The end of rivalries? I doubt.

During Cory Aquino's wake at the Manila Cathedral, among one of the main issues there was the visitation of the Marcoses and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself. The Aquinos accepted the visitation of Bongbong and Imee Marcos, but somewhat was "cold" upon GMA's short 7 minute visit to the wake.

In my opinion, there seems to be a problem with this, epsecially with media's portrayal of it.

First, let's dwell with the Marcoses. Ok granted they have visited the wake of Cory, with the Aquino siblings confronting Imee and Bongbong, does this mean that the rivalry has ended, as how media portrays it? In my opinion, I think this is just a partial ending to the rivalry. The bigger part of the rivalry is still missing. For me, if the rivalry has truly ended, then Imelda Marcos, the first lady of the dictator, should have visited at least. Did she paid her last respects to Cory? As far as I know, she wasn't there at the wake, save for her daughter Imee and her son Bongbong. There's still some unresolved conflict behind it.

How about GMA? Well we all know that she did cut her trip short in order to visit the wake of Cory. People were cold about it. Media portrayed it in a cold way as well. Well yeah, GMA used to be an ally of Cory during People Power 2, up until the election fraud issues that GMA had in 2005, starting with the Hello Garci scandal. Not that I am Pro-GMA or Anti-GMA (I'm more of neutral when it comes to this), but at events like this, politics should step aside. GMA did have the freedom to visit or not to visit Cory's wake. She decided to do the former, and we should not politicize or be cold about it. If we are talking about sincerity issues here, well at least GMA did made a short visit amidst issues about her and the conflict she has between her and the Aquinos.

The point here? GMA did made a last-ditch effort to fix up her reputation by paying respect to the late president, and even offering a state funeral (which the Aquinos declined). Behind all the numerous issues behind her, the latest being her supposedly last SoNA, she still paid respect to a political figure that became her rival after the 2004 elections. In my opinion, GMA somewhat did something right for once as she made an effort to visit the late president. I'm not saying that the rivalries are over, but the good point here is that rivalries are set aside for this particular event.

How I wish Imelda Marcos visited and also paid her last respects to the woman behind People Power 1.

An illusion of superiority

All of us are scared of North Korea. Armed with powerful nuclear weapons, the United States considers them as a threat. Despite that, does North Korea present a powerful, domineering force that all of us think of? I beg to differ.

Through the documentary "Holidays in the Axis of evil" one may perceive that North Korea, being on the talk when it comes to nuclear weapons and their "great leader" Kim Jong Il, is of a supremely evil state, who is against practically everyone. Heavily guarded, the host of the show had to comply with numerous rules before entering the North Korea proper. There was no forms of communication, whether it may be television, internet, or telecommunication. North Korea is depicted here as a place of isolation.'

Upon entering the North Korea proper, it is noticeable on how North Korea exemplifies communism: People wearing same clothes, working at different tasks, and have a great honor to their "great leader". Their book stores in fact sell only books talking about their "great leaders" in various versions and languages. Their museums are all about their victories and conquests against other states, particularly the United States. In their exhibits, they even have the axe they used to kill hundreds of Americans, and a Naval ship that they took from the United States because of espionage issues. Even their military bases and monuments of the great leader are heavily guarded by soldiers, who dedicate their lives on fulfilling this task.

On these initial observations, it is clear that North Korean residents have a very high sense of Nationalism to the point that they look up to their leader, Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung as their gods. Their approach towards nationalism hence is very radical when you would compare streamline nationalism in other countries.

Yet, how come North Korea seemed to be not threatening to the world, given the observations made throughout the documentary? Are we being brainwashed by the elite countries about what is North Korea? Frankly speaking, this whole issue on North Korea can be seen in two perspectives.

In the first perspective, North Korea, being a state that is inferior to that of the elite states such as the United States, would have a hard time to compete against them. The solution to their insecurity? Brain wash the citizens, make them honor the leader, promote communism through the principle of every North Korean Citizen working for North Korea, and the like. Hence in this manner, even if North Korea is not exactly that strong (the evidence of communal life presents to us that they are not as technologically advanced as other countries), they create an illusion that they are threatening through the use of communism. Why illusion? First, the people are not as fit as those from the United States. Second, they rarely talk about Kim Jong Il and his condition (sources say that he's critically ill, but given North Korea's isolation to the world of media, this can not be assured as well). Third, they are not technologically advanced! But since the people believe that they can win no matter what, this strategy that North Korea implies results in a high morale among its citizens, having deep faith in themselves that they can win no matter what.

