 2.


Sabi naman ni Melinda, si Renato daw

"mabait," "lagi nasa tabi ko,"

"mapagmahal, maalalahanin (at) malambing."



Pero ulit, si Renato meron din daw

Rosa Mia (hiwalay sa asawa at may 3 ang anak). Siya naman si Pamela-mela 3.

Gusto ni Rosa Mia si Renato dahil

"mabait sya, magaling magalaga sa anak ko (at)

pinangakuan nya ko na lilipat kami sa Tarlac."



In summary, sabi ni Pamela-mela 1:


"Mahal ko (si Renato)."


sabi ni Pamela-mela 2:


"Mahal na mahal ko (si Renato). Higit sa buhay ko ang pagmamahal kosa kanya."


sabi ni Pamela-mela 3:

"Mahal na mahal ko sya hanggang kamatayan
naniniwala ako na sya makakasama ko hanggang pagkamatay ko."




Ang hindi alam ni Pamela-mela 2 may Pamela-mela 3 si Renato (& vice versa).

Hindi rin nila alam na may Pamela-mela 1 na pala.


Eto namang si Pamela-mela 1, alam na may Pamela-mela 2 at Pamela-mela 3 si Renato at okay lang daw eto sa kanya.


Maya-maya, lumabas si Renato para ipakita at i-isplika kung bakit sobra siyang pogi.

Dito niya inamin na kaya siya may Rosa Mia ay dahil nakukuhanan niya eto ng barbecue na siyang pinang-uulam nila ni
Pamela-mela 1

-- with matching turning the tables against Rosa Mia, pinamukha niya kay Rosa na eto ang may kasalanan at hindi sya kasi

"ginusto mo rin naman di ba! Ikaw nagsabi na babayaran kita sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay ko sayo ng kaligayahan diba!"

and yes, sinigurado ni Renato na siya pa ang galit. Para nga sana malipat dun sa isa yung pagsisisi at hindi sa kanya.


Pinamukha din ni Renato na si Rosa Mia ang nagyayaya at nagbabayad sa apartelle na pinag-pupulot-gataan nila bilang pruweba at pag highlight sa kasalanan ng huli para nga di mapansin ang mga kasalanan niya:

at ang mga eto ay:

1 ang pagmamanipula sa damdamin,

2 ang pagsisinungaling

3 at paggamit sa kahinaan ni Rosa Mia.


Bukod sa mga eto, ang winning statement of the day ay galing kay -- sino pa e di kay Papa Ren -- nang sinabi niya na:

"HINDI NGA AKO GUWAPO PERO MAGALING NAMAN AKO!"


Dito na nawalan ng pulso si Tita Amy.

Ang ibang nasa audience sinabunutan naman ang sarili.

Hindi nila kinaya ang kayabangan ni Papa Ren.






May kilala ka bang ganito ang ugali?

Alam niyo ba kung ano ang tawag sa ganyang ugali ni Papa Ren?


Mga ate at kuya, si Papa Ren may NPD - Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Hindi ibig sabihin nito, lagi niyang tinitingnan ang sarili sa salamin.



Ang tingin ng mga taong may NPD sa mga kapwa nya tao ay mapag-kukunan ng supply.

Pag nakakita siya ng nilalang, ang default mindset nya: anong meron dito na pwde kong minahin?

Si Nelia may lupain sa Tarlac.

Si Rosa Mia, may barbecue-han na siyang pinagkukunan ni Papa Ren at ni Nelia ng ulam (na walang bayad). Si Rosa Mia din ang nagbabayad sa apartelle pag nag-ju-jugs-jugs-jugs-an sila ni Ren.

Si Melinda, binibigyan si Papa Ren ng ka-perahan courtesy of her OFW husband (kelangan nito ng sariling Face2Faceepisode).



Bale, ang tingin ng mga taong may NPD sa kanilang sarili ay "winner." Lagi silang "winner." Ang kaibahan nila sa mga taong may healthy sense of self ay wala silang pakielam kung sino maapakan nila, masaktan nila, magamit nila basta winner sila. Hindi sila papatalo.

Sa relasyon, gusto nila sila ang laging bida. Sila ang laging napapansin, pinapansin.

Ito ang dahilan kaya kumanta si Papa Ren. At ito rin ang dahilan kung bakit ayaw nya tumigil sa pagkanta. Tumigil lang sya ng hinagisan siya ni Rosa Mia ng upuan.

Kaya sinabi ni Papa Ren, "Ganyan ko sila nakuha." (tinutukoy niya ang maganda niyang pagkanta)
Kitam, nasa bokubularyo niya talaga ang "pag-kuha."


Gusto ni Papa Ren na siya ang kinaiinisan ng dalawa. Na siya ang nasa gitna ng gulo. Na siya ang pinapalakpakan / kinaiinisan ng madlang tao.

Feel na feel nya ang dedication na sinabi nya para kina Melinda at Rosa Mia:

"Sana sa awitin ko ay magbago ang buhay nyo."

