Sometimes, It Hits You Like the Soul Train

"Beauty and the Beast" was my favorite Silver Age Disney flick. It was always one of my favorite Western fairy tales, mainly because I could empathize with the Beast.


Heck, the worst part of the Disney movie for me was to discover that the Beast was actually Fabio all along. (Pretty boys suck! Fangs rule!)

Then, I chanced across this particular excerpt from G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy", in the chapter "The Ethics of Elfland":

My first and last philosophy, that which I believe in with unbroken certainty, I learnt in the nursery. I generally learnt it from a nurse; that is, from the solemn and star-appointed priestess at once of democracy and tradition. The things I believed most then, the things I believe most now, are the things called fairy tales. They seem to me to be the entirely reasonable things. They are not fantasies: compared with them other things are fantastic. Compared with them religion and rationalism are both abnormal, though religion is abnormally right and rationalism abnormally wrong. Fairyland is nothing but the sunny country of common sense. It is not earth that judges heaven, but heaven that judges earth; so for me at least it was not earth that criticised elfland, but elfland that criticised the earth. I knew the magic beanstalk before I had tasted beans; I was sure of the Man in the Moon before I was certain of the moon. This was at one with all popular tradition. Modern minor poets are naturalists, and talk about the bush or the brook; but the singers of the old epics and fables were supernaturalists, and talked about the gods of brook and bush. That is what the moderns mean when they say that the ancients did not "appreciate Nature," because they said that Nature was divine. Old nurses do not tell children about the grass, but about the fairies that dance on the grass; and the old Greeks could not see the trees for the dryads.

But I deal here with what ethic and philosophy come from being fed on fairy tales. If I were describing them in detail I could note many noble and healthy principles that arise from them. There is the chivalrous lesson of "Jack the Giant Killer"; that giants should be killed because they are gigantic. It is a manly mutiny against pride as such. For the rebel is older than all the kingdoms, and the Jacobin has more tradition than the Jacobite. There is the lesson of "Cinderella," which is the same as that of the Magnificat -- exaltavit humiles. There is the great lesson of "Beauty and the Beast"; that a thing must be loved before it is loveable. There is the terrible allegory of the "Sleeping Beauty," which tells how the human creature was blessed with all birthday gifts, yet cursed with death; and how death also may perhaps be softened to a sleep. But I am not concerned with any of the separate statutes of elfand, but with the whole spirit of its law, which I learnt before I could speak, and shall retain when I cannot write. I am concerned with a certain way of looking at life, which was created in me by the fairy tales, but has since been meekly ratified by the mere facts.

It is Chesterton at his best. An exposition on this excerpt probably warrants a post on its own.

But back, to "Beauty and the Beast", the particular passage I highlighted once more reinforced why it is my favorite fairy tale.

A thing must be loved before it is lovable.

That particular insight hit me like a falling house. I couldn't sleep thinking about it. I was all, "why hadn't I thought of that before?" It was such a simple lesson, and yet with so many profound consequences about the way we normally think of love.

When we think of love nowadays, we usually formulate it backwards. A thing is loved because it is lovable. This makes love an irresistible force of nature, something that exists outside of us wherein we have no control. All we can do is let love happen and let love draw us to the lovable.

This particular misconception of love, I think, is the reason that we forgot a very important aspect about the nature of love: love is not an emotion, it is an act of the will. Infatuation, passion, attraction, these may all be emotional and irrational. But love in itself is an act of the will. Love is not a matter of the heart, but a matter of mind and heart in perfect accord. We forget this, which is why we cannot bring ourselves to believe that even love can be corrupted by our fallen natures. After all, how can our fallen natures corrupt something it cannot control? But our human will plays an active role in whether or not we love, therefore love (human love, anyway) can be corrupted. I have no doubt in my mind, for example, that Hitler did love his German fatherland. Love, unguided, can lead us down some very dark roads.

The misconception that we love what is lovable is the cornerstone argument for every surrender to the base appetites of man Western society has rationalized for years: from pre-marital sex to no-fault divorce to gay pride. If a thing is lovable to us by virtue of the favor of our appetites (which we mistakenly conflate with out hearts), then we have the obligation to let love and nature take its course and love what we find lovable. 

