Nuffnang ad

Showing posts with label celebrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label celebrity. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Now Showing (At The Ballot): Artistas

A recent poster by GMA News reminded me of a sterling fact that has been more pronounced with each election that I am witness to in our country: the rise of the artista (celebrity) cannot be denied.

A twist to "a star-studded affair."
(Courtesy of GMA News)

Enter the artista into our political lives.

We not only get to see them in the big and small screens, they now write our laws and enforce them as well.

Who can forget President Estrada, attaining the highest post of the land? (His defenders keep reminding everyone that "to be fair", he did rise up the ranks in San Juan, a city where his family is now considered the de facto rulers. I guess he's done with San Juan beause he now wants to battle it out with Mayor Lim for Manila.)

When I am asked about how I feel about it, I respond by saying both sides of the coin have compelling reasons.

Those who see their entry into politics as "perfectly fine" say that (1) you can't fault the artista for having popularity on their side because other candidates have a track record, or money, or entrenched underlings as their trump card and (2) it would infringe on the right of a citizen of this country - who just happens to be an artista - to run for an elective post, if that person satisfies the bare, minimum requirements for the post.

On the other hand, those who are appalled with their foray into politics believe (1) it is an undue advantage that they are exploting their mass appeal and fame and convert it to votes and a shot at another career (since some of those running are considered "inactive" or "not really successful" with their showbiz careers) and (2) voters are nasisilawan (blinded) by the name recognition/recall that they don't bother electing a more "deserving" candidate - probably a career civil servant - and end up making the "wrong" choice.

If you have seen my posts about the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, it would be hypocritical of me to say that I cannot trust people to make the "right" decisions when that is exactly what I am voicing out when I support the RH Bill, that people should be given the choice - and the correct, scientific information help make those choices, to plan their families the best way it suits their needs.

I am also passionate about education being the great equalizer - we may have different stands on so many different issues, but as long as you have facts, and not just rhetoric, "conventional wisdom" (which I see no difference with "tradition") or dogma, as your basis for your decision, then I will respect that decision or choice.

And so it is with the celebrities who now take on a political route.

At the end of the day, we get the (democratic) government we elected, and we will deserve that choice.

Quick question, though: how do we expect to be a robust, economic powerhouse if we are perfectly happy that the people we elect to lead us satisfy only the barest of (legal) requirements?

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Miriam As Homophobia Indicator

Question to everyone who criticized 1999 Miss Universe 1st Runner-Up Miriam Quiambao for her homophobic stance:

Were we not seeing the big picture when we came down on her for making her unfriendly-to-LGBT remarks?

(Courtesy of juicyexpress.com)

I am led to ask this because now that she has apologized for the comments (in her way) over Twitter, there seems to be a backlash against the group Ladlad, spilling over to the entire LGBT community, that is "demanding" that she give a more forceful and demonstrative apology in relation to her recent tweets.

From where I sit, and see, people have come out in droves defending Miriam, calling her "principled", "righteous" and "morally correct".

And the big picture is, we are a homophobic country.

How can anyone think otherwise, seeing all these comments online?

"GAYS NOWADAYS ARE THE SUCCESSORS OF THE GAYS THAT SURVIVED SODOM AND GOMORRAH. GOD ANNIHILATED THAT TOWN, ACCORDING TO BIBLE. GOD MISSED SOME OF THEM SO NOW THEIR SUCCESSORS ARE ALL OVER THE GLOBE AND UNSTOPPABLE! THESE GAYS ARE SINNERS, AND SINNERS MUST BE PUNISHED! DEATH TO ALL SINNERS! DEATH TO ALL GAYS!!!!! WHO IS WITH ME? COME ON! I KNOW SOMEONE HERE WANTS ALL GAYS DEAD!!!"

"Dapat kasi sa Planet Mercury nalang manirahan ang LGBT ng sila ay masunog na.haha! Peace" (The LGBT should live in Planet Mercury so they can be incinerated.haha! Peace)

"Sakit sa pag-iisip ang homosexuality!!!" (Homosexuality is a mental illness!!!)

