My Blog

Life is unfair. We always hear that. But I think life is neither fair nor unfair. Life is neutral and it becomes unfair when too much fairness is done and the one we are dealing with has not been giving justice to the "too much fairness" done.

Sometimes, we cry because we feel that life is unfair. We feel that something has not been done in accordance to our plan. The natural reaction of a human being is to be adverse in his reactions. Sometimes, by being "too real", we explode. Negativity delivered to everyone not necessarily towards those who should absorb such adverseness. But urbanity teaches us kindness in recognition of the moral existence of other "innocent" members of the society. And perhaps, after the kindness shown to them, we shall feel tears falling down from our eyes. Why?

Whenever we are hurt or wounded, a part of us is taken away… either voluntarily or involuntarily or consciously or unconsciously. An incomplete self is weak and is prone to collapse anytime because what might have been taken is an integral part of the self. Say, the heart. Because of these, our animality and sense of humanness will dictate in us to pass such feeling of incompleteness to others by being rude, adverse or quarrelsome. Worse, through heckling or by being a heckler. This is because no one, by nature, would like to nurse such negativity.

Kindness, on the other hand, is an act of giving. It presupposes a complete and wealthy self.

Thus, when a wounded being performs acts of kindness… more stuff is taken away. The incompleteness will become more prevalent! That’s why we cry sometimes after every act of kindness… It is because we are in the state of being wounded or hurt. We feel that the nice things already shared should have been for us instead for others.

But through sharing, there is the divine consequence of forgiving process in us… I simply can’t explain. Yet, it feels so great. Perhaps, tears plus kindness equals positivity. It must have been an unrealized formula in life. It is a process of purgation and self cleansing. (to be continued)

(An article contributed to ‘G’orgeous Corporation, Incorporated – www.friendster.com/gcorp)

Is this all about the limelight? I feel its not!

Let me quote something from our very grandma mudra IMELDA MARCOS. She said: "Beauty is important because it gives you life and inspiration". Whatever her critics call her when she talks about her ideals in life, I feel she scored a big point when she uttered those words. Somehow, they were not just mere words but they already became flesh.

Remember Cleopatra, Marilyn Monroe, Eve, and all the great beautiful people of all time. Eve started it all, the great civilization of Egypt had Cleopatra and the powerful United States of America had Marilyn Monroe. (Imelda herself… but her beauty was not enough to make the Philippines… nevermind… hehe) Others had their beautiful men too, say, Alexander the Great of the greatest Roman Empire, the greatest military tactician the world had ever know, had his handsome general, who was always at his side in all the battles that he fought. Socrates of the first great civilization of Greece, who started the Golden Age of Philosophy of Western Civilization, had to commit pedophile in order to keep his braincells working. France had its Charlemagne, probably the shortest most famous gay in history, had his boyfriends at night sneaked in his room to participate in an imperial orgy …even during the time of the Great French Revolution. Our very own Jose Rizal managed to keep his braincells on the go through constant exchange of letters with his only boyfriend in life, General Blumentritt.

At present times and in our own lived experiences, is it more inspiring to be nerdy when there is a reason to? Say, a gorgeous classmate or a professor. Is it more enticing to buy a product when there is a good looking model on the ads? Sometimes, the reason why we want to attend a mass is to see a cute seminarian or an altar boy or even a priest. We vote for a candidate because he/she looks good. See?

Perhaps the quote that says that in every man’s success is a woman is wrong. Too conceitedly feministic. I suggest it should be amended to be read as: In everyone’s success is gorgeousness/beauty.

But, to expand further, we don’t need someone beautiful or gorgeous to be great because we can start it with ourselves. We must strive to launch a thousand ships like Helen. Like the beauty of Mushta Mahal, let us build our own legacy, our own Taj Mahal.

Addendum: A friend once shared to me the importance of good genes. She said that whenever she will not succeed in ‘love’, she would have to find someone who has good genes and ask that guy to impregnate her. Or, that she would rather choose someone with good genes regardless of everything about that guy rather to choose someone with sincere feelings of true love but with bad genes. Her goal is obviously to have good looking children. She shared her reasons why she wants to take those courses of action. She said: "Lets face it, everything is possible, say, a break up from the greatest love story that you would have to experience. At least when everything fails, I have with me a beautiful daughter or a handsome son to keep me going. I don’t want to fail in life plus there will be an ugly remembrance of such failure – the ugly kids. Double jeopardy, it would be. Ugly experience plus an ugly and permanent child. I would be too uninspired to breathe further." She might be too crazy to even consider those ideas but I saw a big grain of truth in what she shared.

I am who am.

I have always been who I am.