In the second perspective, we can see this as the United States refusing to give away its reputation as the most powerful state to a country like North Korea. The United States, in fact, can be likened to the master who refuses to step down of its power. The United States as well is the one who has the lust and greed for power, not the states that they perceive as "most evil". Hence, they are insecure in the sense that they don't want to lose that power and domination. The solution? Threaten North Korea, gang up on the state (with the help of other elite states), and do "peace talks" with the North Koreans. Again, this is the US' coping strategy to ensure them of their domination (which they actually do the same thing for China, Russia, and other "threatening states")

So what does this show us? Countries have the greed for power. They don't want to be overthrown by other countries. As a response, they create and attempt to execute actions in order to balance that power. In the end, this war on domination can be seen with the phrase "fight to the death", through employing different strategies, both active and passive, violent and non-violent.

The harsh reality

I remember the story of Jonas in the book The Giver , wherein as he was given the role of the giver, a role only given to a selected few in their community, Jonas was exposed to the harsh reality, which is far from what seemed to be an ideal and perfect community.

Just like him, as kids we would be happy with the world around us, but as we grow older, we are slowly become exposed to the painful realities in society. Presently, it would be our current government system.

Grabbing the news from my friends like Kurt and Omi, I was angered at what happened to the nuns, priests, farmers, and supporters of CARPER. Treating people through the means of threatening the rejection of the CARPER and water cannoning the protesters shows the arrogance of the senate and congressmen towards the issue. I'd bet that they are not discussing about CARPER but instead they are discussing all about Hayden Kho and his promiscuity (which 1) is pure bullshit, 2) has no political relevance, and 3) is not of importance as compared to national issues). Seeing our country act like this saddens me.

Even coming from a middle class family, I am infuriated with where our taxes go. AND THEY GO TO PROSTITUTES LIKE KATRINA HALILLI AND NOT ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION AND ROADS!? Screw you congress and senate. You guys are just wasting the people's money over your selfish desires.

How I wish the reality could still be changed.

How a spark became fire

In light of the ongoing events of what is currently happening to the Ted Failon case, I have some things to point out.

1) Inconsistency. The primary problem here is the mere fact that all the evidences pointing to the crime are simply not connecting to each other. Ted said that he rushed home after his Radio program and saw the body of his wife bathing in blood. The police think that Ted went back home and supposedly shot his wife in the head, wiping off the bloodstains with the help of their helpers and drivers. Also, what the police did not consider is the fact that the wife was brought to the hospital, which should explain something significant.

2) All about the fame. For crying out loud, the Ted Failon case is like any other suicide / murder case out there. The only difference? Ted Failon's famous, and we all know what the media would usually like to selfishly present to its audience, and that is the "woah Ted just killed his wifey OMFG" issue. Nasa pera lang iyan. Where there is a lot of money, that's where the media goes. And I bet a million pesos that there would not be such a diverse publicity if it the crime involve some poor Filipino who killed his wife because of financial problems.

3) The politics. I've been hearing stuff that the supposed motive of Ted killing his wife is because Ted was making ligaw (sorry for the conyo-way of writing) to Korina, who we all know is the fiance of Presidential candidate Mar Roxas. And what does that tell us? Most probably it is GMA putting all the dirt and controversies straight into Mar's face so that he would not win in the upcoming 2010 elections. Again, it is dirty politics playing a role in the world of Philippine politics. Even if we know of Mar's honesty and integrity, it just happens that he has haters out there who are willing to do anything just to stop him from getting a significant position in the government. And again, it's all about the corruption that is going through an endless cycle within our Philippine politics, where people would go through the shortcut of things and step over other people in order to gain their selfish desires.

