Right To Free Speech = Right To Free Action = Freedom To Do Anything, as in Anything?

"Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. I think either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally I lean towards unlimited rights, I feel for instance I have the right to do anything I please, BUT! If I do something you don’t like I think you have the right to kill me."George Carlin

This is the same as Pope Francis saying:

"...anyone who swears at (my) mother deserves a punch." AKA 'If you do something you like such as swearing at my mother, I can do something I like such as punching you in the face.'

Notice how both ideas start with doing what "I WANT" or "I LIKE" - which technically is what freedom is all about, or is it? 

Imagine you belong to a large family - e.g. 19 Kids and Counting.

If this is too scary for you, let's dial the thought down a bit. Imagine instead, you belong to the Pitt-Jolie family.

Looks and sounds better, huh.

The point is, you belong to a large family and you have siblings whose personalities are as varied as the worldwide flavors of Coke. It's essentially the same Coke, but in different cans with different food additives.

All the kids come from the same DNA but for some reason, they don't think the same, they don't feel the same, they don't all believe the same shit.

Let's say one kid believes in the power of Lion King, another kid thinks he's an Avenger, one kid thinks nothing can be better than Frozen's Elsa. But one of them believes you shouldn't mess with Han Solo, specifically his Han Solo action figure. If you do, he'll kill you - or in kid speak - he'll kill you. Being the natural kid that you are, you mess with his Han Solo.

Also, you're the kid who likes messing other kids - for (good and/or bad) fun.

Your parents think teasing, joking isn't anymore joking/teasing if you're the only one having fun. So they tell you to stop.

You don't.

You continue messing with Simba - you feed your sibling's stuffed Simba toy to the dog.
You mess with the Avengers by using the comic books as a coloring book.
You mess with Han Solo by freezing the action figure in ice.

Everyone didn't find what you did funny.

Simba-loving-kid cried and went to mommy.
Avengers-loving-kid forbade you from ever stepping into his room, ever.

Han-Solo-loving-kid hates you. He hates you from the depth of his being. You insulting Han Solo is equal to you insulting him too so he threatens to behead you if you do it again.

So you do it again, because you can. This time, you put Han Solo's love interest Princess Leia in the fridge too.

What does Han-Solo-loving-kid do?

He does what he told you he'll do. But thanks to mommy and daddy, Han-Solo-kid is stopped from killing you. But mommy & daddy has had enough and tells you to STOP too.

Just stop, they say. Don't you understand?, they ask. Han-Solo kid has poor impulse control, they say. He's doing his best they say. But we can only do what we can do, they add. You have to do your part too. Stop pushing his buttons and leave him be, they say. He has to work it out on his own, they say. Stop forcing/making him understand that what you're doing is funny, he doesn't get it - yet. He has to work it out on his own, and you can't do that for him, they say. If you insist to make him understand,  if you insist that he should laugh too, you're doing the same thing he's doing too.

You're forcing your humor on him the same way he's forcing his belief on you.

Both of you can't and won't understand each other if you're bullying each other and insisting your wants upon each other.

It's just an action figure, you answer back. He should stop taking it seriously. He's sick! Why are  you talking to me for? Talk to him too! He'll kill anyone who disagrees with him, even you!

Your daddy shows his missing pinkie and responds, `He almost already did. He cut my pinkie when I told him to lighten up.'

Now what?

What would you do?

You can continue making fun of Han-Solo and face the consequences - which you have already been warned will happen.

Or

You can stop.

Or you can maybe ask WHY you want to do what you want.

If you don't want to be beheaded but you make fun of Han Solo anyway, you shouldn't have made fun of Han Solo.

If you are ready to be beheaded so you courageously make fun of Han Solo, who could say you did the wrong thing? You knew the consequences and were ready to face it. You made a decision that is right for you.

Beheading is NOT right nor is bullying someone to get them to do what you want. But taunting a bully isn't wise now is it? He won't get your joke because he's been blinded by his love for Han Solo, and no amount of anything will make him change his mind.

But, you can try. You can die trying if that's what you want. But remember that you can die - if that's okay with you.

You're free to do anything. Besides you, everyone else is free to do anything. Spiderman said 'With freedom comes responsibility.' The problem is, everyone thinks they're doing the responsible thing.