Who else would be me if I myself?

So I guess nothing describes me if not I myself.

But lately, this definition has been empty.

I do not own myself now. I do not even define myself.

I am of someone. I am a being for others.

I find myself empty without him.

Yes… I am a slave and fallen and the "I" is sad for it shares something alien aside from itself.

But this reality I feel and it must be true.

This reality I live with joy and it must be necessary.

I live and I love.

(whatever!!! am single now!)

DEAR GOD OF WISDOM,

Thank You for this wonderful Sunday morning. We offer you today everything that we are going to do in Your Name.  Thank You for our great well-being, serenity of spirit, and lucidity of mind. Let us not forget that You are with us; and, thus, we should not fret.  Let our faith in Thy Omniscience be our guiding conviction as we take the most important examination in our legal career.  Send forth thy Thy Holy Spirit to shower us fires of Divine Providence and Grace. 

Yours be the Glory! Amen.

(Composed at Manila Hotel Lobby September 3, 3am. Thanks to Roan for the help.  Prayed in the UST shuttle bus while on the way to DLSU at 6:15am)

Damnum Absgue Injuria

Literally means "damages without injury".

In Law School, you will meet all kinds of professors but one common denominator among all of them is that they are all power trippers (from the most subtle form to the harshest devil). It is an irony that the place where you study the law, reasonableness of things and the Constitution is the same place of lawlessness, irrationality and unconstitutionality. It is the place of lawlessness because the "law of Law School" is primarily placed on the hands of the professors. It is the place of irrationality because the "laws of the Law School" are whims and caprices that amount to, as Rule 65 of the Rules of Court puts it, grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Lastly, it is the only place of the land where unconstitutional acts of intentional deprivation of happiness, which the Constitution guarantees to every citizen, are allowed. In other words, Law School is place where the Constitution does not apply; and, hence, it cannot be invoked. I am wondering if Law school is even part of the "civilized society" which is the end goal of every Social Contract - one of the underlying principles behind the existence of every State. Is it even part of the State? I think the answer is in the negative.

Sadly, the professors are the law student’s gods in Law School. They are all-controlling and they love to control. Power trippers and control freaks, the student are reduced to mere robots, the remote-control being in the hands of the professors. Reason will not be used to defend oneself but it will be used only to support a forced understanding of the professors’ behavior and all-controlling attitude. The effects on the student will be sleepless nights or nightmares instead. This is because the fear or the trauma that these professors impart with the students shall remain for a long time in the psyche of the student. Are these even necessary to learning? Are these even helpful? Of course, not! Gone are the days of stupidity, false humility and blind obedience of the students.

However, this has been the practice which all law students hope in their hearts will be eradicated soon as the time of the twilight of the gods come. This is a simple yet unallowable injustice! It is a case of damnum absgue injuria because the student is still not courageous enough to stand for his rights.

Why do we even have to absorb all these negativities?

Love must be the most undefined word for all time. Yet at one point in our lives, we were able to give a meaning to it.

[Disclaimer: This is just for fun and nothing is really intended to offend anybody. When you don't have a good sense of humor, it is better for you not to continue reading this compilation. This is of collective authorship and the privilege not be identified is reserved.]

Love is jealosy. - Diodessa

Love is lotion. - Kathleya

Love is fishy. - Donada

Love means marriage. - Hazel

Love has one taste. - Joy Victoria

Love is secret. - Derick Jordan

Love must be drunk. - Queenie

Love must be a stranger. - Kathlene

Love is a fairy tale. - Arlene

Love is ugliness. - Lloyd

Love means children. - Antonette

Love means accident. - Cris Patrick

Love means early morning seminar. - Apple

Love is illicit. - Jesamine

Love means silence. - Gail

Love must be epileptic. - Nikka

Love until the end. - Gladee

Love is slimskatey. - Mia May

Love thy bestfriend. - Shelanie

Love is being anonymous. - Heizel

Love is pedophile. - Marlo Camillo

Love is fruitful. -Joanna Elaine

Love is karma. - Danica

Love aint gentleman. - Carlo Junalito

Love is shitty ass. - Reginald

Love is bitch. - Paul Nikko

Yesterday was as loooooong day (cause we were having our revalida) and it ended by a meeting organized by ust students for Mr. Jun Lozada, a thomasian engr..

Gist: He is too idealistic.

Its great that I encountered a person whose thomasian values are deeply ingrained in himself. He was discussing his philosophies in life particularly the concept of vision and sense of reality vis a vis the importance of having moral values.

