42F

The art of forgiveness

(Fwdd email)

THE ART OF FORGIVING
Author Unknown

-The most creative power given to the human spirit is the power to heal the wounds of a past it cannot change.
-We do our forgiving alone inside our hearts and minds; what happens to the people we forgive depends on them.
-The first person to benefit from forgiving is the one who forgives.
-Forgiving happens in three stages: we rediscover the humanity of the person who wronged us; we surrender our right to get even; and we wish that person well.
-Forgiving is a journey; the deeper the wound, the longer the journey.
-Forgiving does not require us to reunite with the person who broke our trust.
-We do not forgive because we are supposed to; we forgive when we are ready to be healed.
-Waiting for someone to repent before we forgive is to surrender our future to the person who wronged us.
-Forgiving is not a way to avoid pain but to heal the pain.
-Forgiving someone who breaks a trust does not mean that we give him his job back.
-Forgiving is the only way to be fair to ourselves.
-Forgivers are not doormats; to forgive a person is not a signal that we are willing to put up with what he or she does.
-Forgiving is essential; talking about it is optional.
-When we forgive, we set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner we set free is ourselves.
-When we forgive we walk in stride with our forgiving God.

***

"A dog's faith"

(Fwdd email)

"Have you seen the video, "Armed with Hope", a celebrated story a boy who was born with no arms? He wrote the book, "One Step at a Time". Now comes the story of a dog, named Faith, with no front legs. This is his story."

Imeldific watch

(Or, A reflection on forgiveness and justice)

Since no one is saying it, I guess you will have to let me: Will Imelda Marcos’s absurdity ever stop? I’m not sure whether people understand the Christian concept of forgiveness, as Imelda would like to espouse. I could have glossed it over, as most people dismiss her antics by now, were it not for the fact that something is blatantly amiss somewhere.

Being the many-times-aggrieved Filipino, I’ve been an active student of unconditional forgiveness, and until now, I find it hard to grasp the mystery. But from what I’ve learned so far, Christian forgiveness is always a good thing, but not without its many ifs and buts. (Which I never tire of revisiting in this blog.)

This is no news: Imelda says and does things that are too far out. But this is news: Telling the whole world that she is praying for Cory Aquino’s recovery (from colon cancer) is tantamount to unconditional forgiveness of the Aquinos, but, really, have Imelda and the Marcoses asked pardon yet from the Aquinos and the nation for their sins? Now Imelda is making herself out to be the saint in the story, and the Aquinos and Marcos victims the villains. What a grievous offense!

Whenever things turn out way this – lies becoming facts and falsehoods becoming truths – I’m always vehemently offended! Why? Because the offender is bound to repeat the same mistake, and we are forever tied to the receiving end of it! Committing an offense is damaging, so it’s the height of foolishness and naivete to allow it to be done to us again and again.

Pardon first, reparation next, then forgiveness last. That’s the natural order of things. Not even God can forgive, in the face of one’s refusal to own up to one’s sin. It is the aggrieved party’s prerogative to forgive, never the offender’s call. The offender doesn’t have that luxury. This is what I understand forgiveness to mean. I hope we’re all agreed on this.

The problem with forgiveness is that, if it is given out of place, it results in a) glossing over faults and b) failing to demand the necessary atonement needed to amend for the slight. Whether or not the offender atones for her sins or not is up to the offender, and a good Christian is expected to forgive in either case. But it is the aggrieved one who’s in the right position to do the forgiving. And we have to respect the aggrieved one's anger; we'll have to wait it until the person is ready to forgive in his/her mind, and heart -- something which takes time.

Excessive ‘forgiveness’ is simply evil. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in Christian understanding, a minor picadillo, even after it is expunged from the list of offenses, still holds its own curse, its own punishment later. Every misdeed has its consequence, just as every good act has its own reward. It may not be God who actually dispenses the punishment; it may be that he merely allows it. But it is always us who condemn ourselves for our faults in the end.

This is no an-eye-for-eye thinking, no. We’re not living in the Old Testament here. It’s just that our sense of justice is being mocked, and we all seem to be saying amen.

Just like Imelda, my prayer for healing goes out to Cory, it goes without saying. But I also hope that the Marcoses would sincerely repent before they prance around like the cool, devoted people they are. That’s the only prerogative left for them, if they are to restore their dignity and regain a kinder judgment of history.

As things stand, though, the offending parties and their allies are adamant they did no wrong.

The bigger problem is why are we Filipinos excessively forgiving of them? Is it merely because we are afraid to cast the first stone, that we are equally guilty as hell? Or could it be that we have a weak sense of right and wrong (in other words, justice)? If so, why? Where is this disturbing conflict coming from?

Gines, on discernment

“To those who are in desolation: Never, never make any life decision, unless you like the devil to be your spiritual adviser.” – retreat master Gail Gines

See an improved version of the source of this quote: a past retreat report.

***

I’ve also been continually updating these posts, which proved to be a challenging goldmine:

Postcolonial trauma
The paradoxical Pinoy
What sex fetishes could mean

Williams, on denial

I realized that Tennessee Williams’s The Glass Menagerie is a powerful story of denial – three characters with expectations so high they’re so out of touch with reality. They deny because they are hurting so badly from what life has given them. Telling them the truth, therefore, will be the unkindest cut of all. They threaten to shatter into pieces like glass at the merest hint of it. They are as frail as little glass figurines. The reader's hope lies in the afterthought that, after finding themselves in crisis and thus being finally face to face with bitter reality, they will move on from the aftermath of the wreckage that is their life, and real selves. …Else they’d be living the rest of it in fabulous falsehoods, in fancy facades –- the sad lot of many of us. Brilliant story!

Sanchez, on success

I like this article by Bo Sanchez: "Quit Often To Succeed In Life." This opposable thumb of a topic is tricky, but he nails it down fine by making the right qualifications.