Making fun of Han Solo is fun if everybody else thinks the same way.

Those who take Han Solo seriously should lighten up. "Should" is a form of control too.

Killing someone who taunted Han Solo is overt control to the nth degree. Yet both are still  trying to control another's reaction. Both think one should not act/be a certain way. Stalemate.

Thus the deadly riots.

One is insistently persisting he is doing the right thing and the other is too.

Both are doing what  they want.  Not what the other wants.

And so it's a perpetual cycle of self-pleasing.

Forcing your idea on someone is sick. It's controlling.

Everyone SHOULD let each other be, if they want to.

Should? Hey, I'm controlling too!

What to do?

The Monty Python team had had the good sense not to lampoon the Islamists. "We didn't go for the Muslims, did we?" (Terry Gilliam) said, a little self-deprecatingly. "We were smart." 

Happy New (Day of the) Year

Ever notice how we spend the new year, every new year?

We are happy within the 3 minutes, 2 minutes, 60 seconds, 2 seconds leading up to the new year that that we express our happiness by lighting fireworks,

eating tons of food,

hugging, clapping, jumping, kissing

and essentially bingeing on ecstasy the minute the "New Year" starts - with the ecstasy slowly tapering off the second or two after.

We are happy five minutes before the start of the new DAY of the Year and the 3-5 seconds after. Not the entire year.

After the first 5 minutes of the new year, it's over.

The new year is over.

You: "What do you mean the new year's over? It's still the new year now!"

No.

This year is like every other year now. The new year's done, it has passed. We're waiting for the new year next year. That's the new year!

We don't really like the new year. We just want the idea of the new year. Those 3-5 minutes of the new day of the year coming, that's where the action is. The whole year is -- ehhh. It's a year. It will basically be any other year.  But the 60 seconds before and after  the new year, that's where our money is.

Our wishes, dreams, hopes are all condensed in the first few seconds on that new day of the year.

It's like most orgasms. If you've ever had one, it's where - for a second - you let yourself go, you suddenly have a glimpse of `heaven', everything will be alright, you feel no one and nothing can touch you and then, just like an orgasm, the good feeling ends as fast as it begins.

We don't value the year. What we value is the first minutes before and the seconds after the new day of the year starts. The rest of the year we essentially live like its any other.  

The seconds of the new day of the year ticks away until it becomes a minute, two minutes, five, 30 and then an hour and 24 hours. And then it's the second day of the new year. Then we wake up and live like it's any other day - until the next new year.

Happy New Day of the Year! After the first day of the year & after all that hugging, smiling & kissing,  I bet we'll all be back saying 'Fuck you' to each other again.

Kris Aquino said we should treat all as equals because God will bless us

And if we don't, we'll get something bad in return.

I thought we should treat all as equals because we all are essentially equal.

Kris' statement is similar to saying, do good (treat all as equals/be kind/be nice) because you'll get something good and nice in return.

If I keep that in mind everytime I help a senior citizen cross the road;

feed  the hungry;

clothe the naked;

give drink to the thirsty;

visit the sick,


then I should expect something in return for my "good" works?

So if I know I will get nothing in return for doing X, I wont' do it then?

So if I give a homeless child a house, I'm doing it because -- well -- I don't really care about the child. It's because I care about the blessings I'll get when I do something "good".

I care about what I'll get not on what I'm giving or who I'm giving it to.

I thought if I help an old woman cross the road, I'm doing it to help the old woman cross the road because I want her to cross the road safe and reach the other side sound. Not because I have an agenda at the back of my mind that I'd get something in return; or that God will smile at me or pat me on the head or make the sky rain with money.

Should you do good because you'll get something in return?

Isn't that similar to buying your way to "heaven"?

Your bribing God to bless you because, see what I did here see. I did X, Y, Z.

So you do good things because you think you'll get good things too,


then you don't do bad things because you don't want to get bad karma.


So you  don't punch someone not because you don't want that someone to get hurt, cry or suffer - it's because you don't want anything bad to happen to you.

Then it's all about You.

It's all about what YOU can and don't want to GET.

It's not because you want the old woman to be safe, or the child to be happy,

it's because you want something in return.

