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.

Thoughts On A Holy Thursday

As the country is in the midst of a 5-day break to celebrate the Holy Week (and Araw ng Kagitingan), I noticed something peculiar on my way home from work yesterday (or maybe I hadn't seen it in years past): An "interactive" Stations of the Cross, right smack in the middle of Glorietta - actually on the park in front of Glorietta 3.

(Courtesy of pinoyexchange.com)

I was a little too stunned to be seeing these "stations" in the middle of a park in broad daylight, about 2 feet apart separating each station, where there is maximum, uhm, exposure. While it certainly takes the "travel time" equation out of the usual visita iglesia (church visits) that Catholics usually do during this holiday, it makes me wonder if something gets lost in translation if, like many conveniences in modern life, they are easily available, accessible and as the name itself says, convenient.

And in case it wasn't yet obvious, I am a minority in this predominantly Catholic country. In other words, a non-Catholic.

My comments are purely from an outsider-looking-in perspective.

While so many people take Holy Week to mean their chance to finally show off their marbled physiques in Boracay, I find it strange that a few days that enforces me - a non Catholic - to "celebrate" Holy Week by law (which, in itself, can be questioned constitutionally) is oftentimes a chance for actual Catholics to be frivolous and spent in ways that can actually redefine debauchery.

Part of what gives me the freedom to view this point through these particular glasses is because I'm not "of the majority", so it really is more of a "that's quaint" attitude. I have to wonder if those responsible for thinking to set aside these days - where Stations of the Cross are some kind of necessary rite of passage for Catholics - had beach parties in mind thrown in the mix.

I have always been uneasy with people who are too showy and demonstrative of their faith, regardless of religion. I view faith as something intrinsically private - hence, none of a faith's particular tenets can be enforced on every citizen - but if I'm being forced to celebrate a Catholic ritual by law, I'm just wondering why I seem to be more reflective about Holy Week than actual Catholics.

As I was leaving the interactive Stations, I overheard a father telling his wife and kids, "Mabuti natapos na natin ang mga Stations of the Cross, tuloy tuloy na bakasyon natin." (It's a good thing we're done with the Stations of the Cross, so we can have an uninterrupted vacation.)

I would love to hear responses to something I've always pondered about every time Holy Week comes around.

The New (Doughnut) Kid In Town

Hearing friends talk excitedly about J. Co Donuts, the newest doughnut franchise to sweep into Manila, I thought about how animated they were. These were mostly people who have been to Indonesia (where their first store opened) and had sampled these goodies there. (See http://www.jcodonuts.com/ for more information.)

Having lived in Makati for the last 7 years, I thought what a pain it was for me to have to travel all the way to Megamall just to sample these much talked-about desserts. (Which is where the first J. Co franchise in the Philippines opened.)

Fortunately, I had to meet my parents there and had a leisurely Sunday brunch so I thought I'd kill two birds in one go and pass by the store as well after brunch. I bought my parents and me and Art 1 set each of assorted goodies to try out.

Side note: I normally judge a doughnut store mostly on the strength of its' coffee. I'm not really a doughnut person, and once I've tried a particular flavor, I don't need to repeat it anymore.  And it seems like the doughnut stores know this - through the years, some of the best coffees I've had were from these kinds of establishments, and not necessarily from actual coffee shops.

The names of the doughnuts were what popped out for me, aside from the colors. Avocado Di Caprio really sticks to one's brain, given the actor's popularity. (And I thought what a strange flavor to have on one of these things.) After I made a selection and I brought it home for Art, we both thought they looked too pretty to eat.

I'd have to say it's a 50/50 proposition: Over the course of a week and a half, Art and I tried out all the flavors, and for every one flavor that was a thumbs up, there would be one that wouldn't be too well received. (The avocado flavored one didn't really register a wow on the tastebuds.) I liked the Tiramisu flavored one (we both did) and the Pistachio flavored treat was also one that stood out. Green Tease (green tea flavored) was my favorite, as it is a flavor I actually like (and a tea I usually have).

One big plus though was that these weren't the cloyingly sweet variety, unlike that other well known franchise. Which is always a good thing. And the variety was also another plus - I actually got a cheese flavored one, and I believe they used bleu cheese (?) as it had that distinct, sharp, pungent flavor punching through. (Last row, 2nd one from the left in the picture.)