Supply din kasi - hindi lang ang barbecue, pera o sex - ang atensyon na nakukuha niya mula sa dalawa.

O kahit anong atensyon ng kahit sino.

Atensyon ng pagmamahal man eto o galit - walang pinagkaiba. Ang mahalaga, napapansin siya. Pag napapansin siya, nabubuhayan siya ng loob. Pakiramdam niya buo siya. Pag pakiramdam niyang buo siya, maligaya siya. Pag maligaya siya, wala siyang pakielam kung masama ang loob ng iba.

Siya lang ang importante dito. Hindi ikaw. HIndi ibang tao.


Nakakawala talaga ng pulso ang pakikipag-interaksyon sa mga taong may NPD.

Uubusin kasi nila ang lahat ng buhay sa pulso mo, lahat ng pera sa bulsa mo, lahat ng atensyon mo sa sarili mo mawawala at mapupunta lang sa kanya, wala nang iba.

Pero, sa una, nakaka-humaling sila.

Nakaka-akit.

Parang ikaw lang ang tao sa mundo kasi ikaw lang ang pinapansin niya. Feeling bongga ka talaga.

Kasi, sa stage na ito, pinag-aaralan ka nya. Ano kahinaan mo. Ano mabibigay mo sa kanya. Hanggang saan lang kaya mong ibigay sa kanya, sinusulat nya na ang mga eto sa notebook nya sa ulo.

Pag alam na niya ang mga kaya niyang kunin sayo, ang gusto mong ibigay, ang kaya mo lang ibigay - madalas sa minsan - nahumaling ka na sa kanya. Nakadikit ka na sa kanya. Na-adik ka na sa binibigay niya at sa nakukuha mo rin sa kanya.


Si Nelia - porket alam niya na may dalawa pa bukod sa kanya - akala niya safe sya. Sya ang secondary narcissistic suppy ni Renato.

Si Melinda at Rosa Mia ang primary narcisstic supply. Ang Face to Face ang naging Primary Narcissistic Supply din ni Renato.

Kung wala nang makuhang supply si Renato kay Nelia, madalas sa minsan, hahanap at hahanap eto ulit.

Walang katapusang hanapan at pagsipsip ng supply ang buhay at trabaho ng taong may NPD.

Ngayong may alam ka na. Maging aware ka.

Subukan mong wag magkamali na baguhin sila. Madalas sa madalas, ikaw ang mababago ng taong may NPD. Kung hindi ka mawawalan ng pulso, makukuha nya ang katinuan/kapuso-an mo. Wag mong hayaang mangyari ito.

Totoo ba ang relasyon ni Papa P at KC? - UPDATED!

Totoo ba na si Imelda ang nag-utos na ipa-tsugi si Ninoy Aquino?

Totoo ba na may Kapre? Nakakita ka na ba ng kapre?

Kaya ba abutin ng dila mo ang iyong siko?



Totoo bang nag-ka-LQ si Papa P at KC?

Sabi ng Pep.ph nang tanungin nila ang isang source na close daw sa dalawa, sabi nito:

"May tampuhan but nothing serious. Normal lang naman (yun) for real relationships, di ba?"


Ano daw?

"May tampuhan but nothing serious. Normal lang naman (yun) for real relationships, di ba?"

Ulit?

"...Normal lang naman (yun) for real relationships, di ba?"

Isa pa.

"...for real relationships, di ba?"



"For REAL relationships?!"


Baket? Ang tampuhan ba ay hindi nangyayari sa isang fake relationship?

Ang tampuhan ba ay abnormal sa isang real relationship?

Ang tampuhan pa ay hindi normal sa isang fake relationship?


Bakit kelangan i-emphasize na ang REAL relationship ay may tampuhan.

Hindi ba normal na nangyayari ang tampuhan in `ANY relationship?'


'sa LAHAT ng relationship?'


or simply,


`sa RELATIONSHIP.'


Kelangan bang idagdag ang salitang "REAL?"

Baket dinagdag ng source ang salitang "REAL?"


At "di-ba?" pa ang last words ni ate o kuya. Hindi ka ba sure `te? Kinukumbinsi mo ba kausap mo na totoong nagkaka-tampuhan ang mga taong ka-close mo na nasa REAL relationship?

Observe nyo mga dabarkads hindi lang ang mga sinasabi ng tao kundi PAANO nila ito sinasabi. Madalas sa minsan kasi, mas marami kang makukuhang impormasyon sa pagkaka-ayos ng mga salitang binibigkas nila kaysa sa mga salita na tingin nila ay dapat mong marinig.

Pero hindi ako psychology ha, mahilig lang ako kumain ng Tuna, yun na!




ETO ANG LATEST STATEMENT NI PAPA P during the Star Magic Ball which he attended along with KC:

"Okay naman. We're happy. We're good together [and] very excited for the party," said Piolo with a smile when invited media asked him about the status of his relationship with KC."