It's not because you don't want to cause pain, sadness or suffering thus your preference to  turn the other cheek, it's because YOU're afraid to be in pain, sad or suffer.

You don't care that others get hurt, you only care that YOU don't get hurt.

Since when did God become a bank manager or a businessman that keeps score of your good deeds then gives out equivalent blessings for it? Did your Christian Living teacher/Religious Education teacher/friendly neighborhood priest taught you this?

If this is how God works, I'll always be looking over my shoulder for treats because I did a "good" job today, and Kris Aquino says you should too.

Image from: http://www.kitchen-concoctions.com/2014/10/dog-halloween-treats-plus-dog-howl.html

The New Chicken McDo Tastes Old

For a quick fried chicken fix, my favorite go-to fast food chain is Jollibee's Chicken Joy.

Their chicken is juicy in the inside, crispy on the outside and tasty all through out.

I find their spaghetti so-so though because its sauce is too thick, the hotdog is only edible if you haven't eaten for three days and the whole thing looks like a gunk of dark red matter sprinkled with cheese (the cheese fortunately is yummy and yet they only put 10-15 shaved cheese slices on it - why Jollibee why?).

For mainstream fast food spaghetti, my favorite is McSpaghetti.

                                            Trust me, it tastes better than it looks.


Their sauce is smooth, light but flavorful. Even their pasta is light and al dente. Compare it with Jollibee's pasta which is fatter, firmer and - I feel - harder to digest.

But the (previous) Chicken Mcdo is just bleeeech.

It's greasy and the skin isn't even crunchy. It was as if the chicken was first immersed in oily water before it was put on your plate. Plus, their chicken was 80% skin and 20% meat. Echhh.

But now, their new Chicken McDo is apparently Toni Gonzaga's new favorite' because it's 'more juicy', 'more delicious' and "has the right crunch."

I like chicken so I tried it ---- and I experienced nothing that Toni Gonzaga was paid to say the chicken is.

The new Chicken McDo I got from one of the McDo branches in Pasay tasted a day old. It is crispy on some parts and bubble-gum-chewy on others. I also couldn't find where the 'delicious' is or even its taste.

I wonder, did the taste of the new Chicken McDo cross the road and went to the nearby KFC?

Was Toni Gonzaga just making things up?

Though If I were paid millions to say something is delicious even if it isn't, I'd say it too, then throw up after.


The new Chicken McDo tastes like a cardboard box - it takes up space in your stomach but you're left feeling as if you really didn't eat anything. It tasted like nothing. Now I know how goats feel like.





Verdict: The New Chicken McDo is best for goats (because goats will eat anything) not for fried-chicken-loving humans.

It's Showtime is not Cursed

It's easy to think the show is cursed because its major hosts were all involved in controversies and criminal incidents one after the other.

As if the hosts all had a meeting and decided to schedule their "incidents".

Anne:  I'll tell people I'll buy them first.

Vhong: Sige, tapos I'll buy food and dala sa condo.

Vice:  Dapat kasi si Jessica Soho na lang dinalan mo ng food.

Jhong: Wag ka nang magpadala ng food. Selfie na lang ng food i-send mo.

Billy:  Ako na lang padala nyo -- sa presinto.

Colleen:  (Giggles)

Do you watch the show? 

I do.

Regularly?

No, I don't.

But just watch the show for five minutes and see, sense the forced smiles being injected into every second the show is on-air. 

It's mandatory now that live shows and its hosts be NOT JUST happy but "Super Happy" to the nth degree, at times unnaturally, for at least 90 minutes or throughout the duration of the show.

I don't know why.

Maybe because feigned happiness pulls the ratings in?

Maybe because when viewers see happy people on TV, viewers buy more Anne-Curtis-endorsed products?

Maybe the country is just so sad that it needs an afternoon show to remind itself to be happy?

Just listen to its theme song and how they start the show.

Careful. If you have diabetes & you watch the show, the saccharine sweetness could make your blood sugar levels jump.

Except for Vice's edgy & offensive humor and the spontaneous reactions of audience members or contestants, any other laughs on the show are forced and lame.

