Afternoon At The Museum

Having seen the announcement at Facebook (social media saves the day), Art and I made sure to block off a date when we would go to the National Museum. We have never set foot in it - if I have as a student, that memory has certainly been banished from memory - and it dawned on both of us that while we actively try to see the museums of other countries when we travel, we have never done it here.

A waived entrance fee means you have no reason not to go.

Our first concern was parking, since Manila is a city notoriously known for having cramped streets and, for motorists, a scarcity of places to park. We were (surprisingly) allowed to park right in front of the Museum, for free.

The facade of the Museum reminded me of Palma Hall in UP Diliman, or any other building (most, anyway) in UP that was facing the Sunken Garden, which had a grand, old feel: wide columns, high ceiling, stairs that seem to lead you to even more grandeur. Thankfully, most parts of the Museum had a cooling system, as it was sweltering that day. When you enter, leave your bags at the counter at the right, and also sign up to log in as a guest for the day. You can only bring in your wallet, cellular phone and camera; everything else must be left at the baggage counter.

The security personnel (who also acts as an information booth of sorts) tells us that the Museum consists of three buildings: the National Art Museum, the Museum of the Filipino People, and the Planetarium (which I remember clearly as being part of our field trip in elementary school, so I guess I did go to the National Museum when I was younger).

With the visual arts, I have to confess that words do not do them justice. I will let the art works speak by themselves. Our camera battery gave way in the midst of our walking tour so the pictures here are in no way representative of the totality of the collection we have.

Owing to the lack of camera battery power, we could only take pictures until this exhibit. Our feet hurt only when we stopped to think about the time - it's easy to get lost in this world (in a good way), especially when you read the descriptions of why a painting came into existence, or the story behind the cannon found in the middle of the room.

You can (obviously) take pictures, with the proviso that no flash photography is allowed - which explains why most of these shots seem like they were taken in the dark, literally. One quibble we had was that there seemed to be no "guide" - e.g. a suggestion where to start your museum tour. I suppose some people find that best - they can go to any exhibit at any time they please - but for first timers, it would be helpful to give some kind of structure or flow as to how to begin this journey.

We thoroughly enjoyed this chance to revisit periods past, and some parts explained our very present. I don't need to quote Santayana here, in order for anyone to see the value in studying our past. One hopes that, as a city that seems to disregard old edifices and landmarks, we can rally our officials to preserve our heritage and works of art.

The museum is not charging anything this month - let's repeat that, it's free admission the whole month of October 2012. Go, soak in our culture, and let it revive in you a wonder for our own heritage.

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

Bonus question: Can you guess which of the pictures above is a representation of Tandang Sora?

The Pink Sibuyas In The Room

Would this be an apt first post, right after the Cybercrime Prevention Act (CPA) has taken effect?

Probably not.

Yes, the tears are expected.

(Courtesy of indiamart.com)

But before you turn away, maybe you can hear me out. You see, while the Act is legal in nature, my observation will border on the cultural. This was actually something that was impressed on us in Social Studies class back when I was in elementary school, something that I have found to be true with each working day of my life, and was at the back of my mind until I heard two news items today.

Christopher Lao, a law student back then when he gained national prominence, supports the CPA.

(See: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/10/03/12/you-are-informed-chris-lao-backs-anti-cybercrime-law)

Celebrities like Sharon Cuneta, Regine Velasquez and Ciara Sotto also support the same measure.

(See: http://www.interaksyon.com/entertainment/sharon-regine-ciara-support-cybercrime-law/)

It led to me to find the common thread between the three fields where these personalities became known: Senator Sotto, currently in politics, was for the longest time a variety show host and actor. Christopher is from the legal profession (he is now a lawyer), while the three ladies are from the entertainment business.

At first glance - probably moreso to someone not from our country - this would seem like a diverse mix, that a politician, a lawyer and entertainers would find common ground, rallying behind a single piece of legislation. (My gut feel is that we in this country are now desensitized from the fusion of the political and entertainment fields. This warrants actual research, so if you know of one, please do let me know.)

So, what is it that binds them together?

My observation is that all of them were in some way, and somehow, made fun of, ridiculed, criticized, even to the point of being villified, albeit with different reasons, but with a similar fate. In short, they all underwent public crucifixion, most notably over cyberspace.

Senator Sotto is no stranger to controversy, being one of the staunchest critics of the Reproductive Health Bill. (Important note: PLEASE VOTE ON THE RH BILL NOW, SENATORS.) It was when he was delivering his speeches about that bill, when it was alleged that he plagiarized parts of his speech from different bloggers. One of them, Sarah Pope, directly called him out on this.

Netizens being netizens, it was a field day to make satirical and humorous posts about this incident. I have read an observation that because of Martial Law in the 70's, it honed us as a people to retaliate against authorities using humor and sarcasm, because an outright confrontation might mean someone's mortality. I am inclined to believe that this is the same phenomenon, since citizens are not in a position to make parliamentary speeches - uninterrupted - the way a senator has the privilege of doing so.

It prompted Sotto to verbally say in one of his speeches that (to paraphrase him) online commenters and critics would soon have to guard and watch what they say and post.

I don't follow local showbiz, but even I was aware that Sharon, known as the Megastar, figured in a public tussle with some fans online, regarding the state of her daughter KC's ended relationship with a hearthrob. And there have been many disparaging remarks about her weight, as well. Apparently, Regine has had to field some online comments about her son, and Ciara did post a buzz-worthy tweet, which I found understandable, because when she posted this, her father was already getting a lot of flak publicly.

Christopher, of course, became an overnight sensation, but in a negative sense: his famous line, "I was not informed!" when he drove his car over a flooded area raised a lot of heckles and jeers online, and spawned off many posters and jokes.

Fast forward to now: depending on which news article you read, Senator Sotto was responsible for inserting the now-talked-about libel provision in the CPA, or he is adamant in denying that he was responsible for its inclusion.

And I was not at all surprised when Christopher and the three entertainers now voice support for the CPA. It goes back to what I was taught: hiya, shame, is a powerful concept in dictating the way we, as a people, relate with each other, and guides the way our relationships - filial, business, romantic - run their course, to a significant extent. (It's something I find we share with our Asian neighbors.)