May napansin ba kayo sa sagot nya?

Basahin nyo ulit.


Sabi nya, "We're happy. We're good together.."

Ayan na naman. Sabi ni Papa P, masaya daw sila at "We're good together.."

Napansin nyo ba yung dagdag na salita na pwede namang wala sa pangungusap, na di kelangan nasa pangungusap pero naanjan?

Pwde nya naman sabihin - na may confirmed finality na: "We're good."

Pero nilagyan nya pa ng "...together..."

Bat nya eto dinagdag?

In fairness, they do look good togteher. Is that what Piolo meant? They look good together thus the reason why they are together. Look good together according to whom? or what? whose standards? whose requirements?

ETO NAMAN ANG SABI NI KC:

"Masaya ako na napag-usapan na namin. At saka we really hope that it works out till the end, di ba?"


Ano naman napansin nyo sa sinabi ni KC?

Check nyo na naman ang unnecessary word additions. Mga words na di na kelangan sa statement. Na pwedeng wala sa pangungusap pero nilagay pa rin inspite of / despite of.

Bat hindi sinabi ni KC

"..we really hope that it works out." PERIOD.

Bat nya dinagdag:


"..till the end, di ba?"


MInsan kasi lumlusot sa kamalayan ng tao ang mga gusto nya talagang sabihin pero ayaw niyang ipaalam sa kahit kanino maski / at lalo na / sa kanyang sarili.

Till the end of what? i wonder?

Till the end of an agreement? a contract?

Hanggang sa katapusan ng alin? Ng relationship?

Kung nasa relationship ka, sasabihin mo ba sa jowa mo: I hope we work it out until the end. ?

Why would you expect "the end?" Or even bother to think or mention it? Pag nag start ka ng relationship with someone, would you wish you work it out until the end? O do you prefer na ang relationship nyo ay DI MAG END?


Saka ang "we really hope that it works out" na statement.

Hope ni KC na "IT" works out.

"IT" as in -- sa English grammar -- 3rd person point of view.

Sa basic grammar, ang 3rd person point of view "is told from an outside narrators point of view."

Kapag ginagamt ang pronoun na it - ang 3rd person point of view - hindi attached ang narrator sa nangyayari.

Is KC distancing herself from something?


Observe nyo mga dabarkads, minsan mas mdami makikita sa mga sinasabi kesa sa di sinasabi.

Pwede rin ito i-apply sa inyong personal life ok?

Watcha think?

Should you say sorry if you stepped on someone's foot?

Imagine yourself inside your grade 1 elementary school. You are the designated OIC - officer in charge - of the class while the Teacher is away. You still have your homework to do so you try to do both tasks at once.

Suddenly, a ruckus develops and your classmates are fighting over who has the most papers in one's intermerdiate pad. You ignore the noise so you can finish your homework.

The noise escalates. The group becomes more rowdy. You ignore it some more. A classmate records the scene in his celphone. The group hams it up for the celphone camera thus causing more noise and rowdiness until a classmate starts crying because someone spilled Zesto on his brand new socks. You approach the crying classmate to shut him up. He won't. You stomp your foot to make your point but you accidentally step on his. He cries further and demands an apology. Would you say sorry?

It was a rowdy room, everyone was being their worst. Surely, someone has stepped on someone's foot before, not just in this classroom but in other classrooms in other schools.

Should you say sorry at all?

Unfortunately / Fortunately, there are far worse problems than this, such as

The Manila Hostage Crisis Apology.

The only way the survivors and families of the Manila Hostage Crisis could get the government's apology is if they hold their own hostage-taking and demand it - though that still does not mean they will get their way but they can try.
Being non-locals, little do they know that the Philippine government cares little for its own citizens so

DILG Sec. Jesse Robredo implies: "Who are these foreigners to say that we should apologize to them? And what did we do that we should apologize for anyway?

We dont even apologize to the shit we make our countrymen go through everyday. So who are we to apologize to them, they are not even from here!"

In this context, he is being fair.

He - and PNoy - also said, shit like this happens everywhere, so there is no need for an apology. Look at Norway, PNoy said. A deranged gunman killed 70 people. "There were less casualties in the Manila 2010 Hostage, yes?"

True.

But there could have been none if PNoy or Robredo (in Robredo's own words of admitted regret "went to the scene earlier") were conscious enough to act what the moments called for -- alertness and intuitiveness, NOT passivity.

The Norway Tragedy was NOT a hostage taking incident. No demands were issued. No opportunities were given by the Norway gunman to the Norway government about him surrendering.

PNoy and Robredo need not fog or manipulate or confuse our already CO2-polluted brain.
They need not tell us that 1 + 1 = 3. We know our Math.

What the PH government and its authorities blatantly, obviously did - for all of the CNN-watching world to see -- was wait for a magical Deus Ex Machina or Bruce Willis.