Update on ugliness

- Article: Demolished! 11 Beautiful Train Stations That Fell To The Wrecking Ball (And The Crappy Stuff Built In Their Place) (via Ivan)

We've got to commend Ivan's group for doing the footwork necessary, i.e. contacting the Vatican and all, to help stop the remodeling of colonial Catholic churches into "crappy stuff" by our parish priests.

- Still on ugliness, the Wall Street Journal has an article acclaiming our indie films that wallow in our ugliness, making art out of ugliness, we could say (not that it's entirely a bad thing): Real to Reel: Philippine cinéma vérité: Acclaimed abroad, banned at home by Emma-Kate Symons (via PP list)

The paradoxical Pinoy

It appears that our greatest weakness as a people is also our biggest strength. Puzzling? Well, yeah. From what I know, low self-esteem, for example, leads to terrible pride and defensiveness, to compensate for the perceived inadequacy. It, therefore, takes a great amount of humility for someone with low self-esteem to forgive. So where does our generous forgiving nature comes from? Beats me.

The reason could be that regarding ourselves inferior or low also makes it easy for us to be open, entertaining the foreign automatically as something superior. Our openness has led us to consider the wildest ideas from outside, including the idea of unconditional pardon. So:

Openness could mean leaving out no space for our authentic identity OR being easily accomodating of the foreign.

A forgiving nature could mean glossing over faults that need to be corrected and penalized, foregoing the meting out of punishment, and with the offender, fully confident in that knowledge, ending up being even more brazen in committing repeated offenses OR it could mean a sense of peace or wholeness/well-being, and a predisposition to say sorry. (“Ay, sorry, po! Pasensiya na. Tao lang.”).


I guess we can do roughly the same analysis for our other weaknesses that, puzzlingly, each explain the reverse, our strengths. Everything is a double-bladed dagger, cutting both ways, going either way:

1. “Bahala na” (“Come what may”) may be construed as either a great alibi OR an ejaculation of great faith.

2. “Pwede na yan” (“That would be good enough”) implies either an allergy to perfectionism and idealism and fine craftsmanship due to laziness or lack of inspiration OR pragmatism (at least we get the job done no matter how slapdash/shoddy/sloppy); also may indicate a hidden passion for excellence, i.e., we know high-quality when it strikes us in the face; this could also explain our holding education in high regard.

3. “Kawawa naman ako” (“Poor me”) suggests either a wallowing in self-pity OR a strong potential for compassion/mercy for the downtrodden (“Kawawa naman!” or “Poor thing!”)

4. “Ganyan talaga ang buhay” (“Life’s like that”) means either negative resignation, or the hesitation for initiating change in one self and society, thus resulting in stasis (no self-improvement) and weak civic consciousness OR positive resignation: acceptance, even contentment, even extreme patience or endurance of suffering, when things are way beyond control and above human faculties.

5a. “Nahihiya ako”/“Nakakahiya kasi” (“I’m ashamed”/”It’s too shameful”) means false shame due to low self-esteem or lack of confidence, resulting in negative fear of superiors and authority OR a strong sense of proper decorum, of knowing one’s place, resulting in social order and respect for authority/elderly.

This above item doesn’t fit right with:

5b. "Palusot" means crafty rationalization and making excuses, OR talent in problem-solving, especially untying Gordian knots.

6. “Pakikisama” (“Going with the flow”) means either herd mentality OR a harmonious relationship with everybody and the potential for mass action or civic consciousness (in a long line of tradition, from bayanihan to ‘people power’ revolution) if properly motivated.

This one, however, doesn’t square snugly with this:

7. “Kanya-kanya” or “galit-galit muna tayo” (a humorous or facetious expression) (“To each his own”), which is masturbatory selfishness, closed-minded regionalism, and Family-First-ism OR strong devotion to family and strong regional loyalty and pride.

8a. “Aray ko!” (“Ouch!”) means being onion-skinned (overly sensitive in the wrong way: “pikon” or “asar-talo”) OR being great in satire, in mocking the faults and foibles of self and society.

Of course, the above doesn’t fit in with:

8b. “Ma at pa” (a mnemonic for “Malay ko at pakialam ko!”) (“Who cares?! I don’t.”) means shameless apathy/uncaring, being impervious to others’ needs or sad plight OR having fine breeding/social decorum, not digging one’s nose in others’ business, minding one’s own hair.

9. “Ang baduy!” (“Ugh, so tacky!”) means a blanket putdown on anything Filipino, resulting in putting down even the good parts OR an indication of fine taste and global outlook.

10. Strong sense humor, if outrageous, could indicate a happy, positive outlook in life, enabling the Filipino to endure tremendous hardship, OR if black, could indicate an expression of deep anger as a form of coping from something too traumatic to face squarely, OR if facetious, could mean escapism, also a form of coping from harsh realities that need to be addressed concretely.

As of today, I’m still figuring out where the two major conflicts are coming from.

**

Of course, other people have written about the issues discussed above. But I got the idea of explaining ourselves in another way (the way I did above) from an Ignatian retreat I had attended. I merely applied the principle I learned.

I noticed that writing about being Filipino has become a ritual for me every time it’s Independence Day. I have lots of old essays about the paradoxical Filipino that you might want to revisit. Here’s also a related piece that will keep you depressed for one year, guaranteed. (Don’t say you weren’t forewarned. Don’t worry -- depression is one step to acceptance, and strong awareness could lead to change.)

Žižek, on Iran

(Note from the PP list: "The author, from Slovenia, is a professor at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana and at the European Graduate School EGS. He uses popular culture to explain the theory of Jacques Lacan and the theory of Jacques Lacan to
explain politics and popular culture. He has lectured at universities around
the world.")