So if you're required to be "happy" each day for 6 days a week, where would all that angst go? Where would the spontaneous, natural "You" go?

We all know where Anne's angst went.

We all know how Vhong dealt with his.

We all know Vice processes his on the show & on his stand-up routines.

Jhong takes pictures of his angst and posts it on social media.

Kuya Kim, being the genuinely decent man he is, performed a dance on the show once. It was a very trying-hard kind of dance   (the sort of thing you do as if to say `let's get this over & done with, I think I'm enjoying this too anyway, I think, & I'm doing this for my family because this is the best gig I've had) & I remembered thinking, dude relax you could hurt yourself convincing yourself you like what you're doing. And then he had a medical incident. 

We also now know where Billy's angst went. First he drinks it all away. Then, we get to watch it all in TV Patrol & GMA News or The Buzz. 

It's Showtime is not cursed. Its hosts are just (compared to the image/version of themselves seen on TV, commercials, media) being real. 

Maybe the problem is how they want to be seen, how they want to be perceived. Their projected images don't jell with who they ARE. Maybe they should just be the latter than the former - that is if their commercial endorsements would allow them to.

From a YouTube commenter.

TheMegaSuperCute

3 days ago

 

ipagdasal ang lasenggo = anne
ipagdasal ang maniac = vhong
ipagdasal ang adik = billy

Why `The Legal Wife' is a Hit for 5 Wrong Reasons

Infidelity is not just entertaining, it rates!

It rates because a ton of people watch it regularly.

Because people watch infidelity regularly, see the onslaught of infidelity-themed shows come up one after another.

Ride the bandwagon while the iron is hot, so they say.


My Husband's Lover

The Borrowed Wife

Ang Dalawang Mrs Real

Currently, The Legal Wife is lording it over the primetime slot. The series even trends on Twitter, both locally and globally.

Do you know why? Here are my top 5 theories.

1   We love to see two women fighting each other for a man 

Why this is wrong: 2 gorgeous classily-dressed women fighting?

It's glorified mud wrestling!

See the men grinning from ear to ear standing & ogling behind the 2 women?

Gorgeous women fighting for the attention of a man

is every indecent man's dream come true.

Men get what they want while the women do all the work. Sa'n ka pa?

See Jericho Rosales' character's reaction in the series' June 6 episode when Monica and Nicole   confront anew.

Nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh --- HUH?

Whaaa....?

They're fighting over me again?!

Even Ramon Bautista agrees with me:  "Maraming salamat sa 'The Legal Wife,' maraming mga poging katulad ko ang natuto na dapat ang pagmamahal eh siniseryoso. Hindi basta-basta pinaglalaruan ang mga puso ng kababaihan. Ang pagiging pogi ay isang responsibility, hindi siya dapat ginagamit panlinlang sa kababaihan," he said.

2  We love to see a man be objectified for a change 

Why this is wrong: When you objectify someone, you don't treat him/her like a person, you see him/her as someone you can manipulate for your own use & advantage, the same way you would a toy. That's not healthy. Didn't you learn this in Values Education/Christian Living or from your (dysfunctional) family?


Jericho Rosales' Adrian is a dick with a face. Anyone who has a dick & a face can   play Adrian.

Remember what Richard Gere said about his role in the movie Pretty Woman? He acknowledged that the star of the film was then relatively new newcomer, Julia Roberts, not him.

`I'm just a suit on a hanger in this movie' or something to that effect.

In Tagalog, in relation to Adrian, "poste lang siya na nilagyan ng pantalon."



Adrian is being treated by both women as objects - the same way Adrian is treating both women as objects.

Rio Locsin's character in the series' April 24 episode echoes the same statement when she told Mark Gil's character - apparently Nichole & Monica's parents have infidelity issues too -

"Hindi ako isang bagay na dapat pag-agawan.."  or something to that effect.

(I can't help but feel Jericho Rosales' talent is wasted in  this series. He's just there to initiate the Royal Rumble scenes between Angel Locsin & Maja Salvador & pretend to care that he cares about what they're feeling. Anyone with a good-looking  profile & physique could pull that off.)

3 We can all relate

Why this is wrong:  You don't need to be in an illicit love triangle to be able to relate with the betrayal, infidelity & anger spewed out by the series' main characters. All you have to be is selfish & angry.

