Author: Andy Uyboco

I am pro-Duterte, but I did not bash that UP student, Stephen Villena, on social media. Like you, I did not enjoy it when other Duterte supporters began to bully him online, to the point of calling him an idiot and putting his name on a tombstone. There was no call to do that to that poor kid who was only being forthright in his questioning (as is well within his rights). Our constitution, after all, guarantees FREE speech, not only polite speech.

I was impressed when he wrote an open letter explaining and defending his side. It was an intelligent, calm and level-headed reply at the many rabid people calling for his head.

So no, I have no problem with him. Even the mayor has no problem with him as he called for his supporters to stop bullying the student. “I was not treated with disrespect. He was just acting according to his age. I was also once a student,” he said.

My problem is with you who would like to lump all Duterte supporters in that #Dutertard tag, implying that one must be a retard or moron to support Duterte. Some of you even expressed dissatisfaction with the official statement of campaign spokesperson, Peter Laviña, when he asked supporters to “take the moral high ground when engaging in any kind of discourse concerning our candidate.”

You implied that he should be clearer in declaring the wrongness of the act because idiots like us (and yes, that is my own interpretation based on how I read several statements to this effect) would not understand what “moral high ground” means.

Now, I take offense at that, and I find it ironic that you would call out bullying by being a bully as well. Sure, you may be all highbrow and intellectual but it is bullying nonetheless to imply that those who do not agree with you must be #Dutertards.

I would readily admit that there are idiots and twits among us, but you would do well to remember that there are idiots and twits in your camp as well — with some even running for office. (Dare I say the highest office?)

But surely, an intelligent person such as yourself is aware of the Pareto Principle which states that for many events, 80% of the effects come from only 20% of the cause. In some businesses, for example, 80% of the sales will come from only 20% of the customers. In a group activity, 80% of the results will be achieved by 20% of the participants. In the same way, it is most probably true that 80% of the noise and nonsense coming from pro-Duterte people is generated by probably only 20% of the crowd.

Oh, but there are a lot of them, you might say, showing screenshot after screenshot of facebook comments and twitter feeds. Well, what do you know? If that’s only 20% of us, then maybe there ARE a lot of us after all, contrary to what those surveys are saying. Oh and yes, we weren’t born yesterday. We know who owns the top two survey firms that are always mentioned in the media.

In truth, I count many in my circle who are pro-Duterte, and not just fellow Davaoeños but Filipinos from other parts of the country as well. They are not the rabid, insane variety that you like to make our poster boys and your punching bags. They are businessmen, teachers, doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, artists, and other professionals, and oh yes, UP graduates (even from UPLB). They are the anti-thesis of your underlying assumption that Duterte supporters are mindless, bloodthirsty goons who will bring the beginning of a Nazi-like regime in the Philippines.

Really now? Do you actually think we’re that stupid?

I cannot speak for others, only for myself, but maybe others will find their reasoning similar to mine. Why do I choose Duterte? Simple. Because of the results. Because of Davao City. You may call the man uncouth, foul-mouthed, contradictory, a cold-blooded killer, and whatnot, but you cannot deny what he has done for the city to be what it is today. You cannot deny his sincerity in helping Tacloban and Bohol even without photo-ops or his name stamped on donated goods. You cannot silence the many voices of common Davaoeños willing to share their Duterte stories, of how the mayor helped them by personally rescuing them or their kin from hostage situations, or by offering financial aid to Bantay Bata victims (where he refused to publicize his help).

And if you say our city isn’t so great, well, good. Stay away. We like our peace and quiet.

The difference between you and I is that I am able to see past the macho, tough-guy facade and into the heart of the man who has tirelessly served Davao for decades, and I know that heart is sincere. I know that he has not been secretly amassing wealth and I personally know people he has rescued in hostage or kidnap situations. Duterte was really there in the thick of battle. How many politicians or leaders do you know who would literally put their lives on the line for their constituents?

Come May 9, I know who I will probably vote for.

“Probably?” You may ask.

Why, of course, I am a thinking person and capable of making intelligent decisions and changing my mind. You can still persuade me why I should vote for a candidate mired in graft and corruption issues too obvious to explain away; or for an inexperienced neophyte senator, who wants to lead a country she once renounced, and whose husband and son cannot even vote for her; or a bumbling credit-grabber shown to be incompetent and unable to handle crisis in several situations; or an intelligent senator whose health is in serious question.

I am a businessman. I look at the bottom line. They may talk well. They may be able to articulate fancy economic jargon. They may promise the moon. But what are their results? What have they actually done?