-------------------------------------------------------------
*Will the cat above the precipice fall down?*
by Slavoj Žižek

When an authoritarian regime approaches its final crisis, its dissolution as
a rule follows two steps. Before its actual collapse, a mysterious rupture
takes place: all of a sudden people know that the game is over, they are
simply no longer afraid. It is not only that the regime loses its
legitimacy, its exercise of power itself is perceived as an impotent panic
reaction. We all know the classic scene from cartoons: the cat reaches a
precipice, but it goes on walking, ignoring the fact that there is no ground
under its feet; it starts to fall only when it looks down and notices the
abyss. When it loses its authority, the regime is like a cat above the
precipice: in order to fall, it only has to be reminded to look down...

In Shah of Shahs, a classic account of the Khomeini revolution, Ryszard
Kapuscinski located the precise moment of this rupture: at a Tehran
crossroad, a single demonstrator refused to budge when a policeman shouted
at him to move, and the embarrassed policeman simply withdrew; in a couple
of hours, all Tehran knew about this incident, and although there were
street fights going on for weeks, everyone somehow knew the game is over. Is
something similar going on now? There are many versions of the events in
Tehran. Some see in the protests the culmination of the pro-Western "reform
movement" along the lines of the "orange" revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia,
etc. - a secular reaction to the Khomeini revolution. They support the
protests as the first step towards a new liberal-democratic secular Iran
freed of Muslim fundamentalism. They are counteracted by skeptics who think
that Ahmadinejad really won: he is the voice of the majority, while the
support of Mousavi comes from the middle classes and their gilded youth. In
short: let's drop the illusions and face the fact that, in Ahmadinejad, Iran
has a president it deserves. Then there are those who dismiss Mousavi as a
member of the cleric establishment with merely cosmetic differences from
Ahmadinejad: Mousavi also wants to continue the atomic energy program, he is
against recognizing Israel, plus he enjoyed the full support of Khomeini as
a prime minister in the years of the war with Iraq.

Finally, the saddest of them all are the Leftist supporters of Ahmadinejad:
what is really at stake for them is Iranian independence. Ahmadinejad won
because he stood up for the country's independence, exposed elite corruption
and used oil wealth to boost the incomes of the poor majority - this is, so
we are told, the true Ahmadinejad beneath the Western-media image of a
holocaust-denying fanatic. According to this view, what is effectively going
on now in Iran is a repetition of the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh - a
West-financed coup against the legitimate president. This view not only
ignores facts: the high electoral participation - up from the usual 55% to
85% - can only be explained as a protest vote. It also displays its
blindness for a genuine demonstration of popular will, patronizingly
assuming that, for the backward Iranians, Ahmadinejad is good enough - they
are not yet sufficiently mature to be ruled by a secular Left.

Opposed as they are, all these versions read the Iranian protests along the
axis of Islamic hardliners versus pro-Western liberal reformists, which is
why they find it so difficult to locate Mousavi: is he a Western-backed
reformer who wants more personal freedom and market economy, or a member of
the cleric establishment whose eventual victory would not affect in any
serious way the nature of the regime? Such extreme oscillations demonstrate
that they all miss the true nature of the protests.

The green color adopted by the Mousavi supporters, the cries of "Allah
akbar!" that resonate from the roofs of Tehran in the evening darkness,
clearly indicate that they see their activity as the repetition of the 1979
Khomeini revolution, as the return to its roots, the undoing of the
revolution's later corruption. This return to the roots is not only
programmatic; it concerns even more the mode of activity of the crowds: the
emphatic unity of the people, their all-encompassing solidarity, creative
self-organization, improvising of the ways to articulate protest, the unique
mixture of spontaneity and discipline, like the ominous march of thousands
in complete silence. We are dealing with a genuine popular uprising of the
deceived partisans of the Khomeini revolution.

There are a couple of crucial consequences to be drawn from this insight.
First, Ahmadinejad is not the hero of the Islamist poor, but a genuine
corrupted Islamo-Fascist populist, a kind of Iranian Berlusconi whose
mixture of clownish posturing and ruthless power politics is causing unease
even among the majority of ayatollahs. His demagogic distributing of crumbs
to the poor should not deceive us: behind him are not only organs of police
repression and a very Westernized PR apparatus, but also a strong new rich
class, the result of the regime's corruption (Iran's Revolutionary Guard is
not a working class militia, but a mega-corporation, the strongest center of
wealth in the country).

Second, one should draw a clear difference between the two main candidates
opposed to Ahmadinejad, Mehdi Karroubi and Mousavi. Karroubi effectively is
a reformist, basically proposing the Iranian version of identity politics,
promising favors to all particular groups. Mousavi is something entirely
different: his name stands for the genuine resuscitation of the popular
dream which sustained the Khomeini revolution. Even if this dream was a
utopia, one should recognize in it the genuine utopia of the revolution
itself. What this means is that the 1979 Khomeini revolution cannot be
reduced to a hard line Islamist takeover - it was much more. Now is the time
to remember the incredible effervescence of the first year after the
revolution, with the breath-taking explosion of political and social
creativity, organizational experiments and debates among students and
ordinary people. The very fact that this explosion had to be stifled
demonstrates that the Khomeini revolution was an authentic political event,
a momentary opening that unleashed unheard-of forces of social
transformation, a moment in which "everything seemed possible." What
followed was a gradual closing through the take-over of political control by
the Islam establishment. To put it in Freudian terms, today's protest
movement is the "return of the repressed" of the Khomeini revolution. And,
last but not least, what this means is that there is a genuine liberating
potential in Islam - to find a "good" Islam, one doesn't have to go back to
the 10th century, we have it right here, in front of our eyes. The future is
uncertain - in all probability, those in power will contain the popular
explosion, and the cat will not fall into the precipice, but regain ground.
However, it will no longer be the same regime, but just one corrupted
authoritarian rule among others.

Whatever the outcome, it is vitally important to keep in mind that we are
witnessing a great emancipatory event which doesn't fit the frame of the
struggle between pro-Western liberals and anti-Western fundamentalists. If
our cynical pragmatism will make us lose the capacity to recognize this
emancipatory dimension, then we in the West are effectively entering a
post-democratic era, getting ready for our own Ahmadinejads. Italians
already know his name: Berlusconi. Others are waiting in line.

