The Blessing Of Angelica Jones

The bad weather forced me to stay home, which in turn gave me the chance to see bad TV, some of it, the good kind. (Get it?)

Enter Angelica Jones, erstwhile local actress and board member of some province.

Never a dull moment, for sure.

(Courtesy of listal.com)

I saw her years ago, and two things struck me off the bat: (1) why is she so TH (trying hard) to affect an American slang when she could speak freely in the vernacular and (2) is she on something? The phrase "train of thought" doesn't seem to register with her, she flits from one topic to another and really ends up making no sense whatsoever.

Which makes me erupt in a fit of giggles.

After her interview just now in a showbiz show (hosted by Lolit Solis and Joey de Leon), those same things still struck me, but with a third question: will her child be needing therapy?

Lolit Solis only had one question: bakit nauna ang pagbubuntis kaysa sa pagpapakasal? (Why did your pregnancy take place before the marriage?)

Angelica begins her response. It is so drawn out that it was the only question that was asked of her.

She begins by mentioning the father of her child, a doctor also in the province.

She then regales viewers with their plans for marriage.

She recounts how she has myoma, and how painful it is that she couldn't sleep some nights.

She threw in her position as part of some league of young legislators or public officials.

She also ate some fruit courtesy of Mike Velarde, as treatment for her myoma.

She went to many churches.

She then goes back to her wedding plans, scheduled for January 2013.

She makes a grim face, and proceeds to recount how she and the doctor haven't been together since Marsh. Yes, that is how she pronounces March.

She blames the "others" who do not want to see them happy as a couple, then also says that the doctor is not used to her celebrity stature so the "pressure" and "media" might have scared him off.

And when Lolit sarcastically remarks that after all of these (the long winded tale of her life thus far) that didn't really answer the question, she was still able to become pregnant, Angelica then uses the blanket statement:

It's a blessing.

The hosts were forced to cut her off because of the time she consumed, and while Lolit was loudly saying, "Bye! Bye!", you could hear Angelica trying to talk over Lolit (no small feat for anyone who knows the voice of Lolit Solis), thanking constituents from various places.

And my fit of giggles continues.

Salamat, Angelica, for the good bad TV I had the fortune of witnessing this damp, dreary, flood filled day.

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?

Piety As A Weapon

In this country, it is used as much for offense as it is for defense. How scintillating (I had other adjectives in mind, this seemed to be the "safest") that a recent blow-up in the local entertainment scene should showcase this spectacularly.

Truly, we fashion the concept of God after our own desires and biases.

After the death of Dolphy, the most controversial news adjacent to the event was the ruckus caused by feisty talent manager Annabelle Rama at a wake/dinner where the King of Comedy was being remembered. Claiming that she was "provoked" by showbiz reporter Chito Alcid, she was caught on video trying to raise a stick-apparatus (some say it was a cane, others say it was a mic stand) in an apparent attempt to hit on the said "provocative" party.

She prayed for everyone.

(Courtesy of hy.bestpicturesof.com)

Probably hearing the backlash from everyone castigating her for this incident that can be diplomatically described as "tasteless", Rama has since apologized to the Quizon family for her actions.

Knowing Rama, you know that isn't the end of it. (Her numerous libel cases will testify that words are her Waterloo.)

A news item at ABS-CBN News caught my eye regarding this brouhaha and her involvement in it.

(See http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/07/16/12/annabelle-rama-provocation-led-attack for full story.)

What struck me the most was the ease that both parties invoked God into their motivations and actions.

"Sa lahat ng concern sa akin, ipinagdarasal ko kayo. Sa lahat naman ng mga komokontra, ipinagdarasal ko rin kayo na mabuksan isipan nyo..." (To those concerned for me, I prayed for you. To those who oppose me, I also prayed for you so your minds will be open.)

A cursory reading of this has a part that is glaring: God must be on Annabelle's side. A statement like hers is clearly meant to enforce the notion that she is on a path that is righteous, such that she expects her prayers to be answered positively. (No one goes into prayer hoping for a 'No', do they?)