We revel in the indirect route, and do not relish those who are frank, to the point and forthright. Those who choose to do so run the risk of being called bastos (rude), and it will find cultural support. There is a preoccupation with taking care not to offend another person's sentiments, to the point that sometimes, we prefer uncomfortable silences, leading to so many mixed messages as a result, in order to allow each party to "save face".

Which is why, with their reputations raked over cyberspace, it would but seem natural that those on the receiving end of public scrutiny and ridicule would find solace in each other.

At the end of the day, no one wants to be skewered for all of cyberspace to see.

I do have to say this, though: those in public office, entertainment and people who consent to being interviewed on television should understand that when they volunteered to be where they are at - yes, it is a choice, not one "forced" on you - they will receive feedback, and invariably, not all of them will be pleasant to hear or digest. If the notion of getting flak as a result of "doing what you do" is too much to bear, you may need to ask yourself if the cons outweigh the benefits.

As someone who has maintained a blog for some time now, I readily admit that when I received my first negative response to something I wrote, it stopped me more than I expected to, and with the same reason that Sharon gave (see link): it was under a pseudonym, so I could not really see who I was responding to, and given that s/he sent me words dipped in bile and coated with acid, it did affect me.

But when I looked at my collective responses, and I can now confidently and quantitatively say that there are more people who agree with or support my point of view, or dissent with respect and with good reasons to, than those who make snide remarks (often attacking emotionally and not on the basis of what I have written), I chalk it up to the fact that not everyone will like what I've written, and that is just fine.

Who am I to dictate to people how they feel after reading something, or how they react? Hell, I write my posts with the hope of getting some discourse and reactions going, and possibly a fruitful exchange of ideas. I will have no chance of getting that if I insist that we all have a one-track mind.

That is why I choose not to focus on my feelings of offense - believe me, they happen - and I try to dissect it and see why it is I felt offended. And part of what I know is that, no matter how hard you try, some people will hate your guts, with no logic, rhyme or reason. It could be the way you look, or how nauseated they feel when you open your mouth - it doesn't have to make sense, but guess what?

That is their right, and under their control.

Just as letting it affect you is also under your control.

But, hey, that's just me.

Kuh Ledesma: Artist...Censor?

That's the thought bubble I had hearing the latest utterance from Kuh Ledesma, one of OPM's (Original Pilipino Music) stalwarts in a recent news item.

Nationalism. The Kuh way.

(Courtesy of geotayo.com)

"Kung ako ang tatanungin, kung ako ang president, dapat limitado talaga. Kasi, nakikita ko talaga na kapag sinuportahan natin ang mga Pilipino, talagang lalawak ang bayan natin." (If I will be asked, if I was the president, it should be limited. What I see is that when we support our own, our country will really improve.)

(See more here: http://www.interaksyon.com/entertainment/kuh-ledesmas-cry-to-limit-foreign-acts-draws-mixed-reactions/  )

In case you're wondering what it is she thinks should be "limited", it is to curb the entry of foreign musical acts into the country (presumably to perform in concerts and sell their records), for the sake of, and in the service of some version of "nationalism".

The oddest thing about this situation is that I would think that an artist, of all professions, would be abhorrent and unequivocally against the idea of censorship: So the solution she proposed is to simply ban foreign acts?

Where does it end?

Should we also stop Korea-novelas - not the "best" representative of a stellar foreign example of art, but they are being devoured by local consumers as evidenced by their ubiquitousness - as well from being shown on TV, since they prevent locally produced shows - such as they are - from being more malawak? (have more reach)

Should Indian restaurants be closed down because they threaten to overshadow Filipino cuisine? (Side note: Andrew Zimmern, host of a food/travel show, thinks our cuisine is the Next Big Thing. Should America stop him from saying that, because it may impede the spread of American fast food world wide?)

Should we ban a sculpture, a painting, a piece of literature, produced elsewhere but the Philippines?

Again, where does it end? This has always been the problem of censorship. It opens the floodgates for more disturbing scenarios, than the one it purportedly wants to "save".

How would our local performers feel, if they applied to foreign productions or films, and were rebuffed not on the basis of lack of talent, but after showing so much of it, would simply be told "Sorry, we can't get someone from another country...you know, for nationalism reasons"? (In the same link to the news item, Isay Alvarez defends her stint in Miss Saigon. And in spectacularly laughable fashion.)

Should they have banned Lea as well?

(Courtesy of waukeshacivictheatre.org)

Besides, we have seen this so-called "nationalism" take place: one week in December, all residents of this country have no choice but to pay a local movie producer if they want to watch a movie in a theatre. It's called the Metro Manila Film Festival, an attempt to supposedly shore up support for the local film industry by snuffing out foreign competition.

Yes, it achieves that purpose, it really lines up the coffers of local film outfits, because people have no choice. Other than not going to a movie.

Let's make an example of last year's topgrosser: a film by present-day Senator Bong Revilla. (A senator with another job - something I will tackle in a future post.)

He acted (and I understand also produced) in a film that was fantasy-action in genre. It bragged about its "special effects" - which was roundly ridiculed in cyberspace for one stark reason: the graphics of the fantasy monsters and characters seemed to be "lifted" from a foreign film of the same genre, Clash Of The Titans.

This is our best response?

(Courtesy of pinoysuperheroesuniverse.blogspot.com)

That makes a mockery of the entire "point" of holding the festival: you are given a week to sell to people the idea that our local films can stand on their own, and the best we can do is to copy a rehashed concept from a foreign film, using the exact same character/costume/idea?

This is an increasingly smaller world because of the myriad of ways we can now connect and share information with practically everyone else on the planet. We should not fight the future, unless we are prepared to live with the consequences of obstinately clinging to misguided forms of "patriotism" that shut out ideas instead of welcoming them, instead of using them in ways that enhance our own art, food and our very lives.

In the marketplace of ideas that are free-wheeling and free-flowing, the test of an idea's appeal and longevity is whether it can stand scrutiny in the face of other competing ideas. No one wins when the solution becomes to prevent other ideas - or performances - from seeing the light of day, or showing up in our concert venues.

We're not even discussing how this proposal infringes on one's personal preferences or tastes.

I'm not prepared to have Anne Curtis on endless loop in my music player.

Why The Iwa Moto "Rampage" Is Noteworthy

Not being a follower of local showbiz, I only know of the name Iwa Moto because I still go to book stores (something of a dying breed?) and I remember seeing this particular "entertainer" on the cover of a "men's magazine" practically wearing nothing. The thought bubble I had at the time was, if you added some letters and spaces, her name would read as Iwanan Mo To (leave this body/person).