Slavoj Žižek

Freedom vs. belonging

The following old movie comment I accessed from an egroup is Wittgensteinic and Zlavoj-Zizekish, but I love it. You should watch's Truffaut's 400 Blows so you'll know what a quality art film means.

---------------------

400 BLOWS: Theme Deconstruction
by __________???

"Technological innovations, a new approach to the economics of film
production and a new sense of political and social value of film
inspired New French Filmmakers or any new group of filmmakers in the
1960s to collectively create its own voice in World Cinema. Thus,
the New Wave was born.

The 400 Blows is one of the best-remembered materials that introduced
the New Wave to the world. The movement uses an approach sometimes
called dialectical film that involved reconceiving the entertaining
consumer commodity as an intellectual tool, a forum for discussion
and examination. Often, materials written for this movement were
personal essays that tackles political and social values that sought
to communicate a message by engaging the audience in an intellectual
discussion using the material as the arena for the forum.

Theme deconstruction is a useful tool in identifying the message that
is encapsulated in the material. By doing this exercise, one is able
to understand the evolution of a material in terms of the type of
statement it tries to communicate to its audience.

The 400 Blows, in terms of theme, explores the basic human struggle
between belonging and freedom. The four principal characters in the
material, torn between two irreconcilable needs, complicates their
lives as each one struggles to satisfy the need to belong somewhere
with someone and the need to be free. In the end, one of the
characters, through force of circumstance, opt for freedom at the
complete sacrifice of the need to belong. Thus, it is difficult to
be free and to belong to somewhere with someone at the same time.

This desire to enjoy both freedom and belonging is the very thing
that complicates the lives of the principal characters. The more
that they insist in pursuing both needs, the more it becomes evident
that sooner or later each one will be force to choose between the
said needs.

Marriage, Family and Community are arenas that satisfy the need to
belong to somewhere with someone. But these arenas restrict our
individual freedom to do whatever we want. Being part of a marriage,
family and community requires commitment and consensus. The
individual disappears and the collective emerges. Freedom, on the
other hand, is the absence of commitment and consensus. It does not
submit to any social contract and operates on individual sense of
independence. But freedom alienates a person from the collective and
veers away from arenas that limits it.

Thus, the material is a socio-political value that engages the
audience in a discussion about freedom and belonging. It asks the
question; Are you willing to sacrifice the need to belong somewhere
with someone for the sake of freedom? Or are you willing to sacrifice
freedom for the sake of the need to belong somewhere with someone?

Theme deconstruction enriches our knowledge in terms of understanding
how a material was constructed. We begin to appreciate the skills of
highly creative writers in coming up with materials that [engage] the
audience in terms of presenting a statement of fact, argument,
persuasion or propaganda.

The 400 Blows is definitely a statement of argument that challenges
us to re-examine our individual definitions of freedom and belonging
as well as the inherent conflict of the said needs. In the process,
as we struggle to enjoy both needs, it only delays the unavoidable.
Sooner or later, we need to make a choice."

The ugly “politics of truth”

I think scientists and academics must be punished severely if they are found twisting facts and bending rules to accommodate an agenda. If they lie under oath or report skewed findings for any reason other than the task of arriving at the truth, who else is left to correct them? (Are there strong world governing bodies policing each field?) Maybe strict peer evaluation can do the job. But if their peers give in and sign any official Statement, Guideline, Recommendation, Manifesto and the like, what awaits the public being served can only be disaster, as the ‘truth’ fascists and their mistakes and lies gain currency, as they successfully invade media and pop culture.

The war on truth is especially escalating in the topic of homosexuality, what with the nations of the Western world seemingly rushing legislations to normalize gay marriage and gay sex. In his review of John Nicolosi’s latest book, Shame and Attachment Loss, for example, similar negative sentiments are eloquently and bravely expressed by H. Newton Malony, Ph.D. (Senior Professor, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena CA) (bolding mine):

"I would recommend publication of this volume for the following reasons: First, although Reparative Therapy has been maligned by some in Division 12 (Clinical) of the American Psychological Association, it has not been rejected as a therapeutic modality for those seeking to change their sexual orientation-- especially Christians.

"Second, while there is strong current emphasis on empirically validated treatment modalities, all approaches initially began as theories which were clinically applied long before they were subjected to controlled clinical studies. Reparative therapy as described in Nicolosi's volume is one such modality. Empirical validation will be the next step in its development, but it should not be discounted for being in this stage of development."

A Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Utah, concurs (bolding mine):

"Nicolosi is convinced that the world's great religious traditions are right: humanity was designed for gender-complementary coupling. The mental-health associations must respect this viewpoint; to do otherwise would be a gross violation of worldview diversity as well as the client's right to freedom and self-determination."

**

The “politics of truth” is really pot-ugly. (Why should there be politics in dispensing truths, anyway? The nerve of these manipulative, hidden agenda-driven people!) As someone who straddles both worlds of science and English writing, I am an appalled witness to all this.

The writing world, for its part, has had its share of giving in to the “dark side” of compromise in the name of political correctness. To illustrate a case, let me point to one grammarian as a culprit: Martha Kolln in her book Rhetorical Grammar (2007) has canonized this type of sentence structure as acceptable, changing her stance from the 2003 edition of the same book:

“Each physician should complete their progress notes on time.”

Those college/university instructors who say the sentence disagreement is okay and need not be corrected now can find an official ally, a valid reference or source. But what’s a writer/copy editor/tutor like me to do? Do I follow the new rule because “authoritative sources” dictate it? Sigh.

Thank goodness there are people in the medical community who frown on this. Says Flo Witte, PhD, ELS, of the American Medical Writers Association (in her own medical writing manual Sentence Structure and Patterns), “This sentence is grammatically incorrect because the plural pronoun their doesn’t agree in number with the singular antecedent each physician.”