"KILLING A GAY IS NOT JUST JUSTICE. IT IS CONTINUING THE CRUSADE OF GOD TO PURIFY THIS LAND FROM GAYS AS HE DID IN SODOM AND GOMORRAH."

"Is it not too harsh to ask her to make a public apology?"

"Whoever on this thread chooses to side with the LGBT is either gay or a retard..=))"

"apology for what? For saying the Truth funny"

"SALOT ANG MGA GAY PARA SILANG GREMLINS KAPAG NABABASA DUMADAMI" (Gays are a curse, like Gremlins that multiply when rained upon)

"I PREFER A NEW PLANET FOR GAYS ONLY! IT SHOULD BE MERCURY OR VENUS! SO THEY WOULD NOT SURVIVE EITHER WAY!"

This is just a sampling of homophobic comments, some advocating for the outright murder of the LGBT in the name of religion, in a single thread of a major network's news item about Miriam's "apology".

(http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/118413/mga-kontrobersyal-na-tweet-ni-miriam-quiambao-binatikos-ng-mga-lgbt)

In truth, these comments make what Miriam said seem benign and saccharine - she really was sugarcoating how some people really feel about the LGBT community, and what "actions" they have in mind to eradicate the, uhm, problem.

This country recently was adjudged to be the most religious/spiritual, where over 90% believe in the concept of God.

If God is in the details, then I do not like what I see.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

FYI, Miriam

Miriam Quiambao has apparently appointed herself God's messenger. Or feels that she has been appointed as one. In any case, her "job", as far as I can ascertain from her recent statements, is to direct a message of "love" to the members of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community, which I can summarize in two sentences.

God commands me to hate who you are. I am just the messenger, spreading love.

The face and look of love.
(Courtesy of starmometer.com)

To say that her recent tweets have become controversial is an understatement similar to "Manny Pacquiao is a boxer Pinoys are fond of." The one that started it all was this: "Homosexuality is not a sin but it is a lie from the devil. Do not be deceived. God loves gays and wants them to know the truth."

A cursory glance at her Twitter account leads me to believe that she must be taking up Divinity studies: Almost every single one of them involves a Bible verse, how she loves those who believe in what she believes in (calling them her siblings), or how she has finished chapters, assignments or books written by Christian authors.

And before you pounce at me, yes, I know, it is her right to believe what she wants to believe in. It's when she - and others who think like her - insist that we should believe in what she does, or risk being damned for eternity, that I have to digress: Save it for your prayer circle, church or "meeting". You can be as bigoted as you want in your own religious haven. But when you post something on Twitter, you mean to spread what you believe, and are not content in having the freedom to choose your own beliefs unless others are subjugated with those same beliefs.

I got a text message from a good friend last night: "Who knew Miriam was such a redneck?"

Who, indeed? For someone who is supposed to espouse "world peace", being a beauty queen has become her platform to parade her own brand of intolerance. News flash: It's 2012, and intolerance is something to be ashamed of, not bandied around like some badge of honor.

FYI (For Your Information), Miriam, as you seem oblivious to some facts. And I don't mean facts the way you do (you will be rewarded in an afterlife), I mean facts in a verifiable, historical, scientific way, aka in this life, right now.

1. Your right to your own beliefs means others have that same right.

You are thoroughly convinced that your God hates gay people, condemns them to hell, justifies your message of hatred masked as "love", ad nauseum. I have no quarrel in your right to believe in those, er, principles, which you take as gospel truth. (Literally.)

Well, OK, you did say "God loves gays", but only if they remain celibate or refrain from having a romantic relationship. (Don't do a Michele Bachmann.) I have to ask, did "God" tweet this to you, or do you have "God" on speed dial?

See, your desire to force others to believe in the same way you do infringes on other people's right to believe what they want to. One of your tweets reads: "The truth remains and I will stand by God's truth."

Question: Which "God" are you referring to?