It is by this measure, that I and others like me, choose Duterte. While I do not, for one second, believe in his fly-me-to-the-moon claim to eradicate crime and drugs in 3 to 6 months, I have no doubt that among all the candidates, he is the only one who will put every fiber in his being in trying to make it happen, without any ulterior motive but to make life better for his fellow Filipinos.

How do I know that? Simple. I live in Davao, and there is no other place in our country where I would rather be.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.

 

I got a request from one of my readers to share a few tips about writing.

One of the most overused lines that writers say in response to this is: just write and write and write.

That it is overused is no reason to dismiss it though, because it is true. Writing is a skill honed by constant practice. However, one who constantly practices wrongly will soon become an expert at doing the wrong thing (and thinking it’s right). For example, I was at this restroom and I saw a sign that said, “No Smoking On Premises.”

Some poor deluded soul thought that was wrong and changed “On” to “In.” He thought he was making a correction but what he did was mess up a sign that was grammatically correct to begin with.

Anyway, the point is not just to write and write, but also to find some way of getting meaningful feedback. You may ask friends to read your writing and give their comments, but most friends will usually be too polite to point out your errors, or they may not have the proper skills to evaluate your work (i.e. you may already be a better writer than they are).

The better thing to do is to look for mentors who can evaluate your work and give you good advice on how to improve. They may be former teachers or other writers whose work you admire (and who will consent to reading some of your work).

If you like a certain writer’s style, you can try to emulate or imitate that style. Over the years, I’ve had numerous writers who have been great influences on how I write. At the beginning, I blatantly copied their style until I found my own rhythm and voice. Note that I am talking about style, not about copy-pasting what they wrote, like a certain senator we all know and love (to trash).

Write in white heat. Edit in cold blood. I learned that from my English teacher, mentor and fellow columnist, Rene Lizada. Writing is a two-step process, but do not mix the two processes. Do not edit in the heat of writing. You may miss out on some great ideas because you were too busy polishing this or that sentence. The first draft is called exactly that because your work doesn’t have to be immaculate the first time around — that is, unless you are trying to beat a deadline (like I’m doing right now).

But seriously, when you’re beginning to write, just write and let the ideas flow. Don’t worry too much about correctness or sentence structure and so on. You can come back later and give your work a more critical eye later. I wrote about this in a previous article called Free Writing.

Read The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. It’s a thin book published in 1959 that is still very relevant today. It is probably the best guide to writing well. A number of famous and bestselling authors swear by it. If you’re unconvinced, read Stephen King’s On Writing, which is another excellent piece of work. He will tell you exactly why you should go and read Strunk and White.

Two important lessons I got from that book are:

1. Omit needless words.
2. Write in the active voice.

If you do nothing else except apply those two to the next few pieces you write, your writing will improve by leaps and bounds (Of course, I am assuming that you don’t already do those consciously).

Lastly, seek to communicate, not to impress. Do not use three-syllable words when there is a one-syllable word that means the same thing. Do not use kilometric sentences when a couple of words will do. Being a good writer doesn’t mean that you can use words nobody else comprehends. Being a good writer means that people understand what you say, nothing more and nothing less.

“Don’t leave a mess. Leave a message.” — Michael Aun & Jeff Slutsky, The Toastmasters International Guide to Successful Speaking

 

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.

I had a personal encounter with Jesus in Cebu last weekend, at this wonderful place called Hamerson’s Hotel. I was one of the guest speakers at a leadership meeting and general assembly of Humanist Alliance Philippines, International (HAPI).

I was having my breakfast when Bobby Olarte, the event chairperson, came over to my table and asked, “Have you met Jesus?”

I stared at him for a few seconds, wondering if he was serious. He seemed to be, so I mumbled, “Uh, well, you know, not personally, but…”

“Oh great, let me introduce you to him,” he said, then turned around to a neatly-dressed young man behind him who extended his right hand towards me. “Andy, meet Jesus,” said Bobby and we shook hands. Since I’ve always been encouraged to get to know Jesus more, I decided to take this time to do so.

“Jesus” turned out to be Atty. Jesus Falcis III. And no, he is not “He-sus.” His name really is pronounced as  “Jee-zus.” His friends found it amusing to call him that when they found out he was an atheist. Eventually, the name stuck and he has taken to introducing himself as “Jee-zus.”

Oh wait, did I just say Jesus is an atheist? Here’s another fun fact. Not only is Jesus an atheist, he is gay as well. That statement should make Manny Pacquiao and his bible-thumping fans squirm a little.