Leaving nothing for imagination. Nothing at all.

(Courtesy of eligio.com/FHM)

Her name is now trending over Twitter because of a supposed "war" with another local actress, Jodi Sta. Maria (who I know as a milk commercial actress, not being particularly knowledgeable about her filmography). Arthur also posted a news link about the topic on his Facebook Wall - if news outfits consider this newsworthy, we are in deep doo-doo - and I find pop culture fascinating so I decided to read what coverage there is about the feud.

After reading through a lot of "news", this "battle" is noteworthy (as opposed to being newsworthy) from a pop culture perspective because of the insights it provides about media consumers and as an inkblot of what we now consider as acceptable.

1. Convolutions of the telenovela type will sell.

This is how the plotlines of local drama series known as telenovelas get their mileage: the mother of the main character happens to be the best friend of the daughter of the man who raped the main character, and is now in love with the man's estranged son, who also happens to be the son of her own mother from a dalliance she had with the man who raped the main character.

Get it?

While I don't, here's how I understand the Iwa thing.

Iwa and Jodi aren't friends or talk to each other. Iwa used to have a boyfriend, a father named Mickey. Jodi used to be married to Pampi Lacson, with whom they have a son Thirdy. (I remember the name of the kid from the milk commercial.) Iwa claims that Jodi had an affair with her then boyfriend Mickey while she was already married to Pampi, and while Mickey admitted the affair, Jodi denied it. Fast forward to last week, when Iwa posted a picture of herself with Pampi and Thirdy, and then gets accused of being a "homewrecker", so Iwa comes out to say that she was in no way the cause of the separation of Jodi and Pampi, that she loves taking care of Thirdy, and she has the truth on her side while she makes kwento about Jodi's past affair, and why Jodi can't supposedly sue her for libel while she is free to sell her side of the story.

Get it?

2. Politics and Showbiz are partners.

While I have not heard of Pampi as a candidate for anything, his last name is certainly a bell-ringer: his father is Sen. Panfilo Lacson, one of the more well-known senators of the country, who was recently MIA because of certain, uh, things, but has now resurfaced, and also recently, a judge in Corona's impeachment trial.

Iwa (someone invested in local showbiz tells me) got her break from some reality contest talent search, took on some bit roles, resorted to skimpy clothing when her career wasn't really going anywhere, and is now moving to another station, so the timing of her "pasabog" is seen as an attention-getter to announce her change of employment address.

These two getting together is really part of a long line of couples who have come from each of the respective worlds of politics and showbiz.

3. Legal separation is not a requirement.

So you have a kid. So you're still legally married. So what? No one can stop the crackling flames of passion that singes and burns, at least not according to the gospel of the Book of Iwa.

Apparently, this is how people read a separation. I personally know of at least 10 women who are seeing men still legally married to their wives, or are themselves still legally married to their husbands, who are dating other people because hiwalay naman na kami, eh. (We are already separated)

Does a marriage contract mean absolutely NOTHING? When I hear about these Iwa-like situations, it makes me laugh to hear homophobes accusing gay people of trying to ruin the "sanctity of marriage" who just want the right to marry. What sanctity?!? You're not even legally separated or annulled - and with kids yet! - but you jump to the next man/woman/bed and can't keep it in your pants until the annulment is final!

And you even flaunt it in our faces...Kesyo it's true love. It's real this time. You just know when it feels right. They have long been separated in heart and mind, it's just too expensive to have the annulment. And so on and so forth.

It doesn't change the fact that you're carrying on with someone else's husband or wife.

If any lawyers can send inputs here, please do.

4. The Rise Of The Mistress

Time was when you spoke of mistresses in hushed tones. Time was when it was considered "shameful" that you had a part to play in breaking up someone's marriage - or preventing a broken marriage from healing because of your presence. I'm not speaking from a religious perspective, but from a point of decency and allowing legally married people a chance to get their act together, seek therapy if needed, and to legally call it an end if all avenues have been exhausted.

That time is no more.

Mistresses today actually flaunt how much bags, shoes, or property their "partners" have bought them as opposed to the pittance he spends on their actual wives. They are seen in photo-ops with their politically powerful partners. They are the ones who take the children from the legal marriage to school.

If you are carrying on with someone who is not legally separated, then that makes you a mistress, period. (And in case you're thinking I'm being sexist by harping on the woman and not on the man, my reason is simple: the guy doesn't flaunt it - usually - but the woman, like in this instance, Iwa, tries to paint it as a "good thing" and verbally and vocally parades this perception of hers.)

5. Carry Yourself. Well.

Throughout this brouhaha, I have not heard a single peep out of Jodi. And frankly, that makes the perception of the long-suffering legal wife even more potent.

Iwa has gone on this media blitz, challenging Jodi to file a libel case against her for supposedly revealing things in the (sordid) past. It is on this premise - that she holds the truth - that Iwa stands by her actions, that she is now having her "revenge" because Jodi allegedly carried on with her then-boyfriend.

One of her statements regarding Jodi was: Pwede kita idikdik pababa.

Okay...

I don't know if Iwa is saying the truth (I'm so glad I'm not a judge who has to determine the veracity of everyone's statements), but it doesn't make her actions of airing dirty laundry less tacky or unseemly. Particularly since a minor is involved in all of this.

Isn't there some kind of legal provision that protects the child in situations like this?

Like an inkblot, the Iwa "thing" reveals where we are now.

It's depressing, to say the least.

What Does This Ad Campaign Convey?

Was the percentage rounded off?

(Courtesy of muirneg-onelife.blogspot.com)

This ad campaign from a local clothing store caught my attention yesterday from my Facebook News Feed. I have treated advertisements as a gauge of (what advertising companies think is) the pulse of consumers and what they find appealing, and this is no exception to the general conclusion I have observed for quite some time now: having foreign lineage assures you of a career in local advertising campaigns.

One can argue that there is no "pure race", but this campaign had an accompanying text that raised more uhhh... moments than made the intention clear.

 Eugenics, the ad version.

(Courtesy of muirneg-onelife.blogspot.com)

It starts out by asking what your mix is. Personally, I have been mistaken for Chinese and Japanese, but there is no doubt what my nationality is.

