Confession

Gusto kong magpalit nang magulang.

Alam kong ang swerte ko dahil may magulang ako. Alam kong ang swerte ko dahil pinalaki nila ako, pinag aral, inaruga at kung ano ano pa. Alam kong sa pagsabi kong ayaw ko sa mga magulang ko ay maraming mamumuhi sa akin.

Pero kung sila ba naman ang nasa pwesto ko.

Disinwebe anyos na ako pero kapag lumalabas ako at hindi nagpapaalam, kung murahin ako nang tatay ko kala mo hindi ako anak. Nung kinse ako, may nakita lang na text sa phone ko, binangasan ako. (Namula ang mata ko, may namuong dugo). Dose ako nung may mga nakitang quotes sa phone ko. (QUOTES! For fucks sake) Tapos dinelete lahat nang contacts ko dahil ang landi landi ko daw. Disinwebe na ako pero kapag hindi ako magtetext kung nakauwi na ako, kung maka pag utos kala mo may katulog sila. Uuwi ako nang bahay para magpahinga mula sa mahabang week sa manila, kapag nakahiga lang ako buong araw, galit na galit. Umuwi lang daw ako nang bahay para matulog. (ANONG GUSTO MO? MAGKWENTUHAN TAYO??)

Hindi man dapat, pero nasasakal ako! Ayoko nang ganito. Sana alam nyong ayoko nang buhay ko na ibinigay nyo. Sana alam nyong hindi ko hiniling na masakal nang ganito. Alam kong gusto nyo lang yung ikabubuti ko. Pero sana alam nyo na ayoko nito. Nakakasakal. Mahal ko kayo pero kailangan ko nang pagiintindi nyo. Kailangan ko nang lugar, nang espasyo para sa sarili ko. Para sarili ko naman yung iniisip ko, hindi kayo. Para makapag saya naman ako kahit minsan na walang iniisip na magulang na magagalit sakin dahil sa mga pinaggagagawa ko. Nakakalungkot na humantong tayo sa ganito.

JOURNALISM VERSUS LITERATURE

By Nick Joaquin
Presented at the 1996 Magsaysay Awardees’ Lecture Series
Magsaysay Center, Manila

TO ALL OF YOU HERE: PEACE. AND GOD LOVES YOU.

Very grateful am I for the Magsaysay Award given me and I like to think that it honors both my work in journalism and my work in literature. In other words, that it honors both Quijano de Manila (that's me as journalist) and Nick Joaquin (that's me as litterateur).

I say this because many think I am a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde—although they're not at all agreed about which of me is Dr. Jekyll and which is Mr. Hyde. Some say that as creative writer I'm all right but that as journalist I'm strictly potboiler; others opine that'it's the newsman in me who's the true writer because the supposed artist is a fake. Of course, there are also those who believe that Nick Joaquin and Quijano de Manila are both equally hack. And I have this sinking feeling that it may be they who are bull's-eye; the others are just bull.

However, I bring me up as a Jekyll-Hyde split personality because my subject is Journalism versus Literature?—with a question mark—and I think that my own particular case can shed some light on that riddle.

When I first went into journalism, I had already done a bit of verse and fiction and was hailed as so "promising" that my admirers were shocked to learn that I had joined the Philippines Free Press, which was a newsmagazine. They all wailed that journalism would be the death of me as a creative writer. But I needed a good-paying writing job and I didn't have such exalted ideas of me as a "creative writer." If journalism was purely hack writing, as was the belief of the literary snobs of that time (I am speaking of the 1950s and '60s), I had this equally pretentious belief that I could create a journalism of my own, a new journalism as "creative" as any poem or novel. And so I did reportage like the "House on Zapote Street" and "The Boy Who Wanted to Become Society."

By the way, these efforts of mine antedated the "New Journalism" in the United States as my own "magic realism" ("May Day Eve," "The Mass of St. Sylvester," "Dona Jeronima," "Candido's Apocalypse," etc.) antedated the magic realism of the American Latinos.

Anyway, my journalistic writing developed in me an understanding of writing in general. You know, actors say there are no small parts, there are only small performers. So I say there are no hack-writing jobs, they are only hack writers. If you look down on your material, if you despise it, then you'll do a hack job. But journalism trained me never, never to feel superior to whatever I was reporting, and always, always to respect an assignment, whether it was a basketball game, or a political campaign, or a fashion show, or a murder case, or a movie-star interview. As J. D. Salinger admonished (but this ain't a verbatim quote) I was always shining for the fat housewife in the third row. I remember this young poet scandalized by this article I did on Nora Aunor. Wrote this young poet: "Nick Joaquin is writing about Nora Aunor! Nick Joaquin has become a bakya writer!" But that article lives as one of the best essays on Miss Aunor because she was not bakya to me and I did not go bakya on her.

So that was the first vital thing I learned in journalism: that every report must be done as if you were reporting on the parting of the Red Sea, or the Battle of Pinaglabanan, or the splitting of the atom. Good reportage is telling it as it is but at the same time telling it knew, telling it surprising, telling it significant. The good reporter should become so absorbed in the story that he becomes invisible in it and the story seems to be telling itself. That is the basis of an old, old maxim: Trust the tale, not the teller. I can claim in the Quijano de Manila reportage, you don't see Quijano de Manila at all. You see only the actual characters involved in the event that's being reported. So, as you read, that event is not just something being related to you but something happening right before your eyes.

This was the technique I learned in journalism that I brought over into literature when I began doing oral history and oral biography. I may have been the first Filipino reporter to use the tape recorder extensively. And I certainly am the first Filipino writer to use the tape recorder for literary purposes—if you are willing to grant that my essays in oral history and oral biography are literature.

I have pioneered in these two latter forms: oral history (for example: The Quartet of the Tiger Moon) and oral biography (for example: Doy Laurel in Profile) but, like all new inventions, these "novels" of mine have not been fully understood yet, let alone appreciated. One lady who figured in an oral biography of mine remarked that she had expected in it more "Nick Joaquin and his insights." But that precisely is what I try to avoid: a predominance of the Nick Joaquin presence. If I am writing about, say, Doy Laurel, then I want that book to be a portrait of Doy Laurel, I do not want that book to be a portrait of Nick Joaquin as biographer.

Now that is one illustration of how journalism influenced my literary work—and influenced it for the better. The so-called creative writer tends to be too subjective, too obsessed with him. That's why I think every aspiring young writer should spend some years as a news reporter, so he will be obliged to step out of his own private world and to experience the world outside. This will not only train him to be observant and objective, it may also save him from eccentricity, the danger that faces every creative writer. The newsman has to report who, what, when, where, why, and how as clearly as possible so that even people on the run can read him.