As my Megamall jaunt was really more to see my parents, I just took the doughnuts for take out/take away and I didn't really stay, but from what I saw, the store was really spacious (it's located in Building B but in the strip that's in between both buildings). I'm assuming it has wi-fi because people had their tablets and netbooks turned on - probably blogging about their J. Co experience as it was happening.

Thankfully, as my client and I were jogging past Greenbelt, we discovered that J. Co was about to open a branch for the Makati crowd. 

I will be back for the coffee.

In Makati, of course.




J. Co Donuts (Philippines)
Building B, Megamall
Ortigas, Pasig
https://www.facebook.com/JCoDonuts.Pilipinas

Manny To God: Teka Lang, Okay?*

The metaphorical ink hasn't dried up from my last entry, and already, Manny Pacquiao has given me fodder for my next post.

Reading through today's front page news, one headline caught my eye:

"Pacquiao: Retirement Only In My Dreams"

(See: http://www.philstar.com/sportsarticle.aspx?articleid=789650&publicationsubcategoryid=69 )

(Photo courtesy of bleacherreport.com)

Pacquiao 1, God 0.

I didn't think the last sentence of my last post would be practically prophetic.

(See: http://theguywithablog.blogspot.com/2012/03/when-god-coached-manny.html)

As I have intimated, despite whatever religious flailings you signal to the public to say "I'm a Christian! I obey God!", at the end of the day, it comes down to one thing.

Free Will.

You decide what action to take.

You decide what your fate will be.

Manny, let me repeat: Your will be done.

Whether it's the monstrous monetary payoff, the much salivated power of fame, the eternal glory awaiting in the annals of boxing history, the threat of costly lawsuits from not fulfilling contractual obligations, or a Mayweather matchup "down the long corridors of time" (to borrow a line from Susan Meyers of Desperate Housewives fame), only one thing became evident: Manny slammed the door on God's face.

Imagine, getting a direct order from God, and saying, "Hell, No! That Dog Won't Hunt!"

After waxing eloquent about a dream where God appeared to him, telling him to give up the life of boxing - and take note, we have been bombarded with interviews of Manny and his handy Bible in tow, sprouting off Bible verses the way Sen. Santiago likes to mouth off archaic legal terminology, and photo-ops of him with various Christian leaders who willingly say in interviews how "impressed" they are with Manny's "transformation" into a changed man, presumably to do "God's work" - he suddenly does a turnaround and announces he isn't retiring anytime soon.

"Hindi ko pa pinag-isipan yan sa ngayon. Kaya ko pa namang lumaban." (I won't think of those things first. I can still fight.)

Giving God's personal message the KO: What a headline.

I'm now curious as to what his new "religious friends" have to say now that he has given God a blatant, public slap in the face. Will they be denouncing his "transformation" as an outright deceptive act? Or will we see them act true to form - at least in my eyes - and claim that Manny's decision is God's "timing"?

In any case, aside from Manny, there is one other winner in this battle against God.

Hypocrisy. And Human Nature. Which would amount to the same thing, in this case.



(*Teka Lang - You Wait.)

The World According To Lagerfeld

"Celebrated" fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld of the House of Chanel (clearly, I'm not one of those celebrating, as I have no interest in women's fashion) has made his feelings clear regarding Adele, the barely-in-her-20's singer from the UK who has, judging by both her record sales and critical acclaim, taken the music world by storm this past 2011.

She's too fat.

(Photo courtesy of weheartit.com)

Let me rephrase; the exact words were "a little too fat".

As if the insertion of the qualifier "little" makes it less uncouth and rude.

(See more here: http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/02/12/267479-Adele-a-little-too-fat-says-designer-Karl-Lagerfeld.html)

It doesn't matter that Adele is a heavy favorite - pun intended in this sad, twisted context - to make a sweep of the Grammys. It doesn't matter that people I know are genuinely surprised to see a Caucasian girl upon their first time seeing the video of "Rollin' In The Deep", her soulful voice seemingly suggesting otherwise. It doesn't matter that Billboard has made her the Artist of the Year.

All that matters to Lagerfeld, one of the fashion world's heavy-hitters, was that Adele was too rotund for his taste.