But love at its best is the exact opposite. For something that is not loved, to be loved is a transformation. I think that if we followed the misconception, then we will never understand, for example, divine love. Man is probably that most destructive, evil force in all of temporal creation, second in all actual creation only to the rebellious angels. There is absolutely nothing lovable about Man in his own condition. We are, as Agent Smith said, a virus upon the Earth. But what makes Man lovable in the eyes of God? It is the fact that God loved him first, even in his lowest, most bestial state.

The very high divorce rate in the West is proof of how much we imbibed the misconception. Spouses tell each other "I don't love you anymore" on the basis that they believe they cannot love what is or has become unlovable. Like a force of nature, "they can't help it". So, why fight it? The best marriages are the ones that, even unconsciously, follow the dictum that it is love that makes a person lovable. The husband may be an irascible dumb-ass. The wife may be a nagging harpy. But if either of them will themselves to love the unlovable other, then they will find that they can stay weather any storm, because there is some mysterious force inside every soul that responds to being loved. Even the animals instinctively exhibit it. The best way to tame a wolf, or any wild, vicious animal, for example, is to unilaterally begin feeding them. The more you feed them, the more attached they become. The wolf becomes a playful dog only after centuries of being fed and cared for, with no expectation of return, by humans. When some wives joke of "taming" their husbands, they're probably not as far from the truth as you might think.

I could only wish that this proper concept of love make its way into more of our arts and more media. But then again, its why some of us turned to writing. I, personally, am quite tired of the repetitive, hollow and disjointed vision of love the entertainment industry in this country keeps pushing on me.

And to think that to realize all this, it took for me what some would call myth and what most would call a fairy story. Maybe there is an elf land after all.

The Nation-State Strikes Back!

George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor (one of the best publishers of geo-political info around), has written that, for all the forecast glories of one worldwide government and the rise of internationalism and international institutions, the nation-state is not about to go quietly into the night. 

The reason for this? International institutions are paper tigers. One may laud the glories of the UN, but if it cannot enforce its will (as parodied so well in Team America), it is nothing more than a global debate club. The same can be said for NATO.

I agree with Friedman that the Russian invasion of Georgia exposed the old, weak, non-magical wizard of NATO. Georgia was an ally of the Western powers, and yet NATO sat back with a cup of tea while Russia proceeded to anally violate Georgia. Germany standing with Russia, in contrast to the Americans and other NATO members, is just an extra proverbial kick in the groin.

As for the UN, we have a UN Human Rights commission headed by Ghaddafi's Libya. At the same time, imagine the Penguin in charge of Arkham Asylum and try to see if that is a good idea. Furthermore, when a UN member state is invaded, what UN army will assemble to defend that state? Those blue helmets will shoot at nothing more threatening than stray dogs, as made painfully evident in Rwanda during the genocide. All those fancy guns and nary a set of balls to fire them. (I suspect that the 11 year old girl who can field-strip an M-4 on YouTube would scare more genocidal maniacs than your average blue helmet.)

No wonder the "freedom fighters" in Mindanao want international intervention. A blue helmet (or whatever "peacekeeper" is in fashion for the day) will probably only give you a menacing glower while you happily rape and pillage your way to your objectives.

Which all leads back to the resurgence of the nation-state. (My apologies to the internationalists in the IPE of UA&P, but, come on...)  In the end, wasn't NATO who made decisions during the invasion of Georgia, but individual nation-states. There was no common interest, only individual ones. Internationalists make the mistake of forgetting fundamental aspects of human nature. There are no collective interests, only individual ones. It will take an overpowering principle, belief, or even myth for man to be able to see the world beyond his own little bubble. Man seeing the common good is actually a transcendent act, not something rooted in his personal nature (or fallen nature, if you will). Unfortunately for the West, its peoples felt that they are too grown up for such principles, beliefs, and myths. Ask any EU bureaucrat about EU values and all you get is a bunch of vapid, committeed-to-death drivel.

There were only two institutions that managed to unite the West beyond the natural impulse caused by an immediate collective threat: the Roman Empire (and its descendants) and the Catholic Church. Guess which one's still around.

The nation state is not going to die out. The nation state will be here to stay, for as long as those advocating internationalism and international institutions come up with a better reason for internationalism and multilateralism other than internationalism and multilateralism just for the heck of it. Unless the UN flag can override the emotional, instinctive appeal of the British, US, French, or whatever flag, the UN will remain a bureaucratic debate club for old and over-paid codgers. No over-arching belief, principle or myth, no common action.