The newsman cannot afford to be eccentric.

Eccentricity is such a temptation to the creative writer because he tends to be self-indulgent. In the Philippines especially, where so few read him, he may be tempted to indulge in his fancies and foibles. He feels under no obligation to communicate clearly because he knows that his readers are mostly his own fellow writers and that he can play games with them.

But what journalism demands is responsible writing. The reporter is duty-bound to communicate—and to communicate as sensibly as possible. He must not play games with the reading public: communication is a serious business. But too many creative writers believe that, if communication is the business of journalism, literature is different, because the business of literature is expression—or, to be more specific, self-expression. And here the responsibility is only to oneself.

That egotism is the kind of sickness that tenure in journalism can very effectively cure.

On the other hand, the journalist is also sick who believes that he does not have to write well to produce good reportage, which actually thinks a graceful style is out of place in journalism. But if the responsibility of the writer is to communicate as clearly and sensibly as possible, then he must have as good a command of expression as any creative writer. A newsman who is careless with his grammar is being as irresponsible as a newsman who is careless with his facts. And the speed and enterprise with which he got the scoop cannot justify a reporter who cannot tell a news story coherently.

If the creative writer needs more training in responsible communication, the news writer needs more training in fine expression, even self-expression—especially today in the Philippines, when the news writers cannot even get the gender of their pronouns right. A breakdown in language means a breakdown in communication. Unless our news organs improve the quality of their expression, we are headed for cultural babel. The "New Illiteracy" predicted by Marshall McLuhan may get speeded up when the reading public, in sheer disgust and despair, give up on the newspapers and turn exclusively to the electronic media.

Myself, I don't believe that the death of reading will occur within my lifetime. I think that newspapers and books will continue to be prevalent in the 21st century, in the 2000s of Anno Domini. (I'm not saying I am expecting to be still prevalent then myself!) Nor do I think that the current ungrammatical period of the Philippine press signifies merely the decay of English in this country and not the decay of communication and expression in general.

It's the local press that shows itself irresponsible when it allows on its pages reporters who do now know how to report in correct language, copyeditors and proofreaders who do not know how to spot the errors in such reports, and editors who do not know how to edit.

As for the supposed decay of English in the Philippines, how is that possible at a time when the younger generation of Filipino writers in English is gaining recognition abroad, and Philippine English itself is being accepted in the English-speaking world as a legitimate voice in the chorus of international Englishes? And being accepted, what's more and at last, right here in the Philippines as a valid Filipino language.

I have little doubt that "Philippines 2000" will still is in English during the 21st century. And I have no doubt at all that by then the alleged emulation between journalism and literature will have been resolved. In fact, I can almost hear the referee bawling out the decision: "And the winner is ... journalism!"

It doesn't take a magus to discern that literature is taking a back seat to journalism. Poetry, drama, fiction—all these that we mean when we say literature—are obviously undergoing a change in life, a rite of passage. I don't mean they are on the decline. What I feel is that they are being reviewed, reassessed, reclassified. And I fear that literature has been taken down a few ranks and ratings. If it used to occupy the room at the top, it no longer does.

The demotion can be explained by a radical change in the human intellect. Until the 17th century the prime wheel in that intellect was what we call imagination. But with the 17th century came what T. S. Eliot called "dissociation of sensibility."

I will give this a graphic interpretation by picturing the mind of man as a bookstore. If a modern bookstore, it will have some shelves labeled "Fiction" and other shelves labeled "Non-Fiction." But if an ancient bookstore, it would have no such division: all the shelves would simply be labelled -"Literature," and side by side on them would be Plato and Cervantes, the Arabian Nights and the Letters of Saint Paul, the Mathematics of Euclid and the Travels of Marco Polo. In other words, that ancient bookstore represents the natural coexistence of poetry and science in the human mind until the so-called dissociation of sensibility, represented by the division of Literature into Fiction and Non-Fiction. Since then, the split has so worsened that the impending human mind will have to be represented by a bookstore in which a single solitary shelf is labeled "Fiction," and a thousand other shelves are labeled "Non-Fiction."

In other words, the mind of man is no longer synonymous with imagination. The chief wheels now in that intellect is what we call information. We do not want fancies we want facts. And to modern eyes, literature is mere fancy but journalism is brutal fact. And we want our facts as brutal as possible. We want straight news we want information.

This is abundantly demonstrated by the sex books of Kinsey and company and by the sex columnists in the dailies who discuss virtually everything (from penis dimensions to vaginal smells). The popularity of the so-called how-to books is another indication, as is the increasing number of desk—or even pocket—encyclopedias. And we know that the intelligentsia would prefer to read a critique of Jose Garcia Villa rather than read Garcia Villa himself.

But the popular press provides the best proof of this change in sensibility. We of the prewar generation were brought up on American magazines like the Saturday Evening Post, the Cosmopolitan, The New Yorker, and the various female home journals. In prewar days, each issue of these magazines carried at least four or five short stories, a couple of poems, and two serialized novels. So, the bulk of the contents of these magazines were formed by fiction, while the least important part was formed by the non-fiction, consisting of, at most, two articles.

Today the reverse is true. The bulk of the contents of these magazines is now formed by its reportage, its factual articles. Journalism has taken over literature has almost disappeared. No more poetry or fiction: the popular press is now exclusively devoted to non-fiction. Before the war, The New Yorker was famous for its cartoons, its poetry, and its short stories. Today The New Yorker is celebrated for its reportage, its profiles, its news-interpretive essays. It now limits itself to a single short story per issue, and the poetry it publishes might as well be prose.

This trend is even more marked in the Philippines, where the Sunday supplements of the newspapers have completely eliminated fiction and poetry, and "literature" survives only in the few weeklies still publishing verse and short stories.

According to what I hear, this is a worldwide trend. In every country, in every culture, the popular preference is for journalism, not literature. If people are still reading, they read, not for the magic of imagination, but for the profits of information. And the exceptions that prove this rule are science fiction and the Mills and Boon type of romances. Science fiction is not really a work of imagination: it is practically a news report on technology in progress. Nor is the Mills and Boon type of pop romance a department of fiction: it's actually a continuation of the old magazines called True Confessions or Real Romances, and is an extension of the newspaper columns offering advice to the lovelorn where distressed readers expose their love lives or describe their sex problems.

The sacrament of penance has been transferred to newsprint, and Dr. Kinsey and Mrs. Holmes today represent the true priesthood of. The old religion of Church and Scripture has been superseded by the new religion of news coverage and TV prime time.