"According to David B. Barrett, the researcher who compiles religious population estimates for the Encyclopedia Britannica and World Almanac, there are about 10,000 distinct religions in the world today.

Within Christianity, he counts 33,830 denominations." 


You may think yours is the "true" and "valid" one. Again, that is your right. But 10,000 other religions and billions of people will disagree with you, and that is also their right. As stated in Barrett's research, in Christianity alone - which I believe is the religion you proudly parade, correct me I'm wrong - you are just one in 33,830 denominations. That means, there are 11,829 other "versions" of the same faith you profess.

When you claim to be "the only true one", be prepared to back it up with verifiable facts. And that is the problem (a problem with regards to the scientific method) with some religions: Most "facts" that are heralded as "absolute truths" are only verifiable when you are buried six feet under in this life.

Here's a fun question: Based on your current religion, what does it say about Catholics and their state of the afterlife? If they are going to burn in Hell for believing differently from you, aren't you "burdened" into telling them that your way is the "right way"? I mean, think of how many brownie points you will amass. Instead of focusing on gay people, you may want to change targets for "saving". More than 80% of this country identifies itself as Catholic. Isn't it your "duty" to tell them that they're headed to a fiery place once they die?

My video camera is set up for the ensuing events.

2. Using "God" to propagate hate does not absolve you of your actions.

After your infamous tweet that sparked this brouhaha, here is a collection of your subsequent tweets:

"I am not judging you."
"I have nothing against the LGBT."
"No offense to the LGBT but the TRuth is the Truth that comes from God. Take it or leave it. We will all face the judgement seat of God."
"I'm sorry that the truth offends some people but it is truth that comes from God. The truth will set you free. Love you."
"I can't save everyone but Jesus can."

Whenever people preface their statements with "No offense, but..." it usually means there will be an egg splattered across the intended audience's face in a mere moment. Quite simply, it just means the speaker is about to say something offensive but wants to disavow responsibility for it.

That is what you are doing, Miriam.

I would prefer speakers like Rush Limbaugh, who hate gay people, make no apologies for it, feel smug about it, and can sign their name across their own work. No matter what your intentions are, Miriam, you are responsible for what you say and do. Period. Don't say mean things then end your statements with "Love you".

Limbaugh essentially does not condemn parents aborting babies who will be genetically determined to be gay, should there be such a way to determine it at that level. He merely opines that pro-choice advocates would turn pro-life so fast should this method of determining sexual orientation come true. His silence on those who would choose to abort potentially gay fetuses is deafening. 

Now that is being proud of one's hateful stance. You should take a cue from him.


3. The Bible has been used to justify personal biases. Always.

There was a time when women couldn't vote. A time when it was "proper" to own slaves. A time when interracial marriages where deemed immoral, sickening and against "religion".

The one thread that connected all of them was this: Defenders of these atrocious stances leaned on the Bible to justify their own hateful biases. Thinking that it cloaked them with moral ascendancy, these champions of human rights violations claimed the Bible gave them the moral persuasion to deny other people their rights.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14: 34-35)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5)

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21)

"God...hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation..." (Acts 17:24-26)

"Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil." (Jeremiah 13:23)

An infamous case involving interracial marriages, Loving v. Virginia, had the Bible as basis for part of its ruling to justify racial segregation, and specifically, the ruling includes this passage:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with this arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Your statements against gay people are also rooted in the Bible, Miriam - you yourself keep reiterating that is is "God's truth". That you have no choice but to obey.

If we are to follow every word of your morality manual, you should have a gag order, as women are not "permitted" to "teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence." (1 Timothy 2:12)

Notice, many of these Bible verses are from the New Testament. Defenders of the Bible like to point out that the Old Testament is worlds apart from the loving provisions of the New Testament, and as these verses show, not really.

And before anyone accuses me of cherry picking the Bible, I don't. I believe the Bible was a collection of books written by different people, all men, and not a magic book that dropped out of the sky. All of it was written by men. Again, I've also  heard how these have been "divinely inspired" to justify their authority.