Their reaction to the Manila Hostage Crisis is what their reaction is whenever there is a storm, a powerful Intertropical Convergent Zone, rain or flood attacking the country --- they suspend classes after students are already in schools.

They make sure they act whenever it is fashionably late to do so.

And PNoy and Robredo know they could have done better. And they didn't and wouldn't admit to that fact because their egos won't allow them. This is so obvious the BBC could not help but detail what the authorities should have done for our benefit.

PNOy's non-admission is so telling of what and how his mindset works that the country has to consider this as a glaring precedent of what the Philippines is to expect from the NoyNoy Administration until 2016 -- nothing at all (maybe except frustration).

As usual -- and as what happened during the Manila Hostage Crisis -- the frontliners stepped up to the plate because no one in higher authority wanted blood on their hands. "No one wanted to take the lead" Bernardo Espinosa, a SWAT police officer interviewed in History Channel's documentary on the Manila Hostage Massacre said, "so we had to."

It is from their group too via Chief Inspector Romeo Salvador who had the guts to actually say what PNoy and Robredo can't: SORRY.

PNoy's reaction now to the Manila Hostage Victims and Survivors call for an apology is probably his exact reaction during the actual hostage-taking --- a head-turning-looking-away denial whilst saying in his head:

"This too will end without me doing anything."

I have a feeling this is what he is saying now and until his term ends on 2016:

"This too will end without me doing anything."



But beyond sorry, it is not even PNoys non-apology that reeks of non-accountability.

He said he already said sorry by expressing regret


and then takes back what he said when he stated this week that,


NO he will not apologize.


Ano ba talaga kuya? May isang salita ka ba? Alam mo ba sinasabi mo? Sure ka ba? Sure ka na ba? Sure na sure ka na ba?


PNOy is a person that doesn't have a single word under his name - in Tagalog,

isa siyang taong walang salita.

I respect his position as president,

but I don't respect this dude as a person.


Why did you guys vote for PNoy again?

Non-accountability means never having to say you're sorry aka PNoy is NOT sorry for saying he's NOT sorry - Updated

I had a conversation with PNoy in my head after I read an article claiming that the Philippine government has reportedly met the demands of the bus hostage victims .



And should the bus hostage victims and survivors seriously expect the Philippine government to meet their demands when the bus hostage-taker's demands weren't? Irony and/or absurdity much?



I asked PNoy if he really said sorry and see what PNoy said :

How many times do I have to say sorry?

Let me state and show you the facts:

I never said sorry on my Official Statement on the August 23, 2010 hostage-taking incident at the Quirino Grandstand,

why should I say sorry now?

Cheezmiss: But last year you said you apologized to Hong Kong. The Philippine Star said so.

What I said was that I have "expressed sorrow and regret over what happened."


And never did I say in that Official Statement "sorry" or "apology." If you find these words, I will give you all of PCSO's money.


Cheezmiss: So you never apologized but you also said that your expression of sorrow and regret is an apology in itself.

Of course I have to make you think I apologized without actually doing it. It's called manipulation. I make you think what you want to hear and voila, you do!

That makes it easy for me to wiggle my way out of being accountable. You should do that sometimes.

Cheezmiss: Isn't that lying? I should lie too?


You should because if you do, you could get away with anything, See, no one cares now that I was inconsistent. Last year I made everyone believe that my expression of regret is equal to = an apology. Now, I can blatantly say I shouldn't apologize at all.


Cheezmiss: Are you making this up as you go along?


Is it illegal to change my statement as long as it serves the image I want to project?


Cheezmiss: What image?


That I am humble, I am not proud, I am not arrogant and that everyone's my boss; that I could eat a hotdog in NY and take with me my whole entourage than spend $1,000 per plate in a restaurant whose name the average Pinoy could not pronounce.


Cheezmiss: Bat di na lang kayo nagpabili ng hotdog sa entourage nyo?


I want people to see me being frugal and humble. Pogi points din yun iha.




Cheezmiss: Kaya ba sa media lang kayo nag-so-sorry tungkol dun sa Manila Hostage Crisis, hindi dun sa mga taong apektado?


Just because I didn’t do what they wanted when they wanted it, just because I didn’t say what they wanted to hear,

does not mean I have to say sorry.

I may be the Commander in Chief, but NONE of it was my fault. The incident was sparked by one man. You want me to admit that it was made worse by the fumbling and/or passive actions of the government? Why would I want to do that? You want me to admit my mistake? Admit that the government made a mistake? No one in their narcissistic minds would do that. I-hostage nyo na lang din ako kesa aminin ko yan.

And I am not an expert in this situation. Who will tell me what to do? Who will tell me? I was not informed on what to do and how to do it so I allowed the persons who are experts to handle it. They're big enough to know what they are doing. I am not going to put my foot down and order them around. Let them do what they are good at. Do I have to micromanage everything?

