How NOT to Fight Feminism (or, a post on "Game")

So, a bunch of Aussie guys (and here's one of them) grew sick and tired of the raw deal they've been handed by a culture saturated by feminism. Their instinct is to lash out. I am well-acquainted with that instinct. Furthermore, I think that they are onto something. A culture saturated by feminism has little room for men to be men, and they have every right to rage against the dying of the light. You'll find among these men a few high-minded ideals, among which are freedom from feminism and the saving of Western civilization itself.

Don't be fooled. Most are much uglier than this one. :D

However, in their desperation to find something, anything, that would save the West, they've turned to a rather silly solution. They've turned to something called "Game".

No, NOT that Game. This one doesn't even know which end of the hammer to use.

"Game", as far as I can tell, is a pick-up technique invented by some guy named Roissy, or his buddy "Mystery", whatever. So, instead of finding a new paradigm on which to build a platform to save the dying West, this group of geniuses turn to a pick-up technique designed by some half-brained Lothario.

So, how do they expect this technique to save the West?

You see, all men in the world are divided into "alphas" and "betas". And you'll know you're talking to a "Gamer" if he starts yakking about "alphas" and "betas". 'Alphas" are the jock assholes who have all the money, looks and unfair advantages nature could ever give a man. They comprise of roughly 10% of the total male populace. "Betas" are the nice guys who work hard and earn quiet livings while being ignored by the grand majority of the female populace until they get tired of being ignored by the alphas and decide to settle with lesser beings. They comprise of the rest of the male populace.

As for the women, the average gamer (or at least, the guy who invented this technique) thinks that all they have going for them is beauty, which is the only means by which they hold power over men. They are the enemy. They are the prey. They may have jobs and college degrees now, but they've never changed.

Aagh! Evil! Terminator! Sic 'em, boy!

So, the entire technique (sold in some douche store near you) boils down to getting girls by acting like "alphas", especially if you're so "beta" your mama's basement is ashamed of you. Essentially, you trick young, unsuspecting pretty women into thinking you're the world's greatest douchebag so they'll sleep with you.

How will this save the West? According to these Aussie rebels (the blog I linked earlier pretty much sums all of them up), the "Game" plan goes like this:

1. Using Game to make them attractive to all these hapless feminist sluts.
2. They'll sleep with them.
3. ___________________
4. Then...world domination?

As you can see, these rebels have all the planning skill of South Park's underwear gnomes. How exactly are they going to save the West with Roissy as their general and this technique as their weapon? The best answer I've heard concerns how they're going to use the technique to be able to start families early and pop out lots of kids to stave off the West's demographic decline. But even this sounds suspicious. Just trying to meet the number of kids necessary to stave off the demographic winter requires that many families have lots of kids, not just a bunch of guys who have more free time on Friday nights than your average yacht clubber. And, this won't happen if the technique you're expecting to save you rests on deceit and is sold in books that can be bought by thousands. Once all the women know you're a bunch of deceitful hacks, the jig is up on "Game", and it'll suck being the thousands of "betas" unlucky enough not to be among the first few to try this douche technique out on an unsuspecting female populace.

No, deep down, what I see are not a bunch of revolutionaries who wish to save the West. Saving the West is just the BS spin these guys take to make themselves feel better about their real goals: scoring. There is nothing in "Game" that teaches you about what to do afterwards. These rebels whine and moan not about the decline of Western culture, but about the fact that it's so hard for average joe to find hot poontang on the dating scene because he doesn't own a Ferrari. Western civilization just earns a couple of shout-outs. In other words, when it comes to the Barbarian-Real Man-Wimp spectrum, all these rebels are just a bunch of Wimps wanting to be Barbarians, and "Game" helps them pull off the charade for a night or two.