That's why there are all The Legal Wife memes, see.

You can place any word there in any language and the emotions will all be the same.

They can be fighting over a glass of water.

They can be angry because it's the first day of school.

They can be fighting over a kitten.




What stays the same are the emotions:

I WANT WHAT'S YOURS! - Envy, anger.

YOU CAN'T HAVE WHAT'S MINE! - Anger, selfishness, fear of losing what you have, belief that you alone deserve what you have.

Sadly, they're not talking about a toy, they're fighting over a human being.

It helped that the lines from the series are amusing and funny. It distracts us from our ugly feelings - feelings which we don't want to face. It also makes us think:  it's all about their problems, not us. Now we can all sleep soundly at night.

4 We love to see our enemy suffer

Who doesn't want to see the person that made our lives a living hell cower in submission & surrender to our power?

Who doesn't want to see our enemy be put in a place they deserve to be in?

Who doesn't want to see our enemy apologize  because they made our lives a living hell?

We all do.

Why do we do that? Not because  we're bad Christians. It's simply because we think revenge is sweet and karma's a bitch.

Why it's wrong:  It's our ego rearing its ugly head and we're allowing it to get the best of us.

5 We love to think they're all going crazy for love

Adrian - no matter how convincing he is in professing his love for Monica - never loved his legal wife.
Adrian doesn't love Nicole either. See how he's using both women so he can have his cake and eat it too? That's selfishness to the nth degree.

Monica - no matter how much she thinks she is over Adrian (because she has filed an annulment) - still felt hurt & affected when she saw him & Nicole not because she still loved him.

Monica loved the illusion she had about Adrian. She loved what she thought Adrian was. She loved her impressions of him - not the person.  She loved her own beliefs and expectations of him.

Nicole is obsessed with Adrian not because she loved him, it was because she loved what Monica had. If Monica had a lego set, she'd probably steal that too not because she loved legos, it's because she wanted whatever Monica has.

Everyone's in pseudolove in The Legal Wife, yet they (and we) think they're in love. They aren't.

They all think they're in love with each other.

Love is honest, kind and respectful. It is also simple. When you find yourself saying "It's Complicated"
you're working on and believing in tons of (most of them non-existent) assumptions to prop up a flimsy theory.

e.g.

Theory: He loves me
Assumptions: Because he wants to stay with me and not his mistress.
                       Because he chose me over her/him.
                       Because he promised not to hurt me again.
                       Because he apologized and was crying too.
                       

Theory: He loves me
Assumption:  Because he wants to make me happy by having no need or want to have a mistress or hurt me in any way, manner or form.

Which theory requires little assumptions?



"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."




Can you relate with The Legal Wife because you think you're going crazy for love too? Are you sure it's love or is it pseudolove?




If Adrian was a mormon or a Muslim, there will be no problems at all between him, Monica and Nicole.  But then, there wouldn't be any drama either.

Thank God they're all Catholics.

Is Sarah going Geronimo?

It used to be that Sarah couldn't even raise her arms (if she did it was discretely covered by her hair or a something-something accessory)  & show all she got back when she

a)   Was under the influence & conditioned to blind obedience by her Mommy D(ivine)

b)   Was an endorser for a shampoo commercial - (what's the point of raising her arms when the product was all about her hair?)

c)    Was so not yet over the guy whose first name starts with a letter G

d)   Has yet to pump up & complete her toning arm muscles program in the gym

Or like a boob, they only show a side of it. 

But Look at Sarah G now na!

O Diva talaga!

Gandah ng Lolah!

Notice - in popular mainstream (predominantly-influenced-by-Catholicism-&-Christianity) media culture,

the instance a woman shows off her underarms imply

a)  she's ready for sex

b)  she's had sex

c)   she wants to have sex

d) she's mature enough to even consider or think about sex

e)  she's impressing upon everyone the image that yes I'm old enough now to know about sex



It's a phenomenon that has been seen & done before.







Other than selling an underarm deodorant. Could this ad mean what A, B, C, D, E could also mean?

Sarah G is ready.

But sofarstillsingle Taylor Swift isn't completely there yet. And it's okay.