Girl Power #368: Standing Inside a Moving Bus

One wonderful gift that the modern feminists (a.k.a. Femi-nazis) gave to women is the power not be offered by men their seats inside a moving vehicle. Thanks to these feminists, women need not to deal with gentlemen and take the comfort of standing inside the very cramped and zigzagging bus for the whole duration of journey.

A feminist office mate once complained about the rarity of gentlemen in the Philippines. People, or men in particular, already forgot good manners like offering their seat to ladies and waiting for women to offer their hand before the handshake.

What my feminist office mate forgot to note is that the feminism that she trumpets about is the cause of her complaints. Most modern feminists declare that women can do whatever men can do. Some even say that women can do better than men.

It is not only women who have such feminist ideas imprinted on their brains. Men too have the same thoughts, which is the result of the relentless battering of feminism in our minds in the mainstream media. There was time when I told a girl friend not to wish for men to offer their seat for her because she is a strong woman thus she don't need the help of any man.

Men stopped being gentlemen not because their good manners are gone. The real reason is that real ladies, the natural partners of gentlemen, are gone. What we have are women who were told to become like men for the sake of equality.

And because of this “equality” men all over the Philippines (especially in the urban areas) let the women exercise the right to do whatever men can do. So thus we have ladies who are empowered to stand inside the speeding bus.

This is women empowerment and we thank the femi-nazis for this.

---

This post was made for Filipinos for Life's October Blogging Event - Girl Power: Upholding the Dignity of Women, Shunning Feminism 

Sunday Reflections: If You Don't Believe in Moses and the Prophets then You Won't Believe in Jesus

Lazarus and the Rich Man by Gustave Dore.

Today's Gospel reading is about two kinds of people. One is an unnamed rich man. The other is the poor man named Lazarus who just filled himself with the scraps coming from the table of the rich man. Lazarus' condition is so bad that dogs come to lick the sores that cover his whole body. The two eventually died and Lazarus was taken to the “bosom of Abraham” and the other was taken to eternal torment.

Of the many things that can be gleaned from this parable, what caught my attention is these words of our Lord: “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.”

The parable refers to Lazarus but it can also interpreted to refer to Jesus Christ, he who actually rose from the dead.

Our Church teaches that the Old Testament, which includes the law established by Moses and the writings of the Prophets, “is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 121). That we cannot do away with the “old scripture” because it is Divinely inspired.

In today's Gospel, it can be said that those who don't believe in the teachings found in the Old Testament will find it uneasy to believe in the teachings of the Resurrected One. “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.”

Many people, nowadays, want to do away with the teachings found in the Old Testament. These people, in turn, separates Jesus Christ (who they incorrectly label as “very” forgiving, “very” tolerant, peace loving God) from the God in the Old Testament (who they erroneously believe always chastises and punishes people).

Today's Gospel reminds us that Jesus Christ said that he came not to destroy the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Let us then be reminded not to diminish the Old Testament nor throw it away. The Law and Prophets are indispensable parts of the Christ's teachings. For what God has taught in the age of the Patriarchs, or of Moses, or the Prophets is still true until today and for eternity.

Aquino and Cabinet Should Quit - Tatad

In connection to the issue of the Pork Barrel Scam that is still raging in our country, let me post the press release of former Senator Francisco Tatad regarding the dare of presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda.

---

Tatad VS Lacierda

I am extremely flattered by the special attention Malacanang continues to give me for exposing the reported luncheon meeting between President Aquino and Janet Lim Napoles on August 28, hours before she “surrendered” to the President. The presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda has promised to quit if I am able to name my sources and prove what they have revealed. I don’t believe he is offering enough: he should say Aquino himself would quit if Malacanang is unable to disprove my sources.

No threat, coercion, intimidation, cajoling or provocation will tempt me to betray my sources. If my sources decide to come out on their own and tell Mr. Lacierda what they have shared with me in the highest confidence, I will not stand in their way. But I will not ask them to make martyrs of themselves.

The tragedy here is that Mr. Lacierda has failed to deny the story with any demonstrable competence. He never denied that he accompanied Napoles to Malacanang at 10:30 am of August 28, and he never denied that she had lunch with Aquino and other Cabinet members inside the Music Room before he escorted her out at 4:30 pm, and back again at 9:27 pm when she formally “surrendered” to the President.

