A Curious Cat Reminder

There’s a lot of heated talk over the controversial decision to award National Artist status to film director Carlo J. Caparas and theatre maven Cecile Guidote-Alvarez. After reading through some of the discussions, here are a few points I want to raise:

A. Don’t think of this issue as pop versus culture, high-brow as opposed to masa, rich against poor.

1. The quality of work (in the case of Caparas) or the effort put in (in case of Alvarez) is irrelevant. The worth of the art and the artist is not the issue here.
2. Granted representatives of the National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA) and the Cultural Centre of the Philippines (CCP) select the nominees for National Artist. So for our purposes, let’s assume all things are equal (including the quality of the art) to put the nominees on equal footing.

B. Likewise, keep in mind that it’s not the National Artist title itself that is important but rather what the title itself symbolizes.

1. More to the point, the title represents the decision of the judges to award you and your work. That means that you abide by the judgment of these people picked to make the selections. As someone once pointed out, to me if you want to play the game, you've got to play by the rules of the game.
   
2. Without that judgment, the title itself is nothing.

C. Which brings us to the third point: the selection process is the issue here. There are set rules on how the National Artists are selected and these were circumvented.

1. Certain nominees (including Caparas and Alvarez) were included by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as National Artists OUTSIDE the selection process (presidential prerogative notwithstanding-- and this is not even defensible).
2. What’s more, the selection of Alvarez was wrong to begin with, given her position as NCCA chair. This is regardless of her achievements, status and efforts in her field. Awarding the head of the body that’s giving out the award? That is major FAIL.
3. My theory is that this is symptomatic of the Filipino’s sense of ako muna (“me first”) again. As an example, we would normally line up if the rules require us to do so. However, given a chance, we would jump the line if we can. It all boils down to who you know.

D. If these nominees were really deserving of being cited, then a title should be created or a separate existing award should be given to them instead of making a hash of the current award system.

1. You say they’re popular, that they’re loved by the masses? So create a popular artist status. That way, you won’t have to worry about being academic about it.

I’m probably mucking some stuff up here with my logic tree but that’s the way I see it. And I instinctively distrust anyone who says they deserve the award anyway.

The Day After Independence Day

Given all the concerns raised by the Con-Ass and the Cha-cha in local politics, I came upon this speech in Rafael Sabatini's swashbuckling adventure novel Scaramouche which I thought was quite pertinent.

In the events leading up to the French Revolution, protagonist André-Louis Moreau addresses the crowd at the city of Nantes on the despicable actions of the nobility. The entire speech can be seen here:

"My name is Omnes Omnibus-- all for all. Let that suffice now. I am a herald, a mouth-piece, a voice; no more. I come to announce to you that since the privileged orders, assembled for the States of Britanny in Rennes, resisted your will-- our will-- despite the King's plain hint to them, His Majesty has disolved the States.

...Unfortunately, the nobles, in their insolent arrogance, have elected to ignore the royal dissolution, and in despite of it persist in sitting and in conducting matters as seems good to them.

So that these men who were already rebels against the people, rebels against justice and equity, rebels against humanity itself, are now also rebels against their King. Sooner than yield an inch of the unconscionable privileges by which too long already they have flourished, to the misery of a whole nation, they will make a mock of royal authority, hold up the King himself to contempt. They are determined to prove that there is no real sovereignty in France but the sovereignty of their own parasitic fainéantise.

This is no new thing. Always has it been the same. No minister in the last ten years, who seeing the needs and perils of the State, counseled the measures that we now demand as the only means arresting our motherland in its ever-quickening progress to the abyss, but found himself as a consequence cast out of office by the influence which Privilege brought to bear against him...

But what the privileged orders can no longer prevent, they are determined to stultify. Since it is now a settled thing that these States General are to meet, at least the nobles and the clergy will see to it-- unless we take measures to prevent them-- by packing the Third Estate with their own creatures, and denying it all effective representation, that they convert the States General into an instrument of their own will for the perpetuation of the abuses by which they live. To achieve this end they will stop at nothing. They have flouted the authority of the King, and they are silencing by assassination those who raise their voices to condemn. Yesterday in Rennes two young men who addressed the people as I am addressing you were done to death in the streets by assassins at the instigation of the nobility. Their blood cries out for vengeance.

Citizens of Nantes, the motherland is in peril. Let us march to her defense. Let us proclaim it to the world that we recognize that the measures to liberate the Third Estate form the slavery in which for centuries it has groaned find only obstacles in those orders whose phrenetic egotism sees in tears and suffering of the unfortunate an odious tribute which they would pass on to their generations still unborn. Realizing from the barbarity of the means employed by our enemies to perpetuate our oppression that we have everything to fear from the aristocracy they would set up as a constitutional principle for the governing of France, let us declare ourselves at once enfranchised from it.

The establishment of liberty and equality should be the aim of every citizen member of the Third Estate; and to this end we should stand indivisibly united, especially the young and vigorous, especially those who have had the good fortune to be born late enough to be able to gather for themselves the precious fruits of the philosophy of this eighteenth century.

Let us swear to raise up in the name of humanity and of liberty a rampart against our enemies, to oppose their bloodthirsty covetousness the calm perseverance of men whose cause is just. And let us protest here and in advance against any tyrannical decrees that should declare us seditious when we have none but pure and just intentions. Let us make oath upon the honor of our motherland that should any of us be seized by an unjust tribunal, intending against us one of those acts termed of political expediency-- which are, in effect, but acts of despotism, let us swear, i say, to give a full expression to the strength that is in us and do that in self-defense which nature, courage and despair dictate to us."