But what really pisses me off about these pompous losers is that they treat their natural allies, social conservatives and traditionalists like myself, as unwitting pariahs, namely because we're so "beta", what with our values and all. (These morons think "chivalry" is being beta because it involves some form of "submission" to the feminine. Somebody tell that to the femi-nazis!) Their excuse for this is some form of historical determinism followed by the same sort of dickishness the assholes they wish to emulate so espouse.

A pox on them, I say. These idiots will not contribute anything more to Western civilization beyond plugging their dicks in some unwary slut's visiting room. If they prefer passing "Game" on to their boys instead of "barren" Christianity, then all they're doing is raising a generation of man-whores who treat women like a dog would treat a car: they'll chase relentlessly, but will not know what to do with the thing once they catch it. Western civilization is defined by the ideas and values it was built on, not on the prowess of its ersatz males. It is this essential fact that the morons who advocate "Game" as the savior of men fail to see in their idiotic stupor.

Porn star Ron Jeremy: Game's version of Charlemagne

I understand the urge to fight Feminism. I also understand the difficulty faced by upstanding guys who are not blessed with any natural advantage when it comes to dating. Believe me, I'm one of them, and the dating pool hates me as much as it has these wannabe "gamers". But, I refuse to sell my soul to a solution that asks me to dehumanize women as much as feminism dehumanizes men.

You see, women are not this gigantic monolith of one-track lust. Sure, you can complain about 90% of women wanting 10% of men. (This favorite "Game" statistic strikes me as extremely dubious.) But, the truth of the matter is, they're just as human as men. There are also a lot of women out there who are not sold on feminism and are unwilling to compromise their dignity for the sake of an alpha's temporary affections. There are good women out there. These "gamers" are either too lazy or too undiscerning to find these girls, preferring to go through the entire slut ramp to find Ms. Right.

The answer to feminism can never be "Game", which only serves to reinforce the lies that made feminism a power to be reckoned with in the first place. What these "male rights" Game lovers fail to realize about feminism is that it is strong because it is half true. They only see the ideology's lies. They do not see the partial truths upon which feminism draws its strength from, and this is why their solution is short-sighted and weak. These partial truths will seem very true if all men use this deceitful tactic, and will only serve to strengthen the Medusa these amateurs want to bring down. You do not resist the system that castrated you, your fathers and your brothers by playing by their rules, even if you play well. You resist by breaking them and proposing new ones...or old ones, where the case may be. The answer to a dehumanizing ideology is not an alternate form of dehumanization. Ultimately, Western civilization will be saved, not by these confused "gamers", but by those silent, upstanding men (and, yes, women) who pass on the values and stories of the West onto their young. They are the true heroes of the West. And, if the sons of the West really want to bring the West back, then act like good sons and good men. The West will appreciate it. Good women will, too.

Good news for the Aussies is that not all of those frustrated by feminism buy into this "Game" bullshit.

Real Women Eat Meat

This is just awesome.

From Julia Stiles' IMDB page:

No longer a vegan and when Conan O'Brien asked her what the first bite of a hamburger was like she responded, "The word orgasm comes to mind." (December 2003).

Remember, animals have the right to be tasty.

How Else Can You Be an Aging Punk Nowadays?

Caught that line in this article from, of all places, the Guardian.

It was partly out of rebellion that my wife and I chose not to cohabit before marriage. (How else can you be an ageing punk nowadays?)

Yep. Conservative is the new punk. Just ask Johnny Ramone.

Now You're Sorry?

I think this is called "buyer's remorse".

People should vote with their brains, not with the tingly feeling they get in their spines when they hear an "eloquent" black guy speak.

Up

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Animation

This movie managed to construct a more interesting and emotionally stirring love story in ten minutes than Baler and Benjamin Button could in more than 4 hours combined.

Then, they followed it up with an adventure story with so much heart it makes "Rudy" look cynical. Here is how you create a blue-collar hero.

This movie talks about serious things, like dealing with death and memory, without talking down to the children in the audience. This is an art painfully lacking in any other Pixar competitor. They make Dreamworks look bush league by comparison.