But take note that initially, the signs were actually encouraging. The hostage-taker - despite being replete with a handgun and an M16 rifle which he could use on the foreign hostages in broad daylight and spark an international incident - was not violent at all. So we were..


Cheezmiss: Complacent?


we were hungry so we ate at the nearby Emerald Restaurant.

Cheezmiss: Isa pa yun ser, you're presence was neither visible nor felt during the whole incident. It seems you didn't care, that you weren't paying attention to what was happening.


To be fair to Emerald, masarap siopao nila,


And who knew the hostage-taker could be violent at anytime, how am I supposed to know when?

What more do you want from me?


Cheezmiss: You didn't consult your experts?


Let me repeat, It's not my FAULT, it's not the government's fault. Let me justify the reasons why:

First justification - it was not me or the government who agitated him, it was that unknown person he was talking to on the phone while he was reading the contents of the letter from the Ombudsman who promised to review his case. Why would I step into this delicate situation? I don't even know - and do not want to know anything - about his case. I was not even President at the time his case with the Ombudsman was filed! Ask GMA! Maybe she'll say sorry again, but I won't.



Second justification - it was the hostage-taker's brother who added to the tension and which prompted the hostage taker to threaten the life of one of the hostages.

And the MEDIA! Don't get me started with the MEDIA!

If they had the self-awareness, self-discipline and empathy to regulate themselves and not wait for someone like me to rule them with an iron hand, none of the killings might have happened because none of the dramatic scenes would have been seen by the hostage-taker on the bus.

And the hostage-taker's cellphone -- CANNOT BE REACHED! He was not even answering the cell phone we gave him. I do not know why. Either he probably knew enough that he won't receive a call from me or he gave up hope that anyone could help with his case, I don't care! He was not answering his phone! Is that my fault too?

What finally pushed "the assault" on the bus was the escape of the driver. "A decision" was then made to immobilize the bus. Notice that I worded my statement enough to distance myself and anyone-in-authority from accountability.



Cheezmiss: Parang kung magsalita kayo parang sa Mars nangyari yung hostage-taking.


It's the only way I could mentally distance myself from the situation. I had nothing to do with "the assault" and the making of "a decision." Again, not my fault that "the incident tragically ended in the deaths of eight innocent civilians."


Cheezmiss: Kaya pala ung official statement nyo parang listahan ng mga may kasalanan. Like you're not part of it. Like you were far from it. As if you were not in a position to do anything about it. Kaya ba ser kalat kalat din mag-isip yung mga pulis. Kasi walang nag-uutos sa kanila?



"No one wanted to take the lead" Bernardo Espinosa, a SWAT police officer interviewed in History Channel's documentary on the Manila Hostage Massacre, "so we had to" he said.

Espinosa is spot-on because I obviously don't want blood on my hands. Period. But I did express "sorrow and deep condolences to the families of the victims whose lives were lost in the hostage situation at the Quirino Grandstand" like a good president should. I may not care about how my hair looks but I am as vain as my sister and I value the image I want to project.



And my non-apology should be enough.

“Why can’t you just get over the past?”

After the conversation with PNoy, my heart said:

Be afraid because:

PNoy's presidency says one thing while meaning another.

PNoy's presidency is blatantly inconsistent - a red flag for lying.


if PNoy does not want to admit accountability for an international crisis, he can easily do the same for a local one.


**sigh*** at least si GMA marunong mag-sorry.

10 Bagay na Dapat mong Gawin at 3 Bagay na Di Mo Dapat Gawin Kung Gusto Mong Mabigyan ng Pera ni Willie Revillame

Hindi na ako masyado nagsisimba kaya

nanonood na lang ako ng show ni WIlie Revillame.



Para ka na rin naman kasing nagsimba pag pinanood mo show ni Willie

(hindi ko na sasabihin pangalan ng show kasi baka mag-iba na naman pamagat nito next week, next month o next year. Napansin ko ang hindi lang nagbabago ay yung host ng show at ang style nito ng pamamahagi ng pera sa mga contestants na "pumipila mula pa madaling araw," na "galing sa Baguio," "galing sa Quezon," na `sumakay ng bus kasama ang 5 o 6 yr old na anak para magsilbing gabay sa mga bulag na mga magulang').

Gets nyo din ba na kaya mataas ang rating ng show ni Willie Revillame kasi ito ngayon ang live, real-time na Sample! ng modern-day na misa - at ang host nito ay ang 21st century self-professed na messiah-d?

Plus, nagbibigay din daw ang show ni Willie Revillame ng "bagong pag-asa," tulad din ng simbahang Katolika.

I-sight nyo, malamang sa hindi, ang show ni Willie - parang Holy Mass.

Unang-una, meron itong Introductory Rites.



Nagsisimula ito sa sayawan at/o kantahan. Kumabaga sa misa, eto yung part na nagpapaka Gloria in Excelsis Deo. Pagkatapos nito, saka e-enter ang Holy Host. Para ipakita ng tao ang kanilang pagpupuri, magtataas sila ng kanilang dalawang kamay in praise o adoration. By this greeting, the presence of the messiah is made manifest.