For more notes on the story's background, see: French Parlement and a chronology of The French Revolution vis-a-vis classic literature. And who says fiction doesn't have anything to say about reality, hmmm?

1. Picture taken from here.
2. Picture taken from here.
3. Picture taken from here.
4. Picture taken from here.

Welcome to the Republic of Absurdity

Sometimes I really hate this government and by extension, my country. Why? Read this piece by Robin Hemley at McSweeney's:

Few countries can compete with the Philippines when it comes to corruption—it's always near the top of the list of most-corrupt nations and the G20 nations recently blacklisted it, along with only three other countries, for its banking practices. In polls, Filipinos tag customs as the most corrupt department. And for good reason.

Over coffee one afternoon, a book-industry professional (whom I can't identify) told me that for the past two months virtually no imported books had entered the country, in part because of the success of one book, Twilight by Stephenie Meyer. The book, an international best seller, had apparently attracted the attention of customs officials. When an examiner named Rene Agulan opened a shipment of books, he demanded that duty be paid on it...

Not the books, goddamn it. If ever there's a reason for me to join the rebels in the mountains, it's this one.

Ironically, because of their massive incompetence and ineptness, the Philippine government is not something out of the pages of George Orwell's 1984 or Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Rather, it's more like Terry Gilliam's Brazil-- in fact, the sheer absurdity of the government officials' language and reasoning is something straight out of a Monty Python movie.



(Link via kyu.)

Newsfeed in the Brain

I guess I belong to the 1 out of 4 Filipinos who're interested in the US presidential elections. And that's even though I can't even vote in that election.

I can't help it: though I may have gotten burned out after 8 years reporting local news, I'm fascinated by what's happening in the US. That and they have way better candidates than we've had in the past elections. (Unless they field Chiz Escudero vs. Michael Defensor or some young guns in 2010.)

It's right up there in my head with the global financial crisis a close second.

What's third? The upcoming Dela Hoya-Pacquiao Dream Match. Talk about boxing fans' wet dream.

So what's the news on your mind?

Update: Oh wow. The US has just voted their first black president.

Double Update: See, I told you following the economic collapse news was a good idea. (Link taken from Jessica Zafra.)

Triple Update: Howie Severino points out the racism of Filipino-Americans. It's fascinating reading. (Link from Gibbs Cadiz.)

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Motherfucking Custodes

I know this post is a week late but I still can't get over reading Manuel Quezon's argument against the recent court ruling on the Manila Pen arrests of journalists and the bewildering comments that followed after. Particularly, I couldn't get over the hate that anti-traditional media bloggers had and wondered why weren't they getting the point.

Personally, I only speak from experience, coming from both worlds of traditional and online news media, as well as being a blogger. And it seems to me that those commenters don't seem to see the strike against free speech of traditional media is actually a strike against free speech per se. It reminds me of that poem written by the German Pastor Martin Niemöller about the dangers of standing by while the Nazi government carts away the people who are different from you, "First they came..."

The original goes:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Whether a traditional journalist or blogger, one could replace the words above with the tag 'journalist' or 'blogger who I disagree with' and it would still be apt. And on the issue that the law has precedence over free speech, one of the few things I remember from my political science background is the fact that laws are supposed to serve people, not the other way around. The judge should have dressed down the journalists for reckless endangerment AND the police for brutality. But then again, this is the Philippines so what do you expect?

On the idea of bloggers being better than journalists (and vice-versa), all I can say is: call out stupidity, false reporting and illogical arguments where ever it may be. Stupidity is universal: it's not limited to any particular group, whether bloggers or traditional journalists. As they say, don't bullshit a bullshitter.

Blathering idiots.

Unforgiven* Had Nothing On Us

Just a thought: Given how the JDV-House issue is in all the news right now, I'm just wondering: is it me or or are we Filipinos such a personal race?

That is, why do we take everything personally? I mean, we criticize someone's work or affiliation or principle-- and the responding person considers it as tantamount to declaring war. I suppose one can can always fall back to principles. But seeing how local politics is so dirty that evil has gradations and sub-levels, I don't see how that's possible. This also applies to other aspects of our world. Ah well...

(Blame this introspection to one of my jobs, which is moderating the feedback column of our site. Boy, those pro-GMA and pro-ABS fans are bloody-minded.)

*And to refresh your memory, I'm referring to this quote from the Clint Eastwood movie: "Any son-of-a-bitch takes a shot at me, I'm not only gonna kill him, I'm gonna kill his wife and all his friends and burn his damn house down. Nobody better shoot." Now that's what I call taking it personally. Hell, you might as well kill the dog also!

The Reason

So you're wondering what the hell the why-for was last Thursday? Read on...

(Three military officers being charged for coup d'etat meet in a Makati City court.)

1st military officer: Hey, I need to get out of here. What's the best way to do it?

2nd military officer (higher-ranking): Well, we can create a diversion?

3rd military officer-turned-senator: But what kind of diversion? It has to be good enough that the government won't notice he's gone until hours, maybe even days later.

2nd military officer: Well, we could always walk out of here and lodge at a hotel nearby. I've always been preferential of staying at Manila Pen.

3rd military officer-turned-senator: Yeah, and we could call everyone's attention and nobody will notice that he's gone.

1st military officer: Great! So, shall we go?

And the rest, as they say, is a madcap notch in our crazy political history...