If I were teaching about story-telling in movies, I would require this film for students over the very very best and multi-awarded films of our most pretentious auteur savants.

Pixar can do no wrong. I can't wait for their next release.

Best movie of the year so far for me.

Oh, and Pixar...stop making a grown man cry...dammit...*sniff*

Marketing Genius

You've got to give it up to whoever ad agency Frenzy hired to do its condom ads. The use of costumes, the models, the lighting, the premise...sheer genius! They've achieved something in one spot that normally takes an entire semester of sex education to achieve.

They've made sex unsexy!

Good job!

Some "Magna Carta" Of Sorts

Okay, so the Philippine Congress just passed some gigantic "Magna Carta" for women. I'm not up to speed on the details, but at least I haven't seen any "reproductive rights" being crowed about so far. But there is one thing.

According to the Inquirer (print edition for today), this law will disallow the firing of single women who stumble upon the magic of pregnancy. Of course, this is specifically aimed at religious schools, for whom such sleeping around is considered a scandal. Considering that Congress is comprised by people for whom whoring the tattered remains of their dignity is second nature, I highly doubt there will be any sympathy for these religious schools.

Personally, I do not believe that this law ought to infringe upon the right of a corporate entity to define itself. If a religious school wants to fire a teacher for slutting around (and it is usually for this...the pregnancy thing is just because it is the surest indication of it, and the only time the teacher gets "caught"), then they should have all the right in the world to. If equality is the issue, then I would propose that the same stringent measures be applied to male sluts as well. You impregnate a woman out of wedlock (or far worse, a student), you ought to get the boot in the ass too. 

We're Useful After All

I'm a rather cautious fan of Salon's Camille Paglia. She writes sensibly about aesthetics, and is probably the smartest (or least idiotic) politicized lesbian in the US. Being libertarian, she has some kooky and questionable views, but even then, she is fiercely honest. (This is a pro-choice woman who urged other pro-choicers to finally accept that abortion is indeed murder, then simply try to live with it.) However, this just made me laugh.

After a lifetime of observation, I must regretfully conclude that men make everything hotter -- whether in gay or straight porn. I don't mean men have to be concretely present, only implied as the ultimate audience for primo sexual display.*

Yeah, if all the world were ruled by lesbians, they'll still need us to make and quality-test their porn. Let's see other lesbian writers admit that! lol!

* The context of the comment was that she's stating that the best lesbian scenes ever made were, ironically, enacted by straight women, most often for the benefit of men. To see it, you have to scroll until near the end of the article.

What Does Moron Ass Taste Like?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

This is How You Do It

I have found a counter-story to that awful and disgusting essay from the Atlantic that I highlighted a few weeks back. You know, the one with that idiot who divorced her husband because he wasn't giving her the stomach butterflies anymore.

This is an essay wrote by Laura Munson for the NY Times (*gasp*). She's some sort of writer who lives on a farm...I'm not entirely sure. All I know is that she sounds like the most kickass wife in the world.

But wait. This isn’t the divorce story you think it is. Neither is it a begging-him-to-stay story. It’s a story about hearing your husband say “I don’t love you anymore” and deciding not to believe him. And what can happen as a result.

I think the story speaks for itself. Pope John Paul II once spoke of a "feminine genius". I think I now have a better idea about what that is.

What Happened to the Philippine Film Industry's Imagination?

As part of an internship sort of thing with Lopez Museum, I was given the task of labeling old photos taken from the sets of various LVN Studios movies. So, that's what I did all day.

I was given a set of six LVN movies from the year 1950. I only managed to complete the identification process on two of them, but that's what you get when you have to identify actors and actresses nobody has given a second thought to for at least four decades, and all you've got going for you are a stack of fragile old magazines and some commemorative industry books.

But, going through those magazines and trying to mentally restructure what the industry was like in the 50's (no golden age, to be sure, but not that far removed from the first one in Philippine cinema), I was struck by the sheer breadth of the imagination of the Filipino filmmaker of that time.

