I write better when I smoke. Don’t ask me to reduce it to a science.

Bureau of Sabotage

From Wikipedia:

In (Frank) Herbert’s fiction, sometime in the far future, government becomes terrifyingly efficient. Red tape no longer exists: laws are conceived of, passed, funded, and executed within hours, rather than months. The bureaucratic machinery becomes a juggernaut, rolling over human concerns and welfare with terrible speed, jerking the universe of sentients one way, then another, threatening to destroy everything in a fit of spastic reactions.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

This government has become terrifyingly efficient as well – in serving it’s own ends. Red tape? Gone, along with any sane notion of due process. Rules are conceived of, promulgated, then revised as needed, to ensure that at any junction, the outcome gets channeled to the best interests of those in power. The DOJ-OMB-COA-COMELEC complex has become a juggernaut, threatening to destroy all opposition in serial fits of spastic reaction.

In a time such as this, we need people who will be saboteurs against this machine – people who will frustrate the well-laid plans of those in power, to give people the time to comprehend the truth behind their machinations, and to preserve the dignity of individuals.


Filed under: Quick Posts, ,

Revilla in 2016

Dear Ellie,

Bong Revilla wants to run in 2016? I say let him. I mean, that sort of decision is a magnet for scorn, but what do you expect? Politics is as politics does.

What really annoys me is Leila de Lima, thundering from on high and reminding him – patronizingly – to think of delicadeza.

Think about this.

1) Leila is a known, tried and tested, flunky of the administration; 2) she was instrumental in bringing these plunder charges down on Bong; and 3) she is not, nor will she ever be, someone Bong would go to for political advice.

So this “reminder” of hers can easily be construed as an attempt to frame the discussion on Revilla’s candidacy. By bringing up delicadeza now, she is trying to ensure that when people discuss Revilla, their starting point will be the “propriety” of his candidacy, NOT his capabilities, NOT his track record, NOT what he can do for the people. And even then, why should propriety even be an issue? The man hasn’t been proven guilty of anything. Why would it be improper for him to run?

You see, that’s the great thing about democracy. It doesn’t exactly care about the sensibilities of anyone, least of all the minority. In a democracy, dear Ellie, the choice is laid before the people so that each voter – each individual voter – is given the opportunity to weight the merits of each candidate according to his own lights. Thus, even if all of the King’s men agree that Revilla ought to have no place in government office, that opinion would not matter if it is out-voted by those who believe otherwise.

So, if democracy calls for every single voter to decide on his own, no one’s candidacy can ever be smugly dismissed as being “inappropriate,” and certainly not by someone who’s political predilections are well known. If anything, it is more inappropriate when an influencer like the Secretary of Justice plays partisan politics by using the clout of her office to sway people into believing that someone has no business running for office.

The way I see it, the use of the word delicadeza to frame this discussion was deliberate but inaccurate.

What Leila is actually gunning for, in my opinion, is kapal ng mukha, or the idea that, because of his being accused of plunder, Bong Revilla should be embarrassed to run for office.

However, since the thought of being shamed into doing the right thing has been rendered all but irrelevant by administration shmucks like Al Vitangcol (MRT), Ping Lacson (he was a fugitive from justice wasn’t he? even had a movie made about it), and Butch Abad (you know who that is, for sure), who cling to office despite being accused of malfeasance (or murder) themselves, I figure she thought she needed something that wouldn’t invite these unflattering comparisons.

And since we Filipinos are so notoriously self-righteous, the idea of painting a Revilla candidacy improper does seem like an excellent choice. After all, there are not a lot of people who would dare raise a peep of protest once delicadeza is invoked.

But delicadeza, in the sense of an awareness of propriety, should not been an issue here. There is nothing improper about an accused man running for office, unless he is proven guilty. If you don’t like, then suck it. Campaign against him and vote for someone else.


Filed under: 2016 elections, , , , ,

Bea Alonzo’s Tits

I don’t normally weatch Vice Ganda’s show, but I do happen to have people in the house who do. Tonight, I peeked over their shoulders and good god, there they were: Bea Alonzo’s magnificent mammaries.

Seeing as how, even after having breastfed, I still don’t have tits worth mentioning, I was entranced by her creamy mounds, teasingly revealed by a peek-a-boo blouse with an otherwise respectable neckline. It was a moment of sapphic sublimity that got me thinking: why are boobs so attractive?