4) Reign of the outlaw. The maids, the driver, and relatives of the Failons were arrested by the police, dragged away from their homes, without any warrant to them. What do you call that? Where is the law then if the lawmakers themselves are the outlaws. This is not far and different from the shooting incident at EDSA a couple of weeks ago, where policemen shot down suspected car nappers down to the bone (meaning shooting them down until they are sure that the supposed car nappers are dead). What does this tell us about our police officers? One of my classmate commented the corrupt spending of the PNP, where they would scrimp on gear used for getting evidence (ie. cameras for use in photographing evidences) and spend a lot on unnecessary and excessive stuff (ie. gas for the patrol cars who you would rarely see roving around the metropolis). Also add to the fact that they are the ones involve with red tape and stuff like that, it comes to a point that we would even doubt our Police system here in the Philippines.

It's a sad story, but at the same time an annoying one. How can we expect significant changes if such corrupt acts are not tolerated? How can we be sure that justice is given fairly? How can we ensure the honesty and integrity of not just the police officers and officials involved in the case? A lot of questions can be asked about this single case.

Let's just hope justice is FAIRLY served.

Three unexpected partners: Zoe, Bios, and the Homo Sacer

What makes a beauty of Giorgio Agamben’s depiction of the homo sacer (in English, sacred man) is the fact that even if the said individual is condemned by the state to death, wherein anyone can kill him, he is at the same time forbidden to be sacrificed. The beauty of this, in contrast to Michel Foucault’s biopolitics, is that Agamben goes back to the classical Greek politics of Aristotle, wherein life is distinctively different into two terms, which is the zoe and the bios.
The zoe is referred to life in general, as life is an essential part of man, that man should know how to manage and live his life. On the other hand, the bios, as Aristotle said in his book Nicomachean Ethics, is the life that is desired in a city, which is the good life. The good life, hence, is the kind of life the city wants to share with the individuals who are a part of that state. Agamben’s separation of life into the traditional way, as opposed to Foucault’s biopolitics where the very essence of life is the source of political power, and hence invested with politics, is very clear to the people that there is a distinction of life, which was pointed out by Aristotle but Foucualt has neglected.
Going back to the distinction of the zoe and the bios, such distinction is made that in the bios, a series of exclusions in the polis is involved, giving the zoe no involvement in politics. But although the zoe is excluded in the political sphere, which is here represented by the bios, it has been explicitly mentioned that the zoe is still, in one way or another, included within the bios. Although the bios is a privileged space that the zoe cannot be part of, it can still be seen that the inclusiveness of the zoe is still evident by the fact that a particular aspect of life is still respected in the polis. Even if the zoe, which can be likened to the aliens and outcasts of the polis, is excluded in being involved together with the bios, which is likened to the intellectual elites, middle class, and businessmen of that state, the inclusion of the zoe would still manifest to life in general as a basic structure to politics, similar to that of Foucault’s biopolitics.
But however, it must be clear that Agamben is pointing out the involvement of life with politics as different to that of Foucault’s biopolitics: Foucault makes no distinction of life in his definition of biopolitics while Agamben makes that distinction in his work on the homo sacer.
In contemporary times, the homo sacer can be likened to threats that are imposed to structures on a daily basis. As these threats, like the homo sacer, which cannot be sacrificed but can be destroyed, these threats are addressed by the sovereign through making ways or means in order to destroy that threat and at the same time maintaining the overall integrity of the state. In such manner, the use of power here is not for legitimization purposes but for emergency and critical situations, which is similar in matter in the formation of martial law in the Philippine constitution, wherein the threat becomes to strong for the traditional sovereign to handle, causing the government to make more use of the power it has to address that threat. In addition, the homo sacer cannot be likened to the bare life, the life where only the basic necessities that man needs for survival, as bare life does not have the sacredness the homo sacer has. Because of the sacredness of the homo sacer, of which bare life does not have, democracy is possible such that the homo sacer can be killed by anyone but at the same time contradicts it because of the fact that is sacred.
To understand the homo sacer much better, Agamben points out that he is not contradicting what is Foucault pointing out with regards to biopolitics; instead, what Agamben wants us to do is not to resist biopolitical power but to rethink the ethics behind it.
By rethinking the ethics means understanding the human body, specifically ourselves, as a limiting figure in terms of power. For me, such makes sense as the human body itself has its own unique limits. The human body is no invulnerable figure like that of a God; it is because of our limits that we can only do so much, and hence, the presence of the specialty system that Plato has pointed out in The Republic, as individuals have specialized jobs in order to benefit society the most. By understanding ourselves as limiting figures, we are able then to set the limits in society as well, creating what is to be called an ideal type of democracy: a type of political system that gives freedom to its people and at the same time sets just limits to maintain the integrity and equality of society.
Hence, the homo sacer, being a paradoxical figure of the state, is essentially a powerful figure, possibly more powerful than those individuals who make the most of being part of the bios. What makes the homo sacer powerful, despite its paradoxical function in the sovereign, is that it is a determining figure in the state, as despite its condemnation by the state and its mere exclusion to the bios, the homo sacer is still forbidden to be sacrificed by the state, as the state that desires for the bios has still respect for the zoe as well.