No cult, no culture. (Good luck with that Mother Gaia crap, Kyoto Protocol.)

Personally, watching the UN die will be just as pleasurable (in a schadenfreude kind of way)  as watching the EU collapse. While there is hope that the leaders will get a clue, the history of modern politics gives no indication that such a thing is bound to happen any time in the forseeable future. The last people who had that clue within the EU were its founding architects, now all dead. One is being considered for sainthood. I wonder what they knew that their dimwit successors didn't? Hmmm....

From Our "WTF?!!!" Department

Christian Nymphos

Let that sink in for a moment...

At first, I thought it was some gag mocking evangelical sex practices.

But, no. The site is what it says it is: for Christian nymphomaniac housewives. Check out the sub-title: "Married Sex: Spicy, the way God intended it to be!"

Yeah, these ladies have a thing for the adjective "spicy'.

You might be asking, "Good Lord, how did they come up with this?"

From the site:

We are women with excessive sexual desire for our husbands! There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, God wants us to be madly in love with our husbands. He wants us to keep that fire burning in our marriage beds! We have the Song of Solomon as a perfect example of a Christ honored union where the two people are obviously intoxicated with each other.

Okaaay...nothing really wrong...just a bit...well...creepy.

The word Nympho has a negative connotation for some. It doesn’t have to stay this way. Why can’t we take something “of the world” and make it into something good?

Umm...sure.

That is why we started this website. To minister and fellowship with other married women. Our site was created with a target audience of married women ages 18 – 99. If you are a married, or soon to be married woman, then we encourage you to browse through our categories and make yourself at home here.

Just know that we speak from the heart. We write honestly and in some cases, bluntly. We are not embarrassed or ashamed to talk about what the Lord has done in our lives, including our marriage beds. We hope you bookmark us and come back to see us regularly!

Aaaagh! Why would you want to let the world know what the Lord has done in your marriage bed?!

This is creepy...in the way imagining your parents (18-99 years old! Which begs the question...what if you're 100?) bumping uglies is creepy. I have no idea why a Christian ought to broadcast her sexual proclivities. After all, there's nothing commanding it in the Bible, as evangelicals would hold it. I don't think the injunction in Titus that the site uses means "teach young woman how to be freaks in bed." 

The site is also, in its own way, living proof that the Protestant doctrine of "sola scriptura" is very flawed. These women may be sexy, but when it comes to sex, they go through some very un-sexy Biblical legalism to justify some of their rather *ahem* unhygienic practices.

For example, on anal sex:

The Bible is silent on anal sex. Of course it tells us that homosexuality is a sin and that bestiality is a sin, but it really says nothing about this type of sexual experience between a man and his wife.

So, no discussion on the nature of sex and the place of anal sex within that nature. No discussion on the procreative aspect of the good sexual act. Nothing on the self-indulgent nature of certain sexual acts like this one. Nothing. Just a flippant "the Bible doesn't technically say anything about it".

The comments are much, much worse. Holy shit.

When I come across sites like this, I thank God I was born Catholic. Not that the Church doesn't have its fair share of mixed nuts. But at least, there's more to govern them than their own personal (mis)interpretation of the Bible.

For Your Inner Existentialist

Garfield minus Garfield.

These guys removed the cat Garfield from the comic strips to highlight the existential conundrum that is Jon Arbuckle.

Priceless.

Roma Aeterna, Fuck Yeah!

On this day, October 28, 312, the Roman Emperor Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus, soon to be known to history as St. Constantine the Great (depending on which branch of Christendom one comes from), won the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

The victory allowed Constantine to legitimize his claim to the title "Augustus". More important to Western civilization, Constantine became the first emperor to enter Rome a Christian. From that day onwards, Christian civilization and European civilization would be inseperably intertwined.

Here I am, governed by imitations of Western law, speaking a Western language, wearing Western clothes, while part of a Western insitution (a university).

Christendom, fuck yeah!

Why McCain is Losing...

I am reminded of that old Aesop fable of the man, his son and the donkey. In his attempts to satisfy everybody, the man ends up losing everything. This is McCain's problem. As a man who made his reputation as a "maverick" courting independents, he has attempted to come down on the center of everything.