Jesus made headlines last May, 2015 when he filed a 31-page petition to the Supreme Court seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in the Philippines. The petition is the first of its kind for LGBT rights. The usual route is to go through congress, and while there have been actual bills authored in the past,  none of them have seen the light of day. Perhaps because politicians inclined to back such a bill would hesitate, as doing so may offend their predominantly Catholic or Christian voter base and hurt their chances of winning a second or third term.

Jesus’s method seeks to short-circuit the process by going directly to the Supreme Court, and arguing that the 1987 Family Code (Executive Order 209) — which defines marriage as between man and woman only — is unconstitutional. The 1987 Constitution itself does not define marriage as between man and woman, nor does it limit a family (Article 15) as being composed of one male and one female spouse.

In an article published in Rappler last January 2016, Falcis stresses the inequality in how LGBT people’s rights are treated and how equality simply cannot wait.

“Gay Filipinos will continue to be born and raised while equality waits. Gay Filipinos will continue to grow up in a society being bullied and ridiculed while equality waits. Gay Filipinos will continue to grow old and die, alone or as a couple deprived of legal protections, while equality waits.”

He further states that same-sex marriage harms no one while benefitting many.

“If you’re straight and not gay, you’re not forced to marry the same-sex. If you’re religious and do not believe in same-sex marriage, you’re not required to enter into one or to perform religious ceremonies for gay couples. If you’re bigoted and just irrationally hate gay people, you are not forced to love them.

When same-sex marriage is allowed, the world will continue to revolve and you can continue with your own life. When same-sex marriage is prohibited, the world of LGBT people stops when they want to elevate their relationship to a legal status.”

One argument against same-sex marriage is that same-sex couples are unable to procreate. However, the law does not prevent heterosexual senior citizens (where women are past the menopausal stage) to marry nor does it prevent sterile heterosexual couples from marrying. The inability to procreate thus cannot be a valid ground for preventing same-sex marriage because the law cannot be discriminatory.

Another argument is that children raised by same-sex couples will grow up with psychological and sociological disadvantages because they will not have a role model either for their own gender, or for treating the opposite gender. This line of reasoning, however, is refuted by studies such as those conducted by Biblarz and Stacey in 2010 who concluded that “the gender of parents…has minor significance for children’s psychological adjustment and social success.”

Furthermore, Jesus argues that “Homosexuals can raise children well in the same manner that heterosexuals can. While there is no assurance that gays will not be bad or incompetent parents, there is also no assurance that heterosexuals will not be bad or incompetent parents.”

Of course, Jesus doesn’t expect things to be easy. He readily admits that the Supreme Court could simply dismiss his arguments, given that this is a very sensitive issue and given the conservative, religious nature of most Filipinos, public officials included. The battle will be long, drawn-out, and hard-fought, but given the positive results seen in the United States, Ireland, and many other progressive countries, it is a battle that he hopes to win and see equality happen in his lifetime.

And in this cause, I trust in Jesus.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View prvious articles at www.freethinking.me.

A lot has been going on my mind lately — mostly about Deadpool, Manny Pacquiao and the dangers of biblical literalism and cherry-picking.

Before I went to see Deadpool, I saw a couple of posts on Facebook linking to articles on why Christians shouldn’t watch Deadpool. At one point in my life, I took these kinds of articles seriously, so I decided to read them, for old times’ sake. One article said, “Choose not to see Deadpool because it will be unhelpful to your godliness.”

I don’t know how one person can judge whether something will be helpful or not to someone else’s godliness. How does one determine a person’s godliness anyhow? You might as well ask that question of every other movie out there. How is watching Avengers, Transformers, or Beauty and the Bestie helpful to your godliness, for example? In fact, if you’re really serious about improving this godliness, you should probably stop watching 95% of all movies out there and go cloister yourself in a monastery.

People watch movies with certain expectations in mind. You don’t fall in line at a roller coaster ride and expect to come out enlightened about the metaphysical transcendence of being. You just want to be thrilled, to have fun. In the same way, you don’t watch Deadpool with the intention of improving your prayer life or biblical knowledge. You just want to have fun.

And it is a fun movie. I found the script witty and the pacing just right. Of course it is not wholesome fun for the family but it never pretended to be. It was properly rated as R-16 and there were warnings to parents against bringing their kids along. However, it was fun a mature adult could thoroughly enjoy, so I don’t really see what all the fuss is about. What irritates me is when some people feel uncomfortable about what they see on screen and they use themselves as a standard and impose that standard on other people. “Oh, I feel guilty about watching this, therefore, you should feel guilty about it too.”

