Manny P and Mommy D at ‘52^nd Street’

    On the news, Dionisia Pacquiao was telecast airing her indignation at her son, for having concealed his shoulder injury from her. According to her statements, his purpose for doing so was to prevent any potential actions she would take to postpone the much-awaited Pacquiao-Mayweather fight. This may suggest that the acclaimed Filipino boxer may be ungrateful for his mother’s concern regarding his well-being; or that he is getting back at her for her own personal decisions which he also disapproves of.

    During the earlier years of his career as a professional boxer, Manny Pacuiao and his mother knew a bond which was perceptible to the public. There were circumstances shown when both gave each other the mutual affections of a parent and a child. But apparently, after she began a relationship with a man who was, undeniably, her junior; that bond seemed to have vanished.

    If a son does not consent to his mother’s choices in life, but finds it a futile attempt to contradict the prerogative of the elder; the next best thing he can do is get back at her in his own way.

    Manny Pacquiao did not contest the actions of his mother even if he was not in agreement with her. Perhaps, since he allowed her to have her way with her life; he may have just found the reason to demand that she grant him his freedom with his.

    “Mommy D” even showed her disfavor for her son’s generosity; freely giving his wealth to so many individuals. The challenge she raised was to ask him about the time when THEY were still living a hard and strenuous life; and if anyone showed them charity; stressing the fact that they never received even one peso out of kindness. From her viewpoint, she might see her son too blinded with his faith that he takes it too literally and to an extreme level.

    But again; Manny might just feel confident that he has the liberty to do what he wants; whether to face an opponent while suffering from an injured rotator cuff or carry  out biblical teachings with regards to munificence. It may be his manner of insinuating that the bond between him and his mother are already immaterial. If he was even aware of it, maybe he could sing her a few lines from Billy Joel’s 1978 classic hit, 'My Life':

“I don’t care what you say anymore,

This is my life

Go ahead with your own life;

Leave me alone”

*Billy Joel, My Life, 52nd Street, 1978

Heart of a Fighter, Mind of a Trouper

Heart of a Fighter, Mind of a Trouper

    The Manny Pacquiao-Floyd Mayweather fight literally silenced the Philippines as patrons and followers of the dubbed “Pambansang Kamao” devoted their attention to the telecast of the much-awaited confrontation. After the spectacle which was aired from the MGM Grand Arena at Las Vegas, Nevada; the Filipinos were silenced once more. The first time around,; it was because of their apprehensive enthusiasm for a Pacquiao-victory. The second time; it was because of a Mayweather-victory.

    After a unanimous decision crowned Floyd Mayweather the victor, most of Pacquiao’s countrymen, probably were criticizing the outcome of the contest. The Filipino fighter had displayed a more commendable and aggressive performance against his American counterpart; but fell short of a win because none of the three judges present gave him their favor. Unless members of Team Pacquiao question the result of the bout, and demand an appeal for a reversal; there is nothing else the Filipinos can do but hypothesize on why the acclaimed spectacle did not go as they expected.

    Months before the said fight; I had noted how Pacman’s latter engagements often ended by decisions which either went his way; or his opponent’s. Obviously, after he was knocked unconscious by Mexican rival, Juan Manuel Marquez, in their previous face-off; the Filipino athlete began to tone down his belligerent manner of facing his opponents. After the stunning loss to Marquez, consecutive opponents like Timothy Bradley and Chris Algieri were overcome in a more ‘modest’ and “UN-PACMAN” fashion. Formerly, it was characteristic of Manny Pacquiao to garner victories wherein referees stopped the fight out of mercy for his opponents; or he stood above their prostrated figures on the canvas. The sudden alteration of Pacquaio’s reputed image inspired me to meditate over the topic his sincerity and determination concerning the matter of glory; or wealth.

    Did his coach, his mother, his wife and many other related individuals admonish him for his recklessness after his defeat to Marquez enough to scare and cause him to tone ‘temper’ his methods of engaging his opponents? Could there have been more intricately underlying issues only he and his faction understood? Is he getting old and rusty, physically; but the decline does not coincide with his psychological opinion of himself? Or is he just playing to the crowd; granting their desire to witness him as a true-to-life version of Rocky Balboa; and benefiting from their enthusiasm?