My foremost example is his support of embryonic stem cell research. In essence, he is propagating the same line of human expedience that Obama's camp embraces with fanatical fervor. (The earlier you are in development, the more disposable you are to the convenience of your superiors.) There is a reason Sarah Palin is much more popular than he is. If only she were running for President, the GOP wouldn't be this down in the polls. For all her shortcomings (Which are, in reality, no worse than Obama's. She just gets more scrutiny, being a conservative Christian and all.), Sarah Palin has the right idea. You do not run against the liberal candidate by positioning yourself as just a little less liberal. You run against him by positioning yourself as a conservative.

In reality, I'd prefer that the US president be a soccer mom who has pulled strings (aka "abused power") to fire an abusive, alcoholic state trooper than a disgustingly corrupt Chicago machine politician who happens to speak nice. Or a so-called maverick who tries to please all and ends up pleasing none. 

26 Years Ago, On This Day...

I was born on a stormy evening. Several hours of labor, and me and my big head finally saw the light of day. To think that birth is in itself a triumph. The person faces many obstacles to existence. In a scene reminiscent of the late Beavis and Butthead, a sperm has conquer all other sperms, all of whom have to get through so many barriers just to gain the chance to fight for existence. (From menstrual flows, to selfish would-be parents, the obstacles to a person's coming into being are tremendous.) Even when a sperm triumphs and unifies with the egg, there is still that nine-month period spent in the dark, waiting for the light. So many things could happen. Health complications, parental neglect, pre-natal murder... even here the obstacles to being are legion.

I was an "accident". When I was conceived, my parents were two newly-weds on their honeymoon, holding down starter positions in their respective careers and still living with their parents. (They first lived with my paternal grandparents.) They were supposed to wait two years before having their first child. As usual, I was a wrecker of schedules. Of us three siblings, two of us were "accidents". Only the middle child was "planned". So, my existence is a gigantic middle-finger salute to all the Edcel Lagmans of the world and their bullshit "reproductive rights" and population control policies. And so on this day, I raise both my middle fingers to Edcel Lagman, Margaret Sanger and all like them, for the philosophy that underlies their efforts implies that I am unworthy of life because I wasn't planned and my parents weren't "informed". (In Sanger's case, I am also unworthy because I'm not white.) I invite those who were "accidents" as well to do the same. Thank goodness there was no Edcel Lagman in Congress when we were conceived. 

Now, twenty-six years later, I look at my life...and I don't really like what I see. I am not what I am supposed to be. (Getting there, but, damn if I shouldn't be there by now.) I'm an under-achiever. I feel like time is my enemy. Heck, I am so tempted to stop counting my years. There were days I wish I were someone else. Some people call it quarter-life crisis, and its worse than midlife crisis because I can't buy a convertible or marry my hot, ample-bossomed secretary to escape the pain of being me.

On the other hand, its been a good life. I have good friends. I love my job. Sure, there's no girlfriend, but I walk into a place everyday where there is no shortage of pretty, intelligent women to talk to. I have an awesome family I love, from the nuclear to the extended. And, I know I can do almost anything I set my mind to. (Just slow down the years a bit, will ya, God? Thanks.)

Monday, my friends and I go on a road trip. Great way to celebrate being alive. Can't wait.

One of Our "Vanguards of Good Taste"

My friend X pointed me to this link right here, where some vanguard of good taste named Dino Manrique spills his brains for all to see regarding professional bloviator Lav Diaz's recent adolescent posing against the MTRCB. 

The relevant bit:

For my part, I, in my Multiply blog, bewailed its stupidity and called again for the abolition of this irrrelevant and pre-historic agency, an oppressive vestige of the Martial Law era. Imagine the stupidity of censoring a film honored in prestigious film festivals abroad like the Venice Film Festival! While other countries are honoring Diaz with retrospectives, his own countrymen are persecuting him and trying to shut him up.

And the most offensive thing about this whole affair is that the MTRCB didn't even bother to watch the entire movie. They only watched less than thirty minutes of the eight-hour movie, and when the first breasts appeared on screen, they decided that their job was done. Who are these morons passing judgment on these works of art? Do they have an idea of what 'context' means? 

Fortunately, unlike the filmmakers of 'Serbis,' Lav Diaz stood his ground and gave the MTRCB the finger. In an interview, Lav Diaz said: "I don't believe in censorship. The existence of the board of censors is very fascistic. Censorship is poison to the arts. Censorship is poison to culture. Censorship is a very feudal act...I will not change anything [in Encantos]. The real struggle is to make good films for our people."