The backlash over cyberspace was felt almost immediately, with showbiz news outfits reporting online slogans like "If you like Adele, boycott Chanel" as the response of fans incensed by Lagerfeld's remarks. In fact, Lagerfeld himself has issued a retraction/apology - I'm not really certain that it was either - saying his remarks were taken out of context. And Adele, in a recent interview, also made it clear that she never aspired to look like the women in magazines, and that she is comfortable with herself, representing the majority of  real women in the world.

Let me make one thing clear: it is a fact that obesity has increased, at alarming rates, and that we should all strive to lead healthier lives, if only to enjoy a better quality of life. Many of our fatal diseases are preventable through changes in physical activities and diets. Childhood obesity, in particular, is on the rise, given our propensity for "fast foods" and lack of exercise, aided in no small part by computers and devices that do all the work for us. Striving to be healthy is a goal that could save one's life, and that is to be lauded and promoted.

But to publicly humiliate a person for her perceived size - what else is a remark like Lagerfeld's supposed to achieve? - is not at all in that category, or even universe. He is not her doctor, and is in no position to judge her health. His very statement is focused on how she looks, and not one motivated by a concern for her health.

I suppose his statement is not really surprising. Long revered as one of the "godfathers" of the fashion world, Lagerfeld has been part and parcel of a superficial, egotistical world, the ones responsible for dictating what it is that women see in fashion magazines, both online and in print, and what is supposedly deemed "desirable" - like that model with a 20 inch waist. The industry, one that is worth billions of dollars, preaching to all that failure to buy a particular dress or not undergoing a certain surgical procedure to "enhance" one's looks will spell your doom and destruction, in the social sense.

So his gaffe of negating Adele's magnificent vocal prowess is par for the course: he, like anyone else deluded in that preposterous world of equating the size of their waist with their self worth, can no longer see other humans as multi-faceted creatures that are complex, deep and reverberating a profound inner life. Dreams, talents, aspirations, fears - none of these concepts factor in for someone who has made it his mission in life to tell women to be dissatisfied with how they are naturally endowed.

In place, they would impose their tyranny of all women looking the same, with the body measurements of mannequins - if they had their way.

That really is the point I rail against: this notion that women have to achieve a certain look and size in order for them to be able to feel good about themselves. (And to also wear the wares they peddle.) That women should consider themselves as "failures" if they look even the slightest bit different from the "perfect women" who strut down the catwalks during Fashion Week.

Or a little too fat.

I have only recently seen pictures of Adele plastered all over. My first connection with her - and judging by her sweep of the just concluded Grammys, it will continue - has always been to her music. She made reference in her acceptance speech (as predicted, she won all the major Grammy awards) why her music seemed to connect with people, intimating that songs  like "Rollin' In The Deep" hit on something we've all been familiar with - "a rubbish relationship".

It is something that speaks of anguish, self searching, and of epiphanies about relationships, the shared human experience, and life itself.

I've always believed that an inner life, one that is content with herself and is at peace, will always exhibit radiance on the outside.

(Photo courtesy of www.dailymail.co.uk, a preview of the March 2012 cover of Vogue featuring the Grammy winning singer.)

And here is Lagerfeld's version of radiance.

(Photo courtesy of gawker.com)

Judging from Lagerfeld's statement, it would seem that the fashion insider is, for once, in a world where the internal life is valued supremely over one's outer shell, an outcast.

Taking A Peek At Mac Land

My PC (Compaq) died sometime late last year - and promptly revived after a few days.

The screen started "jiggling", then it would move up and down in slow intervals. Then it would go dark intermittently. I took it to the computer repair shop I pass by to work, and the technician told me that the problem was the entire screen, and that it would cost around 20,000 pesos (roughly US$ 450) to replace and that I would be better off getting a new laptop.

Not really relishing the idea of getting a new unit after just barely two years with my current one, I fiddled with it - essentially moved the angle of the screen back and forth - and found that at certain angles, the screen would still work. Lately, however, the screen has been "performing" at fewer angles, and I may have to completely replace it soon.

I have been a devoted PC - Windows user. (Anyone remember MS-DOS?) Even the school subjects I had that used computers and programs were all Windows based. I have never used or owned a Mac in my life. There is that oft-repeated statistic used that 95% of the world runs on Windows. It would seem to follow that my next purchase would remain in the PC camp.

Reason enough for me to try to see what lies on the other side.

