Gaga Over Gaga

These past few days, the issue about Lady Gaga being protested by various religious groups here in the Philippines has been very hot, like the weather. Apparently, they are claiming that Lady Gaga's songs are "anti-Christian" and will taint the "moral perfection" of the Filipinos in general. However, despite these protests and negative, angry vibes from the lowly, the Malacañang Palace has no plans to block the concert. Bravo. At least the palace is doing something right for a change.

First off, these protesters have already made a huge mistake by making Lady Gaga's lyrics be known to the public to be religiously demeaning, even if it shouldn't have been. I personally haven't even realized that she's already taking away the purity of my religion. We share the same one, anyway.

Okay, let's say Gaga's songs are mocking and offensive (in concession to the affected religious). Nowadays, a massive number of people all over the world listen to music NOT just because of the lyrics. I bet they don't even know what the lyrics mean to the upbeat songs they listen to (not to mention words are already incomprehensible by how ridiculously fast they are sung). Even monotonous songs with very few lyrics get into the top of the charts. They like the song because the melody is good, the arrangement is superb, and the beat is rocking. Songs are made to entertain, after all. It already depends on you if you're going to let yourself be affected and demoralized by it. It's up to you if you're not gonna enjoy the song because you're so busy criticizing the darn thing.

I am a fan of Lady Gaga. I am a fan not necessarily because of the entertainment she is able to produce. Well, that's a part of it but it's the least reason why I like her. I am a fan because she is a true person. She is not afraid to be different. She stands out. She inspires a lot of people. She is a role model. Her artistic works apply to reality. She expresses what she feels and is not scared to be looked at differently. Finally and among the few from the many, she supports and helps a lot of people.

The conservative religious are claiming that she is "an instrument of evil" and is "working for the devil." Let me tell them this: Lady Gaga supports a lot of charities and her philanthropy got her to be number one in 2010 and 2011 in this kind of altruistic endeavor. Now, is that the work of the devil? Perhaps, they should be the ones asking themselves if they have ever helped anyone in their lives instead of spreading negativity and ignorant contradiction. They have not the slightest idea on what Gaga's true intentions are in making these kinds of musical pieces.

I am not sure if I am allowed to say this but sometime way back, an adult told me that the church is a lot filthier than a brothel full of strippers and prostitutes. At least these hustlers do not claim pristine. The church has many secrets that the general public have no idea about. Dirty things. I don't know exactly what they are but by the sound of it, I'm pretty sure that it's not "pure," which is what the church is supposed to be representing. And they dare be the ones to judge others of impurity and tactlessness. I am not against my church, I just considered a telling from somebody who, heretofore, has so many experiences in life.

People will always be in conflict with one another until we are able to be open-minded about many things and be able to fully understand why these things are how they are. We should only hinder what truly harms us, like violence in general, not what we think is different and is not within our level of thinking. I guess that will never work because this world will always contain ignorance. For the rest of us who are not insecure of our faith in our respective religions, let us continue to be secure. We can only do so much to pacify the nescient rabble's tantrums.

Stay awesome, Gaga.

Underground Partnership?

Earlier today, the whole world was alarmed by a horrendously offensive statement that the People's Champ Manny Pacquiao alledgedly declared in an interview. It was said that, quoting a Bible verse, Manny would want homosexuals to be put to death since they are an abomination to the society. A huge number of netizens reacted negatively towards this declaration most especially the members of the LGBT community, of course. I personally got furious having read the news online. He was talking about killing people, for the love of God. Hitler, anyone?

It was also reported that due to this homophobic statement, some of Manny's public exposure was sacrificed, most reportedly the show at the Grove and Extra, an interview with Mario Lopez. In addition, there was also a petition made by an American LGBT organization for Nike to sever sponsorship ties with the boxer.