It also has a veneer of compassion, the way zealots like to sarcastically say "I'll pray for you", but the real message being "You're a filthy sinner and you should get down on your knees and thank me that I am spreading news to save you!" In short, people who do this tactic are actually condescending while appearing compassionate.

And appearances matter a whole lot for a country like ours. Who cares if we blow out the college fund, we should feed our guests well during the town fiesta.

Not to be outdone is the reporter Annabelle is trading barbs with - blows if she wasn't physically stopped as shown in the video - who also made the following statement:

"No, hindi ko siya pinrovoke...mayroon siyang Eddie Gutierrez na matangkad, mayroon syang bodyguard na nandoon sa tabi niya. So how can I provoke, alam ng Panginoon yan." (No, I never provoked her...she has a tall Eddie Gutierrez and a bodyguard beside her. So how can I provoke, God knows that.)

Translation: my word is as good as gold, as solid as steel...I have the backing of God. To challenge my statement is to challenge God as my witness...do you dare?!?

Ever since a once-young actress remarked "God was with us" (I'm sure we all know who this is) when asked about her child out of wedlock, I have known from an early age how the name of God has been bandied around, sometimes innocently, sometimes quite forcefully, as being "behind" one's thoughts, words and actions, thereby giving the person saying this a free pass for most anything. To cast doubt on something approved by God would be heretical, right?

Just recently, impeached Chief Justice Corona authorized the holding of masses within the Supreme Court grounds - I am a non-lawyer but the word "unconstitutional" keep flashing before me - even getting media mileage for being deep in prayer with an equally controversial priest, the photo splashed all over the dailies and online. Read: I can't be on the wrong side, I'm a warrior for God and here's a cleric to lend ecclesiastical weight to that pride-less claim.

I guess God doesn't take sides then, since He is on everyone's side.

Excuse me while I go back to the real world, where I expect people to be personally responsible for their thoughts, words and actions.

It reeks to be a secularist in a country that thinks one's religion is a license to be free from criticism and debate, with a card that erroneously gives its bearer an inflated - and false - sense of moral superiority.

I Finally Saw Those PBB Teens

That's time I won't be able to take back.

Remind me again why they're "heroes", according to one columnist.

(Courtesy of pinoystarblog.com)

All I could think of while they were describing their pairing off with one another:

Inbreeding?

As part of my fact-finding about Sen. Chiz Escudero on taking another career path by being the co-host of Kris Aquino in her morning show, I had the excruciating...joy of beholding these teenagers who "fought" against one another for prizes in the millions of pesos by being the most "votable", sometime this week.

(http://theguywithablog.blogspot.com/2012/07/were-not-working-our-senators-hard.html is where I write about a senator's job probably being easy, thanks to Chiz and Bong showing us how to juggle their way through many hats.)

There were these twins (finalists for this season) that would make drag queen behavior passe.

There were the (predictably) pa-cute guys - not finalists - professing their "affection" for the girls who were finalists. (Can anyone say "hanging on those darned 15 minutes?")

And then the "big winner", Myrtle, who, when asked by Kris if she was really outspoken and had a strong personality, responded by nodding her head meekly and acted as if she was mute.

Do we have a Ministry of Time? I'd like to get back those wasted minutes, please.

And don't get me started on Sen. Escudero acting all kilig (gushy) around these teenagers.

I couldn't decide which car crash was worse.

Is Ruffa Serious?

One reason I love Facebook is because I get news feeds of articles that my friends find interesting, and by extension of having the same interests, I would find the same way, too. Browsing this morning's feed, I saw 2 news posts about Ruffa Gutierrez, actress, beauty queen and media personality, walking out of her showbiz talk show.

The muse of intrigue?

(Courtesy of moviespad.com)

Let the collective eye rolling begin.

Apparently, for her birthday celebration, she would be placed on the "hot seat" in a segment of the show called "Bulong Ng Palad" (Whisper of Fate?), where the other co-hosts would ask her questions of a "sensitive" or "controversial" nature.

In other words, a roast.