From the lavish spectacle of the "costume" movie to the simple love story, these guys had a wide range of themes and stories, and it seemed like the imagination was the only limit. Hell, these guys made films about charging knights and gun-fighting cowboys. They even made a bio picture of Genghis Khan! I can imagine how we'd have been the toast of the cinematic world then...our Genghis Khan prefigured that of Hollywood by several years. These guys even made a film on the Nibelungenlied, which was later dubbed in German and showed in Germany! They even made films in English!

So, what happened? At what point in time did our filmmakers stop believing in the story and started harping on the message? At what point did all our stories, as Dean Francis Alfar put it, boil down to mere derivatives of a boy on his carabao dreaming of escaping his poverty (or, if we look at indie film, expressing his deviant desires)? At what point did we get stuck in this nationalist, social-realist rut that has run our imaginations to the ground for the past two or three decades? At what point did we self-censor our imaginations with ideological blinders? I've gotten tired of seeing the "Filipino way of life" as these pretentious auteurs see it, with the Filipinos being nothing more than obssessively Freudian poor folk. That's why I stopped watching Filipino films.

I don't think I would've stopped in the 50's.

Has anybody tried to take the initiative of restoring these old gems?   

EDIT: i stand corrected. Apparently, the 50's (and the 60's) was the Golden Age for Philippine cinema. Cool.

Because Governments Run Things So Well

Looks like Castro has socialized Cuba all the way back to the the pack animal age.

Castro urges Cubans to start using oxen instead of tractors.

"I am thankful for the revolution," the 52-year-old said. "But we don't get boots, tools, irrigation that works."

So much for bringing power to the people. I didn't know they meant ox power.

So, who again wants government to run healthcare?

Would the Church Baptize E.T.?

The short answer is "yes". Although, the statement has met with some controversy. After all, it is an unfortunate fact that the only intellectual traditions left (in the West, at least) still consistently holding fast to "human exceptionalism" are those associated with churches, with the Catholic Church in the vanguard. Discovering E.T., as conventional wisdom goes, would be the death knell of any religion whose doctrine has even a whiff of human exceptionalism.

However, one look at at Church history will provide some interesting insights into how the Church would deal with previously unknown forms of sentient life. Mike Flynn, author of the novel "Eifelheim", pretty much covers the length, breadth and beauty of it in this blog post. Heck, you could probably just stop reading this one and go over there.

In case you're still here, the short version is this: the Greeks, Romans and Medieval Europeans, immersed in a world of myths and legends, are not quite as unfamiliar with the unknown as we pompously assume. They live in a world where sea worms devour ships, monopods hop about on one gigantic foot in some far-off land in mysterious Asia, and cannibals with table manners exist just off the edges of the known map. The modern Western fascination with extraterrestrial and life on places beyond our own maps likely stem from that ancient curiosity about the unknown. The Church, entwined as She was with all of medieval life, was no stranger to the question of unknown forms of life. The question of what to do with "aliens" has been addressed several times. The most curious case, as seen in Flynn's post, is that of the dogheads, a race of beings with human bodies and canine heads that always seem to live just beyond the known world, be it in farthest India, or in the snowy, shadowy North of Scandinavia. In the 9th century, a missionary named Rimbert planned to go evangelizing north into the Viking heartlands. He commissioned a sort of travel guide for what he thought he might encounter there. For the question on dogheads, he went to a monk named Ratramnus, who gave him a detailed "ethnographic" account of the life of dogheads. In it, he concludes that because the dogheads have rule of law, wear clothes to cover the privy parts, and have domesticated beasts serving them, they must be considered a "degenerate" form of the race of Adam (code for "strange, but still human"), and thus worthy of evangelization and salvation.