Full disclosure, though: I have used - and lost (through carelessness and theft) - 2 iPod players and I am currently using an iPad. So the "Apple culture" is not that alien to me. But as far as a MacBook - their version of a laptop - I have not bought, used or spent time with them at all. I must say, though, I like iTunes - I need it for work on a daily basis. Using both the iPod and iPad has made me appreciate that "going Apple" might prove to be an easier user experience - even PC/Windows users have to begrudgingly agree, that ease of use is one cornerstone of Apple's marketing. (In fact,  from what I have seen online, PC/Windows users derisively call the Apple way of doing things "simple" and for "non-tech people".)

It really begged me to look closer into both systems and how users have reacted to what they chose and how they perceive "the other one".

It's war. In fact, one tech magazine called this question as culturally similar to the question of Coke versus Pepsi.

(Photo courtesy of forbes.com)

(Photo courtesy of toptechreviews.net)


Reading through blogs, news articles and tech sites, the general impression I got from PC users criticizing Mac was that Mac users are supposedly tech simpletons who are being suckered into paying so much more and getting so much less in terms of their computer's technical specifications, hard drive, etc., and would pay for a premium for "appearing cool". Gamers - of the serious variety - would never deign to soil their fingers on a Mac, for the aforementioned reason, as well (they need very specific tech specifications to run games, like how much RAM will it take for a game to run smoothly). And everyone is on Windows practically, so Apple users are being "elitist".

Mac users, on the other hand, call out PC users for being fixated on the price point, that they do not realize it takes 2 or 3 new PCs to match the longevity of a single Mac. (Translation: You would have already bought 2 or 3 PCs due to your unit breaking down for various reasons, and a Mac - if Mac users posts are truthful - can last 4 to 5 years. The underlying message also, of course, is that you spend more in the long run, buying 2 or 3 PCs, in the same amount of time for a single Mac.) As for the 95% stat of Windows, Apple users like to point out that you can use Windows on a Mac (using the Mac OS/Operating System, currently OSX Lion), while the reverse cannot be said (You can't run Mac's OSX on Windows, although I've read a few posts that say it's possible with "partitioning".) And the style factor of Apple has always been copied by PC manufacturers, but they'll always be duplicators.

In other words, you can find enough reasons to go for one side and hate the other. It looks like that commentary about this battle being the same as Coke vs. Pepsi is spot on.

I suppose it would be very easy to be objective about this dilemna (which will be my next purchase). Price wise, Apple has always been considered "expensive", and not just here, but everywhere in the world, apparently. That is not to say that PC manufacturers haven't used price also as a way to identify themselves: at the current 2012 CES (Consumer Electronics Show), Samsung unveiled their 2012 Samsung Series 9, and it will retail for $1499, which is even higher than some MacBook models. But you can get a lot more options (by brand) when choosing a PC, and at varying prices to suit your particular budget. (For more info about the Series 9: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/best-ultrabook-of-ces-2012-samsung-series-9/6409)

Specifications wise, it also looks like you get more bang for your buck - or peso - with PCs. With more companies making PCs, there certainly is more variance between companies, models, usage. There are PCs devoted and marketed for gaming, others are sold as ultimate workhorses, and some as portables. You can configure the insides of your own with a PC - similar to what guys have been doing under the hoods of their cars. With so many models, you get freedom to choose what specifications, technical and otherwise, fit your work/play/actual life.

But I cannot help but notice that the articles I come across regarding this seem to have made Apple products the benchmark: Titles like "Taking The Wind Out Of The Air" or "MacBook Air Killer" just seem to keep hammering the point - an unintended one by PC manufacturers - that Apple must be doing something right, to induce that much peeking-over-your-shoulder from other companies. (Personal rule of thumb in life: If you're constantly comparing yourself to others, you keep looking sideways, and not forward.)

Since embarking on a more than casual research, I've also found the fact that I can open most of my Windows files on a Mac very appealing. (As an example, someone can send you an Excel file on a Mac, you can open the file and edit it in Numbers, Apple's version of Excel, then send it back to the person as an Excel file.) In effect, a Mac purchase would not "cut me off" from the "Windows world". If I needed to use more extensive applications, there's Windows on Mac and Office for Mac.