(See http://ph.omg.yahoo.com/news/ruffa-says-tv5-talk-show-disrespected-her.html for more.)

Ruffa's subsequent "reactions" stemmed from the fact that these highly-charged questions were asked:
(1) when she brought her children on the set
(2) a representative of her commercial sponsor was in the audience
(3) she felt "disrespected"

Teka lang, Ruffa.

You've been a host for this show for quite some time, right? (I really don't follow showbiz shows as a general rule, it's time I can't take back.) Why are you now feigning "surprise" at the type of questions asked of you during a segment you have been part of many, many times in the past? Should the rules be changed just because you are now the "askee" instead of being the interviewer?

The questions they asked were of your past romantic liaisons. In fact, one of the interviewers, Zoren Legaspi, was one of those "linked" to you in the past. These things are a matter of public record - if I was to be blunt, you actually paraded these relationships for maximum exposure at the height of their, uh, sizzle. Why are you now acting as if everyone should now treat you with kid gloves about them, when you wringed out so much publicity from them at the time that you were "in love" with this guy and that guy?

Isn't that the whole point of showbiz?

Aren't your entire careers built on the amount of buzz and interest that you can supposedly generate? That once an artista is laos na, that means no more film offers, no more commercials, no more TV series, no more hosting gigs? That some of you actually wail at how fickle and harsh the industry can be - whilst being silent about this facet of the industry you chose to be in when fame and fortune and attention were so easily bestowed upon you?

I don't get the hand-wringing. Or is this - as many social commenters have noted - an attempt to revive a sagging career where you have to compete with the hottest stars of today, who happen to be young enough to be your children?

You brought your own kids to the show. I will not question your parental authority, that is your prerogative, if you think it is proper to expose them to your workplace, that is your call. But you can't expect the world to stop turning - for you - on account of your kids. The protection of their minds from what you deem "unsavory" is also your responsibility. Showbiz is about intrigue, and if you brought your kids to a set that celebrates this fact with pride, I really don't get the "my kids are with me" card you pulled out.

And about the milk sponsor, I'm sure they have factored your past in when they decided to ask you to be their model. You are now more known as a mother with two kids - that should have been the card you played when you were asked questions you found "sensitive". No matter how your co-hosts cajoled and needled you for "juicy" details of past relationships - does anyone not see the irony of this situation? - you could have always put your foot down, as a mother and the birthday celebrator, on account of your daughters. I would expect no less from any parent who does what they do for the sake of their children.

And apparently, you also took to Twitter after your show with a slew of statements detailing your sentiments about the whole she-bang. And announcing your "resignation" there instead of professionally telling the management of your decision - how can you stop people from thinking that this isn't some exposure stunt?

So, do you want publicity or not?

Ano ba talaga,Ruffa?

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.

Moving On, Andi Eigenmann Style

I guess we have to redefine "moving on" from now on.

(Courtesy of vazed.net)

(1) Declare to everyone - especially on showbiz programs - that you are severing ties with the supposed father of your love child.

(2) Make more public declarations of how your child is now the center of your world/universe. (I actually chanced upon this interview of hers while flipping channels in the recent past.)

(3) Go to a "hip" bar, because nothing says you are a concerned mom of an infant than going to a bar. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic. In other words, I'm being me.)

(4) Upon seeing your ex in the same bar - and remember, you said that you have "moved on" - throw a glass of wine on his face. That ought to show him that you've really put this all behind him. (There is, of course, the matter of men beating up on alleged father of her child, Albie Casino, and her supposed involvement as claimed by Albie's mom. Let's wait for the police report. Or court case.)

(5) In other news, the Claudine-Raymart-Ramon bout has eclipsed this episode in local entertainment. And believe me, that match-up is really entertaining.


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

You may wish to see the following news articles:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/05/07/12/albie-denies-provoking-andi

http://entertainment.inquirer.net/39191/andi-eigenmanns-ma-comes-to-her-defense-in-beating-of-ex-beau

Claudine Vs. Ramon Vs. Raymart: Who Lost?

The answer is us.