It does not change the fact that is was written by humans.

And humans cannot help their biases. Obviously.

How else can you explain eating shellfish, wearing gold or pearls or taking a loan to be "abominations"? (It's an entire chapter in Leviticus, a list of all that's "abominable".) If we were to take that chapter literally word for word, no one is going to heaven.

Comforting thought.

4. Your life story excludes you from being a "proper representative" for any religion.

Seriously. You had a divorce, you posed for a "men's magazine", you used your body and looks to gain fame and fortune, you find nothing "wrong" with parading your body in a swimsuit televised for millions of viewers to see, you are fine with being judged solely on your physical attributes.

I don't know of any religion that would state these qualities as part of their tenets or beliefs. 

I was told that you are a born-again Christian (correct me if this information is wrong). I was raised as a conservative Baptist, and let me tell you, based on my childhood religion, you have sinned over and over and over again.

To defend yourself, part of your tweets says "I never said I'm clean." 

There's saying it, and there's there's living and acting it. Clearly, you have no compunction to do the latter. You remind me of anti-gay zealots like US Senator Larry Craig, who championed for "family values" in legislation and opposed all legal measures to give equal rights to gay people.

He was caught soliciting gay sex from a Minneapolis airport bathroom.

He publicly declared opposing gay sex, but secretly enjoyed it. You publicly declared you are imperfect, but act like you are the very definition of perfection.

I see no difference.

5. Know your limits.

You are the perfect teacher for those who want to know what it takes to win a beauty contest. You were first runner-up in what is believed to be the most "prestigious" of all beauty contests, and even though Venus Raj and Shamcey Supsup are currently celebrated for being in the top 5 of the same contest, beauty contest "experts" never fail to remind everyone that you were the closest to clinching the Miss Universe crown since Margie Moran did it in the 70's.

Although you have not "academically" studied for it, you earned your dues in this area of life - a shallow, vain one, but one that is a collection of industries that earn billions of dollars - with your experience and achievements in this field, to grant you a legitimate status as an "elder" to those who are just now entering this same superficial world.

And anyone who is considered an expert in outer appearances  is generally not the best person to consult in matters of the internal life, ethics, religion, faith, morals, all of which require deep reflection on what's inside as opposed to what's outside. I won't be asking "the meaning of life" from somebody who values a 36-24-36 figure as her crowning achievement to date.

You have made a living - scratch that, you have made a life dedicated to extolling the "virtues" of having a "perfect" outer shell. Focus on that. 

Let me be clear: you are free to believe what you want. You can even state this publicly, as part of your right as a citizen of this democratic country. 

But it is also our right, those who do not believe in the same way you do, and in what you do, to declare your statements a big bag of hooey. And when other people criticize, make fun of and generally treat your statements as meaningless, that is part of what you should expect when you make a public declaration over a forum as wide as Twitter.

Isn't democracy wonderful?

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Fame Does Not Equal Love

Note to celebrities and the wannabes: Just because you are famous does not mean you are liked or loved.

Seeing last night's news brought home this message: Apparently, three celebrities have engaged with accounts that have posted negative comments in their respective social media spaces - Regine Velasquez-Alcacid, Sharon Cuneta and Lea Salonga.

(See: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/252278/showbiz/chikaminute/ilang-celebrities-pumalag-sa-cyberbullying)

Regine (and husband Ogie Alcasid) bristled at comments directed at their firstborn.

(Courtesy of pollgenius.com)

Sharon reacted to comments about daughter KC and Piolo's kaput relationship, hinting that it may have been fans of Piolo doing the "bashing".

(Courtesy of celebrityhotshotph.com)

Lea, I'm not sure what negative thing is there to say about her (I find her charming and appealing, aside from the talent, that is undoubtedly there), but she shot back by saying those who have ugly things to say should at least correct their grammar and spelling before shooting off poison.