He tried to show that Aquino was not in Malacanang at 10 am, and at 1:30 pm. Respectively, which is beside the point. This was never in issue, and it does not contradict the story from my sources. Lacierda could have shown a film recording of the Music Room without anybody there from 10:30 am to 4:30 pm, but that could not be done, and he did not do it. Instead he chose to call me names while my articles online have since ended being linked to a pornographic website.

Lacierda fails to grasp the fact that the issue has grown far beyond the unexplained and inexplicable reported secret lunch. That is now but one small detail of a much bigger picture that has since emerged.

Given Aquino’s state-guest treatment of Napoles when she “surrendered” and his acting as her chief security officer when she was transferred to Camp Crame, and the recent revelations of her having acted as conduit for the massive transfer of “pork barrel” funds to induce members of Congress to impeach and remove then Chief Justice Renato Corona, and to railroad the widely-opposed anti-Catholic Reproductive Health bill in 2012—which has been partly confirmed by Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.--- the real issue now is what is the actual relationship between Napoles and Aquino and some members of his Cabinet, Lacierda himself included?

Malacanang’s inability to disprove the web of evidence showing a deep and hitherto hidden relationship between Aquino and Napoles calls for something much bigger than the resignation of Malacanang’s mouthpiece. It calls for the resignation of the President and his entire Cabinet, to say the least.

---

Image sources:

Francisco Tatad's picture came from his blog, First Things First. Edwin Lacierda's picture came from Philippine Daily Inquirer's website.

Questions for the Brokenhearted

(Image drawn by Fayeuh)

I did not expect that an anime will affect me deeply. It is like a light wind that made the dust in the eerie parts of my mind float. Now I have a hard time thinking of other things until all the little specks are settled.

It was said that if you are to love someone then you should love that person with everything that you've got: all of your strength, all of your heart, and all of  your soul. You are to love your most special someone as you love yourself. It is all or nothing when it comes to love.

But what if your 100% love was ignored or rejected. What will the feeling be? How much pain can it possibly create in the heart of the person who loves?

Is there a person who can still love despite the rejection and the pain? Does he only exist in fiction?

I pondered. I wondered. But the questions rolled and rolled around my head. I asked where are the answers and then I remembered the cross and the man hanging there.

Dressing Them Up into Little Women

There is something that many Filipinos consider to be cute but which I find disconcerting. That something may be summarized by this:

(Source: Safety Web)

It seems like more and more parents are dressing their little girls with grown-up clothes. I've seen little girls dressed in spaghetti straps, or in mini-skirts, or in small shirts that show their belly button. I've even seen some little girls wearing make-up!

Making little girls wear the Sex Bomb outfits is not inherently evil but it shows how their parents think. It shows how modern mothers and fathers value the innocence of their children.

I believe that children should act like children as long as their age allows it. Being a little child is a one time event and it can never be regained once its gone. Thus, it is the duty of parents to protect their children's innocence and keep them away from influences that can poison their minds.

It is hard to keep children away from the poisons of the modern world. The corruption wrought by Sexual Revolution was already ingrained in our society. Thus we have the showbusiness that cheapens love into sexual affairs. Thus we have advertisers who use sexual innuendos to sell products. And on and on and on.

Modesty is the first thing that was thrown away at the onset of Sexual Revolution. The long skirts gave way to ultra-mini skirts. The neckline that is actually set on the neck is now plunging just above the breasts. Even some of the clothes today are made of see-through cloths.

Generation after generation of women were made to believe that wearing clothes that appeal to men's eyes are fashionable – ah yes, SEXy. Generation after generation of women were made to believe that it is good to be fantasized by men and many ladies placed their happines on being desired sexually by men.

The current generation of mothers and fathers already swallowed the corrupt fruits of Sexual Revolution. That's why it is not surprising that they are the first ones to dress their daughters as strippers.

This immodest fashion trend for children's clothing is just the tip of the iceberg. I can still recall my online “fistfight” on Facebook regarding a McDonalds ad that featured two little children in a courting scene. And yes, many people also find the ad very cute.

---

This post is an entry for Filipinos for Life July 2013 Blogging Event.

 

Burn All the Chairs!

There is one thing that a kid throwing tantrums will not receive and that is praise. He may get the toys that he demands but he will not be praised by his parents. He may even receive a spanking for his misbehavior.