Another article quoted Matthew 5:28-29 “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell,” and declared that, “Seeing naked women on the screen — or naked men — causes a man, or woman, to sin with their minds and their desires, and often with their bodies.”

Well I have news for this person. Some people can actually look at naked men or women and not feel anything — or they can simply be appreciative but not go beyond that. This is again another case of someone imposing his personal standard of morality on others. Just because he thinks he “sins with his mind and desires” then others ought to feel the same way.

Which brings me to Manny Pacquiao and his dreadful “common sense” remark that those practicing homosexual acts are worse than animals, for which he later apologized (probably when he realized that he just lost a huge chunk of LGBT voters, and oh, there goes that endorsement deal with Nike). As of the moment social media is polarized between those supporting Manny for “being true to God’s word” and those angry at his bigotry.

We have to realize though that the Bible was written by primitive people trying to make sense of their existence. By “primitive,” I do not mean to degrade them, but to state a simple fact that they were in a much less enlightened state of mind than we are. As such, we see that their writings are no different from similar writings gathered from their neighbors in almost the same era. In other words, their practices and morality derive from what was culturally accepted in their time.

The problem with biblical literalism then is taking their edicts and applying it to our time. And indeed it is a problem because if we were to truly credit Manny with being true to God’s word, then he would have to follow every jot and tittle of it. So what does it really say? “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)

So for Manny to be true to God’s word, he should go ahead and put these people to death. He should also go ahead and read the entire book which prohibits eating pork, shrimp, crabs, and what’s that on his body? Yep, tattoos. Oh, better peel those off. God isn’t too happy with those.

Oh and remember that other verse I quoted earlier about gouging one’s eye out? Shouldn’t Manny and other die-hard Bible fans have just one eye now if they were really true to God’s word? Of course not, because the truth of the matter is that people, even Christians, do not really follow the Bible. They just use it as an excuse to either promote or demonize their prejudices.

But you could always prove me wrong, you know, like giving ALL your possessions to the poor or something.

Go on. I’m waiting.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.

I learned a lot about love when I was in my senior year of high school. I had fallen in love with a girl. That in itself would have been unremarkable. I have had crushes since second grade. As early as third grade, I even imagined my crush in a wedding gown, and for a while, that became my standard for evaluating my crushes — whether they looked good in a wedding gown or not. Anyway, falling in love was nothing new to me.

What made it different this time was that I had actually gathered up enough courage to tell her about it.

It was around this time, in English class, that we were discussing a short story called The Chaser by John Collier, about a young man in search of a love potion that he wanted to give to his lady love and buying it for a dollar.

In the middle of the lecture, our teacher asked, “Is love a will or an emotion?” A lively debate ensued. On the one hand, there were people who thought that love is an emotion — a fleeting thing given that people fall in and out of love all the time. If hashtags had been invented then, these would be the people saying #WalangForever (there is no “forever”).

On the other hand, there were people who thought that love is a will — that one makes a conscious decision to love another in spite of his or her shortcomings, in spite of the original rush and thrill being gone — like when couples grow old together and still love each other despite the wrinkles, the falling hair and missing teeth. This is the kind of love that says #MayForeverNga (“forever” exists indeed).

At that time, I heavily defended the second answer. Today, I tend to think it’s a bit of both, but still more of a decision than a feeling. The emotion is necessary for the initial spark, but it is the will and commitment that keeps the fire burning through the years.

Before I got married, a colleague of mine gave me a rather obscure but marvelously insightful book called The Mystery of Marriage by Mike Mason. It was a “pirated” version, meaning she photocopied her copy and gave me a bound version (though I don’t think she did it to save cash but more likely she couldn’t find an original version anywhere).

Of course, I would probably not agree with most of the book now but I still remember it fondly for the chapter on vows. It asserted that the vows were the be-all and end-all of marriage. When the attraction has faded, and things turn sour, and the shortcomings of your partner have been laid bare before you — when you at last stop seeing through love-tinted glasses — you are left with nothing holding your marriage together but your vow.

That is the essence of saying that love is both an emotion and a will.

Moreover, Mike offers this little gem: “To keep a vow, means not to keep from breaking it, but rather to devote the rest of one’s life to discovering what the vow means, and to be willing to change and to grow accordingly.”

By now you are probably wondering what happened to that girl to whom I had declared my love. Well, let me just reiterate what I said at the beginning — that I learned a lot about love that year, and that includes learning about how to deal with a broken heart.

Advanced Happy Valentine’s Day!

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.