This kind of thing would become a big deal. It is this sort of reasoning that allowed the Church to conclude, far ahead of everybody else in Europe, that those "indios" in the New World (our ancestors) were human, and thus worthy of the full panoply of rights accorded to human dignity. If it applies to dogheads, it would damn well apply to people whose strangeness is confined to a different skin color and foreign cultural practices.

To further the argument, the Church has not only supposedly baptized them, but has a saint who was a doghead.

St. Christopher the Doghead

Yep, its the St. Christopher of the famous medal, who is most often depicted as carrying the Christ-child across a river. In the Irish account of his life, he received human form as a blessing of his conversion from the pagan cannibalism of the dogheads, and was martyred for the Faith. Unfortunately, he has been taken out of the official lists of Christian saints (though his cult is still allowed), although one can understand why.

Were the dogheads real? Probably not. But if we're allowed to believe in the inevitability of discovering sentient life in the broader universe, who is to say that there isn't a real race of dogheads out there, a group of whom may have already visited Earth? In any case, they have a patron waiting right here for them. Who says the Church cannot do E.T.?

PS

Potential Foundations Topic!!!

Would the Church Baptize E.T.?

Noooo, Joe!!! (spoiler and sailor language warning)

Remember that South Park episode that featured Lucas and Spielberg sodomizing Indiana Jones? Now replace Lucas / Spielberg with Sommers and Indiana Jones with Duke, and you get the idea about what I think happened to G.I. Joe.

Now, my attachment to G.I. Joe is about as strong as my attachment to Transformers. Maybe even stronger, as I had more G.I. Joe toys than I had Transformers. In short, G.I. Joe is a piece of my childhood. Seeing the movie was like watching some auteur take that childhood and piss on it.

I wasn't expecting much. I was expecting no more than the Transformers treatment: a movie dumber than a bag of hammers, but as fun as wielding a chainsaw in a parking lot. I wanted just a little popcorn fun. I don't even mind annoying new characters, because they're at least fun to root against. (Die, Sam Witwicky! Die already, for fuck's sake! Transformers 3, Megan Fox and Robots!)

I could forgive the evisceration of G.I. Joe from awesome Team America (fuck yeah!) to wussy NATO errand boys. What in the world is a "Globally Integrated Joint Operating Entity" anyway? A UN wet dream? Nothing takes the shine out of a cool concept quite like a bureaucratic renaming. Might as well call them Team Synergy.

I can look past the pencil-neck Destro (or, is it Destreaux?) and the Psycho Mantis Cobra Commander. I can look past the revival of stupid Joes (Janes?) like "Cover Girl" (now reincarnated from American super model to East European porn star). I can look past Snake Eyes without his dog. I can even look past a Baroness without the sexy German accent. (Wait a second. No, I can't.)

Prior to watching the movie, I was in Foundations of Humanities class, and one of the examples used to illustrate the  transient nature of earthly beauty is music. Music requires all notes to be in harmony to be considered beautiful. G. I. Joe was not going to be Citizen Kane by any stretch of the imagination. All it had to do was hit a few low notes to create a sort of harmony to please a fanbase with low expectations to begin with. But, like a huge, hairy mole on an otherwise pretty face, all it takes is for one bad note to bring the whole thing crashing down.

G.I. Joe's huge, hairy moles were Baroness and Duke.

Believe it or not, Baroness sucking like a two dollar whore when the sailors come home is not Sienna Miller's fault. It is the fault of whoever dipshit writer thought that Pearl Harbor was a good movie and that implementing Pearl Harbor in G.I. Joe would be a good idea. Not only did the "love" story strike false note after false note, one can see the character being crushed and twisted into unrecognizable mush. Now, Baroness is integral to Cobra's being an effective evil organization, because she's pretty badass herself. And, she's evil. And, she dates a guy with a metal head. Plus, she's integral to practically every goofy Saturday morning Cobra plan that could have succeeded. :D Look at this poster:

Baroness, making Evil and Ugly Dudes look good for over 20 years!