Ang show ni Willie, meron ding Liturgy of the Eucharist (ito ay dialogue sa pagitan ng pari at mga tao). Kung sa misa may dialogue ang pari at ang mga tao ay sumasagot sa pamamagitan ng responsorial psalm, ang show ni Willie meron ding ganito, mas free flowing lang.

Sa Kantanong segment, binabati at pinapasalamatan ng Host ang mga contestant, binabati at pinasasalamatan naman ng mga contestant ang Host, binabati at pinasasalamatan naman ng contestant ang kanyang dalang akay, at binabati/pinapasalamatan naman ng mga akay ang contestant na nagdala sa kanya sa show.



Libre pumuri ang contestant sa Host, ang Host sa contestant, ang akay sa Host at sa contestant. Pero ang Host lamang - kung gugustuhin nito - ang pwedeng magsalita at magsermon sa contestant at sa akay nito.

Ang mga manonood ay libre ding sabihin at any time during the show: "It is right to give him thanks and praise."




Ang Offertory segment naman ay pag nagbibigay ang mga manonood ng mga pagkain, bagay o gamit sa Host. Kapalit nito ay ang pamamahagi din ng Host sa mga manonood ng cellphone, jacket o pera.


Kung gusto mong makakuha ng mas mdaming pera mula sa show ni Willie Revillame, gawin mo ang mga sumusunod na tips:


1 Sabihin mong pogi at mabango si WIllie.

Babala lang: Hindi ito uubra kung ikaw ay contestant na lalake o babae na nasa edad 50 at pataas. Uubra lang ito kung ikaw ay babaeng contestant na may edad 18 - 25 at maganda sa paningin ng Host.





2 Sabihin mo: "Payakap"

Mabibigyan ka ng P1,000 - P3,000 kung ikaw ay akay ng contestant at hindi contestant mismo. Mas malamang na mabigyan ka kung ikaw ay matandang babae na nasa edad 50 yrs old and above.



3 Sabihin mo na malayo ang iyong pinanggalingan

Mas makakatulong kung ikaw ay mag-isang pumunta sa studio at dinagsa ang matinding baha, lindol o kalamidad para makarating lamang sa show. Siguraduhin mo na masabi mo lahat ng iyong ginawa para makita lamang ang Host. Pero siguraduhin mo na ang pagsabi mo hindi nagmamalaki. Dapat parang wala lang din sayo ang pinagdaanan mo. Pabayaan mong si Willie ang makapansin ng ginawa mo. Subukan mong siya mag-angat ng banko mo, hindi ikaw.


4 Magpanggap kang 80-90 years old na matandang babae.

Hindi ka lang mabibigyan ng pera, may libreng jacket at sponsor give-away ka pa.


5 Magbigay ka para ikaw ay mabigyan

Ito ay nasa Banal na Aklat kaya ito rin ang sinusunod ng Host. Maski isang supot ng pulburon, isang cake, mga kakanin, kung buo sa puso mo na makatanggap mula kay Willie Revillame, ikaw ay makakatanggap basta trip din niya na bigyan ka.


6 Sumayaw, sumunod ka sa gusto ng Host

Kung sabihin nya talon, tumalon ka. Kung sabihin nya kanta, kumanta ka. Kung sabihin nya sayaw, sumayaw ka. Magtiwala ka, siguradong mabibigyan ka. Yun na!


7 Magmakaawa ka

Noong Aug 16, 2011 episode ng show ni Willie Revillame, may contestant sa Baligtaran segment na na-Bokya. Umaasa siyang magbibigay si Host ng higit pa sa kaunti niyang napanalunan. At tulad ng inaasahan niya, pina-asa nga sya ng Host. Nakalabas na ang babae mula sa stage - at sinundan sya ng kamera sa kanyang paglalakad at pag-iyak. Nung tinawag sya muli pabalik ng Host sa stage, nagmamadaling tumakbo ang babae at niyakap ang Host. Sinabihan siya ni Willie: "Kumbinsihin mo ko!" (`Kung karapat-dapat nga kitang bigyan')

At tulad ng inaasahan, nag-kunwaring magmakaawa ang babae, with matching iyak at pag-ingit. Sa huli, nabigyan din sya. O di ba.



8 Magpatawa ka

Kung kwela ka, may pera ka!


9 Magpasikat ka

Kung totoong magaling kang kumanta, sumayaw o may talento na talagang kabilib-bilib, may palakpak ka na, may pera ka pa!



10 Makisakay ka

Kung hindi ka sumasangayon sa sinabi ng Host, e.g. "Dapat lahat tayo gumamait araw araw ng Ligo Sardines at kumain ng Gluta White soap" um-OO ka! Kung hindi, babarahin ka niya, wala ka pang anda.



Amg mga susunod naman ay mga bagay na di mo dapat gawin kung gusto mong mabigyan ng pera ni Willie.