She goes on, “Using the singular pronoun his is politically incorrect because this sexist language implies that women can’t be physicians.” While I agree with the sexism part, I can’t, in my conscience, write or refuse editing any antecedent-pronoun disagreement. It would be like agreeing to gay marriage by legislative fiat.

Witte continues, “So what we do? Here are six ways to rewrite the sentence, making it both politically correct and grammatically correct.” (Take note, Jesuit-run Ateneo de Manila University, "the center of gay literature and gay studies in Asia".)

1. Use a plural noun as the antecedent of a plural pronoun: “All physicians should complete their progress notes on time.”

2. Omit the noun completely: “Each physician should complete progress notes on time.”

3. Rewrite the sentence so that the pronoun isn’t necessary: “Each physician should be punctual in completing progress notes on time.”

4. Replace the pronoun with another word: “Each physician should complete all progress notes on time.”

5. Rewrite the sentence in the passive voice: “Each physician’s progress notes should be completed on time.”

6. As a last resort, and only as a last resort, use his or her: “Each physician should complete his or her progress notes on time.”

There’s of, course, the option of using the neutered pronoun, “one,” in place of “his or her.” But what’s wrong with either "his or her," anyway (or "her or his," for that matter)? Have the male and female species both ceased to exist now? Seriously?

I closing, Witte writes something I am in complete agreement with, something I tell tutees even if I know they might vehemently disagree and even if other tutors don’t like the idea: “Note that the overuse of these dual pronouns (his or her, he or she) is frustrating to readers. The AMA Manual of Style (Iverson 2007) also recommends avoiding ‘common-gender pronouns’ such as s/he, shim, and himorher.”

Suddenly, Honduras

It’s been a long time since we’ve heard anything major from Central America, which is good news. It used to be Haiti hitting the headlines. Now, it’s another country we’re only familiar with because it’s routinely lumped together with all the others in the region as one of the “banana republics” (the political term, not the shirt).

The knee-jerk reaction is, of course, “Still a banana republic, Honduras?”

It’s a comfort to know that the community of nations is still hugely disapproving of coups. And that the people of Honduras won’t take a power grab sitting down. They do believe in democracy there, don't they?

But I hope the world’s cameras don’t leave their focus on Iran even as they train their zoom lens on Honduras. I hope the message we’re all giving is, “Honduras, we’re watching you. But, Iran, we’re still watching you.”

Insert

Among other surgical enhancements, the following is a point I should insert somewhere in "Postcolonial trauma":

Notice that not one of our former colonizers, despite treating us as subjects, ever offered to repair the damage with some amount of citizenship benefits, the way, say, ancient Rome gave all Roman citizens the legal benefits of Roman citizenship. For example, we needed to beg on our knees to the Americans for decades just to procure the benefits due our World War II veterans. (President Obama finally gave in this year. It makes sense that it took a black man.)

Perhaps from the colonizers' imperialist view, we'd always be reminding them of their former conquest -- and eventual defeat. At present, they all seem to be in denial of the profound damage they each have wrought, Japan most especially.

Fortunately, the Filipino nation is a forgiver nation (an unconditional forgiver at that). It must be this singular reason that makes it a survivor of three-time inter-nation sex abuse.

Ako mismo! (A spoof)

(Fwdd msg)

Was laughing my head off at this forwarded mail from Erwin:

--------------------------

"Napanood ko ang komersyal sa telebisyon. Gagawa ako ng pantasyang bersyon ko.

Ako MISMO...kung ako ay isang:

Police Officer: Gagawin ko ang sinumpaang tungkulin ko na sinabi ko sa PNPA or PMA. Kapag nasangkot sa katiwalian ang tauhan ko ay hindi dapat kunsintihin at itago sa media. Kung kailangan patalsikin sa serbisyo ay dapat gawin. Ang daming aplikanteng Pilipino na gustong mag-pulis at mas karapat-dapat.

Mayor: Di ako gagastos ng pera ng bayan para magkaroon ako ng "pogi points". Iiwasan ko na gumastos sa tarpaulin para sabihin lang na "Maligayang Fiesta, Happy Graduation, at Merry Christmas". Ibibigay ko na lang sa kawang-gawa at sa mahihirap sa nasasakupan ko.

Governor: (kapareho ng sa itaas) at igagalang ko ang nasasaad sa batas. Ang budget ko para sa office staff ko ay sapat lang at hindi ko isasama ang housemaids, gardeners, at drivers ko.

Congressman: (kapareho ng sa itaas) at gagamitin ko ang pork barrel ko sa tamang proyekto at hindi para paramihin ang SUV ko. Tama na ang Expedition, Pajero, at Hummer sa garahe ko. Di ako gagamit ng convoy para pumunta sa Air Force One at Pegasus KTV Club.

Appointed Government Official: Di ako tatanggap ng suhol sa mga bidders or contractors. Di ko palalakihin ang proyekto tulad ng Diosdado Macapagal Highway, milyones na lamp post sa Cebu, C5 project. Tama na siguro ang kabuktutan na nagawa ko (or namin) sa nakaraang administrasyon.

AFP General: Igagalang ko ang karapatang pantao at pro-protektahan ang sambayanang Pilipino. Serbisyo sa publiko at hindi berdugo.

Ang pantasya ay pantasya, wahahaha... Baka may maidudugtong pa po kayo hanggang humaba. Pass it on hanggang makarating sa dapat patunguhan."

Pinoy pride

**


Meanwhile, of interest, today:


This is crazyfunnystupidunbelievable -- even for somebody who benefits from outsourcing!:
Outsource This! We hired Indian freelance journalists to write the paper this week. Here’s why we did it.

Update: Here's a related news: How to Enlist a Global Work Force of Freelancers by Kermit Pattison. "Small businesses increasingly are tapping a new talent pool: the world."