Now that's the way to slay this monster. Way to go, Lav! An unjust status quo will continue to be foisted on its victims if the victims continue to give in. Luckily for us, Lav Diaz is not a victim. Mabuhay ang Pelikulang Pilipino!

Wow. There is so much wrong in the entire screed it is hard to figure out where to begin.

Now, I'm no art-house type. I'm the kind of guy who watches movies because they're entertaining, and from time to time, they have smart things to say. So, I really cannot wrap my mind around the particulars of the avante garde psyche. However, stupid is stupid, no matter what the source.

First of all, calling out the MTRCB for being old ("prehistoric"? You know what else is prehistoric? Art. Let's abolish that too, shall we?) and "Marcos era" (They had movies during Marcos' time too. Shall we abolish movie-making in the Philippines? In your case, please say yes.) is all sorts of stupid. Yeah, let's ignore the concept behind an organization and attack the time it was organized.

Calling it irrelevant has more substance, but also won't get far. Movies are an industry, and industries require some form of regulation. As far as I can tell, based on the decree which created the MTRCB, the board was a concession to an industry already on the brink of collapsing under the weight of its own collective ego. Plus, there is a reason why the American FCC will always be there, especially now that the Production Code has been dead for several decades. Movie messages and themes are seldom universal, and you will need a ranking system to help parents decide whether or not a movie suits their kids, or to determine whether or not a movie is too unedifying for public consumption (like porn). Don't attack the concept or the organization just because you disagree with its current members. Without the ratings system, the movie industry's revenue will plummet as parents become even more selective about where to take the family to on weekends.

As for not watching an entire eight hour movie, I don't blame the MTRCB. The presence of a blatant offense as listed by the criteria is determined, hence the rating. Indulging an eight hour monstrosity is not part of the job desciption. Finding violations is. Who wants to watch an 8 hour ego-trip? Lav Diaz ought to get hired as a professional torturer somewhere. Libya perhaps? Among book publishers, if you don't hook editors within the first five (or in some cases, just the first) pages of your brilliant 600-page manuscript, it gets tossed onto the reject pile. And these people are already there to assess quality. What more can you expect from people whose job is to simply see if a movie meets certain criteria or violates certain criteria. Apparently, it is Dino Manrique who needs an education in "context".  Oh, and yes, Mr. Manrique, I can see the logic in censoring a film lauded by a bunch of snotty people who give awards to justify being snotty. Because being lauded by snotty people is no guarantee of good taste, nor of good movie-making. It can win the "coveted Crying Monkey Award" for all anybody ought to care. By the way, did you know that "Birth of a Nation", a racist glorification of the Ku Klux Klan, was also lauded by snotty movie people? Shall we honor it with some "Burning Cross" award?

As for decrying passing judgment on art, who the hell is Dino Manrique to "judge" this "art" worthy for all eyes to see? Anybody who thinks that the embarrassment to the Philippines known as "Serbis" is a good movie has lost all credibility with regards to telling us what a good movie is.  F*** you too, Mr. Manrique.

As for Mr. Diaz, of course he doesn't believe in censorship. Anything that will prevent him from hoisting his monstrous 10-hour orgies of self indulgence on a hapless public MUST. BE. OPPOSED.

Censorhip, used rightly, can protect a culture. You know what is poison to culture? Stupid, egotistic artists. You give the rotten-false impression that you are the best our culture has to offer. Woe be to us if anybody outside believes that, but the true poison is when even we begin to believe that as well. Oh, and censorship is not a feudal act. Swearing vassalage and honoring societal heirarchies, duties and obligations are feudal acts. Censorship as an act existed for as long as there was art, which predates feudalism. Next time, read up on terms a little before bandying them around like some drunken debutante.

I do agree with one thing that Mr. Diaz said, though. The real struggle is to make good films for the Philippine audience. Unfortunately for Mr. Diaz, it seems that he stopped struggling a long time ago, and settled for intellectual masturbation. His dumb-ass statements reflect it.  

X, you guys have a lot riding on your shoulders... I'm rooting for you guys.

Why the Church Must Fight...