The world 2000 will be the beat of journalism, the territory of non-fiction.

If I wasn't so honest (hey, my name is Candido!) I would claim that I spotted this trend and it's why I shifted from fiction to non-fiction. But actually in this racket you have to play it by ear—and most of the time you're just borne along by the current of events.

When I did my first non-fiction book I was borne along by the mighty current called Ninoy Aquino. This was in 1971 and Ninoy's purpose was frankly to have usable propaganda for his presidential campaign.

But he said to me: "Nick, you have always wanted to have your say on Philippine history. Well, here's your chance. This need not be just a book about Ninoy Aquino. What I want," explained Ninoy, "is a book of the Aquinos of Tarlac—and the history of the Aquinos embraces the Revolution; the American advent; the First, Second, and Third Republics; the Pacific War and its aftermath; and the Roxas, Quirino, Magsaysay, Macapagal, and Marcos eras. In other words, the book can be a history of the Philippines from the dawn of ilustrado activism in the 1870s to the dawn of youth activism in the 1970s."

That's how Ninoy Aquino described what he wanted from me and right away I saw the form of the book I would write, which I would subtitle: "A Study of History as Three Generations," because it's about Ninoy, his father, and grandfather.

But I did not write the book as history in the usual sense of the word. I was no scholar and I certainly did not want a scholarly treatise. I was a newsman and I wanted a journalistic account of those three Aquino generations. So I went about it in my usual newsmanly way: tape recorder and legwork. I interviewed as many people as I could who had the information I needed. So what I produced was a work of reportage.

But today I don't think of that book, The Aquinos of Tarlac, as reportage or journalism or history or biography. I simply think of it as literature, in the same way (but of course not in the same degree) that Gibbons and Spengler are today simply literature. When Virginia Woolf was asked in the 1930s about the state of the English novel, she replied that the English novel was being re-created by five men: James Joyce, T. S. Eliot, E. M. Forster, Lytton Strachey, and D. H. Lawrence. Now of these five, only three are novelists. One, T. S. Eliot, was a poet and another, Lytton Strachey, was a biographer-historian. But in Virginia Woolf s mind, all good writing is literature and there are no barriers between fiction and non-fiction.

This is becoming the general attitude today. The literary snob's disdaining of journalism is a thing of the past, now that the greatest literary artists are producing reportage. Hemingway, who started out as a news reporter, ended up as foreign correspondent, and four of his books are reportage: Death in the Afternoon, The Green Hills of Africa, The Dangerous Summer, and A Moveable Feast. Norman Mailer has done reports on prize fights and election campaigns, while Truman Capote wrote what he called "a non-fiction novel"—In Cold Blood—that may outlive his actual fiction. Edmund Wilson was respected as a critic but may be remembered more as reporter of prewar culture and postwar politics. Following his lead, the top American writers of today, from Gore Vidal to John Updike, have been recorders of the passing scene, covering the global village as cultural and political journalists. In a reversal of the trend, we have fiction masquerading as reportage: I am referring, of course, to E. L. Doctorow and novels of his like Ragtime.

What all this adds up to is a transfiguration of the image of journalism. The classic image of it survives in a play like The Front Page, where every reporter is a wisecracking tough guy and every editor would sell his old mother for a scoop. The image today is not so romantic. Journalism has grown up; no more of the old braggadocio. Its fights are more serious now that it is seriously a faith, a freedom, a force. And it is therefore attracting the serious intellectual.

In the old days, a creative writer went into academe to earn his daily bread. Today he goes into journalism—and no more does he have to apologize for doing so. The Philippine press has found room for the brightest talents of Philippine literature, from Gregorio Brillantes to Wilfredo Nolledo to Jose Lacaba to Alfredo Yuson. That's a big enough indication that the Philippine press has deepened and widened and matured, if it can accommodate such wild, wild geniuses!

So, the question of Journalism versus Literature? No longer has to be asked. The old feud is over and the two rivals are now more or less on even terms. If journalism has been upgraded to literature, literature is being reinvented as a species of reportage. In the some five decades I have been in journalism, those are the developments that I find most moving—because my own writing career has moved in the same direction: from fiction to reportage, and from reportage to non-fiction as literature.

Even the Magsaysay Award just given me is a coming full circle. After some five decades of reporting news, I find myself, in a modest way, making news.

During this time of award-winning, the real newsmakers were Sarah Balabagan and Onyok Velasco and I have to admit I felt proud that even if only for a moment I was almost right up there with Onyok and Sarah. Not to mention Mari Mar. Sikat, ha! Not that I coveted the spotlight; I do not. And this ain't modesty. I'm just being practical. You see, I ride bus and jeepney, I eat at turo turo, I drink at kanto beer joints. And you can't do that if you have a spotlight trained on you, making your face recognizable even by strangers.

However, the good thing about the celebrity spotlight is that it is so fickle it never stays long. The longest it stays on any one person is fifteen minutes, or so the saying goes. And I know that even as I stand here to be applauded, that spotlight is already moving on, moving away, is already going ... going... gone!

So now I have had my fifteen minutes of celebrity.

And what a relief it is over.

Goodbye! Goodbye!

(And good riddance.)

Thank you. I have spoken.

HER. Being a GOOD mother.

Sa mga madameng araw na kasama ko nanay ko, kapatid ko. Madameng beses ko na nasubaybayang magsagutan sila. Na bastusen nang kapatid ko nanay ko. Na sinisigawan lang. Pero bakit ganon, hindi nya magawang saktan. Nagkakaayos din agad. Dati, nung bata pa ako; nagalit ako sa kanila kasi akala ko bias sila na porke’t hindi ako bunso lagi nalang ako ang mali. Lumaki ako, pinagsiksikan ko sa isip ko na panganay ako at kailangan ko silang intindihin. Na hindi sila bias. Pero WHAT THE HELL. Bakit ganon. Ginawa ko naman lahat nang kaya kong gawing pagpapakatino a. Kahit na HALOS LAHAT BAWAL, Okay lang iintindihin ko. Hindi naman ako magrereklamo. Kahit na yung ibang nakapagpapasaya sakin hndi ko makuha hndi ko magawa kase bawal. SIGE, PAGPAPASENSYAHAN KO. Hindi ko alam kung anong lugar ko sa pamilyang yan. HELLO, ANAK MOKO!