    Social mediae show moral support for Manny Pacquiao even after his loss to Floyd Mayweather. There are raised disfavor concerning the result of the fight; as well as assurances for a consistent love and faith in the Filipino contender. But it is also fair to consider other informal opinions on the matter.

    A comment on a media network was raised proclaiming such: “LUTO ANG LABAN” (the fight was rigged). It was set in Las Vegas: hometown of Floyd Mayweather; TWO judges were from that same city; and the suspicion that the said fighter was an influential figure around the destined venue. Why, then, did the Filipino contender not contest the subject?

·        He had established some sort of agreement with his opponent concerning the issue of benefits. 40% of the generated income may have been sufficient enough to convince Manny to just ‘play along’.

·        He would still be glorified and endeared by his countrymen in spite of whatever outcome the fight presented. Nothing to lose; nothing to be ashamed of, upon his return to his homeland.

·        Fame and fortune remains consistent. Let the world scorn Floyd Mayweather, Jr and his father’s arrogance. Manny Pacuiao lives the life of a king; and that is what matters.

    As antipathetic as it may seem; there are citizens in certain corners of the Philippines who air their dissatisfaction for the performance of their own countryman. These are the people who do not agree to being deceived by antics. In their hearts, they believe in Manny Pacquiao and in the TRUE way by which he introduced himself to them; not the individual who carries out dramatics for the enhancement of his career and stature. They are of the opinion that he should have retired while he was ahead; and stepped down from his pedestal, a winner.

    Many Filipinos have posted comments on social networks, the media, and such; to uphold the image of their beloved athlete after he lost the fight. Did they ever wonder if he cares to read them all?

 Online source:  

www.gmanewstv.com

Ignorance Is The Best Policy

IGNORANCE IS THE BEST POLICY

       I once had a sincere conversation with an elder relation of mine; concerning a sensitive topic. I had noticed that my younger sibling had committed a lot more mistakes and did a lot of unconscionable actions, than I had done. And it came upon my awareness that he was often tolerated: being forgiven; or assisted in getting out of the trouble he made for himself. But when it came to me; I was often chastised and left to overcome the burdens and predicaments which ensued from my mishaps.

    When I asked my aunt why this apparent "unfairness" was being practiced by our family; she told me that it was because I was a 'better' person than my brother. That was how everyone saw me. And because of that, they expected me to always behave/act appropriately enough so as not to get myself in trouble.

    I began to feel disfavor for the reason given me. It had been that way ever since we were kids; and I was admonished for picking on my brother since I was "the elder one", and that I "should know better than picking on someone younger than I was".

    When I was reading the Mary Jane Veloso narrative of the circumstances related to her incarceration; the delivery of the given statements appeared suspiciously fabricated, including the emphasis placed on the fact that the woman was a 'high school drop out'. Perhaps to insinuate that the person 'did not know any better'; enough to be tricked by an illegal drug dealer.

    If one would take notice of her narration regarding her baggage's inability to support the huge volume of clothing she had; the prime inquiry would be thus: why does she have to bring so much? Did Christine Sergio make sure that Mary Jane had a predicament with her baggage so as to take advantage of the situation; and provide her with a bag lined with heroin and use her as a drug mule? Or was the illegal recruiter just gifted with the wit of spontaneously manipulating sudden circumstances?


" i have much of dress but my bagpack is not enough for all my dress and personal needs... "     
   -Mary Jane Veloso testament
    
    Would the fact that Mary Jane Veloso 'did not know any better' be a valid alibi to qualify her for clemency or pardon? That she was merely a vessel for a crime which she had no awareness of? So then, "ignorance IS an excuse" in some situations. 

    If the world carried on and consented to the perpetual toleration of this matter; then criminal offenses will be impossible to counter. All the 'wise guys' have to do is find the 'dummies' and use them; since they are often worth the forgiveness and toleration of the masses.


online source:
 www.rappler.com/nation/91026

Capital, with a capital 'C'

Capital, with a capital ‘C’

    When a person enters a movie theater, there are a set of rules he must follow in order to remain within the venue. A loud ringtone is forbidden; conversations should be carried out in whispers; illegal recording of the film is disallowed; and even intimate physical behavior is no longer tolerated (at least in more civilized and respectable cinemas). These are made aware to the public through different channels of the media; and are not as complicated to comprehend as the mandates in the constitution. Even a toddler can understand them.