It then talks about "mixing and matching", with both nationalities and fashion pieces in the same category.

Most days I wear my black pair of jeans, but sometimes I will choose my white jogging pants for a day that will be "sporty". Is this what the ad agency had in mind for "mixing nationalities"? What if I wasn't happy with the "result"? Should one keep searching to find "the right blend"? Does this mean I also get to have a different "match" during the day and a completely different one for the night, the way I would change my getup based on the time of day?

The next statement was "mixing...with Filipino blood is almost a sure formula for someone beautiful and world class."

What would be the reverse statement for this then? That is if there is no "mix", if one was a 100% "pure" Filipino, the resulting equation is someone hideous and lacking "world class"?

The ad goes on to say that "Having Filipino lineage is definitely something to be proud of", without expounding on why this is supposed to be stated as a fact. And it runs counter to their extolling the virtues of "mixing" with "different nationalities" earlier.

The neurosis continues when they ask people to BUY FILIPINO, while having models who, by their own admission - with specific percentages to back it up - are anything but 100% Filipino.

I don't need a headache this early in the morning.

Packets And Prada

No, this isn't the name of a cafe latching on to the renowned luxury brand.

Unlimited supply?

(Courtesy of thehairpin.com)

It is a tasteful way of regaling events that happened in the most untasteful way.

Taking my caffeine-seeking constitutional to one of my favorite haunts, I placed myself at a corner where there would be the least amount of customers passing by. The only downside was that the station where the cream and sugar packets were available was near it. It was a choice of either that, or staying where the people line up to place and get their orders. (It's a small place, but it has free wi-fi. Cost-benefit analysis. And the coffee is good.)

As with most coffee places, conversation was plentiful but hushed and huddled. There is the occassional loudmouth with their "look-at-me" disposition, and unfortunately for me, this would be one of those days.

A woman of almost 50 entered with her kids (two of them) in tow, as well as a couple of friends. She "casually" announced her new purchase - meaning with no subtelty at all - a bag from Prada. While parading across the entire coffee shop, she loudly mentions that she hates the seats of the only available table, "walang sandalan, mahihirapan ako!" (The chairs have no back rest, it will be difficult!)

As expected, they were a noisy group. She seemed to be the Alpha in this cluster, as they would wait for her to start a topic before giving their commentaries on any subject she tossed. (What a day to forget bringing my earphones.)

After a while, I noticed that she got up and excused herself from the group. She then went close to where I was seated, and started getting numerous packets of cream and sugar, enveloping them with her almost pudgy hands, then proceeds to place her loot into her by-now-well-introduced Prada bag.

The image of her earlier statements professing an air of sophistication was jarring to this recent action, to say the least. The act of trying to get these packets to "take home" when you've practically bragged how much you are spending for a bag is, to put it mildly, unseemly.

And, as is often the case with these kinds of individuals, they manage to eke out an even deeper level of incredulity in myself.

She proceeded to go back and forth to the same station four more times, getting more and more packets with each run, that I was tempted to give her a few pesos to ensure that she can buy an entire whole bag of sugar along with another bag of those individually wrapped creamers, which she obviously adores.

It's disconcerting to see this phenomenon. Unfortunately, it isn't isolated.

I once witnessed a guy of about 30, with his family in tow, in Burger King. This was when they still allowed public access to their vending machine, because they had a policy of "unlimited drinks", where you could just buy a plastic cup and refill your choice of softdrinks or apple juice all you want.

He proceeded to the vending machine with his Coleman container, and filled it up to the brim with softdrinks. He went back to where his baby's carriage was, proceeded to get another Coleman container, and this time, filled it up with artificial apple juice, much to the consternation of the restaurant manager, who did not lack in giving him the evil eye, but was rebuffed by feigned indifference.

Incidents like this must have prompted the management to change their policy on refillable drinks: they now place the machine behind the counter, and you have to ask a server to get you the drink of your choice. In the proper cup provided.

I've also witnessed people in Wendy's when they order the Make Your Own Salad item on the menu. You are normally given a plate for one person, go to the Salad Bar, and put as much items as you want. In this case, some people read it as "as much as you can", so this is what I've seen at least thrice: They get the provided plate, which they then place on a tray. The tray is them lined with lots of tissue paper, covering every available space.

They then proceed to get as much items from the Salad Bar and place these on the tray, not the plate.

Talk about getting more than your money's worth.

That's exactly what this is about: a combination of selfishness as well as nakaisa ako (I put one over you). I've noticed this pride - however misplaced - from these individuals who feel they are "beating the system": Who cares if others paid full price for a set deal, I'm going to fix it so that I "win"!

This extends into almost anything that can be considered "broken" with our culture.

I get paid in full, even if I report late and leave work early, the boss is too stupid to notice, anyway.

I'm in a hurry, who cares about this one way street sign, there are no cops and I have a party to go to!

Since my salary is so low, let me just get this office equipment, and write it off as a "fringe benefit"...what? No one uses this machine anyway!

If you add the "woe is me" view so prevalently ingrained in our culture, it is a potentially dangerous mix of people acting under the misguided assumption that life - everyone and everything else - owes them something because of their "situation" and trying to "beat the house" with a false sense of righteousness.

Yes, I got all that from the woman stuffing her Prada bag with packets of cream and sugar.

What Happened One Holy Friday

Would you force a vegetarian to eat meat?

(Courtesy of en.wikipedia.org)

I asked this question to my mom more than two decades ago. I was confronted with a situation that first exposed me to a side of religion I was not made aware of, but proved to be a defining moment for me why I have all these uneasy feelings about outward displays of religiosity.

Holy Week activities as a child consisted of going out of town with relatives or family friends. Please take note that I was raised as a non-Catholic so I don't have any idea what people (Catholics in particular) mean when they talk about concepts like the Eucharist (although I must admit a fascination with the concept of transubstantiation). Whenever this particular four-day holiday would come around, I knew well enough to remember to pack the suntan lotion, some beach or swimming wear, and the salbabida (lifesaver).

It was in one such "outing" and holiday that I knew what it meant to be a vegetarian being forced to ingest "the dead, unpleasant carcass resulting from brutal violence", as a vegetarian friend once described meat consumed.

We were at a rest house of a family friend. We swam at the pool, horsed around with the other children. Then I heard the bell.