Sex was never boring

Among the several theories that may seem easy but is complicated to understand is on the whole notion of sexuality and the politics of gender as for many years, there have been debates on the domination of the female gender or the male gender in various fields. Such was formed out of the female’s desire to gain equal treatment as compared to the male gender; hence the birth of Feminism.
However, the whole notion of Feminism is widely debated, with different beliefs and notion of what is the source of the problem that the phallic remains superior. Feminism is divided into four groups, that is liberal feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminism, and postmodern feminism. All four have clear points, but however, all four of them have loopholes, thus, making their beliefs problematic.
First, let us discuss liberal feminism. In this type of feminism, the main objective it wants is for women to be given rights and ultimately, to work like men. It is good in the sense that it addresses the problem of the legal system being too much in favor of men, but it is still considered to be problematic in the sense that it does not totally address the equality issue properly as their argument would end up with women being identified as men and not as women, which was addressed with the postmodern feminism.
As for socialist feminism, the problem with the economy is addressed through the payment of the wife, who would stay at home to take care of the child, for her duties in forming and rearing the child so that it grows up to be of good use in society. The problem here is that there is no basis on how the wife should be paid, and that it makes love and commitment a commodity, of which cannot happen. In the end, what social feminists are doing to women is that women are treated as a “necessity” for men and society, hence further stripping women of their rights, which liberal feminists were able to address.
Radical feminism takes steps a bit “beyond borders” as it sources the problem at the physical characteristics of the woman. As a resolution, radical feminism aims to create a woman dominating structure through going beyond the body of the woman and creating a reversion of the roles of the male and the female, which is problematic because first it creates a overly dominating woman sphere, and second, their beliefs are just as problematic as that of liberal feminism as the reversal of identity is the same as distorting the identity of the woman into that of a man, which for me is the primary reason why radical feminism is the most problematic of the four types of feminism discussed.
As for postmodern feminism, in my opinion this has to be the least problematic and easiest to understand form of feminism as it properly addresses the identity of women properly through the reformation of women’s way of writing as stories with broken narratives and illogical sequences rather than writing in a phallocentric manner like how men would write, having stories following a single climactic scene. It is similar with radical feminism but it addresses the identity of women in a more rational way.
In light of the issue of sexuality, Michel Foucault, in his book The History of Sexuality, further goes in depth about sexuality, giving the notion of understanding sex as the master explainer behind everything. In his book, he made a clear, elaborated point that even if the Victorian era made an emphasis that sex was considered a taboo and must not be talked about in public, while at the same time people are the more tempted to talk about sex in private, a result of the repressive hypothesis, Foucualt said that sex was never repressed in the first place. The repression issue was just an illusion for people to comply.
In addition, Foucault wants us to understand that such is being done in order to make sex of something useful and productive in society, just in the same light of the birth of the prison as a form of punishment in his other book, Discipline and Punish. Through the use of power, the state has found a way in making the use of sex as “productive” through various sources of power such as the Christian pastoral, the field of medicine, and the like. For the former, as pastors act as shepherds, their role is to be a consultant to the confessor at the confession box, resulting with the confession box as a box wherein the individual asks help in order to improve his/ her sex life, thus giving the pastor the power to “discipline” the sexual desires of the individual.
The rationale behind the “trimming” of sexual practices is in order for the state to first manage the population well and second, in order to prevent individuals from the state to practice unorthodox sex, such as necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, and the like. Hence, the objective of repressing sex is to trim the extreme aspects of sex, as there is a multiple center of production, of which Foucualt points out as the general problem of Feminism, as feminism tends to concentrate on one aspect wherein the role of gender involves multiple sources, hence the role and power of gender involving pluralistic sources of power.