(Courtesy of ofwnow.com)

And I'm referring to consumers. Whether you are an artista (actor) like Claudine Barretto or Raymart Santiago, or a newspaper columnist like Ramon Tulfo, or, more likely, a regular Joe. A regular Jose or Josefa.

(Courtesy of facebook.com)

What their "brawl", yesterday's top news, brought out is how little we matter to airline companies like Cebu Pacific, who are out to make a quick peso on our collective account, no matter the consequences.

Until someone perfects the science of teleportation, for those who need to travel fast, we will be needing the services of airline companies. And we have seen a slew of competitors in the field, all jostling and pushing to claim a share of the consumer pie, largely competing on one singular point: Price. The prices have gotten so low, recently, that there are cases where taking the flight can be the better alternative as opposed to ship or land travel, even on price points. That's how competitive it is - it's starting to encroach into other transportation modes' shares.

Of course, for those of us (yes, I'm one of them, I like a good bargain, sue me) who are quick and ready on the "click" for online airline deals, we've seen how it has grown to a peso for a flight (and with "the charges" added on, it only resulted into 2 thousand pesos for a roundtrip to an Asian country, 3 thousand tops) to really being more expensive than the usual benchmark we've had for the longest time, Philippine Airlines. PAL has been the only homegrown airline company for decades, and as a consumer, I was actually glad when Cebu Pacific arrived on the scene. It was followed by other entries, so it gave consumers a choice, whereas in my parents' time, it was PAL or bust.

Case in point: Arthur and I recently went to Cebu, and comparing the prices for PAL and Cebu Pacific (with the same conditions: lowest possible price in its class, 15 kilograms allowed baggage weight for check-in, no snacks, etc.) Cebu Pacific was actually more expensive (by about 300 hundred pesos). My advice to consumers: Check competitors first - and their pricing - before paying with your plastic. It may seem "low" at first, but that's because what they put in their headlines of GIANT SALE!!! is just the base fare: after factoring all the "hidden charges" (not advertised), you'd start wondering if budget meant something else.

I have heard of these horror stories of luggage being lost or "to follow", but yesterday's altercation revealed to us that this is actually Cebu Pacific's policy. A plane can be overbooked and incapable of carrying all the luggage (alloted at 15 kilograms per passenger), but the company still proceeds with the flight - and more importantly, taking your money. And when the passenger arrives at the destination and doesn't find his/her luggage, the explanation is that for everyone's "safety", they couldn't load the baggage together with the passenger.

One of the company's VP's said this in a statement point blank, which leads me to ask some questions:

(1) If you set a maximum of 15 kilograms for check-in luggage, why is there a danger of compromising "safety"? Wasn't this factored in when you were arranging price points for your tickets?

(2) As someone who has been riding airlines since I was 4 or 5, I know that some passengers opt to pay a premium for carrying baggage that is in excess of their "allowed" weight. Was yesterday's incident a product of allowing "more than you can chew"? Because if the plane cannot handle the weight, and you already set limits of what people can bring, the only variable factor will be those that "pay extra". Is this the case? Shouldn't your system incorporate some form of warning that you are selling close to allowable plane capacity?

(3) I understand planes carry other things aside from just luggage. Shouldn't you have factored those in as well in your declaration for how much people can bring?

(4) I do not recall ever being advised that you have the option of not bringing my luggage together with me as a passenger in one flight. When people take flights, they fully expect to leave the same way they entered it: in one piece, with 3 pieces of luggage if that's what they checked in. Is this clearly stated in your "policies"?

(5) When people book flights and you accept the money for the service, is it too much to ask for the service that you promised? Or are you going to blame "budget" customers, and say something atrocious like "eh, kasi pang budget lang presyo nyo eh"? (well, your price is only for budget)

As stated by Claudine, the root of the problem was really the fact that the luggage of their party did not arrive on the same flight they did. You don't know if there is medication there that someone has to take, or a person has to make a sales presentation the moment he lands, or there is a connecting flight to Zimbabwe from Manila that a client is late for. For those and a plethora of other reasons, you have to state CLEARLY to people that "we're looking out for your safety, so that means your luggage will arrive in more than a month's time".