With the troubles regarding the "reproductive health" bill bound to stay with us for the decades to come, (and no, it will not end with a vote on this bill...) it has become quite fashionable to criticize the bill's most visible opponent, the Roman Catholic Church. The usual cliches have all taken their turn. See here  and here for a few examples. Take your pick. The Church is "anti-sex". (Yeah, the Church that holds as sacred the Song of Songs has got to be prudish about sex...) The Church is a hypocrite. (*sigh*) The Church is anti-poor. (Because, you know, being the largest charitable organizer and provider in the world is not enough.) The Church has no knowledge of economics. (And at the same breath, some idiot will comment on the Vatican's so-called billions.) Blah blah blah. You'd be surprised how stupid otherwise intelligent people can be sometimes.

Oh, and of course, there is the separation of Church and State canard, which always makes an appearance whenever a Christian position in public life is involved. Its actually kind of funny that this particular aspect of our democracy never pops up where Muslims are concerned, but whatever.

The thing is, the Church cannot stop fighting the good fight. I found this article, which is the introduction of a book about the decline of Boston's Catholic culture. Boston, Massachusetts used to be the center of power of American Catholicism. Today, Massachusetts is the first state to recognize the abomination of gay marriage. What happened to the Church is Boston?

To put it simply, the Catholic Church in Boston did what all these people who now criticize the Catholic Church in the Philippines want the Church to do: it stopped preaching and teaching its doctrine. To preserve its prestige, it granted concessions to its members. Catholics held majorities in every legislative house in Massachusetts. In order to maintain the rapport, the heirarchy granted concession after concession. Remember JFK distancing himself from the Pope and his "orders" in order to appeal to the American electorate? The Catholic Church in Boston used the same template with Catholics in political life. As early as the 1950's an archbishop of Boston discouraged one of his priests from preaching a dogma some people found "offensive". By 1974, Catholics in the city were discouraged by their own bishop from sending their kids to parochial schools. Catholic politicians were told that they could flout Church teaching with no religious repercussions. By the 70's, Massachusetts had completed the transformation from a socially conservative Catholic state to one of the most liberal states in the US.

All this happened because the bishops kept on yielding to the secular culture until there was nothing left to yield. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, evil succeeds when good men choose to do nothing. And do nothing was what the bishops of Boston did from the 50's onwards, from contraception and abortion, to the latest scandal involving pedophilic and ephebophilic homosexual priests. They even went so far as to caution younger priests against preaching "controversial doctrine", so as not to offend Mass-goers.

The result? I think a passage from the article captures it well enough.

The bishops made a fool's bargain. They were prepared to sacrifice the essential elements of the Catholic faith: the moral teaching, the clerical discipline, even the loving care for the faithful. In return, they hoped to prop up the prestige of the institutional Church. But whatever prestige the Church enjoys is based on public respect for those essential elements of religious faith. When the disgraceful stories eventually hit the headlines, the bishops could no longer fall back on the conventional respect they had once taken for granted. They were willing to sacrifice their apostolic mission to preserve their prestige; in the end they were left with neither mission nor prestige.

This is what awaits the Catholic Church in the Philippines if She begins listening to the intelligentsia and yields. And so She continues to fight, with loud banners in churches and scathing sermons from the pulpit. It is a beautiful sight to see, like a field of Spartans in their shining bronze armor. If the Bishops surrender because a few parishioners get their feelings hurt, then what the Church is and ought to be will mean nothing.

And so She fights. And, long may She continue to fight. Carthago delenda est.   

F*** You, Lav Diaz!

Got this off of some local gossip columnist / movie industry shill:

Lav Diaz’s “Death in the Land of Encantos” x-rated
2007 Venice Film Festival Awardee and NETPAC Best Asian Feature: “Death in the Land of Encantos” got an X rating from the MTRCB.

"The scene where the woman was shown in bed naked with her breasts and vagina (genitalia) are exposed is against the rules and regulations of the board--No exhibition of the "genitals." “Death in the Land of Encantos was supposed to be shown at the .MOV International Digital Film Festival. Martial Knaebel, former Artistic Director of the Fribourg, commented: “I was shocked by this decision which is, to my point of view, totally irrelevant.

Nevertheless, we should congratulate the commission for having watched the whole of your film: quite nine hours! The fact that the commission is treating such a film (which has a high artistic value and a strong social significance, with its selection at Venice ’s as a proof) like any mainstream movie, underlines that this commission is really itself totally irrelevant and outdated.”

Okay, first off, thank you MTRCB for giving this turd burger an X rating. This means that fewer theater chains will be showing this nine-hour narcissistic masterbatory orgy of pretentious preening by local hot-air balloon / gasbag Lav Diaz.