It was a signal to pray. Specifically, it was an in-house version of the Stations of the Cross. We were all tasked to surround a replica of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus, as well as another replica of a bloodied Jesus Christ. It all sounded like a slow, droning monotonous chanting that went on and on. Thankfully, since I was one of the last one out of the pool, my mom and I were situated at the back of the pack.

I then turned to her after a few minutes of witnessing this.

"Mom, what are we doing? How come everyone knows what to say but us?"

"Shhh. Lower your voice."

I responded as she requested. "So, I still don't get it. What are we doing?"

My mom turns to me and says "We are doing a Catholic ritual. But instead of going out, we are doing it here at their (family friend) home."

I ponder this bit of information, then asked her: "But...we're not Catholic, right? Didn't you tell me that bowing down before a graven image was explicitly condemned in the Bible?"

"Shhh. Quiet."

"We're still doing it."

She turns to me and pulls me over to a side that was near a corner, almost hidden from everyone's view. "Yes, I know. Yes, I've told you what I've told you, it's still condemned. But we are guests at their house. we have to obey their rules and do what they do."

"Isn't that wrong? Why should we do Catholic rituals if we're not Catholic? What if someone broke all those graven images because it was against what we believe?"

"Those statues aren't ours. So we don't have a right to break them."

"But they also don't have the right to ask us to pray a prayer we don't believe in, right?"

"Look. Just go along, nod your head, and we will get through this like nothing happened."

"But that's like forcing meat down someone who doesn't eat it. Aren't they forcing us to do something against our religion?"

"Basta. Keep quiet. Take my lead, don't make a scene, and don't ask these questions to our host."

We went back to the back of the pack. There were lighted candles, there was usage of rosaries, some people knelt on the hard concrete. More prayers and unintelligible mumblings  from the others. (I was straining to hear what everyone else was saying, I really couldn't catch it.)

Right after, our hostess told us that it was time for dinner. I noticed that it was all vegetables, and someone had a special fish dish prepared, none of which were particularly palatable to a child at my age that time. So I asked my mom if there were any hotdogs.

The hostess looks straight at me sternly, and says, "Oh, no. We don't consume meat during Holy Week. It's a time of sacrifice and reflection. Besides, it's rude not to eat what a host serves you."

Apparently, she overheard the conversation my mom and I had.

My mom looked at me and gave me a look that signaled me to just eat my food.

Later that night, as I got up to get a glass of water, I espied a group of men playing cards and having a grand time - and slurred speech from the amount of liquor consumed. I also saw the hostess who told me off smoking a cigarette near their laundry area (which I had a view of on the way to the bathroom).

So much for sacrifice and reflection, I guess.

We never went back to that rest house.

And we were never invited again.

That is what happened one Holy Friday, more than twenty years ago.

A Little Ethical Question

If someone heading an organization is the subject of an investigation, and that organization (anyone and maybe even everyone in it) may be asked questions and be made to render facts as a matter of investigation, is it ethical for the head of that organization to stay in position while the investigation is going on?

I am lead to ask this question because right now, we have two instances of this phenomenon happening right before our eyes like a political telenovela.

The more obvious example would be the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona, as it has been going on for weeks.

A more recent addition to this would be the case of PAGCOR chief Cristino Naguiat, Jr., who was recently named as a recipient of "various perks" by Steve Wynn, owner of Wynn Resorts, alleging that Naguiat received hotel accommodations ($6000 a night) and that his wife was also given an expensive designer handbag (which he denied in last night's news telecast), all for the "oiling" of permits for Japanese businessman Kazuo Okada to put up a gaming resort-cum-complex in the country. (Wynn also named former PAGCOR chief Efraim Genuino as accepting gifts from Okada.)

(Photo courtesy of watchpinoytube.com)

(See more here: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/27/12/pagcor-chief-refuses-resign)

While it is nominally seen as Steve Wynn's attempts to protect his own gambling empire's profits (in Macau), Naguiat himself admitted that he did stay in the hotel paid for by Okada, but only because it was "standard industry practice".

Excuse me?


Section 7 (d) of Republic Act No. 6713 clearly states: "Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office."

(See entire Republic Act here: http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno6713.htm)

Let's apply the parts of this Section to Naguiat's case.

Naguiat is a public official. Check. (Appointed, but public.)

He accepted the hotel room stay, and admitted this. Check.

Hotel room costing $6000 is "anything of monetary value". Check.

He was being asked to approve permits for a possible venture of a private businessman, which falls under "in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office." Check.

Mas maliwanag pa sa sikat ng araw na labag sa panukalang ito ang ginawa ni Naguiat. (It is clearer than the rising of the sun that what Naguiat did is exactly what this provision says is not allowed by law.)

For Naguiat to say it is "standard business practice" is something I consider as a flimsy and weak attempt to justify his taking on the hotel room.

For the Congressional Committee on Games and Amusement to say the exact same thing - "standard business practice" - is a sad commentary: Our own lawmakers accept bribery and corrupt practices as a matter of course.

Pres. Aquino would be hard pressed to continue his tuwid na daan (on the straight path) goals, the way he uses it to hit Corona, if he does not apply that same standard to his own appointees. What makes it more imperative is that Naguiat is an old classmate of Aquino, and produces more ethical dilemma.

Which brings us back to the "little" ethical question: Should both Corona and Naguiat stay in their posts - how telling that both are appointed, and both refuse to leave - while they are the subject of investigations?

My own code of ethics says this is highly unethical.

(1) The person in question has to ensure to investigators that he cannot tamper with any evidence that may be used in determining his culpability, which is obviously in his purview and control as the head of the said organization which he heads. To this end, I would also posit that ANY contact (verbal, through telephone, internet, an emissary) with any employee of the said organization should be disallowed/prohibited while the investigation is going on, as a person does not have to be physically present in order to instigate a cover up of any misdeeds, and any and all contact to his files and papers related to the performance of his duties should be suspended.

(2) The continued presence of the accused head of the organization within the organization makes it difficult to extract honest, objective responses from people who may be asked to shed accounts on their knowledge of the person in question. This can fall under the Observer's Paradox in the social sciences - the observation of an event or experiment is affected by the presence of others, especially if their boss falls under "the others". Knowing fully well that their responses may "come back to bite them" should the accused be cleared of the charges, they may opt to provide "safe" answers in order to ensure their own continued existence in the organization whichever way the judgement swings.