However, this evening, a friend told me that it was all a huge misunderstanding. Apparently, the writer of this released news misquoted Manny using the Bible verse in reference to his disagreement with United States President Barrack Obama's support for same-sex marriage and the marriage itself. In contrast with the published news articles in the internet and other forms of medias, Manny did not actually say he wanted homosexuals to be "put to death." According to the local evening news, he wouldn't want to say this because he has a relative who is gay, not to mention gay friends, supporters and fans. He was just against marriage between the same sex.

If this is indeed true that Manny have not released such a statement and that he was just misinterpreted, then the writer is in big trouble. And I mean really big. This news has made a tremendously huge negative impact on Manny's reputation as a public figure. I mean, the WHOLE world heard and reacted to this news. A lot of people and organizations were enraged with the statement. I can't even help but think if Manny just made the follow-up news as an alibi to have a scapegoat having realized that there's already a growing rust in his image.

With regards to Manny's opposition with same-sex marriage, I couldn't help but share my thoughts about this issue. Despite the enormous contradiction from the conservatives and others, I am still happy that these kinds of social adjustments are already taking place. Currently, there are already more than 20 countries around the world that allow same-sex unions. Many may think that it is ridiculous for people of the same sex to get married. Perhaps. But there is certainly more consideration to be done with this issue than what people only conceive and judge from its initial function.

Generally speaking, people will think couples get married because they want to, they want to make a family and live together for the rest of their lives. These are not just the main reasons why couples marry. Homosexuals have long been seeking for equality. Equal rights and fair treatment are some of what the gay people are aiming for in every society. They get married not just because they want to but also because if they are given the legal right to do so, this is one significant way for them to know that they are being treated equally and will be able to enjoy the same social privileges and benefits as what other straight couples do. They deserve that. Gay people are also a part of the society and most importantly, they likewise contribute to its betterment.

I know a lot of people will disagree with this because as Christians, we believe that the Holy Matrimony is only for a man and a woman. That is true, but what if the union isn't necessarily a Holy Matrimony? What if it's a different kind of union (assuming that it is allowed by the civil laws), a formal event and acknowledgement between a couple? Will the conservatives still object? Not everyone in this planet are religious, after all.

I really wonder why many straight people strongly object with these cultural changes. Some even go to the trouble of really making measures on how to annihilate homosexuals, much less to endlessly criticize them. As if they'll be in deep shit if gay couples around the world start getting married legally. As if they're perfect beings to disallow what seems to be a faculty of happiness for the gay community.

I just hope there comes a time when everyone in this world will even laugh as to why all this has once became an issue.

Thrilla in NAIA

Blogger note: You may disagree with my opinions. But please, do so with proper internet etiquette along with substantial and reliable proofs from whatever prominent source you are going to serve as support for your claims.

Last Sunday, a very interesting event happened in NAIA. The columnist Ramon Tulfo and couple Raymart Santiago & Claudine Barretto fought for their lives like it was the last brawl they will ever be in. Opo, nagsuntukan sila na parang walang mga pinag-aralan. It was like they weren't adults, let alone public figures. If you live in a rock and haven't seen the video, then here you go.

This video is already the half part of the incident and thus, should not be a basis for the entire judgement of the case. In this video alone, we can clearly see who's winning and who's funny-looking. Let's not review this video anymore since I am certain that you have watched it a million times already.

Everything started with lost baggages. Cebu Pacific does this almost always with high-passenger traffic flights. They transfer some baggages to other flights so as not to overload the plane which may cause unwanted circumstances. Cebu Pacific was right in doing so, however, they should have informed the passengers that they did so. Better yet, the airline should have the means of informing their passengers that they do these transfers in order to avoid customer complaints. This is what Cebu Pacific's fault in the incident.

Then ikaw na na-imbyernang Claudine Barretto-Santiago, showcased complaint at its finest. We know for a fact that Claudine Barretto verbally assaulted the Cebu Pacific personnel. A lot of celebrities have dark souls and considering Claudine is one of them, it is no wonder that she yelled her guts out when she complained. She likewise threatened them of being fired. No matter how you sugarcoat it, she was going overboard with her actions. There were many people who witnessed how Cruella de Ville-like she was being, including one of the band members of Itchyworms Kelvin who, at the time, was tweeting real time (@itchykel).