The only reason for saying "evil never looked so good" in the poster is because Baroness is in it. No way Emo Shadow and Psycho Mantis Commander make anything look good. For the "evil" and "look good" to work, Baroness must be both.

So, what happened? Oh, yeah. Fucking mind control. The reason Baroness is evil is that she's got fucking nano machines in her brain! Otherwise, she's the cute little DC housewife who was destined to be neglected. Not only is that NOT evil or bad ass, she doesn't even look good anymore. Just pathetic.

Now, I understand the impulse to "humanize" a character. I even understand the need for "redemption" angles. But, redemption angles are for serious movies, and for serious characters. Plus, just because a motivation is evil does not make it not human. Destro / Destreaux seemed human, and his motivations are as fucking evil as any James Bond villain. By turning Baroness into a mind-controlled sex slave who really wants to sleep with the good guys, they've just taken a huge bite out of the evil badass quotient of Cobra. And, a protagonist is only as good as the antagonist he has to overcome. Without Baroness, G.I. Joe might as well be fighting an ugly one-armed retard. So much for evil never looking this good. Plus, they've turned the ultra-cool (in a goofy Saturday morning way) Baroness into one of the dumbest characters ever concieved for a cartoon to movie adaptation. And that's saying something. Way to ruin a perfectly easy cash cow, Sommers and dumbass writer.

Then, there's Duke. Duke was the heart and soul of G.I. Joe. He was the most bad ass of the Joes. He may have been Duke Nukem's daddy. His blond Viking-in-a-crewcut visage was enough to make Cobra soldiers miss with perfectly calibrated laser weapons.

The movie just had to turn Duke into a podunk doofus hillbilly from Nowhere, USA. Sure, he drives a Harley, and beats Snake Eyes in hand-to-hand sparring (by cheating! shame!), but the way he is carried by the actor makes it seem like all those accolades he's getting from his commanders and teammates really come from a filmmaker insecure about how bad ass he managed to make Duke look like. Channing Tatum, who is best known for dancing like a pussy, carries Duke about as well as how Barishnikov would have carried Rambo. It's a match made in casting hell. Gone is iconic blond Duke, replaced by non-blond Ben Affleck Duke who just wants to bang non-Baroness again.

Fuck you, Sommers! And your writing team too!



Final Notes:

Rachel Nichols is smoking hot. So what do they do? Pair her up with the dumbest Wayans brother.

AAAAAAAAAGHHH!!!!!

Have they learned nothing from the mistake of Transformers? Now, I want Ripchord dead.

The only saving grace was Snake Eyes. They should have him replace Duke as lead bad ass. Hell, they should just rename the movie to Snake Eyes 1: The Rise of Snake Eyes. 

I kept waiting for General Hawk's heartwarming story of playing pro baseball at the age of 40. I also want him to get back with his ex-wife for the sake of his adorable twin girls, who will grow up to date androgynous DJ's.

Without Baroness, how can you reasonably say that Cobra rose? In a movie called "The Rise of Cobra", Cobra already lost half the battle. (hah!) It's like saying the Empire struck back by killing Darth Vader.

Throwaway references to G.I. Joe quotes (Real American Hero, Knowing is half the battle, etc.) does not make it G.I. Joe.

What happened to Dr. Mindbender? And why does Zartan look like Im Hotep?

One last time. Fuck you, Sommers and writer/s.

Fan boy rage rant over. :D




 

Days Late for a Eulogy

Former Philippine President Corazon Aquino has been buried for three days, and it is only now that I get to write about it.

I guess I wanted some distance from the actual event. I want some distance from the emotional outpouring and the heavy mourning that has blanketed the nation since she died last week. Emotion and sentiment cloud too many minds as it stands nowadays.