Consumers have the right to know what it is you are offering as "service".

I am not taking sides as to who threw the first punch between the parties involved in the scuffle. They both should not have come into blows, and settled as amicably as possible. But Cebu Pacific cannot wash its hands off this incident: it should be held responsible for its neglect to inform passengers of their supposed "right" to not deliver the luggage on time with the same person's flight, regardless of reason.

Bugbog sarado nanaman ang mamimili. (Consumers are once again, beaten black and blue.)

(Courtesy of buzz.makoyskie.com)

Once again, consumers lose the day.

Charity Is Now On The Ballot?

Between the rocket launch of North Korea and the tree cutting in Baguio, I didn't think I could get any more "startling" news yesterday, until I saw an item with a typically showbiz picture with a serious headline.

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/29172/willie-revillame-forms-political-group-petitions-comelec-for-partylist-accreditation

The first reaction I had was a dumbfounded "HUH?!?"

Why would the host of a variety show be applying for accreditation from the government's election-overseeing body?

(Courtesy of videokeman.com)

It turns out that he is putting his charitable organization, I Wil Serve Foundation - a play on his name, obviously, as his show is entitled Wil Time, Big Time - front and center for election under our partylist system.

Is charity being marginalized?

Do we need to vote on whether charity should be allowed?

Do we need to inject bureaucratic paperwork for people intending to do philantrophy?

I don't "get it" for the simple reason that this course of action of Willie Revillame is anathema to what the Partylist System is all about.

http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7941primer.htm

As I understand it, the system is essentially a way to provide representation for underrepresented and marginalized groups.

Women, despite being the majority in the country, still do not have the same benefits and opportunites as men do, and need to be represented - with laws focused on them - to provide more equality.

The gay community, long cast out in our society's fringes, and even demonized on account of some religious beliefs, deserve the same rights as every other human being, and is definitely qualified on both the "underrepresented" and "marginalized" terms.

I do not see how a charitable organization - one that provides freebies and dole-outs - can ever be considered in the same zip code as the other two groups I mentioned. It harks back to the time when actor Richard Gomez tried to register MAD (Mamamayan Ayaw Sa Droga) as a partylist group as well. Gomez also figured recently in politics, running for Congress but being denied on account of some requirements, and on the proverbial last minute, his wife Lucy Torres-Gomez "took" his place and is now an elected legislator.

No wonder the idea of nepotism is alive and kicking in our country. What is this, Musical Chairs? I can't run, so my spouse should take my place?!? (Yes, it's a rhetorical question. I am just so exasperated that no one even blinks at this phenomenon anymore.)

Revillame has stated that he does not intend to run as the party's representative, but merely wants to push the organization named after him into our ballots.

I'm sure he does it out of the goodness of his heart.

Now excuse me while I go see my opthalmologist. I haven't stopped rolling my eyes ever since I laid them on this news article.

More Of The "Same, Same!"

In this post, we explore some more reasons why the worlds of politics and showbiz/entertainment seem to be so intertwined.

(See http://theguywithablog.blogspot.com/2012/03/same-same.html to view the reasons I already cited.)

3. Blood Is Thickest. Period.

Our particular brand of politics gives new meaning to the term "political dynasty". To my understanding, the word dynasty connotes some kind of relationship/s that spans generations.

In our interpretation, we are impatient to wait that long.

Instead, we want an instant dynasty: And by this I mean everyone is in on the act.

Right now. Together.

You have either husband or wife being a senator, mayor or some kind of "nucleus" figure. The other spouse then runs for either governor, or congresswoman, or even similar position if the law will allow. The children also take up similar positions, some (maybe the youngest) will opt to be a councilor so they can boast that s/he is still "earning her/his stripes". The uncles and aunts and cousins will also rally for other positions all in the vicinity of the nucleus - maybe vice mayor, or vice governor, and when they campaign, they will play on the "blood is thick" angle, not as a liability, but as something that showcases their family's, uh, unity.