Note: he was kinda saying that being a thomasian help him so much in the formation of moral values in himself

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Jokes included re presidents of the philippines

gloria: has (or no?) vision but no moral values
cory: has moral values but no vision
erap: no vision at all and no moral values as well

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Such thinking is great and very ideal.

i say:

lozada: has vision and has moral values

BUT are those enough?

Indeed, he himself said: "My problem is that i dont have a good grasp of reality."

I pity him because aside from the consequences of his seditiuos acts, only few shares his sentiments because perhaps, only few can really understand his "mindset".

Sabi nga nya: "I am happy to lecture and discuss with you this because the UP students do not really understand what i really want to say"

legally, he is a criminal.
morally, he belongs to heaven.

i feel and fear that these will just be put into futility. months from now, the audience of the political drama as well as the media will be bored.

whatever his reason for coming out, i feel that he is happy about it and has assumed all the possible consequences of his actions… at least, he is happy.

am proud of him because he is a thomasian
i idolize him because he is brave enough to say the truth

long live (literally) JUN LOZADA!

8 Odd / Weird / Extraordinary Things about Me:

1. I am an unintentional Super Nerd. I spend 80 % of my time and energy studying. Yet, I hate reading! Just that, academic life requires me to be.

2. I am more of a hearty person rather than a brainy one as people perceived me to be. I love Irrationalities and Logic bores me. Postmodern, as they say.

3. I do not eat three times a day. I know it is against an Economic Policy of the State but it does not suit me. Whenever I eat, all the energies will be focused in my stomach and none will be left in my brain. Consciousness left idle, I usually get into sleep. I will never do my nerdy stuff.

4. I love Consistency. Say, Green. My towels, bed sheet, fluorescent light, table, chair, trashcan, school stuff, etc are all green. It does get over sometimes.

5. I live like an Amoeba whenever I am home in the province. I don’t go out in the house, just lying down on my bed 24 hours, don’t take a bath, and sleep on my own grease.

6. I truly hate ugly people! For me, the physical aspect is just as important as the others. It’s not being shallow but merely being complete or holistic. If you are a close friend of mine in real life, you must be gorgeous.

7. I am a super fan of the late President Ferdinand Marcos. I want to be one of his lawyers and I want him to be a national hero someday. He is one of my ultimate idols. His brain cells are amazing, not just excelling on the speculative aspect but equally on the practical as well. Truly, an inspiration!

8. I think Law is for the normal-headed persons. It lacks depth; worse, they merely represent the whims and caprices of the Justices of the Supreme Court, who are too confident of their thinking and writing ability. (Have you read the Rules of Court and some of the decisions of the Supreme Court? They are bad literature.) Not everyone, of course. An example of an exception to the general rule was the former Chief Justice Panganiban and his writings. If Philosophy started with Aristotle, Law was stuck with him. (Maybe because part of the Due Process Requirement is Notice. There would be no meaningful notice if the people won’t understand the law. Maybe that’s why I think that it is for the normal-headed persons.) But it does not mean I am good at it. I suck in memorizing and professors usually prefer verbatim answers!

Is it not unfair that the worst damage a man can ever experiece is not compensible, at least in any means or form, and is not an actionable wrong by which an imposing authority may try to suggest a solution and enforce the same? Indeed, life, as they say, is very unfair.

In the real life, in constrast with civil life, you are unprotected from the harm unlike in the latter where there will be always the courts of law to address your problem.

In entering into a relationship, one takes the risk of experiencing the geatest harm your body and soul may ever experience. As they say that the heart represents the centrality of our being existent in time and on space, once it weakens, then everything in your system being follows. Why does the heart, though it has been regarded as the most precious matter that a man holds, remain to be unprotected? Why does the man adheres to hypocrisy that he uses logic to justify the non-interference of law on matters of the heart. Is it really important that when it is a private matter, the law backs off? How about the rationale of the existence of private laws? Does the nature of being provate takes away the effect of being enforced? Is it not true that the public has individual hearts? Would it not be persmissible to assume a collective heart of the public? Is it not time for us to give heart to the law?

I believe that the law should have a heart too in contrast to what Aristotle said long time ago that law rests purely on reason. We are already in the postmodern, for whoever’s sake! The reason is systematic like a circuit. In line with this, i cannot imagine that we are in a world of robots. We are humans and part of being human is a heart that defies and balance the rigidity of reason.

Indeed, we have what we call social justice but that should be further exetended to the microlives of every individual in the country to include matters of the heart. Further, i believe that the law which rest on reason alone can address only the macroproblems in the society. The law having heart will address all the problem of every individual in the microlevel. This will of course prevent such problem from assuming itself in the macro level.

I think every lawmaker when making a law denies his true self, including those of his contituents, when he uses reason alone in making such law.