Ang dameng beses na nasubaybayan kong sagutsagutin nang kapatid ko yung nanay ko. To the point na, sasabihin nang nanay ko na “ANG BASTOS BASTOS MONG ANAK.” Then, magiiiyak ang mama. Ako, hind ko alam ang gagawin ko. IISIPIN KO SILA PAREHO. Hindi ko alam ang gagawin ko kase kapag pinanigan ko ang mama at patatahanin baka isipin nang kapatid ko na SA KANILA NALANG YUN. Ako, HINDI AKO MAGSUSUMBONG SA PAPA! Kase may pakealam ako sa kapatid ko e. Kase ayaw ko syang mapagalitan kahet sya yung mali. Ayaw ko din naming suwayin yung kapatid ko kase ANJAN ANG MAMA E. ROLE NYA YUN, DIBA! Hindi ko alam kung san ako lulugar so I’d rather just shut up.

August 12 2009. Dito sa apartment natulog ang mama kase wala ang papa, asa Cebu. Makalat sa apartment, naglinis sya. Dumating ako sa bahay. Masaya pa. Maya maya, nakaupo nako handa na magaral. Sabi nang nanay ko. “Alam mo tet, ikaw ang pinakaburara dito. Maglinis ka nga” Parang ako, “HELLO! Atleast naglilinis ako kapag wala ka, e yang is among anak. Anong ginagawa nyan? Puro kasipsipan sayo!” Pero, Chill. Panganay ko, may utak na. Pero nagsimula na kong mabadtrip. Tapos hinanap ko si ballpen kase magrereview nako.

Ako: Asan yung ballpen ko. Magrereview nako.
Sya: Diko nakita. Kung nasa isang pencil case lang diba di sana hindi nagkakandawala.
Ako: E ikaw yung naglinis, DIBA? Imposibleng di mo alam
Sya: E SA HINDI KO NGA ALAM.

(Ako, pinaghahalungkat yung mga gamit na nilinis nya. HINAHANAP KO ANG BALLPEN KO AT HINDI AKO NAGDADABOG.)

Sya: WAG KA NGA MAGDABOG DYAN.
Ako: Hindi ako nagdadabog.

(Ako, nakita na si ballpen.)

Sya: E ano yang ginagawa mo!
Ako: Nakaupo. Hinanap yung ballpen. Magaaral.
Sya: AT SUMASAGOT KA PA!
Ako: Hindi ako sumasagot. Sinasabi ko lang na hindi ako nagdadabog at hinahanap ko ang ballpen ko kase magaaral ako.

(Sya, tumayo. Lumapit sakin.)
(Ako, Sinabunutan.)
Ako: Aray. Wag nga. (Lumayo, Nagaral.)
Sya: Tatawagan ko ang papa mo! KAUSAPIN MO HA!
(Sya, Umiyak. Umiiyak.)
(Ako, Walang pake. Hindi ako mali. Nagaaral.)
(Sya, iyak.)

Kapatid ko: (sa pinsan ko) Tawagan mo nga ang papa.
Pinsan ko: Uy mama, tahan na.
Kapatid ko: (sa mama) Mama pahiram cellphone mo. Tawagan ko ang papa.

(Ako, Aral. Napaisip: WOW. Ang bait mo talagang anak! Woo. Palakpakan para sayo!)

Maya maya pa. Nagteks ang papa ko sakin “Pagod na pagod na kase, pinaglinis nyo pa.” “Ayusin mo yan kung hindi mananagot ka saken.” “Magsorry ka at umayos ka” “Show me that you care”
Oh my God. Touching? What the fuck. Magsamasama kayo.

Bottom line? For the sake na hindi ako mapagalitan, Nagsorry ako.

Ako ba ang mali? Ako nagpapakabuti lang. Nagpapakatino. Nananahimek. Ako pa talaga ang mali. Siguro nga, MAHAL NILA KO.

I love them too. Mahal na mahal!
Isn’t it ironic. Swerte ko, diba?

Journalism Review: Strong Press; Weak Democracy

Picturing our country, good politicians, people in power being humble, non corrupt president, no issue among other countries, no case of poverty, no individual suffering from hunger, no value added tax and no increasing of prices. It may look perfect but what can be more perfect and beautiful seeing our country this way, people have the freedom to speak and share their thoughts to democracy, there is no one prohibiting them to reveal what they want to reveal, no threats, no anger, no killing, free press is recognized and democracy reigns. Now, that’s perfect. But this perfect scenario is undeniably far from reality. What we have now is this, corrupt president, not so reliable government officials, constantly increasing of prices, poverty is noticeable, food suffrage, mass voices can’t be heard by the people in power, press receiving death threats, strong press being killed and democracy being weak.

In the book, “Democracy in Development Countries: Asia” (1989), Diamond, Linz and Lipset defined democracy as a system of government that meets three conditions: meaningful and extensive competition among individuals and groups for all effective governmental positions at regular intervals and without the use of force; a high level of political participation; and the freedom necessary to assure the integrity of political competition. The main point of what Diamond, Linz and Lipset has defined Democracy is that democracy is a need to understand more the government and for the citizen to learn how to practice their own freedom.

Strong democracy, every countries aim. Weak press is more acceptable by many. But isn’t it ironic that in our country, the Philippines, we have that media people or press that are strong and our should-have-to-be-strong democracy has come the other way around; we are experiencing our democracy the unacceptable way, it being weak. As regards to this argument, the history of media times can prove how the press remains strong after what the people, government and politics have brought to them. One good example of this is the killing and murdering of some reporters/broadcasters that time. Not only can we observe the media being strong in past time but also recently. Though this has been already a topic such a long time ago, this conflict remains incurable.

Reality speaks the most and history says it all. As regards with the history, there are many proofs that make the fact Strong Press; Weak democracy strong and true. This paper aims to show how we can move on from the bitter-full reality and what can we do about it. In action with this, this paper reveals the different sides of random people from random sources and random happenings.

Before and even today we have experienced our democracy being weak. According to David (1998) & Osias (1934), there have been many instances that the usually vocal Catholic Church has kept silent. It just partially means that Filipinos are indeed lacking the democracy that is actually theirs. Because of our weak democracy, it came to the point that being weak is not applicable to us, Filipinos because we have strong heroes, there is Mabini, Rizal, Bonifacio and many more. They fight for our freedom, they fight for our rights while us, simple democracy, and we cannot even give to ourselves. With this realization, I can say that Filipinos are afraid. Afraid of the consequences what they’re action might bring to them. To achieve a better country, we must move on and strive hard for the best. We cannot just wait and stare until she gives back our democracy, we should do some action, we must fight for our rights, fight for our freedom. We must reveal that heroism in each of us.