Slate article: How McDonald's Conquered France: The fast-food chain's most surprising success. By Mike Steinberger (via PP list)

Revisited: The World As I See It - An essay by Albert Einstein, 1931 (via PP list) - Beautiful thoughts from a really smart dude. I am particularly struck by this: "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." I wonder if there are any doctors who are atheist? Because if you could only begin to understand how the different parts of the body each maintain their own physiological balance, you'd wonder how all that convoluted complication ever evolved!

Have you seen Thailand's parrot flower (Impatiens psittacina Hook.f.)? (via Cesar)

You know you’re old when the people populating your childhood are going, going...yup, like pieces on the auction block. Farah Fawcett had the misfortune of dying almost at the same time as Michael Jackson. But not to worry, we know and love Farah Fawcett, part of a bevy of beautiful girls in the ‘70s too charming to be ignored: Kate Jackson, Jaclyn Smith, and Cheryl Ladd. They all embodied female sex appeal without being pornographic.

Transformers 2: Automation of emotion, mania for fun mayhem

I was wrong. Not all of us are getting tired of Hollywood movies. Most people simply love (no, are crazy over) Hollywood. The moneyed crowd will brave the heat and humidity of day travel; they will troop to the mall, then brave the crowd just for three hours of feel-good escape that only movies like Transformers 2 can give. There’s no denying it: that’s how 90% of the populace define a good movie, voting with what truly matters, their time and money, film critics be damned. I give up.

But really, it doesn’t take a mechatronics and instrumentation engineer to know why the world loves such violence onscreen: the excitement of the action, the beauty of the art of war and self-defense, the genius of industrial design. Combine all that with:

- breathtaking and outlandish vistas,
- exotic locales,
- charismatically beautiful lead actors in a passable love affair (with the typical complications of love for the minimum conflict), plus
- the humanization of robots (to the point of machines shedding buckets of tears in the middle of a frighteningly genuine show of sadness!),

…Voila!: Blockbuster movie! Smash hit!

Clearly, people’s mania for cool (i.e., mindless) mayhem will be securely sated -- as long as:

- the violence is safe from a distance – or even decorative,
- it is framed within the limits of the silver screen (even as intergalactic as the Mall of Asia’s IMAX theater), and
- the conflict is fictional/fictitious (and not as gruesomely real and fearsomely plausible as Kim Jong-Il’s threat of a nuclear war).

This is apparently the formula to attain that mysterious hip factor (the movie version of personal charisma, say).

Even without a compelling screenplay, the hip set would surely come. You know that they don’t want to be educated -- not that they are dumb, but that they know already. And they come with much-lowered expectations. They know that it takes a child’s level of idiocy (okay, naivete) to fully appreciate the movie. (But the movie is alarmingly so not child-friendly!)

If they want preaching, they’ve just had it -- it’s Sunday, after all. Going to the mall to watch a movie is all about having fun, with oneself, with friends and family. Who needs to know that violence is bad and ugly anyway? That’s a constant fact of life. Who needs to know that glorifying violence is evil? That’s a point that’s better left unsaid even if people know they are being very inconsistent with their values. They won’t mind the conflict because the fun factor trumps everything: that’s how they’d explain away the fun to be had in boxing, cockfighting, and the like. That’s the simple logic of violent films and violent fun in general.

Of course, there are other ways of reading the Transformers phenomenon. It could be seen as a technological showoff. It could also be seen as a metaphorical showcase of the global domination of American pop culture, particularly the comicbook culture. (So many Filipino kids I know read and collect Marvel etc. comicbooks like crazy.)

But the market reading remains the most valid of all. The movie being safe in its silliness, one occasionally saved by effortless comedy and funny overacting, who can complain? Buy a soda pop, buy a popcorn, enjoy the ride.

Michael Jackson, moonwalker

I'd rather remember Michael Jackson dancing the moonwalk. I knew he was my first music idol when I sang to all his songs, from "Ben" to "Man in the Mirror" and was even willing to make a fool of myself by attempting to moonwalk (I failed).

Of course, my relationship with Michael as a fan turned sour when news about his probable molestation of boys spread around. When he came around to doing a concert in Manila, I didn't even entertain the idea of attending. I can forgive all forms of consensual sex, but I can't forgive sex with children even if it was with consent.

But I forgive him now. I guess I can forgive even a possible case of pederasty (that's the right term, not pedophilia). Michael had everything in this world, but he was obviously aching for true love, longing for fatherly touch and affirmation, crying out for peer acceptance, and grieving for a lost boyhood. He's deeply wounded man, but no doubt a good man.

I choose to remember Michael as that rare star and music artist who was able to become the unthinkable: being idolized by the whole world for his music and dancing despite people's bigoted feelings for blacks.

Nicolosi on same-sex attraction

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a pioneering American (Italian-American?) reparative therapist, announces the latest developments in same-sex attraction research. The report is somewhat a vindication of Robert Spitzer, a neurophysiologist who was debarred by APA for not toeing the political party line.

Read Nicolosi's finely nuanced views on how to handle cases from a therapeutic point of view.

Other Googleable names to watch in this highly delicate topic are:

Richard Cohen, a Jewish American Evangelical psychologist
Andrew Comiskey, an American Evangelical psychologist
Alan Medinger, a Jewish Catholic psychologist
Gerard van den Aardweg, a Dutch Catholic psychologist
Frank Worthen, an American; co-founder of Exodus International

The different churches of the world should invite these people over.

(Hat tip to: G.)

Bumping into Arabs

Last night, I bumped into a bunch of Arab-looking guys at Subway (fastfood resto).

It was the worst time for me to see Arabs: I just inputted some unprintable matters generalizing these men and putting them in a bad light. Guilty? Guess so, but I just wrote what people thought in secret and whispers. I never claimed those accusations to be true. What is real and true is that there are long-standing rumors being spread by OFWs who've spent years in the Middle East, especially the more horrifying experiences they had. The burden of proof lies on the hairy and heavily bearded Arabs, not on me. They are the ones who need to prove the whole world wrong in their rash judgment.