Currently, we have a brother and sister team in the Senate, and we know that they inherited their father's name, as well as the position - their father was a senator as well. A general who ran for senator has his son also in the senate until he was appointed to an executive position. We used to have a mother-son tandem, wife and son of former President Estrada. Even the latest addition to the Senate (by virtue of one senator resigning) is a son of a former Senator.

Similarly, in showbiz, we have the following examples: Sharon Cuneta, married to Senator Pangilinan (a literal marriage of showbiz and politics), has a daughter from an annuled marriage who is now working as an "actress", "singer" and "host". I put them in quotes because while she does what the job requires of her, I can't say she does them as someone who is "natural" to the job. But she gets a free pass because her mom is one of the "elders" of the current entertainment industry.

Sen. Ralph Recto is married to "Star For All Seasons" Vilma Santos (another literal marriage), a three term governor. Vilma's son, Luis, is also in showbiz as a host primarily, and acts in some films.

(Courtesy of pinoyexchange.com)

Eddie Guitierrez and Annabelle Rama have worked in film, and their sons and daughter work as actors, beauty queen and hosts.

Eddie Mesa and Rosemarie Gil have a clan that is firmly in the showbiz circuit, all the way to the grandchildren.

An interesting hybrid of the politics/entertainment marriage is the Revilla clan, starting with the senior Ramon Revilla (who, in television network GMA 7's tally, has more than 80 children), who started as an actor, then became a senator. His son, Bong Revilla, is also an actor who is now a senator, and has not stopped acting, and even has time for TV gigs. His wife, who is an actress, as well, was appointed to a government position in former President GMA's time, and is now a legislator in the current adminstration. Their children are in showbiz. Recently, of course, the name "Ramgen" has made headlines, one of the senior Revilla's children who was murdered and his girlfriend barely escaping with her life. (By the way, what is the status of that investigation?) The other Revilla youngsters are also either already in or wanting to start their showbiz careers.

I mentioned in number 2 that "talent" is inconsequential: if someone paves the way, as a dutiful family member, you have to keep the, er, "tradition" alive, and count your blessings because your forebears already made it easier for you to enter that particular world. So legislate, rule, act, sing, host or dance away - your family name assures you of a spot in these worlds that will forever be an exclusive clique based on affinity. (The ones who manage to break into them without a name means either their talent/qualification is without question, or they slept and bared their body on the way to the top.)


4. Let's Give Them A Show.

Whether in politics or showbiz, you need a "buzz" in order to stay relevant - it brings to mind the idea that "it doesn't matter if it's good press or bad press, as long as there's press, you'll remain talked about and relevant". Admittedly, some of these are "artificial", meaning intentionally made gossip, but in both worlds, there are circumstances that befall these players unwittingly and unintentionally - but they have the sense to seize this PR opportunity to their advantage and make themselves the banner headline for tomorrow's paper.

Whether in Senator Santiago's WHAAAA!!! in the impeachment trial, or Sharon fighting it out with negative commenters in he Twitter page, they know they have the camera on them, and must perform willingly. Again, granted, they have the personality to do these things to begin with - you don't aspire for a very public position without knowing beforehand that public scrutiny is part of the mix and accepted as a necessary evil, this intrusion. But for many players in these industries, it is a welcome intrusion, a chance to make their "Public Rank" even higher and their stock to increase.

In fact, many of them count on it, and play to the cameras whenever they get a chance.


5. Fans Are Important. And They Know It.

All that differs is the currency: In politics, they deal in votes. In showbiz, in sales and receipts.

But those who have been in the game for a long time know that public opinion is vital, whether they publicly admit it or not, and that this opinion is so strong that entire careers in their field can make or break them.

This is the reason why politicians stand in for "sponsors" in weddings where they do not know anyone remotely. Or why movie stars have a "Fans Day" or a "Meet and Greet" every so often, They have to gauge the public mood - do they still know who I am? Am I relevant? And more importantly, do they still buy into what I say and do?