Stated from the book Continuity of Freedom,
“Their quality of leadership – service to others- has changed the lives of many, and I believe it is this same leadership that will lift all Asia in the new century that is approaching.”

This part of the stated book tackles about the leadership and quiet heroism. How our heroes lead us to a better life by protecting us in the form of their quiet heroism and leadership. But, unfortunately, the leadership in them is not found in many Filipinos in the present century. The leadership that they acquire has not been passed to the Filipinos today for some reason I don’t know. And because of this, I think that, that heroism, that quality of leadership and service to others that has effectively changed the lives of many is already gone. They are already gone when in fact it is all that we need for the new century that is fast approaching. Without these, can we, Filipinos imagine how can we live in the next years and can what blessing in our country can the next generation point out? There’s none. Absolutely none. Heroism and Leadership are not in our hands anymore. But no one will give it back to us so we have to strive hard, take so many steps forward, do all what we have to do and get it back. We’ll bring it back to our country for the upcoming years, for the upcoming generations.

In the Philippines, there are many instances that can prove the fact that we are definitely suffering from lack of democracy. One example is that of during the reign of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, when the “Hello, Garci” tape has been revealed. She admits that she has something to do with this but even though her citizens impeach and do many rally’s there still no effect because the mass has no voice in the eyes of the powerful people, what they heard, comes in one ear and through the other. Where is the democracy in that case? Clearly, we don’t have it; they have it, the powerful people have it and they won’t give it to us unless we, the mass, as one, fight. And by as one, I mean all, not some. Because if the Philippines is against that little girl, then we have a better chance to win but if that little girl can pay you, and you, weak creature who also want to have your democracy, is getting that money that little girl gives you, then my pity is on you.(Celdran, 2005)

“We may not win a Magsaysay Award ourselves, but every good we do by striving to help our communities will also be a sterling achievement in its own way.” --Fidel V. Ramos, Continuity of Freedom, 1998

Having the leadership back, heroism is well is not as easy as ABC or as simple as 123. Getting it requires a long road process and for that process to succeed eventually there is that someone who have to lead, someone who has to start that changing act. Even a simple vendor, if s/he is willing to then a/he will and s/he can. Starting the act, even though you might think that why can’t other people do it for you? Why do you have to wait when you are already thinking of it today? Why don’t you do it today rather than waste your time waiting for that someone to make the move when you, yourselves has already think of that thought earlier. As a concern citizen, you must voice out what you are thinking and processed what you are visualizing, you must not be afraid that others might not follow you, that others might curse you or laugh at you. If you think you are right and what you will do is for the good and for good of others, then do what you have to do. Don’t let something or anything affects you, don’t let any hindrances get into your way. Don’t wait for any reward before you start, don’t wait for the country to suffer more before making any actions. Doing the good for all is an achievement, a very bright one, a one time big time achievement.

“Nearly 60 Filipino journalists have been killed in the line of duty since 1986, by any measure a high casualty count. The Philippines is now next to Iraq as the most dangerous country in the world for journalists. The breakdown of law and order is partly responsible, allowing the killers of media people to get away with their crime. Unsurprisingly, such impunity only encourages further attacks.”-(Coronel, 2006)

Aside from the countries weak democracy, strong press and media is also an undying issue. This became an issue when in the history of media most especially in the history of journalism; we are not illiterate of the fact that many media people such as broadcasters, writers, reporters and journalists are being kidnapped or worst, murdered. They are being killed because some people, the issues, exposes, unflattering information or even criticisms that the writers write, reporters report, are in power and they don’t want the news that has been published or aired. Because of this, they will do anything to make that reporter keep quiet and if the reporter is not receiving any payment for him/her to get back his/her words, the people in power have no choice but to kill the media person. This fact has also been strengthened by Fr. Antonio Piñon Tiana, OP (1996) in his book, entitled, The Freedom of the Press.

One perfect example of this is what happened in early 2009 to Cess Drilon of ABS-CBN News Broadcast Team. She had been kidnapped because the group that has been the topic of her expose didn’t like the information that Cess has informed the mass. Fortunately, the group has not hurt Drilon and they have released her after some time. In Drilon’s case, she is lucky not to be killed by the group compared to Pagadian City’s, Olimpio Jalapit. Jalapit is one of the examples that can support the fact that our country lacks protection for the journalists and the press. Jalapit, a journalist was gunned down in the year 2002. Before this, He had experienced receiving death threats and had been warned to tone down his reportage apparently because He had stepped on the foot of powerful people. (David, 2006)

In spite of this dilemma, instead of being afraid and write all positive things about these powerful people, journalists remain strong and fierce. Journalists need no to be helpless in the face of such attacks. They still do their work even though their lives are near the cliff of death, they remain to bring the news to the world, they still do their work fairly and not only for the sake of the powerful peoples. The press has not thought twice to play their role as the fourth estate, to deliver and interpret news to ordinary people, even though there are many threats. I believe that this is the press’ preparation for the future, towards the better press. This action just justifies what is stated in the book, The Press in Modern Society by Hornby (1965).

According to Santos J. (2007) & Avecilla V. (2007), Philippine Media in general hardly contribute to grassroots participation and democratic culture. When in fact According to Ramos, F. (1998), the press will play a big role on the building of a better world in the 21st century, This can therefore prove that the media or press is a big star on the next generation scenes. The press can help to make our world a better one in the next centuries because of the fact that, the press are always exposed to the problems of our country, they always see what’s wrong and what are we lacking. Before ordinary people can say that “this issue is bad” or the likes, the press has already think of a solution to that because they are the one who transmits the message from the powerful people to the ordinary people. Although, the press is not making big actions in improving our country in spite of the problems, surely, every single soul in the press community is helping to improve the country in their own little ways. And if we merge all the help or thoughts together, no wonder we have to prepare for the upcoming better world.

In preparation to our upcoming better world, the press also needs to change, change for a better press. The press, one of the people capable in changing our country, also needs solutions on how they, themselves can improve more. The press of this country, according to Mendez: “The Press of this country must be temperate, rather than wild; uplifting, rather than degrading. It must sweep public opinion not enlightened thought. Unless the Press does this, the measure of black deeds in the country will forever run high.”

“Government officials who feel they will be held accountable by challenges from an honest experienced reporter will be cautious in the claims they make and the “reforms” they push. However, those officials who feel they are dealing with reporters who can be misled or hand fed will engage in the maximum in oversimplifications and deceptions that they can use without being held up to ridicule.”—Mollenhoff, 1981

The latter statement also reveals how the powerful people and most of them are government officials use their power in a not so good way. They abuse those reporters that are weak and they know that will get their money. And at the same time, they target those reporters whom they know are experienced and wise enough to not accept their proposals, if ever there is.