My parents had a simpler way of articulating these two points: "Huwag kang gagawa ng anumang bagay na magbibigay duda sa pagkatao mo."

Which really bears repeating for our public officials, especially in the conduct of their duties.

Do not do anything that will cast even a sliver of doubt on your character.

Are Maids Considered Cattle?

Walking to work yesterday, I espied a matrona who seems to have made Victorina from Noli Me Tangere her model and aspiration: Despite having Filipina features, I wager she must have ingested at least 10 bottles of Glutathione pills (the alabaster tone of her skin was discolored and seemed...artificial), the hair piled up and colored in copper brown, and was dressed in what I can sumrise to be very expensive clothing.

Tagging along with her in hand was her daughter (she called the older woman "Mom" so this isn't conjecture on my part) who was in a rather skipping, jovial mood, dressed in her school uniform.

And behind them was their maid.

(Photo courtesy of abpan.com)


Dressed in an all white uniform - collared, ironed well, short sleeved, buttoned in front, with matching white pants, and white shoes, the maid was carrying around six shopping bags, plus the child's school bag, and Victorina's handbag. (The maid wasn't more than 5'2" and would give Kate Moss a run for Emaciated Look of the Year.)

I just find the uniform so pretentious.

I can't find a way to justify around or over my assessment: It seems to me that the uniform is a form of cattle branding, a way to say to everyone in public, "This is our maid, and yes, the uniform means she's ours."

The maid doesn't go into an office with hundreds of other employees, so the line that "it's for identification purposes" is a big bag of hooey.

I've seen these uniformed maids in restaurants, malls, etc.; in one particular instance, the entire family was seated on a round table, with a lazy Susan serving meals, and the maid was standing beside the infant in the group, feeding him, while she herself didn't get any food. (They arrived later than our party and left earlier so I knew for certain that she wasn't fed.)

And even for those families who do "allow" their uniformed maids to eat and sit with them, the uniform is a sticking point - remember that song from Sesame Street, the one that goes "One of these things is not like the others..."? The uniformed maid stands out conspicuously with the label "our helper".

Would it be so hideous and unthinkable if maids were allowed to dress themselves freely?

Why the uniforms?

Can anyone tell me any reason that will change my mind about this phenomenon being a modern form of "ownership"? (Not to mention something reeking of the nouveau riche label all over it.)

I'm almost expecting the next uniformed maid I see to have a bell around her neck and mooing to her "owners".

This is one time I really hope to be proven wrong.

I Don't Hate The MMFF

I can't hate something I don't feel strongly passionate about.

Let's be honest here: If you think I'm anti-Pinoy, then a look at this year's 2011 MMFF (Metro Manila Film Mestival) entries will give you a good indication why.

(Photo courtesy of chikkadora.com)


An action hero in a special effects extravaganza, a role handed to the lead actor as some kind of legacy, a voyeuristic heirloom, passing the torch (some would argue the belch) from father to son. Which would be par for the course, since in real life, the father and son both held the same position in government. (And they say the movies aren't realistic.)

Another melodrama starring an actress from my childhood, Maricel Soriano. (I haven't seen/heard about her in quite awhile, so it's refreshing to see her in this lineup, as the current movies and TV shows exhibited locally keep on showcasing the same "actors" and "actresses" over and over and over and over...until we switch to commercials and we see the exact same "models" over and over and over and over.)

Two successful (and by success I mean in monetary terms solely) franchises in filmfest history, the Enteng Kabisote "fairy tales" of Vic Sotto (is he also in the running for the game show host with the longest life span?) and the Ina Mo series from Ai Ai de las Alas have joined forces this time around. They (or their producers) must have heard the "common wisdom" line in showbiz circles: when a celebrity pairs up with another celebrity, their fame multiplies.

A horror movie franchise that has been with me since my high school years, Shake, Rattle and Roll. I was surprised to hear that we're only up to number 13. I guess they needed to use Once Upon A Time In China as their benchmark, which as I remembered lasted till 10 or 11. That's a lot of "once upon a time" to go around. And I'm always puzzled why they release this at Christmas time - are they just going "against the holidays"? It's either that, or they're gunning for the receipts.

The Presidential sister in "her" genre. When I saw the trailer on TV, as she was opening the closet and water came rushing to engulf her, I thought midway: (a) her scream sounded like she saw all her TV shows taken away; (b) there isn't a single acting bone or DNA on her, so she must know The Emperor's New Clothes by heart; and (c) I thought she promised to go away when her brother was elected?

The only two films I am holding out hope for - in place of pride in local cinema, I'm left grasping for any reason to believe that anything of substance will come out of it still - are the entries that aren't "fantasy" flicks: Manila Kingpin and My Househusband. One is a look at a notorious warlord, the other is a reversal of gender roles.

I've only seen one of them, and hopefully I will complete seeing the other one this week.

Two things I wish to let the producers of these films know - and as a consumer, my voice is just as valid as anyone else's, so stop hounding me for film credits or asking if I've ever directed a movie.

One, placing all these movies side by side, and force feeding them to the public under the guise of "saving local cinema" (for these 2 weeks, foreign films are banned from being shown in theaters) only highlights the mediocrity that local cinema coughs up as "films". In a festival that is supposed to celebrate "the best" in Filipino filmmaking, we are constrained to choose movies that make us hurl the least.

And two: Quality does not recognize race. If a film is good or, pray tell, even great, it's good or great because the film is good or great, and not because the actors/directors/producers were Filipino, or Armenian, or Latin Americans. A film that has merits will stand up to "Hollywood blockbusters" - now there's another industry spawning off mindless flicks. (Just with better looking actors. And even that point is debatable.)

You have just wasted an opportunity, a golden one, to use film and art as a medium to challenge, inspire and make people think, even if it makes them uncomfortable. And with the thick hides of many Filipinos, we all know it's going to take a lot to make these types uncomfortable.

Sayang.

An Afternoon Coffeeshop Sermon

Not having fully recovered from a cough-cold combination this past week, I decided to repair at a known coffee shop chain to have some tea before a yoga class. Mint tea has always worked wonders when I am in this state, and I certainly needed to be delivered from my suffering, if only for a brief moment.

Little did I know that my "deliverance" would take an entirely different form. The fact that it comes in the most unexpected fashion serves to only up the incredulity factor.