Who was Corazon Aquino, and why does her passing leave such a mark? All the official news organs describe her as a former president. But was her presidency the reason why she is remembered as some democratic Prometheus remade? I was young and stupid then, but I do not remember such a good reign during her term. I remember the coups, but I most especially remember the blackouts. Corazon Aquino's presidency, if it had been any other person, would have been judged a disaster. Her weakness led to her position being threatened militarily no less than seven times. Military adventurists may have gotten a taste of it during the first EDSA revolution, but they honed their craft in the age of Cory. Her economic reform was not much better. Land reform was derailed by her own unwillingness to carve up her family's hacienda (incidentally, the largest in Luzon, I think), and the economy was in bad shape when she left it. Most notably, she left the energy utilities sector in shambles, leading to an age of rationed power and regularly scheduled blackouts befitting a country recovering from war, not a country on the rise after a bloodless revolution. So, if it is by her Presidency that we remember Corazon Aquino, then she must be remembered poorly.

Those who praise her usually abandon the generalized mushy sentiment just long enough to cite two concrete events; her role in  the overthrow of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos and the peaceful transition of power after her presidency. But, notice that both events lie outside her presidency, with the former coming before it and the latter coming in its termination. This should give an indication of her place in the collective memory. She is most fondly remembered for taking power and relinquishing it, not for exercising it. In that sense, she is not the Philippine Cicero, trumpeting the virtue and nobility of the Republic from her lips and deeds. If any, Corazon Aquino fulfilled, as practically every other president before her fulfilled, the dream of Manuel Quezon of a Philippines run like hell by Filipinos. (Hey, as long as its not a white guy, am I right?) No, Corazon Aquino is something much greater than that. She is our Cincinnatus, someone whom even power cannot corrupt to the purposes of power. Like Cincinnatus, she will be an icon whose virtues will seem so unbelievable that in the near future, her existence may be dismissed (or elevated, as it may be) as myth. Cincinnatus was a farmer who became a senator and dictator, then relinquished the rods and axe to become a farmer again. Corazon Aquino was a housewife who became president, then became a (sort of) housewife again. This is the stuff myths are made off, and there was no more potent "myth" about the virtues of the Roman Republic than the one embodied by the (very real) virtue of Cincinnatus. The same thing may be said of Corazon Aquino, some day.

What stood out for me the most in my memories of the late Corazon Aquino was how she seemed like the most unfit person for politics as we know it. Her rather "mixed" (to put it as charitably as possible) record of ruling attests to that, but there is something else. She carries herself so unassumingly, and speaks so plainly, that one can tell that power has not eclipsed the person. The last Philippine president to pull that off was the sadly short-lived Magsaysay, and even then, one can speculate that if he had lived to the end of his term, he may have been exposed as someone just like the rest of them. But there will be no such speculation with Mrs. Aquino, who came to power a simple woman of faith and left power a simple woman of faith. There is no taint of the professional politician about her. If only others who enter the corrosive fields of politics were as fortunate, to leave as themselves and not as the creatures the quest for power had turned them into. One glance at the current sad-sack crop of "presidentiable" candidates is enough to give a clue as to the toll professional politics has taken on the ones who purport to master it. One is a glorified hack whose impoverished background provides, not a source of character, but cheap demographic points. Another is a guy who pretends he cares about markets and pedicabs, when his uncalloused hands look like they've never done a decent day's work in his life. Another is a blank slate who will be whatever the voters want him to be. Another is a depraved (alleged!) lesbian masquerading as a moral force. None of these are real people, only simulacra programmed to pursue power like flies to spilt honey. If every generation of political aspirants are but derivatives of these, then I shall not wonder why Corazon Aquino, like Cincinnatus before her, will be considered a "myth" just a few generations down the line. That she kept her own person in both taking and relinquishing power will be an impossibility beyond the wildest dreams of these golems striving for power. This is why I will fondly remember her. Corazon Aquino: person.

Requiscat in Pace

1933 - 2009

"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."
- Gandalf the Grey, J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings

   

Why Everything Sucks (also, Why We Have the Jonas Brothers)