Also, the idea of PC viruses prompted me to look at Apple, because, as they claim in their website (http://www.apple.com/), they never get PC viruses. They update their OS regularly - I can attest to that, seeing as how with the iPad and iPod, I constantly get my updates for iOS (the operating system for Apple's mobile products).

And the loyalty of Mac users has always astounded me - if the entire world is 95% Windows, they must be getting a great experience, and not really caring that they just comprise 5% of the pie. (I did read an article that said that number has bumped up to 7%. I just don't have the link, I've read too many articles and I didn't get to bookmark that particular one.)

I've decided that the only way that I would learn about the full Mac experience is to try it out myself - without making any financial commitment yet. As it happens, one of the Premium Resellers in Manila is giving free seminars on how a Mac would work for your particular needs (for photo editing, for general use, etc.) In my case, I was keen on attending the seminar on Apple's productivity software - essentially their versions of Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint, and see how that translates into my work life should I make a switch, and whether or not their claim is true (that I can move back and forth between files from both Windows and OSX). I will attend the (hands-on) seminar and find out for myself.

At the end of the day, your choice should come down to how the computer works for you, and not the other way around. I am not a PC gamer so there are some specifications I can do without. I travel to different places for work so ease of handling is one concern I have. I seem to have friends and colleagues using both PCs and Macs, although the % of Mac users is decidedly higher than just 5%. I don't buy a laptop with the intention of taking it apart - guess that explains why I'm not an engineer. The older I get, I just want things that work and run smoothly.

Here's to seeing if Apple can hold that part of their promise.

Awa Trumps Talent. Or Truth.

Uncanny how an artificial environment like television reveals truths about our culture.

I saw three "talent shows" this past week, Pilipinas Got Talent, and Showtime, from ABS-CBN (Channel 2); and then, switching channels, I also caught Talentadong Pinoy, from ABC (Channel 5).

(Photo courtesy of dugags.com)

(Photo courtesy of pilipinasgottalent.net)

(Photo courtesy of pinoysgottalent.com)

As the shows progressed, one common thread started to connect them all together - even across channels. And no, it's not the talent - that is debatable, which is why there are judges on the shows to weigh which ones are "worthy" of the cash prizes.

What was repeated over and over, was the propensity of all the contestants to make themselves pitiable (in the vernacular, kaawa-awa.)

One contestant had to stand in for his parents' deaths as the breadwinner, and performing magic tricks is what he does to put food on the table.

Another one, a female student, was "waitlisted" by the judges, so she informed the host that she was deciding whether to wait for the judges' decision or go to school for a function she was supposed to be present for, and then when the cameras are on her, declares with all conviction that the teachers will understand if she stays at the TV station. (Wink, wink.)

A group of young female gymnasts start crying on camera, declaring that they have no space to practice, and so they do it in a public area, where the concrete gives them sprains, bruises and cuts.

Then there's the mestiza ("mixed breed"), part-Pinay and part-African-American, who says her power in singing comes from the memories of all the racist remarks and acts she has had to endure until that very point in her life.

Everyone's got a sob story. Which is not to say I don't believe them, or that I am belittling them their "struggles" and "pains". What I find suspect is the timing.

They always give these teary-eyed melodramas either before they start to perform, or long before their scores are given, and the judges are still waiting to make up their minds. In this regard, I'm almost certain the shows' directors or writers are also to blame, most probably needling them for these same stories to make them more "human" and "interesting", equated as "triumphing over all struggles". Which the contestants are only too happy to oblige.

And this, I observe, is something ingrained in our culture.

When you see a traffic enforcer pulling over a motorist, there's always some sorry excuse given by the violator as to why s/he was forced to break the law. Whether it's buying medicines for an ailing relative, or rushing to an examination, there's no shortage of excuses as to why they should be allowed to go free.

My personal experience: In line for an international flight, a group of extremely late women tried barging in front of the lines for immigration, exclaiming loudly they would miss their flight, and that people "had" to give them way. Their flight was leaving around 7PM, and they were still in line at 6:45PM - obviously they have never heard of the three-hours-before-your-flight reuirement. Or, more plausible, they were just late. Period.