And right on cue, the vanguard of what passes for "good taste" nowadays show up crying "free speech", like this art-house pussy from Germany. Yeah, gratuitous nudity is what free speech is all about, baby! The more art-house pussies in the world there are, the more we need groups like the MTRCB. 

Of course, the shill gets in his own shots. Because, you know, 9 hour orgies of self-indulgence have "high artistic value" and "strong social significance". Napoleon Dynamite had social significance. "Death in the Mind of Lav Diaz" has about as much social significance as your local tavern drunk. One of things that make Michaelangelo's work so great was that even with the fig-leaf censorship, the work was still just as beautiful. If cutting out the nudity makes Lav Diaz's crap even crappier...well...those poor art-house pussies have backed another bad horse. Sure, this crap won some award at Venice. Cry me a river. Fake movie "Satan's Alley" has the "Crying Monkey Award" from the "Beijing Film Festival". That award is part of what makes the parody trailer funny. In my view, awards from film festivals where movies are lauded for making the snotty crowd feel justified in their snottyness are about as good an argument for good movies as the WWII German "Iron Cross" was for good soldiery. 

As for the statement that treating Lav Diaz's work as it treats any other work makes the MTRCB irrelevant, then, it only highlights how badly elitist and pretentious the movie industry in this country is. Heck, if the local auteurs think their work a cut above the rest, let them compete on level ground. If art-house crap is so fucking good, then its greatness ought to shine even on the same level as the regular, mainstream fare. If anything else, it'll force the local gas bags to keep their 9 hour orgies of self-indulgence to themselves.

"Informed Choice"

This is "informed choice"...


The funny thing about the cult surrounding "informed choice" and "freedom of choice" is that it fails to realize that human beings will kill if informed that they can, in fact, kill. This is why freedom must not come free. Some choices ought to be denied, for man by and large will choose evil if he or she thinks it will make his or her life a little bit easier. All "informed choice" does is "inform" the butcher that there is no blood on his or her hands.

Welcome to the new morality. Less intrusive than the old morality.

One of my greatest fears is that I will see the day my country legalizes abortion. That day is drawing near, and I am not yet even 30.

In the year 1930, the Anglican Communion became the first Christian denomination to declare that contraception was morally licit in some cases, as suits the particular circumstances and consciences of the couples, in keeping with "Christian principles".

In the year 2008, Rep. Edcel Lagman re-writes and submits the first "reproductive health" bill that has a viable chance of Philippine Congressional passage. The bill is said "To uphold and promote respect for life, informed choice, birth spacing and responsible parenthood in conformity with internationally recognized human rights standards."

In 1968, British Parliament under the leadership of the Harold Wilson's Labor Party passes the British Abortion Act of 1968, which allows abortion to be conducted by any medical practitioner. This was 4 years before Roe v. Wade and only 38 years after contraception gained mainstream acceptance.

I suspect that we will have some future Edcel Lagman proposing a viable abortion liberalization bill by 2076.

Before the usual suspects come howling in that Rep. Lagman's bill isn't proposing legalized abortion, I will already say that this is a disingenous argument. Even if he does not intend it, the very first step to legalized abortion is to make women at war with their own fertility. One can harp that the Philippines will not necessarily take that next step. But then again, so did those Anglican bishops coming out of the Lambeth Conference of 1930 when it came to the question of England. When pregnancy is the disease and "unwanted children" the cancer, then there is no step women will not take to eliminate both, and there is no rationalization so low that they will not stoop down to get it. All the august arguments made for Lagman's morally vacuous bill will get rewound, rehearsed and replayed once it comes time for the Philippines to begin sacrificing its children to the twin gods of Moloch and Mammon. The dark side of man will make miles out of every inch.

This is "informed choice"...to inform man that there is no barrier to the choice of his own annihilation. I hope Mr. Lagman is comfortable with this bargain with Mephistopheles. He won't be able to take it back.

As it stands, our only real treasure is our people. The cruel thing about the devil's bargains is that in the end, we don't even get what he promised. So today, Lagman would have us sell our souls, for a mess of pottage and a meaningless comfort while our future generations suffer from the impotence imposed upon them by their elders. Europe at least managed to experience some years of economic dynamism before the cold hand of death by sterility completely annihilates what's left of their culture. We won't even get that. What will we offer the world once there is so few of us? Maybe we can tell 'em we'll love them long time. Just take a number please.