These happenings and experience make the reporters much stronger and more respectable and at the same time, making us, ordinary people, have faith in them and the news that they delivered.

One example given example to support the fact that the press is strong and we have weak democracy is the airing a certain show which encourages Filipino people to speak up at to fight for their freedom, democracy or whatever they’re fighting for, “Hoy! Gising!” a show aired in the television mainly by ABS-CBN in the year 1992. The show as said earlier is aired by the press and media people to encourage the mass to fight for their rights and wake up from the nightmare that the country is experiencing. Also, this show aims to bring back the democracy to the Filipinos as how they deserve for it. This is a great example on how the strong press is helping the Filipinos to get back what they deserve, a strong democracy, not the weak one. (Coronel, 1996)

Press being strong does not always focus on targeting the government, politicians and people upholding power. An example of the media being strong in some other ways is the launching of the new tabloid, Abante, born in the post-edsa publishing bloom. The tabloid was a big hit and made a name for by its own and carved its own spot in the history of tabloid journalism. The said tabloid has produce many memorable issue that settled on the mind of the readers like the tabloid had their headlines such as “Walong kandidato sa Senado Bakla (Eight Senatorial Candidates are Gay).” Because of this, the mass/ordinary people has recognized the tabloid and the press behind it as a strong one and are not afraid of what other citizen who will be able to real the selection might say. (Alibutud, 1995)

As many people know, tabloid journalism has a not so good aftermath to the ordinary people. They see tabloid news papers as trash and it shows only for garbage news, celebrity issues and some nude photos but regardless of this fact, tabloid papers are still newspapers. And newspapers bring you news to inform you. Ordinary people kept criticizing what is in the tabloid paper, they laugh, they react and whatever yet, how can you laugh, criticize, react if you did not buy it? So, bottom line is, whatever you say bad about these newspapers, the fact that it informs you what you have to know or you want to know. And you, ordinary people, trust them. You trust the newspapers, trusting the people behind the newspapers and giving them trust much more encourage them to give you the news you deserve, reliable and clean news. (David, 1997)

Being strong does not always mean that it is in a positive way. Sometimes the press being strong affects the country negatively. I can say this because of what I have observed before and still today. In spite of the fact that there are strong journalists who are not accepting money to write good and positive things about a certain person, usually powerful or one in the government, there are also ‘strong’ journalists who are accepting good amount for them to write a good article to clean the name of an individual or group. These journalists are strong in a way that they are not afraid to get caught or to be criticized by their co-journalists. They are strong in a very not so good way. They reveal their professionalism in writing by being un-professional in the act of receiving payments from those people in power.

When it's Mr. and Mr. Jones.

In the present or even before, Same Sex Gender relationship has already been an issue. Man to Man/Women to Women relationships, lesbianism and Same Sex Marriage has already been argued and talked about. But compared to other issues, Same Sex Marriage, a term used to describe a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender, has become a one time big time argument. This has become a big controversy in some countries including the Philippines. This has been a topic in the Philippines because presently, the population of gay, bisexuals or whatever others call it is continuously increasing. Although this kind of marriage has already been approved in some countries, it is still not accepted and it remains a wide topic in the Philippines. With the issue “Same Sex Marriage,” ordinary people are always fond of asking questions and wondering about some how’s and why’s. Some of these hows and whys are the following: Why do these people can’t control their own feelings and just love other persons their opposite gender? How will the couple be if ever they get married? How will the adopted child cope with the environment wherein s/he had both men or both women as parents? Is their (gay/lesbian) relationship or love as strong like the love of a couple who has a man and a woman in a relationship? Is what they call love for real? Can we consider their love as true love which is needed before getting married? These questions are just some of the many questions that are bothering ordinary people.

Ordinary people especially Filipinos/Filipinas can’t help not to care about this topic, the marriage of two people with the same gender. These people have their own reactions, ideas or thoughts about this issue. Either they are for Same Sex Marriage or against Same Sex Marriage. Focusing on the side of the ‘for’ Same Sex Marriage position, this paper talks about some pros and cons of Same Sex Marriage.

These are some arguments that can support the ‘for’ Same Sex Marriage position. First, “Marriage is a union between two people who love each other.” There is really nothing stronger than love. Who says that love can only be felt between women to men or men to women only? Who can prohibit love anyway? If one person truly loves another person his/her own gender, can other people stop them for getting their relationship to a higher level? The ceremony of marriage is done between two people who love each other. Take note, two persons who love each other and not two people who have opposite genders. Marriage vows are promised by two people who love each other and are willing to be with their partner through better or worse; if two people with the same gender really feel that love and are willing to share their life with each other, why will some people stop them? It is like stopping love but then no one can stop love because love is indeed strong.

Second, “It doesn’t hurt society or anyone in particular.” These two innocent people loving one another who just want to make their love stronger by having their marriage ceremony do not hurt society or anyone in particular. For them being in love, being in a relationship and being married does not make people sick, does not bring flu and even kill people. The love they have should really have an effect on them, just them, the couple and not other people, so why care? People talk about this and make this their own problem. Somehow, people in a way are masochist thinking that there are many problems to think about like their own life, money or their own love life but instead of thinking solutions about their own problem, they still continue to create their own problem of arguing and thinking about these people (gay/lesbian) who want nothing but a peaceful life with one another.

Third, “Visitation rights for illness.” It is a fact that before a man and a woman gets married; the couple will go through some kind of a process regarding their health conditions or some tests to see if they are capable of producing healthy children. This process is needed to detect illnesses like AIDS, STD or some other more diseases that they can acquire during their single life, if ever they have. This is a long process and a not so healthy one because if these couple has neglected to take some health test and then for example, one of them has STD, then eventually, the partner will have the same illness without knowing earlier. And the STD population will increase and this is not healthy. However, if two people with the same sex have their rights to get married, the couple will not have any problems regarding their health status in terms of sexual interaction because there is no way that one of them can transmute the disease to the other. And there is a big possibility that the STD population has a probability not to increase that much.

Given some of the ‘for’ argument positions, there are also many arguments that are against Same Sex Marriage. One of which is the argument that says “Marriage is for raising children.” Children being raised by a father and a mother (man and women) grew up healthier physically, emotionally and spiritually. They will have the usual family background and will live a simple, normal and easy life. The children will have the opportunity to be cared and helped by his/her real mother. The child does not have any questions when s/he grows up because s/he has grown up normally together with the usual family type.