We (our travel group) were lined up for at least 45 minutes already, and when I was next to be served, the "leader" of the late group stood beside me, and with no introductions, suddenly twisted my hand to see what time I was leaving in my travel documents, and when she saw I had a good 2 hours before our flight, exclaimed - loudly again, not by coincidence - "Ang tagal mo pa naman pala, eh! Mamaya ka nalang, paunahin mo na kami, male-late na kami, oh! 7PM ang flight namin, eh!" ("Your flight isn't for now yet. Just line up later, let us go first, we'll be late! Our flight is 7PM!")

I replied - and to those of you who know me, this is no surprise - "That's not my problem. If your flight is 7PM, you're supposed to be at the airport at 4PM. Precisely because of all the procedures you have to undergo, like this line we're at, one of many. It's now 6:45PM, so obviously, it's your fault for being late. Line up. Go to the back of the line."

What followed was not pretty, involving airport police. (I get a smile everytime I remember that incident.)

But just like that uncouth woman at the airport, Pinoys love using the awa (pity) card, just to get ahead. Or to escape judgement or punishment. As long as it will bring us closer to the goal, everything's fair game in love and (the crying) war.

In the case of the contestants, it's used as an insurance policy: In case the judges aren't "sold" on the dog-and-pony show, they might be moved by the fact that I have 4 life threatening diseases and I'm still here performing for them. Or that video showing how I have to feed my 7 other siblings, that might clinch the 2 million pesos prize.

And before you pooh-pooh this as just mindless commentary about some TV shows, think again.

Didn't we just witness a former President - coincidentally -  having to undergo major surgery, right when there was heated talk about finally being able to charge that President for anomalies that occured under that Presiden't adminstration?

Or how about those witnesses being called in for legislative and judicial hearings, who "suddenly" get heart attacks, or hot flashes, or have to be rushed to the hospital, and the day after, they "have" to be confined - doctor's orders, just when the facts of whatever case they are involved with are starting to surface?

And the PR people of these Suddenly Sick Susans or Sams come out and say it directly in their press conferences: "Di lang ba kayo naaawa?" (Don't you even feel pity at all?")

Like I said, the timing is always suspect. But then again, we have always touted ourselves as "the happiest people on earth", and if we are to claim that, then we have to be cognizant of one sterling fact that all comedians know by heart:

Timing IS everything.

Morality By Way Of Reality (TV)

We've been bombarded with a deluge of "reality shows" by now, so I thought I'd compile what I've, er, learned from them. After all, this is a fairly recent phenomenon, and I have a feeling that future social scientists will study our (by then) primitive habits and look back at this era with a mixture of pity and revulsion. And probably laughter.

Survivor

Jeff Probst (the host) takes us on various island settings, along with about 16 (or so) contestants, who, by virtue of their surroundings, have to be in various states of undress the whole time. They are fighting over a million US dollars, and they have to perform various physical and mental challenges to determine the winner. In underwear. While the concept of starvation (contestants have to look for their own food and prepare them) and physical exhaustion are serious red flags to contend with, I think the show is mostly anchored on two things humans are endlessly fascinated with: bitch fights and wannabe underwear models.

Alliances are formed within "tribes" in order to eliminate the competition or threats. If you're too strong or too smart, the others have to find a way to kick you out (the elimination process called "tribal council"), where people have to explain why they don't like you in gory detail. (Recipe for bitch fighting assured.) And again, they still have to be in underwear mode.

In effect, this isn't a "case study of human evolution" (as I saw in one blog's comments before, on how to describe the show). This is a celebration of mediocrity. In underwear.


Big Brother

A group of "housemates" are recruited and "forced" to live together in one house. Similar to Survivor, contestants have to perform various "tasks". The show becomes interactive (and lucrative) due to the "voting" aspect: while contestants themselves determine 2-4 members who they deem "unworthy" of continuing the "journey", TV viewers get to text their preferences on who to "save".

Having seen both versions (US and Philippines), I can say that the most important quality one has to get into the show is a better than average physical make-up (either by face or by body). If you don't have those qualities, you are either typecast as the joker, the brooder or the anomaly ("what the heck is s/he doing there?!?"), the better to have more drama with.

Locally, I read through a comment in a newspaper, praising the first winner of Pinoy Big Brother as a "hero". Unless we've redefined that word, I really don't see how tryng to gain people's votes and sympathies with a sob story and panning for the camera for a month - 2, tops - in the hopes of getting 15 more minutes of fame and a cash prize can be considered "heroic".