    Follow the guidelines, and remain in the theater. Disregard them, and find yourself in trouble; especially if the attendant or security guard is obstinate about carrying out his duty.

    This is a metaphor which serves as an introduction to a point I wish to share; though heartless as I may seem to a majority.

    I was watching the news and, for a number of consecutive days, saw reports of a woman condemned to death by firing squad, in Indonesia: apprehended for possession of illegal drugs. Many of her fellow countrymen have put up vigils for her, and appealing to government officials to interact with those of the other nation; in order for clemency and absolution to be granted. It is usually the normal, and humane, thing to do in such cases. But the next question would lean on determining if it is the RIGHT thing to do.

    Mostly everything in the world is relative; since everybody has their own views. Let the Filipinos consider the Indonesians heartless and cruel for their actions. Then let the Indonesians criticize the Filipinos for their lack of respect for the laws of a foreign country. From another perspective; if there is an impartial party to this issue, which would ask both states if drug dealings is wrong: even the incarcerated woman’s countrymen would give an affirmative response. In almost every corner of the world; this action is considered a criminal offense and is outwardly condemned.

    There is a common statement that begins with the words: “If you know what’s good for you…” Why then, would one take a risk on something which could get himself in trouble? Moreover; why take a chance on committing a crime in a country that practices capital punishment?

    Government officials were said to have raised appeals for the woman’s benefit; as well as the interests of her relations. Again, it is the human and NATIONALISTIC/PATRIOTIC thing to do from the perspective of the Filipinos. Considering the side of the Indonesian government; they may just consider it undignified on their part, to have their rules bent in favor of another state’s concerns; for a crime committed in their territory. If such clement actions be carried out; it may just inspire the repetition of similar, or related, offenses. Would Indonesian authorities want to be taken for fools? Perhaps they would find it practical to make an example of a specific incident, to get their message across?  “Here’s to remind you on whose land you’re standing on.”

    A temporary reprieve issued to the woman leaves the matter open to all possible outcomes, ensuing from consecutive procedures which will be carried out. She may be absolved, repatriated, or executed but the fact still stands that she had committed, and was involved in,  a crime; even as a victim of illegal human drug trafficking. It was done in a country which demands the respect of its laws and legal measures. Indonesia owns the prerogative to inflict upon her-and/or her cohort- whatever action they would deem appropriate with regards to the given incident.

    On another note:  it is not ‘customary’ for Filipinos to behave as the munificent Charles Xavier, upon discovering a mutant intruder in his kitchen; if they should find a burglar in their residences.

    “In fact, you never have to steal;…because I’m going to beat you to death!” 

    If the Philippines still practiced the execution of capital punishment, and an Indonesian was arrested for an offense which merited him, or her, the death penalty; would the said individual be granted any pardon? The person, most likely, would be dead even before his/her countrymen took in a breath to air any appeal.

    

A Box of Contradictions

Sometimes, when we have things to express; and we say them with our hearts (and not just our mouths); there is the impossibility of being civil or, on a more reserved tone: MODERATE. A real person talks or says what he/she wants without obliging oneself to be curtailed by society’s own opinions.

So that is my introduction as I will share/say something about what I have noticed in this world. A truth based not only on my experiences but also on those of others. And I will present this directly and as casually as I can.

The world, or LIFE, as we know it, seems a fluctuating reality of contradictions.

What do I mean?

Simple. My explanation will be via the following examples I will share:

I have heard some individuals speak of principles which they suggest with a generality. There are some persons who will suggest the nobility of being silent and stoic when trials and problems burden our lives. And then there are those who proclaim that freely expressing one’s true feelings and opinions is also a noble thing to do.