This knowledge exposes the true relationship we have with these public figures: We are actually their lifeblood, and without our approval, they will fall down like a house of cards meeting a tsunami or earthquake.

And the saddest observation is, we are not aware of the power we possess.

So, do I hear anyone signing up for Kris Aquino's campaign for the Senate?

(Courtesy of gedsrl.org)

"Same, Same!"

I first heard this expression in Singapore, an offshoot of their so-called Singlish (Singaporean English), and it meant to convey that there was no difference between two or more topics or subjects under discussion.

It certainly came to mind after I heard a piece of disturbing news, courtesy of a recent survey conducted by Pulse Asia, regarding "senatoriables" - or people who were most likely to win if an election for senators were held at a given time.

(Courtesy of ph.omg.yahoo.com)

(Courtesy of sweetslyrics.com)

"Queen Of All Media" Kris Aquino as well as incorrigible TV host Willie Revillame are included in the Top 20 list of Most Likely To Win For Senator, in a survey conducted just this February 26 to March 9, 2012 by the survey firm.

(See complete list here: http://pulseasia.com.ph/pulseasia/story.asp?ID=749)

The world of politics and showbiz/entertainment: Same, Same!

I'll be honest - and I know many of my friends will hate me for verbalizing this - but when I hear news like this, it makes me doubt that we are meant to have a democratic form of government.

We keep coming up with the same scenario, over and over again.

It seems like our politicians are stuck to their positions with Super Glue. In this list, the names of Legarda, Escudero and Roxas dominated the top 3 spots, 2 of whom are current senators, one ran for Vice President, also a former senator who is currently a cabinet secretary.

The only additions I have seen since my teenage years are the showbiz personalities who now see politics as a "viable alernative" to where they originally started: We have, of course, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, who reached the top post of President. His best friend, Fernando Poe, Jr. could have been another President were it not for our "Hello, Garci!" 2004 winner, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who, likewise, is now a legislator - and one who owed a substantial part of her then popularity as a budding senator to a supposed physical resemblance to local legend Nora Aunor. (Vocally, they are universes apart.)

What is it about these two worlds that keep them in direct collision - and collusion - with each other?

It would be helpful to see what traits and qualities can be observed that cause them both to have the same zip code in the same neighborhood, or, we can say it altogether now, Same! Same!

(1) Let's get the obvious out of the way: both are popularity contests.

Just take a look at the survey results in the Pulse Asia link: A former broadcaster turned senator tops the list, Sec. Roxas is married to broadcaster Korina Sanchez and also appropriated the name Mister Palengke (Mr. Public Market), Kris Aquino and Willie Revillame need no introduction whatsoever, and media-genic politicians like the mahinahon (not burly) ways of Sen. Escudero, these are the ones most likely to have name recall and recognition.

Former President Estrada trounced then Speaker de Venecia, and we all know his masa fan base. (To be fair, Estrada rose up the ranks from the local city government, until senator, then Vice President before becoming President. He at least has the right to say he underwent many years of government service beore seeking the top spot.)

Current President Noynoy Aquino has the political pedigree behind him, even though he has neither the ferocity of his father nor the easy charm of his mother. And while opponents have trotted his practically non existent legislative record, his name recall, coupled with the fact of his mother's passing, have definite contributions to his election. I certainly support the President's drive against corruption - as if that needed further announcement, haha - but I seriously don't think he would have a chance of being President without the legacy of his parents.

Revilla. Bautista. Paulate. Santos. Sotto. Just a few names from showbiz that have parlayed their fame into political gold. Whether or not they are of actual public service isn't the point I'm focusing on, but the fact that they have the advantage of popularity before entering politics makes me want to ask them: would you seriously have given thought to entering politics if you weren't popular?

Showbiz doesn't need an explanation for the popularity concept, does it? It's very life revolves around fame, the moment you're laos (old news), the studios kick you out giving way to new blood.

Let's face it: If you're a bloody fantastic manager or public servant, but no one knows your name, you don't stand a chance in Philippine politics. The same rule is true in showbiz.