The Simple Life

Paris Hilton. Nicole Richie. Cow Dung.

No, that wasn't a mean equation (adding the first 2 producing the last one). It's where they expected the two, uhm, actresses (by actress, we mean "someone in a TV show, period") to dig their stillettos in.

The show follows the two socialites in their (mis)adventures in rural life, trying to buy groceries, milking a cow, and other activities regular people don't make a big fuss about, because - I don't know, there isn't any need to make a big deal about activities of daily living?!? The plus side of this show is that both "actresses" know they are in for the silly factor and have no pretensions to "greatness", just media mileage. In a strange way, that somehow makes them a little more likeable than the other pretenders in this genre.

And the poster girls for this generation's obsession with fame for its' own sake.


America's Next Top Model

Tyra Banks, having seen "better days" as a model (read: she is now deemed "fat" by the industry that spawned her), parlays her experience into running a successful reality show, where wannabes (I know this is gramatically incorrect, as my English teacher Ms. Liwanag would always remind us, but given the topic, this is totally appropriate) show up to be judged on their "modeling ability", requiring them to pose with scorpions, on top of a glacier, etc.

While I do not presume to know the "travails" of a professional model, what I've learned from the show is that models get to sit around all day waiting for their "moment" while make up artists scurry about them, gossiping till kingdom come, and no one needs to exercise, since everyone seems to be genetically emaciated. Yes, Tyra made an effort to put in plus-size models, but that lasted for all of 1 (or is it 2?) seasons. And since this show is up to something like 15 seasons (or even more), that pretty much says that "only sticks need apply".

And the judging process is a phenomenon by itself. A small 2 degree tilt of the head would have made a world of difference. Or showing one less tooth in the smile would have made it a "cover". If ever there was an argument against the tyranny of beauty, this would be it.


The Bachelor/Bachelorette

More than a dozen women or men applying to be your "soul mate". On international TV. For "true love".

Do I really need to dignify the absurdity of this concept? Practically all of the "winners" (the lovers who find themselves in each other's arms after the show's run) are "broken up" (some even going so far as breaking wedding engagements - the thing that surprised me when I heard of this was the fact that they even considered marriage when they should have treated it as their vehicle for a little more fame, nothing more) so that says it all about the show's "goal". And really, this is how you want "true love" to blossom?

And, it goes without saying, everyone here is above average in the beauty department. Again.


These 5 shows are a sampling of what constitutes "reality TV", and strangely, serve as a commentary of what we now value and consider as "what-to-do". I know some of you will say "the environment is totally artificial!" - true, on the surface. But what about these lessons that we learn?

1. Fame is all-important. Everything you do must be in service of this goal. Good and bad publicity, go for it. Take it.
2. If you act silly, make sure you look cute doing it, and you will get away with it.
3. If you have a nice body, strip as much clothing as you can/dare, and you will also get away with anything.
4. If you have a nice face and a nice body, you won't need anything else to be an "actor", "model", etc.
5. If you can't be the "nice one", then be the "nasty one". People will rally around both, anyway. At least you are assured a fan base. Plus, it's fun to lord it over everyone else.
6. Backstabbing is a part of life, and anyone who doesn't do it is just "weak".
7. Backstabbing saves you from elimination, so it must be a positive thing.
8. Before one gets eliminated, make sure to crap over everyone else. You want to leave your mark, however odious it may manifest itself.
9. You can marry the competition to multiply your fame. (Think Rob and Amber from Survivor where they were competitors, they went on to The Amazing Race as a couple, and eventually had their own reality show where they got married.)
10. If you are too smart, too athletic, etc., you are a threat to everyone else. Think small. Be smaller. Or suffer the elimination.

Do you still believe this is something removed from our actual lives? Think again.

Wisteria Lane, Philippines.

Anyone who follows the American TV show "Desperate Housewives" (ABC, http://abc.go.com/shows/desperate-housewives) knows that it is not really set in the "sleepy suburban town of Fairview". No, no, no. Wisteria Lane is really a street in the Philippines.

How can anyone miss this basic fact?

Yes, yes, the show is supposed to take place in the "Eagle State". But let me walk you through scenes and situations that, really, can only happen on a Pinoy kalye (Philippine street).