Though the latter argument is undeniably correct, there are also some true arguments against this. One given argument against the argument is “What makes the difference is the love of the parents; not their gender.” Raising up a child in a healthy way can’t be argued with when the topic is gender because one’s gender does not have any effect on the child. Not because the child’s parents is assumingly both men and women means that the child will not be raised normally. Having a healthy child raised is an issue of love and only love. It is never and never will be about gender.

This paper has stated the pros and cons of the issue about Same Sex Marriage. In summary, the following are some effective arguments that are ‘for’ or Pro Same Sex Marriage: Firstly, Marriage is a union between two people who love each other. Secondly, it doesn’t hurt society or anyone in particular. Thirdly is the argument about visitation rights for illness. Given these arguments, fairness should be stocked in the readers’ mind now. These people do not need others’ cruelty; do not need you to care.

In conclusion, Same Sex Marriage is healthy, won’t kill, won’t hurt, won’t make you sick, and won’t give people problem. It is not asking people to care, to give donations, and to pay tax. Everyone has his own rights, even bisexuals, even transgenders, even gays, even lesbians. They need acceptance, not cruelty, not discrimination.

Paliwanag nang mga Babae.

Kapag ngumiti ka na ng konti,
nag-ayos ng konti pagkakamalan ka nang malandi.
Hindi pangseryosohang relasyon.

Marinig lang nila na malakas kang mag-salita,
palengkera ka na.
T.O. kagad sa kanila iyon.

Mahilig silang tumingin sa mga babaeng sexy manamit,
kulang nalang makita na kaluluwa.
Pero kapag babaeng seryosohin at gustong ligawan
dapat disente,
dapat mala-anghel ang mukha,
dapat mukhang inosente.
Tapos kami pa raw ang mahilig mamili?
Parang baliktad yata?

Ok, ayan nanliligaw na si lalake.

Dapat pakipot ka para suyuin ka, para habulin ka pa lalo.
Kapag hindi ka naman nagpakipot.. "easy to get" naman ang tingin sa iyo.
Hindi ka na seseryosohin.
Teka! Sino bang may sabing magpaalila kayo,
di naman namin hawak ang buhay niyo.

Natural lang na magtiis kayo, may gusto kayo sa amin eh.
Kapag nakuha niyo na iyon wala na lahat ng mga paghihirap niyo,
babaliktad na ang sitwasyon kami naman ang mamromroblema.
Para lang kayong may gustong bilhin na bagay.
Upang mabili ito kailangan munang magsakripisyo, magtipid, magtiis.
Pag nabili na at mapagsawaan wala na, balewala na. Diyan ka na sa tabi-tabi.

"Tawagan nalang kita pag trip ko o kaya'y pag may gusto akong ipagawa sa iyo"

Ano pa ba? E di sinagot mo na diba. Utang na loob pa natin yun.
Dahil naghirap daw sila sa panliligaw dapat masuklian natin iyon ng higit pa.
Sa umpisa kailangan malambing ka, maayos at laging magsisilbi sa kanya.
Ayaw daw nilang humawak ng relasyon, pero kapag ikaw naman ang nagmando,
aba! masasakal naman.

Sasabihin pa sa iyo:
"demanding ka."
HAHA )

Meron ka pang maririnig na:
"I think we need space.",

..........at kung anu-ano pang ek-ek.

Sino rin may sabing di dapat kami magpakabait,
maging devoted at faithful?

Kapag kami ang sumaway niyang mga iyan, iba na ang tingin sa amin.
Malandi na kami, haliparot, pakawala, makikay at kung anu-ano pang mga bansag ang itatawag sa amin.

Kapag kayo gumawa noon, ok lang.
Lalake kayo eh, macho kayo pag ginawa niyo yon.
Kaya kami, walang magawa. Magpapakaburo at magpapakamadre nalang.

Kapag nagloko na kayo ano pa bang magagawa namin?
Eh di iiyak nalang. Wala namang ibang magagawa eh.

Tungkol naman sa tinatawag niyong pagdedemand namin.

Hindi kami nagdedemand! Karapatan lang namin iyon.
Karapatan namin na lambingin niyo kami, icheck at ipakita sa amin na mahal niyo kami.
Ha. Ha. Ha. )

Hindi rin ibig sabihin na mas sincere kayo sa amin.

Seryoso rin naman kami ah. At ang maturity wala yan sa edad.
Mas maaga nga kaming magmature sa inyo.
Ang isang 19 year old na lalake eh, isip 15 pa yun. It follows iyan sa lahat ng age group.
Mas mataas pa kung minsan ang pagbawas ng level of maturity.
Kayo na ang mag-math!
(Hahahaha!Benta!)

Pati yung pag-iyak namin pinupuntirya niyo.

Kesyo drama daw. Diba kapag umiyak ka nagbuhos ka ng emosyon diyan.
Ano tingin niyo sa amin mga artista?!

Alam niyo iyon? Yun bang kulang nalang ay lumuha ka na ng dugo,
pero hindi ka pa rin papansinin.
Sasabihan ka pang tigilan na ang pagdradrama.
Hindi nila kami maiintindihan kapag nagseselos kami.

Bakit naman kami magseselos kung wala kaming nakikita?
Mas iba kaming magmahal. Mas masarap..


Kapag natapos na ang lambingan,
eh di siyempre iwanan blues na.
Kami pa raw ang nagsawa, kami pa raw ang nagtritrip lang.
Sino ba ang lumalayas kapag may nakita nang bago,
sino ba ang mayabang,
sino ba ang nagmamalaki?
Kami ba? Kami ang walang choice...

Kasi ang babae pag sinabing "break na tayo.."
Lambingin lang iyan ng konti balikan blues na iyan.
Kapag ang lalake ang umayaw, pucha, bahala ka diyan.
Kahit mag-tambling ka pa sa harap niya. Wa-epek.
Umiyak ka ng bato.Wa-epek.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Tapos sila pa raw ang kawawa?

Post-break up.

Mahal pa ng babae si lalaki.
Sasamantalahin ni lalaki. Magpapagawa ng kung anu-ano.

Naaalala ka lang kapag may kailangan sa iyo.


Kapag pumangit ka after the break up, magpapasalamat sila na iniwan ka nila.
Kapag gumanda ka naman, ipagkakalat nila sa buong sangkatauhan na naging girlfriend ka niya.
Sala sa init sala sa lamig talaga.


Ano ba namang buhay to?

Ang hirap ding maging babae ano. Kala nila laging sila nalang.

Lagi rin kaming naiiwan sa ere.
PUTANGINA SAKLAP DIBA?