I'm kinda okay now. I guess what made me feel guilty is that I saw more clearly another side, and I'm glad to be thusly edified: the young, clean-cut, nice-smelling, highly Westernized ones. All the telling watermarks are there: fashion-conscious/brand-conscious attire, burger-and-chips and ice tea consumption with friends (just all-male, though), clean salon-cut hair, and subdued talk. They could even be half-Filipino! I got a bit nervous though when the thought that they might be student-pilots struck me.


**

Islam and democracy

And, oh, Caffeine Sparks has something mucho informative and eye-opening about Islam and democracy. (Warning: highly scholarly language, complete with references and publication years)

**

Book review

Review of Michael Norman and Elizabeth M. Norman's "calm, stirring, and humane" book Tears in Darkness: "Revisiting Wartime: 66 Miles of Cruelty"- book review by Dwight Garner, New York Times

"There are many Japanese voices in "Tears in the Darkness." Mr. and Ms. Norman don't excuse Japan's actions, but place them in careful context. Japanese soldiers, they write, were the products of 'a closed world of violence where men were subjected to the most brutal system of army discipline in the world.' These soldiers 'had been savaged to produce an army of savage intent.'"

**

News

Is it a miracle that Colwich man survived? Colwich athlete's story catches eye of Vatican investigator

"English, the great multicultural endeavor"

This is a ghoti. That's the new English term for fish.



Related post: "English, the great multicultural endeavor" by Michael Brady

Stolen quotes:


"A long time ago, some wag concocted the word "ghoti," that is, "fish," which was composed of the /f/ sound of "gh" in "cough," the /i/ sound of "o" in "women," and the /sh/ sound of "ti" in any "tion" word.


>sigh<


How wrong-headed that complaint is."

**

"The English language is the world's greatest multicultural project. Any word can come from anywhere else and stay at any of five main English residences: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and interjections. (For structural reasons, the smaller English enclaves of pronouns, prepositions, and conjunctions are highly restricted—nobody's been in or out in a long looooong time.)

If you're a foreign word, you are free to come in—no immigration controls, no quotas, no visa restrictions. There are only a few rules: If you dress in a non-Latin alphabet, you'll have to change into Latin clothes; if you walk across the page from right to left, well, you'll have to do it the other way 'round; if you like to make odd sounds that aren't among the 45 or so English phonemes, then the natives will find some for you that sound almost the same."

Ha-ha!

Postcolonial trauma

(‘Psychoanalyzing’ the Philippines)

Nations are not persons, but we can do this, can’t we? I mean, psychoanalyze the Philippines? (After all, people comprise nations.) Well, let’s cut to the chase by noting the different symptoms of the syndrome that gives us away as the most dysfunctional country and society in Southeast Asia.

First off, there’s the traumatic separation from Mother Spain, which left us an orphan after more than three hundred years of European-style upbringing punctuated by child abuse (physical, verbal, emotional, psychological, even sexual, which gave rise to many mestizos (half-breeds, creoles) of mysterious provenance (possibly clerical)). Filled with Christian missionary zeal, they confused it with cultural hegemony, thus Hispanizing everything, from our names to our dishes and obliterating nativeness as wholly evil. This resulted in, among other things, Doña Victorina-strength colonial mentality. (Of course, we are not saying we didn’t get anything good in return (we did! lots of it!), but that’s beside the point.)

Then there’s the yet unexamined separation from our best friend, America, whose own arrogance and delusion to civilize and save us by introducing another version of God and philosophy gave us yet-unexamined wounds, not the least of which is a further-confused identity. It was a very unbalanced friendship, characterized by an opportunistic bacteria/manipulator-mendicant dynamics, which attained the worst level of toxicity when reports of a soldier treating a native like a pig made the rounds.

There’s the forced anal sex (yes, sodomy, bestiality) during the Japanese occupation, unspeakable suffering that had been repressed for decades until the few survivors left decided to speak up.

Next, there’s the gang rape by Marcos and his cronies, who systematically corrupted the bureaucracy, military, legislature, judiciary, and media, pillaged our forests and made lots of money off other natural resources (without benefiting the local stakeholdres that much), then robbed our treasury blind Akyat Bahay Gang-style. Imelda Marcos should be credited for boosting Pinoy pride big time, but her brilliant husband was too Janus-faced, scandalizing the thinking populace just the same. Embodying the best (global outlook/openness, etc.) and the worst ("pakikisama" mentality, etc.) in the Filipino, Marcos had the chance of moving the country forward but botched the job by giving in to ethical compromises, sowing widespread injustice and giving birth to communist insurgency, which further tormented Filipinos from an opposing ideological wind.

A moment of euphoria/jubilation during the original People Power Revolution made the Filipino “stand ten feet tall,” as the newspapers duly noted. But we were a victim of a really bad Erap joke during the reign of Erap Estrada. We can’t even recall the punch line.

We would see two premeditated versions of People Power become subject of much debate, making us all rally-weary. Technical term: people power fatigue.

Who knows what sorts of abuse we are suffering right now during the Arroyo administration? Let future historians-psychologists deal with that, but I can guess. Unabated corruption, military killings, Abu Sayyaf terror attacks, kidnappings, beheadings must bring in all sorts of dysfunctions among Filipinos: deep hate and anger, depression, frustration, anxiety, repression, suppression, insecurity, paranoia, claustrophobia, and especially "Islamophobia."

Of course, there were the pocket rebellions along the way, which have mutated in the 20th century in the form of military putschs or coups d’etat, which are a source of so many near-death experiences and panic attacks. At the mere sign of such dangers, we turn to panic-buying and immigration and other forms of phobic reactions.