With this incident alone, Claudine's part was already faulty. One may complain for the inconvenience the airline may have caused them but it is not right to verbally abuse nor threaten the people concerned. Mabuti sana kung trip lang ng Cebu Pacific yung baggage transfer but no, it was for the safety of the flight.

As a journalist, Ramon Tulfo was just doing his job. He was documenting a situation which was obviously indecent. Then Raymart allegedly tried to forcibly, let me repeat that, forcibly take the documentation means, which in the situation was Tulfo's cellphone. I am quite certain that it is not right to take something away from its owner by force. It is legal to take videos or photos whether public or private as long as you will not broadcast the media material along with malicious labels. Therefore, Ramon Tulfo was not doing anything wrong. Furthermore, Claudine and Raymart are celebrities, for crying out loud. It should have been normal for them to be photographed in a public place. I don't think they will ever have reacted that way if Claudine was complaining in a polite manner.

I assume that when Claudine finally found out that she was being documented, she joined Raymart with the attempt of taking Tulfo's cellphone. They were, in that scene, already doing something illegal. Therefore, fault in their part once more. If you were in Tulfo's shoes, what will you do? Exactly. You will defend yourself. As Raymart and Claudine tried to take Tulfo's cellphone by force, Tulfo did not want that to happen that's why, in theory, he incurred defensive offense towards the couple. Thus, Claudine's claim that Tulfo attacked her and partner Raymart which then led to the violent brawl.

In an interview, Raymart said that when he asked Tulfo what he was doing, Tulfo attacked him right away. This is extremely illogical. Nobody in his right mind will attack someone on spot after just being questioned. Obviously, by theory, Raymart was already trying to take Tulfo's cellphone which Tulfo rightfully defended. Meanwhile, in a different interview with a witness named "Anna", it was obvious that she was biased with her testimonies because her main concern ONLY was the fact that Claudine was attacked and hurt, disregarding the indecent actions of the actress and her faults first hand. I find it quite pathetic that "Anna" sounded like a feminist with her words because she was not mentioning Claudine's faults at all. She was just saying repeatedly how pitiful Claudine was for being attacked, considering that she was a woman. So is she saying that it was okay to get attacked if Claudine was a guy? If Claudine was a guy, I don't think this Anna will ever have anything to say nor would she have ever been interviewed.

On the other hand, the only thing people complain about Tulfo was for being arrogant (which is not illegal, by the way) and for claiming that he was attacked by seven people. Mind you, this claim is the only thing that Raymart and Claudine's attorney is trying to contradict - that Tulfo was not, in truth, got attacked by seven people. Even if they prove this claim wrong, the fact that the attack against him by more than two people was purposeful and agressive still remains solid, in contrast with Tulfo's attacks which was only to defend himself. Moreover, speaking on behalf of moral standards, Raymart, Claudine and other aggressors showed a rather shameful misconduct for assailing a senior citizen which was Tulfo.

It was also said that Raymart and Claudine did not want to sue Tulfo but Tulfo did, so they have no choice but to fight him in court eventually. Come on, we all know why they did not want to sue. BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS THEIR FAULT and they will just end up losing the case if they do. Claudine also filed assault and child abuse charges on Tulfo as they claim that Tulfo begins the assault in front of her children, traumatizing them. Bullcrap. Even without the ruckus, she herself already "child abused" her children for maliciously screaming at the ground stewardess she was complaining to in front of them. Furthermore, upon questioning the ground attendant Claudine was heckling, she stated that it was her husband and entourage who had initiated the assault.

Both parties had their flaws but at the end of the day, for me, if these flaws are weighed, I definitely think it was more of Claudine and Raymart's fault. What do you think?