Damdamin nang mga lalake.

*grabe. usapang lalake*
*sindi ng yosi*
*hithit*
*buga*

Musta na, pare?
Ako, okay lang.
Eto. Nagmumuni-muni. Nag-iisip.
Minsan talaga may mga bagay na hindi ko maintindihan.
Ewan ko ba.

*hinga ng malalim*

Bakit ba ganun pare,ilang beses ko na pinag-aralan pero lagi na lang lumalabas na parang kahit ‘sang anggulo mo tingnan,
hindi nagiging patas para sa mga lalake ang ilang bagay pagdating sa pagmamahal.

*tingin sa stars*

Minsan naiisip ko, alam kaya ng mga babae ang hirap ng lalake
na gumawa ng first move para magtapat ng pagmamahal?
E yung hirap na dinadaanan sa panliligaw at pagsuyo sa mahal nya?
Ang feeling ng masaktan pag nabasted?
Malamang-lamang siguro, hindi ano.
Wala naman yata silang alam sa mga paghihirap naten e.

Ang alam lang ata nila e
mamili, manakit, at magsaya.
Tingin mo?

*tingin sa malayo*

Lagi naman ganun. Una pa lang, lalake na ang naghihirap.
Hassle saten ang panliligaw pero bago pa yun,
kung ano pang diskarte ang gagawin naten
para masabi naten sa kanila na mahal natin sila.
Alam kaya nila yun? Mahirap magsabi na mahal mo na yung babae, diba?
Tapos liligawan pa naten.

Patutunayan na mahal nga sila.

Susuyuin..

to-the-max.

Maghahatid sa bahay, tutulungan,
sasabayan, palalamunin, pagtyatyagaan,
lahat na.

Kulang na lang e pagsilbihan mo nang
walang sahod. (Hahaha!)

At ano ang kapalit? Well, depende sa trip nila. Oo tol, sa trip lang nila.
Wala silang pake kesehodang mahal natin talaga sila.

Basta ang alam nila, pag di nila tayo trip,
isang malaking HINDE ang makukuha
naten,

kahit umiyak pa tayo ng dugo o lumuhod sa mga asing buu-buo.
Para lang silang namimili ng damit na di man lang sinusukat bago ayawan.
Kaya kahit mahal na mahal na mahal na mahal natin, sorry tayo.
Hindi nila alam kung mahal mo sila.
Kailangan mong maabot ang kanilang mga standards o uuwi ka lang na bad trip, iiling-iling, at minsan, luhaan.

Wala tayong magagawa, marami silang alibi.

“Hindi pa ‘ko ready eh..”,
“Sorry pero I think we should just be friends..”,
“Ha? Uhhmm.. nagpapatawa ka ba? Hahahaha..”
“Better luck next time na lang muna, okay lang?”,
“Give me a decade. Pag-iisipan ko muna..”,
"Para lang kitang kapatid eh.. "

yaddah yaddah.

Isang malaking pagsasaklob ng langit at lupa ‘yon para saten.

*kuha ng bote ng beer*
*lagok*
*lunok*

At hindi lang ‘yon tol. Sa pre-relationship stage pa lang yon.
Pag sinagot na nila tayo, satin pa rin ang hassle.

Tayo daw ang mga lalake kaya..
tayo ang hahawak ng relasyon.
Tayo ang aayos kung may gulo;
tayo ang dapat magpapakabait;
tayo ang magtatyaga;
tayo ang magiging devoted at faithful;
tayo, tayo tayo.

Sila? Ummm… Teka, isipin ko.

Ayun.

Sila ang magsasabi kung anong oras kayo dapat magmeet;
sila ang magtetext ng mga mushy at kabalbalang texts;
sila ang magdedemand sayo ng kung anu-ano;
sila ang magbabawal;
sila ang magsasabi kung kelan ka dapat mag-shave,
kung kelan ka pwedeng tumawag sa bahay nila,
kung kelan sila di dapat bad tripin dahil meron sila,
at kung kelan ka korni.

Ewan. Ganun ata talaga.

*kuha ng bote ng beer*
*lagok*
*lunok*


Hindi pa yun tapos pare, dahil dapat tayo ang bahala kung ano ang magiging takbo ng relasyon.

Pag maganda, edi okay.
Pag may problema, kasalanan naten.
Haay buhay. Minsan talaga kung tutuusin sakit sila ng ulo.
Kaya lang mahal naten kaya di na natin iniintindi yun.

*hinga ng malalim*

Pero alam mo tol, feeling ko mas sincere pa tayo magmahal sa kanila.
Alam mo yun, iba tayo magmahal e.
Hindi lang parang laru-laro lang. Seryoso.
At kung magmahal man tayo, lubus-lubusan.

Mas mature?
Hindi yung parang pambata lang gaya nila na kesyo magseselos-selos, iiyak-iyak, iina-inarte, dadradrama, at kung anu-ano pa.
Hindi lang kababawan. Ka-mushyhan. Kababaihan. Iba tayo pag nagmahal.

*hinga ng malalim*
*tingin sa malayo ulit*

At ito pa ang pinakamasaklap.

*singhot*

Ang ending ng relasyon.
Sa mga panahong ‘to, either
sawa na sila, hindi na tayo trip,
may nahanap na silang better saten,
o kaya they need f*cking space and time muna.
Bad trip no? Wala na naman tayong choice. Sila ang masusunod.

At ano pa ang kasamang hassle don?
Syempre wasak na ang imahe naten.
Tayo ang lalabas na may kasalanan.
Na playboy. Na nagpapaiyak.

*iiling*

Tayo siyempre ang mga antagonist
at sila yung mga bidang inaapi at parang mga pusang iiyak-iyak.

Ang ending:
mag-ooffer sila ng “friendship” kuno matapos tayong pagsawaan,
lahat ng gifts naten nasa kanila,
sawi tayo sa pag-ibig, “player” na ang image naten,
at higit sa lahat,
mag-iisip kung papaano ipagpapatuloy ang buhay.
Maiiwan tayong tulala, mag-iisip kung saan nagkamali, mamomroblema sa pag-aadjust sa pagiging single, at di na naman makakatulog.

Haay buhay. Ang hirap maging lalake.
Lagi ka na lang naiiwan sa ere.
Ano? Hindi ka na nagsalita? In-love ka no?

Ako, kamusta? Eto.
Yoyosi-yosi. Bubuntong-buntong hininga. Titingin-tingin sa bituin. Mumuni-muni. Lalagok ng alak

Ang mga babae talaga, oo