1. Gossiping is THE thing to do.
Need we say more? In Wisteria Lane, every day and every moment is spent gossiping - why did Mary Alice Young shoot her brains out? Who really ran over Mrs. Solis? How did Carlos get so wealthy? What the heck was Felicia Tillman thinking when she cut off 2 of her fingers?

And we go one step further. When we see a murdered corpse here, people find a stick to poke the body with. (You never know if there's cash lying around.) CNN reports a hostage shootout in Manila, we go to the site the next day to take pictures - and we're all smiles because we've transformed it into a local attraction.


2. You're Not Made If You Don't Have A Nice Car.
In "Desperate Housewives", the social strata is clearly delineated by the type of car that each of the lead character drives. Lynette Scavo, always seen as the "poorer one", goes around town with the family friendly option, the mini-van. Bree Van De Kamp, the doctor's wife, drives around in what can best be described as "high-end models" (think along the lines of an Audi). The pricier your car is, the better to rub in people's faces that you are worry-free financially. In one of their scenes together, Lynette can be seen hating the fact the Bree just purchased a brand new car on a whim, and in fact, verbalizes this to her.

A cursory glance of the cars coming out of villages like Forbes Park makes it apparent that the rich, er, showcase their status with their cars - of course, once they leave their glitzy enclave, the irony is that the teeming masses are in buses, jeepneys, and even on foot - most people here will never be able to even own a car, any car.


3. Marriage Vows Are Immaterial.
Gabrielle Solis makes a big show of being Catholic. Bree Van De Kamp proudly claims to be Presbyterian. And yet, these 2 characters - giving the illusion of "happy marriages" - have huge storylines concerning their infidelities: Gabby with her teenage gardener, Bree with her divorce lawyer - before her divorce. Yes, they resolved these loose ends - resolving them in classic Pinoy melodrama fashion - but the damage has already been done.

Everyone in this country knows someone who is born out of wedlock (in local parlance, "anak sa labas"). Mistresses parade around town with nary a care. Even presidential candidates are excused their "macho" proclivities. Gabby, Bree, welcome home.


4. Children Are There To Fill Our Labor Needs.
Tom and Lynette Scavo tell their kids they have no choice but to be the waiters, servers and everything else in their failing pizzeria. Julie Mayer has to balance her mom's checkbook, do the laundry as well as the grocery shopping. If there's work to be done, just call on the kids. In Wisteria Lane, they are indentured servants...until they turn 18.

We need to inform Marc Cherry (executive producer of "Desperate Housewives") that in our lovely islands, children are bound for LIFE. Owing to strong familial duty as well as encompassing Catholic guilt, we are told time and time again that "anak ka lang!" ("you are merely an offspring!") and so parents here have every conceivable right to demand that they be served hand and foot either until death (of either party) or when they decide to "set you free" - which incidentally amount to the same thing. If you refuse to do any of their biddings, watch as parents re-enact a mini telenovela right before your eyes: "Alam mo bang muntik akong mamatay nung ipinanganak kita?!? Alam mo bang nabaon kami sa utang para lang makapag-aral ka?!? Ang bawat hininga mo, ako ang nagbigay sayo nyan!!!" ("Do you know I almost died giving birth to you?!? That we became mired in debt just so you could go to school?!? I own every breath you take!!!")


5. Backstabbing Must Be Done With A Smile. Or A Pie.
One of the most pervasive ongoing themes in the show is how everyone uses whatever means they can employ to get what they want - of course, without the target knowing what has really transpired. In the guise of having a good time (read: getting stinking drunk), Lynette jeopardizes Tom's entrance exam so that he won't get into college for a second time. Bree needs a contractor to fix her house, and proceeds to fix him a spectacular dinner and offers her own son for a date. Gabby performs her marital duties so that Carlos won't go on a humanitarian mission with a nun she sees as a threat to her marriage. Susan kidnaps her new neighbors' dog in order to get them to be indebted to her.

This is the perfect country for them to continue filming the next season. No matter how much we hate someone, we never show it. It is considered bad form to be "honest", an affront to our cultural upbringing. Yes, we can dunk someone's steak in the toilet bowl before serving it to them. What's important is that all is well on the surface - and to Pinoys, that's what REALLY counts. We can't risk an ugly Kodak moment. Saving face is the all-too-important consideration, even as we are relishing twisting the knife in someone's back.


"Wisteria Lane, Philippines" shirts, anyone?