Apparently, some adults didn't outgrew their habit  of throwing tantrums. Some of them even mixed it with popular ideologies to make it appealing and, in the process, acceptable. I'm referring to the leftist activists who have the habit of throwing tantrums just to send their points across.

I was attacked on Facebook this week because I criticized the “burning of the chairs” done by student activists of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP). The activists burned the chairs to protest the alleged “2,000% tuition fee hike”.

The person who attacked me argued that the burning of the chairs is justifiable because they are fighting for a lofty reason, and that is to keep PUP education accessible to the poor. In short, she argued that the “end justifies the means”. 

(Source: Library of Most Controversial File FB page)

My opponent also argued that they (the student activists) have the right to burn the chairs because “they are taxpayers too”.

My reply to her two arguments is “wrong and wrong”.

Burning chairs and destroying public property is wrong because they're owned by the Filipino people as a whole. Each Filipino, including the student activists, has a right for that chair because he paid for it by his taxes. The claim that the activists have the right to burn the chairs because they are taxpayers too is foolish because they trampled upon the right of other taxpayers who don't want the chairs to be destroyed. They unjustly gave themselves sole authority to decide on the fate of those chairs.

The student activists argued that the chairs were already dilapidated and unusable thus suitable for burning. This argument is still baloney. Ownership is not determined by the condition of the property. My shirt is still my shirt even if it is already faded and full of holes. Those chairs that were fed to the fire is still owned by the public even if they are rickety or missing a leg.

Fighting for an ideal doesn't give idealists the license to do everything they want. Our actions are limited by the boundaries set by rights of other people. In the case of public property, my right to use it is limited by the right of other people to use it. I can say that I own the chair (I'm a taxpayer too) but I'm not allowed to carry it home. In the similar sense, I can say that I own the chair but I'm not allowed to burn it. My right to the publicly-owned chair is limited because my actions (carrying it home and burning it) prevented other people to exercise their right to use that publicly-owned chair!

Claiming that the “burning of the chairs” benefited PUP students because it stopped the tuition hike is worrisome not because their claim is questionable (PUP president said that the activists were misinformed because there's no tuition increase for undergraduate courses) but because their act is like that of a kid throwing tantrums. Their “victory” will surely embolden them to use the similar act whenever they demand something. And just like a kid throwing tantrum, their  acts will go wilder and wilder if their elders don't give in to their demands. Perhaps they'll burn a building of PUP when the university admin stopped being threatened by the “burning of the chairs”.

Buhay o Patay?

“Sa buhay ka ba o sa patay?” - ito marahil ang mainit na tanong ngayong panahon ng eleksyon sa ating bansa. Salamat sa Archdiocese ng Bacolod at pumaibabaw muli ang isyu patungkol sa RH Law na pilit ibinabaon ng mga kandidatong pro-RH (pro-patay) na tumatakbo sa Senado at Kongreso. Dahil lang sa iisang tarp na ipinaskil sa katedral ay napapaisip ngayon ang mga tao kung sino ang Team Patay at kung sino ang Team Buhay.

Ang isyu ng RH Law ay parang zombie na nagbalik mula sa hukay. Akala ng mga pro-patay na mga kandidato ay tapos na ang isyu noong kanilang ipinilit ito noong nakaraang taon. Nagkamali sila.

Nakita ko ang paninidigan ng mga tao kontra sa RH Bill noong sumali ako sa prayer rally sa EDSA. Kahit umuulan ay hindi natinag ang mga tao. Kahit ilang oras nakatayo ay walang problema. Ang mahalaga ay maihayag sa mga pinuno ng gobyerno ang saloobin laban sa RH Bill.

(Source: CBCP for Life)

Naisip ko noong araw na iyon na ito ang mga taong na hindi na lang tatahimik kapag naipasa ang RH Bill. At sa tingin ko ay tama ako.

Ang mga taong sumusuporta para sa Team Buhay ay ang mga libo-libong tao na nagtyaga sa prayer rally, ang mga taong nakikipagbakbakan sa Facebook at Twitter, at ang mga simpleng tao na kumilos upang tutulan ang RH Bill sa kanilang paraan.

Hindi pa tapos ang laban ng RH Law at hindi pa kami sumusuko. Kaming mga Pilipinong na tapat pa sa Simbahan at mga pro-lifers na hindi kaanib ng Simbahan, kami ang tatapos sa mga Team Patay. Tuloy ang laban!

Oh ano? Sa buhay ka ba o sa patay?