Take a look at Facebook and other social network sites and find posts which insinuate that the Lord is perpetually loving and never tires of forgiving. But in the Bible, Christ tells an adulteress to “go forth and SIN NO MORE”. Is this trying to say that people are forgiven only once, and cannot/must not do any wrong anymore? What happened to the unceasing mercy others have spoken of?

The Filipino people sing the praises of some individual they believe to be better than another: as in the past presidents of their country; only to degrade and criticize them later on.

‘Let’s put an actor on the throne and show the Americans they’re not the only country with some buckaroo artist ruling them.’

‘Oh hell! That action-star president sucks. The dwarf looks good! Let’s put her up in his place; and make sure there are boxes for her to stand on behind the podium, okay.’

‘For crying out loud! That dwarf is a cheat and betrayed the trust of thee people with one damn phone call. That bow-legged nerd looks more respectful. HE is the savior of this country.’

‘Down with that bow-legged, balding twerp. He doesn’t have the guts to kick some insurgent asses even if he has the right to. Tell him to get his butt off the throne and....hmmm, let’s see...Maybe we can try that harlot for size, the one with the unreserved mouth....Or that new-wave hair styled secretary..’

A few years in the near future: ‘What on earth were we thinking of putting The Punisher up there? Seems we don’t like his Vito Corleone method of doing things! Hey, put up the list of replacements....’

There are sects which call themselves CHRISTIANS; but proclaim contradicting teachings. I won’t mention which exactly, but I encountered one Christian religious faction that claims it is wrong to pray to the Virgin Mary because she is only a MORTAL. And then my religion tells me to pray the rosary which, apparently, is related to the worship of the Mother of God. These are BOTH Christian assemblies and groups, by the way.

No wonder an ex-girlfriend detested me for crying out “Santa Maria!” as an expression of surprise or frustration.

And did you ever see a person in a sect smoking a cigarette when their fellowship condemns vices; inside an institution where the same individual forbids the very same practice?

How about that song which goes “I love you, I hate you, I love you, I hate you...”?

  

It is not a vague possibility that there have been instances when a person would curse or condemn one of his/her own kin; and then later, express some ‘buried/remaining’ affection for the same.

Oh, and here’s a good one:

My father used to say: “When you’re right, you’re right. Period. It doesn’t matter even if you’re talking to the president so long as you have a point; you can tell him to go to hell.”

During moments of conflicting views I had with the old man; I never won a discussion or an argument with him, because he was always right. SUPPOSEDLY.

“How can I try to explain,

When I do,

He turns away again...”

    All these, and many more situations/circumstances show the inconsistency of life. Did you ever wonder why?

Simple.

Because God made everybody unique. And there came the imposed axiom which goes: “No man is an island.” We live our lives everyday, inevitably compelled/obliged to interact with the different people around us.

And what is ‘right’, by the way? It’s what one person thinks of something; and ‘wrong’ is what they think of another thing they do not agree with. Since we have to interact with various persons in our lives; when we ask one person about one thing, then ask another the same,; most likely we will tend to disagree with, or be confused by, one/any/all of them. Unfortunately, for me; I give most of everything I encounter an open mind. If anyone else would emulate my manner of acting with regards to this subject; they too will start wondering like I do.

It is probable for me to receive some criticisms for having brought this topic up. “You should not use the name of the Lord in vain”. “Do not put the Lord to the test.”. “Respect thy father and mother.”

I wasn’t really. I was just wondering why the contradictions. Hey, I thought an open mind was something worthy of possessing. Why is it when I use mine; people want to kick me, instead of saying “Good question”?

So the changes of people’s opinions and views depend on circumstances in life, because of the imperfection of everything that exists in this world. What is fine, acceptable, right etc at one time (or with somebody), may not be so at (or with) another.

“Life IS like a box of chocolates”, as Forrest Gump says, “You never know what you’re gonna get.” 