As circumstance/luck would have it (depending on what you believe), the barista regretfully informed me that they have run out of the particular tea variant I wanted. So I settled for a good old Americano, anything that would keep my throat warm.

Downloaded e-books, ready for devouring? Check.

Cozy seat at a slightly secluded area? Check.

Appropriately cool temperature from an artificial source? Check.

Barely delving into my copy of Sex, Bombs and Burgers - an excellent read, by the way - I was jolted when someone pounded on the table, and exclaimed: "That is why God is our salvation!"

(Photo courtesy of divinecrash.com)

I look up from my reading and see three men seated two tables away from me, with Bibles open, and instantly, I am whisked into a religious sermon I have no wish to be part of.

One of the men is obviously a "convertee", the one being preached to. Reading the body language, it is clear that the "sermoner" thinks of himself as the alpha dog in this scenario: an overbearing position even when seated, forceful voice, showy gestures. The listener was seated in a calmer fashion, head tilted in an inquisitive manner, trying to digest the "sermon".

There goes my quiet time to read and sip my cup of coffee.

"You cannot have any other gods, and any other means of salvation!" bellowed Preacher.

Listener responds: "In my religion...(he utters something a little muffled as he turns to his book of reference)...and we are responsible for that."

"The way is clear!" responds Preacher. And then he looks around the room, eyes ablaze with the fire of his intent to proselytize, looks just for a brief moment at Listener, then addresses the "congregation" (read: the clueless customers of the coffeeshop):

"You, or anyone else (gesturing to all of us) will not be saved by your own merits! You are damned, damned, I tell you! Know Him! Know God! Only He can deliver you from eternal damnation!"

To the credit of Listener, he isn't backing down that easily. But because he is hunched over, speaks with a softer voice, and his back turned away from me, I could barely hear his response.

I immediately get my earphones and turn on my iTunes library, lest I be subjected to more "damnation".

Why is this man using a coffeeshop as his personal pulpit? Is it to "attract" more followers? Basic commandment in interpersonal relationships: Starting off a conversation with "You're wrong, I'm right!" tends to be seen as offensive and an affront. Not to mention rude.

But I gather that all religions have that same stance: A predilection to tell anyone outside their own fold that they cannot be happy/saved/fulfilled unless they follow "their" way. After all, religious leaders fancy themselves as arbiters of absolute morality and therefore have to be thoroughly convinced of their own self-righteousness. And followers are always told that "you will suffer for your faith, you will be ridiculed, maligned and tested!"

The only maligning I saw was from the Preacher telling us of our "uncleanliness", sitting on his moral high horse, content in being judgemental.

Freedom of religion also means the right to be free from religion.

I respect your right to have your own faith, wear whatever religious iconography you deem makes you feel "closer" to your chosen deity, say your own prayers, read your own religious books. You can conduct a seance or dance naked in your garden, I don't really care.

Why do people like Preacher have such a hard time returning that same courtesy?

I went to a coffeeshop to have my caffeine buzz, to read and to be relaxed. I did not go there to have someone make ill pronouncements on my character or the state of my being in an afterlife scenario. I have made my disdain for organized religion abundantly clear. I loathe anyone exhibiting intolerance - which I cannot tolerate at any level.

It is not a personal attack on you if someone doesn't subcribe to your faith. It merely means I am living my own life, on my terms. Deal with it.

And as for the third person in that hallowed table? It was an acolyte of Preacher, who kept nodding at every pronouncement made or every text read. Someone whose purpose was merely to say "Yes" at every turn.

It's your choice to turn off your mind.

"We Are A Christian Country"

That's according to Sorsogon Bishop Arturo Bastes, who recently chastised the Kapisanan Ng Mga Brodkaster Ng Pilipinas (KBP), for not regulating certain radio disc-jockeys on the late night circuit who "are using indecent and vulgar language." (Read the full story here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/93841/bishop-wants-foul-mouthed-radio-djs-disciplined)

(Photo courtesy of philamnation.com)

While that is certainly an expected statement from a member of the Catholic hierarchy, it does not mean that is the only viewpoint we should be listening to.

First off, I wished the (Philippine Daily Inquirer) reporter asked the bishop to give specific names of disc jockeys or radio programs which offended his religious sensibilities, that way, any one would be able to gauge that statement for themselves.

I haven't listened to FM radio in a long time, since they seem to be more focused on yakking about inane personal details than playing music - which is the reason my mind shuts off when I hear an inkling of AM radio, the commentators don't seem to tire out from their monologues. (If they're on something, I wish they'd share it with the rest of us. There are days when 2 cups of coffee just ain't doing the job.) With the advent of digital music players, it's easier to just cut off the background noise.

If the disc jockeys/programs in question are indeed guilty of breaking the law, then by all means, the government and the KBP should exert all efforts to ensure that they are punished accordingly. (Offhand, legal provisions on that broad category of "indecency" would probably be enough to charge any offenders.)

What I find disturbing - monumentally - is why Bastes was complaining: his contention that "we are a Christian country" certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth, particularly for those who have been advocating a more secular space and tone where discussions of laws and government are brought up, in the context of a democratic government and country.

And what bothers me is that his statement is no different from when the Spanish conquerors claimed these islands for their king centuries ago: He makes it seem like the Philippines has been conquered, and is now the property of the Catholic Church, Inc.

So much so that the way things happen and are run in this country should be to THEIR specifications. Here is a small list of what I have observed as things they want to have or happen:

No talking about sex.

Presidents of a democratic country should bow down to us and our whims.

Catholicism IS Christianity. All other "Christian sects" are invalid.

We don't care about offending other religions and "their" feelings. But no one should dare say anything negative about the Catholic faith! (I wager they must miss the days when beheadings still took place.)

What our religion says SHOULD be inscribed into secular law.

Feel free to add your own observations here: ____________________________________.

Let me reiterate: if laws have been broken, then prosecute, charge and punish. And by laws, I mean secular laws, the laws by which all citizens of this country are bound to, regardless of religious preference.

The bishop is forgetting one important fact: Catholicism does not hold the monopoly/trademark on what is to be deemed moral/correct/righteous.

Unless we have transformed our form of government into a theocracy, we would well be reminded of a basic truth in a democracy: Religion is a CHOICE.