(2) Actual "talent" not required. You can learn on the job. Wink, wink.

Running a government department, crafting laws, taking social science courses or more legal education...they're only good on paper. In reality, many of our elected officials have none of these "talents", seeing as some of them are actor/singers/news readers, or just children of entrenched politicians ensuring their political fame - and future - from the start of the race. And if people ask for serious qualifications? They can just reply "it's our right to run, all it says under the law is that we have to be Filipino!"

Same banana in showbiz: You can't sing? Well, you're famous, and an okay actress, so yes, let's cut you a record deal! We have to translate that fame into music gold! (And the gold here is purely monetary, and says nothing about the music quality or vocal prowess, neither of which are present.) Or a hunky young nobody who can't act to save his life, but hey, he likes taking his shirt off at every chance, so let him star in a movie with top billing! And be sure to have shots of him in a barely-there bikini for the promotional materials!

More observations on the similarities between the political and showbiz worlds in the next post.

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.

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?

Till Annulment Do Us Part

Watching the news last night, I was struck by the headline: "Kris Aquino and James Yap's marriage officially annulled." Not because I am a starstruck follower of local show business - anyone who knows me would balk at the thought of my being one - but because it follows the news-making saga (still ongoing) of Rep. Ignacio "Iggy" Arroyo, and his death which revealed that he and his estranged wife have filed for annulment, and their marriage was also the result of the annulment of Arroyo's first marriage.

Of course, Kris was never acquainted with the word privacy - who else has the panache to discuss the dubious delights of contracting an STD on national television but the (self-dubbed?) "Queen Of All Media" - so the public is well aware of the annulment proceedings with her, I suppose we can call him ex-husband now, James. As for the title appropriated to her, she's certainly made it a point to bombard every public avenue possible to give us every scintillating detail of her life.

(Photo courtesy of showbizrenegade.com)

Even when no one was asking about them.

In both cases, as with many, many, many other marriages in our country, the only way to end a marriage while both parties are living is to file for an annulment.

Despite whatever legal somersaults lawyers put us through to spell out the "many" differences between a divorce and an annulment, they amount to the same thing: the dissolution of a marriage. In other words, di na kasal. It is only how they are viewed in legal terms - and more importantly, how they are viewed by both the predominant religion and society, that spells the difference.

And what a difference it makes in a Catholic country.

Legally, an annulment essentially says "the marriage never existed". This is exactly the part of law I detest and despise: with just a few verbal hoops, suddenly, one did not "put asunder" a marriage, because there - supposedly - was no marriage that took place.

Really?

Didn't these brides order a custom made wedding gown?

Didn't they have a wedding reception?

Didn't they give marriage vows in front of God, priest and every one in the barangay?

Didn't they have two beautiful kids? (One in the case of Kris and James.)

Didn't they remind you of their anniversary with a "thanksgiving party"?

Let's cut the crap, the endless rationalizations, all the BS.

Annulment gives couples a way out that is Catholic-approved, without ever crossing the divide, over to the dreaded D word.

A way to say to one and all, "Excuse me, our marriage was not valid from the beginning! I am still clean and holy in the eyes of God and the church!", maintaining a ridiculously hypocritical moral high ground despite the plain fact that a marriage was dissolved.

Don't bother selling me more BS. I've heard those for more years than I care to count.

It's no different from so many other stands people in this country take that perpetuate the myth of a pious, religious people, when the reality is, they are merely taking the method that allows them to justify doing exactly what Catholicism specifically prohibits.

If you think this is biased conjecture on my part, go to any online site that discusses divorce in the Philippine context, and you will see a common answer emerge from those who oppose it vehemently: "I am against it because we are a Catholic country".

I seriously doubt that the representatives who intend to file the divorce bill in Congress will succeed: People generally want to have their cake and eat it too.

That's what annulment does for this Catholic country: it ends the marriage, with minimal to no social stigma, leaving the parties free to remarry until the next annulment, and best of all, earning brownie Catholic points for "staying true" to church doctrine.

Besides, I've never heard of a church that gave back refunds for annulled marriages.