Separation anxiety tears at the national consciousness from time to time. We have the creation of the Cordillera Administrative Region and the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. There’s the continuing desire for a Bangsa Moro (Moro Islamic Republic), which cheekily wants to claim the whole of Mindanao, plus Palawan too, even though the various indigenous animist tribes have long been in residence (though without the proper papers). Other talks of federalism secession (e.g., Republic of Cebu?) doesn’t help our sense of national well-being and sense of security.

Compounding all this besiegement is the spate of yearly natural disasters competing for attention. Result? Negative form of faithfulness (the fatalistic “bahala na” attitude).

All in all? What we have, I dare say, is a complex, a syndrome that they call “postcolonial traumatic” syndrome. Like a rape or trauma victim, we have developed toxic shame, and because of it, we blamed ourselves.This complicated monster includes egodystonia (split type of personality) and very low self-esteem (inferiority complex), resulting in a negative form of shame ("hiya") and sense of mediocrity ("pwede na yan"), among many other bad fruits including:

- a negative focus on suffering (e.g., celebration of death anniversaries instead of births; focus on Christ on the cross, but not the Risen one; full attendance during Lent masses but noticeable absence in Easter; etc.)
- victimhood (being stuck in I-am-a-helpless-victim mode and never getting out of the comfort zone)

I would go so far as to claim that there’s a degree of self-hate, resulting in masochism: we are always the first to put ourselves down, and we punish ourselves by subconsciously insisting on getting stuck with the old Marcosian ways, among other cruel forms of self-flagellation (like the bleeding 'Kristos' of Bataan and Pampanga).

The good news is we seem to be at the tail-end of national trauma, with the entry of generations without memories of Spanish colonization, Japanese brutality, Word War 1, World War 2, "conjugal dictatorship," etc. American cultural hegemony remains, but the new generations have witnessed unexpected falls (apartheid, Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain, the return of former remaining Western colonies to the nations, etc.), especially American-style capitalism. However, they admittedly will have to contend later on with the trauma of Muslim extremism, plus "military adventurism" (although the latter involves the hilarious scene of tanks barging into posh hotel lobbies). Historian-political analyst Manuel Quezon III has correctly noted, too, that the OFWs (overseas Filipino workers plus all Filipino immigrants and half-half hybrids) scattered all over the globe are set to bring the whole world into Philippine shores in many unprecedented ways.

What’s even more interesting to note is that we remain standing at all, after all that suffering. It’s a miracle! Mortally wounded in several battles, we are now a recovering self-hate addict.

Notice too that not one of our former colonizers, despite treating us as subjects, ever offered to repair the damage with some amount of citizenship benefits, the way, say, ancient Rome gave all Roman citizens the legal benefits of Roman citizenship. For example, we needed to beg on our knees to the Americans for decades just to procure the benefits due our World War II veterans. (President Obama finally gave in this year. It makes sense that it took a black man.)

Perhaps from the colonizers' imperialist view, we'd always be reminding them of their former conquest -- and eventual defeat. At present, they all seem to be in denial of the profound damage they each have wrought, Japan most especially.

Fortunately, the Filipino nation is a forgiver nation (an unconditional forgiver at that). It must be this singular reason that makes it a survivor of three-time inter-nation sex abuse.

A belated happy birthday, Pilipinas! Mabuhay!

Current mood: Socially distant

Dear friends, if I’ve been socially distancing myself from you lately, it’s not because of the virus. It’s because your friend the nerd has taken to reading again. I’ve finished Tennessee Williams's The Glass Menagerie (hauntingly sad) and Bertolt Brecht’s The Caucasian Chalk Circle (highly cerebral and criminally communist-socialist, but I survived, w00t), and revisited Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion (witty, entertaining writing). I regret skipping that copy of Annie Proulx’s Shipping News, which turned out to be a Pulitzer Prize winner, and a Maya Angelou title. Where can I find I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, an oft-analyzed work in the classroom? Oh, but I’m currently on-leave from my other online job. Too tired of it to take up a load for this semester.

I’ve also recently read Tim Lott’s investigative piece in Granta, “The Judgment of Lut.” It’s Islam + homosexuality + high-profile Hollywood character + sadomasochism = freakishness, grisliness. Lord, it’s more than I can bear. After reading, I replayed Charismatic songs in my head just to get rid of the story and be able to sleep well. I have a number of reservations about Lott’s psychoanalysis, but I agree that:

- masochism is self-hatred or self-punishment due to feelings of rejection;
- sadism is lust turning to anger, a sexually displaced desire for revenge (for some reason).
- personality dysfunctions or disorders are not mental illness.
- (I forgot to note in my post “What sex fetishes could mean” that porn addiction could mean an unconscious desire for an intimate lover or to be loved intimately, an imaginary love affair.)

I’m not sure I’d like to pursue this subject any further. Someone really capable should write a non-pornographic book on the subject of the psychological implications of sex fetishes and deviant sexual behavior. Oh, but most psychologists don’t think along these terms. They are too in denial themselves.

**

Conversation with V.

Me: If I could change my nationality, I’d choose to be French. For their culture, art, language, writing, their way of life.

V: You do? But the French stink.

Me: They do?

(At this point, I suddenly recoiled into a monologue.

Me: Rich said the Germans and Italians stink too.

Me: But don’t they all? But I guess not as bad as the Indians and the Middle Easterners?

Me: I can probably take the stench. Or maybe not.

Me: It must be that the body odor is just because of the spice. Maybe it’s more of a form of allergic reaction of the body to organic toxins than a bacterial or hygienic issue. That’s my theory.

Me: Anyway, I can’t imagine any other nationality that I’d like to be. American? Well, almost, but I’m embarrassed by the Americans’ unreliable brand of morality.

Me: I guess Filipino would still be it for me, with its attendant shame and all.

The RH debate continues here

Please address all your rebuttals (minus the irrational name-calling) to this blog: Fight the RH Bill. See you there!