Does the subaltern have rights?

As Gayatri Chakavorty Spivak imposed the question on whether the subaltern have the right to speak, I believe that the subaltern have the right to speak; they are able to air out their complaints through the higher classes. For me, the question should be rephrased with “Are the subaltern represented” to dwell deeper into the argument.
Starting off, we should understand that the subaltern Spivak is talking about here refers to not just the oppressed or the proletariat class, but instead she refers to everything in general that has limited or no access to cultural imperialism, which is not being part of a majority culture.
But to understand Spivak’s subaltern definition would need to be carefully dissected and analyzed as the subaltern is often being misused or misdefined by many people. In the context of what Spivak wants to point out about the subaltern, we will focus on the subaltern as not being addressed within the space of difference.
To start things off, let us analyze cases of subalternity that is happening within the world. First case in point: Orientalism. Edward Said explained in his book Orientalism that the rise of Orientalism is an effect of the heavy criticism of the west, or the Occidental, of the works made by the east, or known as the Oriental. In his argument, he explains that it is not because the works of the oriental is classified to be weaker and inferior to that of the Occident that would mean the Occident is considered to be superior over the Orient. Instead, Said elaborates that this is how the Orient is represented in the perspective of the Orient. Although the scope of Said’s study covers mostly the Arab countries, his conclusion on the Orient being inferior to the Occident. In understanding Orientalism, Said then pointed out that what is needed is a proper representation of the Orient countries from the perspective of the West, giving them an opportunity to air out their voices towards the West, and for the West to respond to them. To make things clear, the problem with Orientalism, as Said further explained, is not because of sheer discrimination, but it is more of a lack of representation that gives us our present notion on anything that is made within the Orient sphere. In fact, I would say that there are indeed works from the Orient that are much better than the Occident, such as the fact that the people who founded algebra was not from the West (the Occident), but the Orient (the east), and that person who founded it comes from the middle east.
Second case in point: colonized countries. One of the very observable things and characteristics on colonized countries is that through the domination of their colonizer to them, the colonized loses their representation as an independent state. Instead of being able to be heard and represented, what happens is that their representation becomes dependent to that of its colonizer.Hence, the colonized, through being controlled by its colonizer, loses its right to be heard by the public. Culture-wise, the domination of the colonizer, in one way or another, distorts the culture of the colonized as it infuses its values into the values of the colonized, of which the Philippines is a good example of it. After the Spaniards and Americans have colonized us, we have been greatly influenced by their values such that because of the effects of colonialism to our country, we tend to forget our original Filipino values and instead dwell more on the Western culture, such as TV shows like Gossip Girl, fashion, and music. As these continue to affect the colonized, the eventual outcome will be the loss of the identity of the colonized as it makes its identity related to that of the colonizer.
Third case in point: gender indifference. Feminism has pointed out the problem with society between the two genders, wherein it has been observed that the female gender has often been repressed by its limitation to contribute to society, such as in being leaders, in voting for elections, in educational attainment, and the like. In addition, a result of this is the lack of representation of the women from performing significant roles in society, and it is through Feminist theories that they were able to address the importance of the female gender in society, giving them the opportunity to speak, be heard, and represent along with the male gender. Although women representation is not fulfilled in all parts of the world, just as Spivak describes the Bengali woman in her work “Can the Subaltern speak?”.
Giving in consideration of these three related cases, I would say that the Subaltern should be given rights to be heard and represented, even if Spivak concluded that the subaltern cannot speak at all. Just like every human person, I believe that every person, even the poorest and the most oppressed, should have a voice and be represented into society. That way, they also get to establish their identity in society as they make themselves represented and heard by others.