(Courtesy of pinoyhalo.com)

But I do have to say this, ladies: When you are out there the way you three are - and I think this trio makes a case for really famous, talented and successful artists - and engaging the public a little more intimately with the help of social media, you do realize that not all your press will be good, right?

I agree that many of these "negative vibes" are senseless and useless, but the fact remains that just because everyone knows you as the girl who practiced singing in a water-filled drum, Gabby Concepcion's ka-love team forever, or Miss Saigon, does not mean people will respond positively, much less adore and love you.

It happens to be human nature, as well as individual personality traits being different.

(1) The term I learned in my first literature class in college that has stuck with me to this day - schadenfreude - has persisted in my mind precisely because it is so undeniably pervasive: Even though no human wants to admit it bald faced, we secretly laugh/ridicule/snicker in glee when someone who is deemed "successful" by whatever standards of the day there are is suddenly experiencing a misfortune/a bad run/tragic news.

It may be envy/jealousy, but I also believe that it is a way to connect with people who always seem so far off from our own life experiences, be it their billions in bank accounts, or extravagant social parties, or impeccable free passes given because of their stature/fame/power. These beings are seen as other worldly, and the vernacular captures it quite nicely, di na maabot (literally "cannot be reached"), and when they ingloriously fall off their perceived pedestals, screaming, kicking and fighting with someone or retaliating nasty comments in cyberspace, it is an assurance that somehow, we are all still equals. Tao pa rin kayo. (You are still human.)

(2) Personally, I'm not a fan of perkiness: something about it strikes me as hypocritical, as if you're trying to compensate for some sinister motive lurking in your subconscious. However, showbiz and popular media love these "engaging" characters. So I think popular people who fall in this mold are truly surprised when they have not-so-nice feedback and comments because as far as they know, they have been playing to the crowd and giving them what they want.

So it really depends on the person: some may find those overly concerned with their hair or makeup as shallow, while for others, it is something to aspire to. Whatever it is, you can be sure that not everyone will be unanimous in perceiving it as positive or likable. This is a fact of life: Live with it.

Last I heard, Sharon is quitting from Twitter. Which is probably best, if she wants to maintain some semblance of order in a probably frenzy-filled, fast paced work life. The moment you expose yourself in media like Facebook, be prepared to get both good and bad remarks.

That's just the way life is.

The important rules are the same, whoever you are, wherever you are.

Celebrity or mortal.

Monday, February 20, 2012

The Belo Irony

If you want to take a break from the seriousness of the impeachment trial hearings, nothing can be more effective in achieving that goal than the utter ludicrousness of local entertainment news.

Case in point: Dr. Vicky Belo. (And her inclusion as "entertainment news" really says much, much more than can ever be articulated by words.)

(Photo courtesy of celebritypulp.com)

After her much publicized breakup with fiancee, Hayden Kho, she supposedly left the country before Valentine's Day to "heal her broken heart", and has recently arrived in Manila, amid rumors that she is seeing Mr. Aly Borromeo of the Philippine Azkals.

(See news video here: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/video/entertainment/02/20/12/vicki-belo-back-manila)

When your romantic dalliances gain more traction than your actual work, you can congratulate yourself: you are a celebrity. And I don't mean "you are a celebrated person", but rather, like the often disparaging remark about Carmen Electra, who's famous for being famous, and not for actual work.

One can argue that the doctor has used her status as "celebrity" to further her practice, as evidenced by her opening clinics left and right. Fair enough. By all accounts, she works hard in her actual job.

But for her to decry about "privacy" is the height of irony, as she literally earns and makes a living out of her "celebrity". That is part of the deal: you get "celebrity power", your life, even the personal aspect, gets raked over. It might be a "deal with the devil", so to speak, but that IS the deal when you offer yourself up willingly for public scrutiny.

Besides, she arrived in a wheelchair, head and body covered by either a jacket or a blanket (just check the video in the link, it's all there), then stands up to give an interview when reporters are around, pleading for time to heal in privacy.

Ano ba talaga, Dr. Belo?