DUNCES WITH FOOLS

DUNCES WITH FOOLS

    I remember the award-winning movie “Dances With Wolves”; Kevin Costner’s role as a cavalry lieutenant whose request to be posted at the frontier was granted; and his eventual encounter with a Sioux tribe temporarily settled in the same location. It taught me a truth, or a reality, in life which I learned way after I repeatedly watched the film. In relation to this would be the phrase I often heard since a child: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

     It turns out, in this world; the majority always sets the tone or the standards of how things are to be. If one wants to be accepted; he should ‘play along’ and become like the many or else, be rejected. I have seen faults, shortcomings, inadequacy, mediocrity, and all such items which can be improved or corrected in communities and clusters of individuals. When having attempted to right these wrongs and flaws, because a majority of persons were practicing the latter; it became apparent that I was not accepted, nor were my efforts appreciated. The alternatives I had was to either disregard my principles/standards and degrade myself by emulating their actions; or stand firm and allow myself to be scorned. Fortunately, varying circumstances rewarded me the privilege to exist with both; since there were a few who shared the same sentiments, and others who chose to remain idiotic, but affable enough to concede when interacting with me.

    Irrationality and obstinacy, put into play by the multitude, will justify even what is errant. Because it is ‘in’; it will be what is accepted. Anything better than this; any effort to enhance what is presently mod; is condemned. Moreover, not only are the suggested methods and/or remedies despised; but the soul that offered it will be considered an outcast.

    As disagreeable as this axiom is, I considered it a practical strategy to work out a compromise. So I introduced my coffee and guns to the indigenous folks I had to exist with; and took a whiff of their spiritual pipe then danced around a campfire like a mad fool. 

WBF, WWF, WTF: "Is This The Real Thing? Is This Just Fantasy"

WBF, WWF, WTF: “Is This The Real Thing? Is This Just Fantasy?”

  

   In the days of the Roman Empire, people reveled in the deaths of prisoners and slaves; used as a form of entertainment and compelled to extend their existence by taking away those of others who stood in the similar predicament; and all for the sake of mollifying the blood-thirsty spirit of the masses. Perhaps they were so jaded and dissatisfied with the monotonous life which ensued from the legionnaire armies’ countless victories that their ruler and his constituents needed to provide a different manner of placating their craving. If the phrase “putting color in one’s life” was already part of the general dialect then; the tint of hemoglobin would have been the means of fulfilling such an act.

     In the 80’s, there was a program aired on television called ‘Ring Gladiators’. To the mind of someone ignorant of what professional wrestling really stood for; all the pugilistic behavior displayed by the protagonists appeared true to form. The adult die-hard fanatics of this spectacle, seated among the bleachers; cheering or booing the antics of the vaudeville participants, could presumably be suspected of being involved in the overall satire.

    Professional boxing would give the impression that it was more authentic compared to a number of actors feigning bellicose personalities inside the ring. But if the ardent followers of this sport would give a more keen sense of notice to what is recently occurring; they might just realize that this, too, is just another form of revelry ensuing from litigation done outside of their awareness.

    When boxers make the climb to fortune and fame, their performances are obviously laudable; hence making them worthy of the acclaim given them. They are more aggressive and act with determination when situated before their opponents; emulating the desperate souls standing at the center of the Roman Coliseum. In the early days of their rise to glory; their indisputable victories came by bringing their adversaries down to the canvas with knockdowns and knock-outs; or obliging the referee to stop the fight by maiming the other competitor. But when they are at the pinnacle of their career, the hostility in their competitive strategies begin to fade; and bouts usually end by the will of judges who may inspire skepticism for being involved in a grand scheme involving the event’s results and consecutive outcome.

    Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao has stood as a national icon, admired and endeared by the Filipino people after having impressively pummeled numerous individuals he faced in the ring; rendering them unconscious or helplessly batter by the strength of his blows and his clever strategic movements. However, his previous fights have all ended by decisions. Would this be a sign of his aging; the falter of his capabilities; or an impassive attitude toward his career since he has attained what once was his ambition: possession of wealth and prestige that this sport brought him?

    When the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight comes to realization;(IF it does come to realization, knowing all the contemptuous alibis that may hinder it), the Philippines’ “Pambansang Kamao” can remove himself from the ranks of fighters described above by emphatically defeating Floyd Mayweather in a manner that will cause shame and degradation to the latter’s image.

    Provided these two competitors have not yet worked out a clandestine agreement for their mutual benefit; it being a fact that they BOTH have already reached their prime.