Someone reacted to my previous post about Mary the Catholic deity, saying that we cannot fault anyone for thinking that all Filipinos are Catholic, seeing as majority subscribe to that religion. Bellowing out statistical data is not the same as respecting everyone's rights under a democracy. Being the religious majority does not give anyone the right to summarily disregard other religions. To paraphrase what Father Joaquin Bernas has stated (one of our Constitution's framers), in a democracy, all religions are seen as equal, and no one religion is to be treated as "superior".

And rightfully so.

Everyone should be seen as equal, under a democracy.

Unless anyone wants to contest that.

What Passes As Traitorous

I am writing this the day after Cong. Manny Pacquiao has once again prevailed and triumphed against his erstwhile arch-rival, Mexican pugilist Juan Miguel Marquez, amidst a barrage of questions and negative comments in cyberspace over the majority decision that - can we say this now? - "settled" the question of who is the better fighter between them.

(Photo courtesy of boxingph.com)


I decided it best to sleep over it, lest I make the mistake of writing something that would be done "in heat", maybe not the best way to put it, but one that describes it well: as a reaction to the adulation that Pacquiao has gotten for "uniting" the country when he fights.

I grew up at a time when we never knew this Southern boxer, so I was able to witness before me that meteoric rise (in wealth, prestige, fame and position) of the boxer who has appropriated the name of one of my earliest favorite video game characters, Pac-Man. (Speaking of which, do the inventors of Pac-Man get royalties of any kind when Pacquiao uses this name?)

My feelings and thoughts haven't changed after a good sleep.

We have unnecessarily placed Manny on a pedestal, one which we have appropriated for some figures in our country, so much so that any one who tries to hint at having a voice of dissent is summarily cast as unpatriotic, unfair, and worse, a traitor to "Philippine culture" and "national pride".

Can anyone tell me how Bob Arum earning -illions (I don't have the exact figure, but I'm betting it has those last 7 letters) or HBO PPV raking it in contributes to national pride?

It has also become "fashionable" to say "I'm doing it for the country" - rabid Pacquiao fans, please turn away now lest you wish to wince - but lining up your coffers as a professional boxer does not equate to "fighting for the country" for me.

But then again, as I have mentioned in a previous post, this is a country that feels that a third-runner up finish in a beauty contest also is considered a boost to "national pride". In that absurd universe and context, it makes sense. (http://theguywithablog.blogspot.com/2011/09/have-we-redefined-words-honor-and-hero.html)

As we now say in online lingo, WTH?!?!?

The decision that Manny won yesterday has been - even Pacquiao fans will have to agree - deemed as "not a slam dunk", or in other words, it wasn't a decisive victory by any stretch of the imagination.

And this is where it diverges into a fork in the road: Those who focus on the word "decisive" and the other half - in the Philippines, maybe 95% - focusing on the word "victory". It all depends on whether you value the process or the outcome.

It has now become inconceivable to even doubt or question any of the moves that Pacquiao makes, both on and off the ring. And if anyone raises a ruckus over his victory as "not spectacular", you will hear any/all these words being tossed around: crab mentality, negative, doomsayers, walang magawa sa buhay, jealous put-downers, traitors. Of course, these comments are reserved for other Filipinos. When Mexicans or other nationalities do the same, they're called sour-graping, sore losers, and most quizzical of all, racists.

After their 12 rounds, I was following the analyses of boxing pundits and I never saw one of them remark, on a round-for-round basis, that Manny won. All the comments have been either each round was a draw, or Marquez won some rounds. It was only when I saw some Facebook status updates saying "We Won!!!" that I realized the judges thought differently when they cast their votes. (Yes, I've seen that FB photo being passed around now, one with a "professional punch analyzer" on a piece of paper, saying "technically" Manny hit more percentage-wise. You don't need to send me a copy.)

What was particularly telling to me was how Manny himself reacted after the fight was declared over. It wasn't one of a "warrior" who felt vindicated or victorious (and quite the polar opposite from how Marquez felt and exhibited). Neither was Jinkee's (Manny's wife) reaction just before they announced who won. It seemed more to me like someone steeling herself for settling for last season's Prada - or some equally horrible news.

Judging from the online brouhaha now, it was far from being a "satisfactory" outcome. (Today's Inquirer has the word "Controversy" to describe the match decision.)

Unfortunately, I live in the Philippines, a place which worships Pacquiao. If you wish to be mobbed for whatever reason, or have a death wish, just go to a public square shouting "Pacquiao Sucks!!!" and I doubt you would have a minute to draw your last breath.

I am not a boxing fan. I see no difference with boxing and the gladiator "sports" of yore, a way to assert whose balls are bigger through violence. Yes, these are basic instincts and urges, the need for validation, satiating our lust for war and violence. But I cannot help but note the massive hypocrisy, that on hand, we teach our children, day in and day out, that hitting someone is never a good way to solve conflicts, that violence only breeds more violence, and that we are supposed to be "better" because we can use our brains instead of our fists to settle matters; and on the other hand, we cheer and bet massive amounts, we would fly all the way to Las Vegas for ringside seats, we pat ourselves on the back for, even just a short while, laying down our arms and "solving" our traffic problems, all because this minute boxer from Mindanao who has become larger than life is beating up another man.

Stripped to its' very bare and core, this is what boxing is: a spectator "sport" where we not only allow, but glorify one man hitting another. It is not, as one Facebook comment I saw goes, a "gentleman's sport". Is that how we define a gentleman? To see who is better at getting another person beaten black and blue, and in some cases, causing permanent brain and body damage? THAT'S the epitome of a gentleman?

I already made this same observation a year or two ago, and when I posted that I found it disturbing how we, as a nation, glorify violence through boxing, someone tried to rationalize it by saying, "It's only for sport! Lighten up!"

That has to rank as one of the worst defenses for championing boxing.

And who can blame Manny for entertaining thoughts on running for Vice President and even President? After all, no one finds it improper that a Congressman of our Republic has to take time off from Congress - I don't care if they're on recess, that's not the point - to train for a championship boxing bout. For that matter, our legislators must have an easy time crafting laws because you see them on TV judging talent shows, or advertising for computer schools, hosting their own shows as well as promoting their upcoming movie! Ganon ba kadali maging kongresista? (Makes it rather plain to see what's really keeping the RH Bill from being passed into law.)

No wonder, come elections, we manage to up the ante on the ridiculous scale.

We willingly put our blinders on.

Who cares, as long as we have our entertainment. Bloody or otherwise.