1 Magdasal

Uubra lang ito kung ang dadasalan at luluhuran mo ay ang Host mismo.


2 Magpa-awa

Iba ito sa nagmamaka-awa. Ang magpa-awa ay pag-kukuwento - ng hindi tinatanong ni Willie - tungkol sa iyong malungkot o mabigat na nararamdaman dahil sa kawalan ng pera o anuman. Mas uubra kung ikaw ay nagkukuwento na parang wala lang, Mejo mahirap ito pero sulit. Kelangan lang i-balanse mo ang pagkukuwento na may sundot sa puso na hindi halatang nanghihingi. Mas makakatulong kung lagyan mo ng konting pag-amin. na kumbaga may pagkakamali ka rin kaya ka nandyan ngayon sa kinalalagyan mo. Kung hindi distracted ang Host at mapansin niya ang iyong pinagdaanan o pinagdadaanan at bibigyan ka ng, "Okay lang yan, lahat naman tayo nagkakamali, etc.) yun na! Itihaya mo na ang kamay mo! Now na!


3 Magkaroon ng sariling opinyon

Kung tingin mo at buo ang paniniwala mo na gagalisin ka pag nag-sardinas ka araw araw at mahal mo ang kayumanggi mong balat at magalang mo itong sinabi sa Host at sa buong madlang people, sori ka na lang dahil hindi ginagalang ng show ang may mga buo at sariling opinyon tungkol sa sarili nila at sa mga bagay-bagay.




(Disclaimer: Ang mga tips na ito ay mga suggestions lang. Nasa discretion (at mood) pa rin ng Host kung siya ay mamimigay man o hindi. Suntok sa buwan, ang pamimigay ni Host ng kaperahan ay weather weather lang.)

One more time again: And this is why Willie Revillame is still alive and kicking

We are all culturally conditioned to see self-pity - and its partner: guilt - as a virtue.



How could we get away from it when not even Jesus Christ could?




Or the other saints we grew up seeing and looking up at at our grandmother's house or those larger-than-life Caucasian statues at old Philippine churches.

Remember the facial expressions on these man-made marbles? They either had an expression of pain, was on the verge of ecstatic tears or wore a `pity me my lord,' `have mercy on me lord' face.



As if they are saying and wanted us to think that what they are doing is a gloriously wonderful thing and that we should do it too - if them fair-skinned and holy human-like statues could, we can too.

Even Jesus was used and words were figuratively put in his mouth when His statue was displayed in all its wounded glory at the church's center stage for us to see:

"How I sacrificed for ALL of you ungrateful people. See me and weep. See me and feel guilty because nothing you could do would make me feel better."



and we grew up believing, we grew up hearing, we grew up being told and preached that:

"We could never be good enough my lord, we are sorry my lord, forgive us. have mercy on us. We are mere mortals. We don't know any better. Punish us o lord for our insensitivity. O y O y are we such sinners!?"

And now self-righteous US is wondering why a lot of THEM people are fawning over Willie Revillame

when he is the most popular 21st century mainstream media version of our feelings of self-pity.

We pity ourselves and he plays the role of the savior who will validate our less-than beliefs and grant us a reward for feeling such. Enter Pavlov's dogs everytime we do feel pangs of pity-pain as we expect someone outside of us to make us feel better, albeit temporarily.





But we know that is unreal. Deep deep in the recesses of our hearts, we know we are also using pity and milking it to how far it could take us.



We are not stupid.

We know what we are doing.

We are using pity to our advantage to make others feel guilty. We control them the way they think they control us.

And maybe, Us and Willie or Manny P. or PCSO and the PH govt are made for each other after all?


"The unreal personality..is always for sacrificing things, for sacrificing yourself for others. It looks beautiful because you have been brought up in it. Sacrifice yourself for others - this is altruism...

Unless you are really contented with yourself, you cannot...help others toward their contentment...A person who sacrifices always becomes a sadist.

If your mother goes on talking to you and says, "I have sacrificed myself for you," she will torture you. If the husband says to the wife, "I am sacrificing," he will be a sadistic torturer. He will torture because sacrifice is just a trick to torture the other.

So those who are always sacrificing are very dangerous - potentially dangerous. Be aware of them..Enjoy yourself; be bliss-filled..when you are overflowing with your own bliss, that bliss will reach to others. But that is not a sacrifice. No one is obliged to you. No one needs to thank you. rather, you will feel grateful to others because they have been participating in your bliss..Be happy; only then can you help others to be happy."

from Osho The Book of Secrets.

Ang paninirahan sa Pilipinas ay pamumuhay sa panahon ng digma

Ang paninirahan sa Pilipinas ay pamumuhay sa panahon ng digma.


Kapiling ko sa paglaki ang pangamba,

hindi ko tiyak ang bukas na laging nakakawing




sa mga sasakyan sa kalyeng laging nag-uunahan,

masagi ka man ng tricycle lola, sorry na lang.




mga banketa na may bukas na pinto sa swelo,





mga balat ng saging na maingat na nilagay sa gitna ng lalakaran mo.




mga dura ni Tatay, mga ta-che ni Bantay.

Kinatakutan ko ang pag-iisa.



Sa pagiging buhay,

kaharap ko’y tagsalat.





Pagkat ang lupit ng digmaan

ay hindi lamang

sa paggulong ng mga ulo

o sa pagguhit ng espada,

kundi sa unti-unting pagkaubos

ng pagkain sa hapag.





Saan hahanapin ang susunod na kakainin?




Saan makakakuha ng pambili sa niresetang Amoxicilin?





Sino ang sisisihin sa kawalan ng malinis na tubig?





Walang sandaling

walang panganib.


Sa sariling tahanan,

wala ring katahimikan.

May umiiyak na sanggol sa iyong paanan,

meron ding crying baby sa likod ng dingding na iyong sinasandalan,






nawalan pa ng ilaw at syempre bentilador,




paano ngayon patutulugin si Junior?




Sa lansangan,

ang paglalakad sa gabi’y

pag-aanyaya sa kapahamakan.

Sa aking lipunan,

ang pagtutol sa kaapiha’y

paglalantad sa higit na karahasan.



Kay tagal kong pinag-aralan

ang puno’t dulo

ng digmaan.

Sa huli’t naunawaan,

na ang paninirahan sa Pilipinas

ay walang katapusang pakikibaka




para mabuhay at mangarap ng maraya.



Salamat kay Joi Barrios at sa orihinal niyang tula: Ang pagiging babae ay pamumuhay sa panahon ng digma para sa inspirasyon.

Bakit si Media Man ang sumbungan ng bayan? - updated

Inapi ka ba?

May umaway ba sayo?

Abusado ba barangay captain nyo?

Sawa ka na ba sa pulis na nangongotong sayo?



Isa lang ang solusyon sa problema mo!


Si Media Man!!!




Si Media Man ang puntahan ng mga na-agrabyado.




Ng mga naapi.

Ng mga naiinis sa sistema pero walang magawa sa asar nila.



Pano at saan ka magsusumbong kung ang pagsusumbungan mo ang sya ring gusto mong i-reklamo?

Saan ka pupunta?

Kanino ka magpapatulong?

Kanino pa? E di kay


Media Man!





Kay Media Man, di mo kelangang mag-file ng complaint.




Magsumbong ka lang, yun na, bahala na sya kasi Da best sya!


Ang kapangyarihan ni Media Man ay nanggagaling sa natural na takot ng tao na mapahiya.

Hindi kelangang ma-guilty ng inirereklamo mo.

Hindi rin nya kelangang makonsensya.

Hindi rin niya kelangang magsisi sa kasalanan niya.

Wala man siyang hiya, sisiguraduhin ni Media Man na ang nirereklamo mo ay mapapahiya.

Ang kelangan lang ay kunyaring magsisi siya, pakita niya lang sa radyo o TV na kunyari nakonsensya siya.

At voila! Magbabago na siya!

Hindi na magiging abusado si Kap! (hanggang alam niyang pinapanood at may nanonood sa kanya)

Hindi na rin mangongotong si Pareng Les-Pu (lalo na kapag inalis siya sa pwesto ng mga napahiya niyang superior).

Ang inirereklamo mo hindi na magha-hari-harian sa maliit nilang mundo.



Alam ni Media Man na pahiyaan lang ang labanan.

Ang pagbabago, kung meron man, eh hanggang balat lang at hanggang sikat pa ang programa na nagpahiya sa kanya. Pag hindi na sikat, don't worry. Wait ka lang until dumating ang next top program na dapat mo raw subaybayan.

Kaya wag kayong mag-alala dahil si Media Man, laging nandyan hanggang may gusto kang ipahiya!



Hindi ka niya pababayaan!

Tutulungan ka niya sa lahat ng suliranin mo! Tandaan mo yan maski Itaga mo pa sa bato.

So anong hinihintay mo? Tawag na kay Media Man!

Now na!



DISCLAIMER: Ang mga tinutulungan ni Media Man ay mga maliliit na tao na ang kalaban ay mga maliliit na tao rin. Hindi nilalabanan ni Media Man ang mga malalaking institusyon na bumubuhay sa kanya, (e.g., malalaking negosyo, malalaking establishimento, drug cartel, malalaking negosyante). Ang karamihan sa mga kayang patumbahin ni Media Man ay mga maliliit na drug pusher na nagbebenta ng P100-P500 per gramo, mga nagtitinda ng maruming taho/yelo at kung anu-ano pang pagkain na kinadidirian ng mga middle class na mga Pilipino, mga barangay captain/councilor atbp karaniwang empleyado ng gobyerno (hands-off na sila kapag ang inirereklamo mo ay congressman & anyone above) - in short mga dilis.