I came up with five reasons. But before I get to them, let me be upfront and tell you these are the kinds of boobs that I find most attractive:

That’s Malena Morgan … as if you didn’t already know that.

If you can tear your eyes off of them beauties, we can continue.

Alright. So, the five reasons why boobs are so attractive.

Number 1. It’s biological. Nice rounded boobs are nature’s way of signalling that this female is of prime reproductive age, with a better than average chance of producing ample amounts of milk. Sometimes, nature gets it wrong, of course, but in general, that’s what good titties signify. Modern man, however, doesn’t exactly remember those biological imperatives anymore and we’ve learned to interpret our reaction to boobs as the mere activation of our libido.

Number 2. It’s sociological. Most societies with roots in Western culture are still not used to seeing those parts of a female anatomy bared. Just like they say certain Arabic men get hard from seeing ankles, most modern people are triggered by the sight of skin that is usually covered up. The opposite is true. In Africa, where tribeswomen walk around all day with their tits flopping free, the sight of a bare chest doesn’t really do much for the male population – unless it’s a pair of pale tits. In a sense, this is still a biological response of course, but I would classify it as more sociological.

Number 3. For unlucky women like me, it’s aspirational. I want boobs like those. Of course, there’s a fair amount of envy in there too, which I would rather not dwell on, thank you very much.

Number 4. For men, it’s also aspirational. Our men have been weaned on the belief that big tits equals hot chick. And hot chick equals status in the boy’s club. So, when men see tits like that, it triggers a largely unconscious train of thought: if I can get my hands on those, it’ll give me status. Hence, trophy wives for over-compensating men.

And Number 5. Goddamn, it’s TITS man!


Filed under: vacuity, , ,

I’m back

Holy shit. That was a long break.

In the meantime, I’ve lost, which is sad.

But I’m back.


Filed under: blogging, ,

Why I don’t believe John

Over at POC, Cocoy writes about the plight of John de la Cruz, effective framing the piece via the title: “Why Filipinos shouldn’t work in Vietnam.” Having once been offered precisely that opportunity, I was naturally curious. But what I was hoping would be a rational piece explaining why employment in Vietnam would be a bad idea for the descendants of Jose Rizal, turned out to be nothing more than an exercise in jingoistic chest beating.

John de la Cruz – in case you didn’t get it the first time around, Juan de la Cruz – claims to have been “unjustly” terminated and complains to the Philippine Ambassador to Vietnam. Presumably – the piece doesn’t provide a lot of background information – he did so seeking legal assistance to pursue his claim against his employer. Again presumably, this claim included a recitation of his employer’s “many violations.” What those violations are, the piece forgets to detail.

Anyway, as it turns out, the employer actually replies:

“He wants all things at GLN have to follow him, even me,” Bui Thi Le Hang wrote. She goes on. “He didn’t respect my request/ email. He always said that I am so nice with everyone. Yes, I am nice and patient enough to work but I am too headache to listening complaints about his behavior from our Branch Manager. Once customers complaint about his teaching style, we gave this comments to him and he started to fight with our students, this behavior made our students scare to study with him and they had asked to change to other class or change to other teacher many times. Some students even not returned to continue their study with him even their tuition fee still left. We have lost a lot of customer due to this behavior but he never accepts or agrees that it’s because of his service, he will blame because of our staffs or our student. Therefore, it’s really dangerous to giving him a class. We had reduced this risky by offer him a position as Head teacher as his request and our Academic Manager’s request but his behavior still not change.

Moreover, he refused to work on Sunday as in the contract, this day he should work from Sunday to Friday. Although he used to beg for this favor from me, I did not agree with that but he always said to staffs/Branch Manager he worked with me already and I agreed. He only worked on Sunday if we have marketing events/workshop. In addition to this, he also refused to work at Nguyen Thi Dinh branch as our request.”

Breaking that down, the Vietnamese employer seems to be complaining, first, that Johnny didn’t go what he was asked; second, that Johnny had been complained about by the employer’s branch manager, and the school’s students; third, that confronted with these complaints, Johnny had tried to pass the blame on to other staff and had actually taken it out on the students and that some students had actually packed up and left the school because of him; fourth, that, confoundingly, Johnny had actually been given the position of Head Teacher but that the promotion had not mellowed him out; and fifth, that he refused to work Sundays, even if it was in his contract.

In reply, Johnny wrote the Ambassador.

Dela Cruz argued in his letter to Ambassador Santos that he did not refuse the work. He simply wished that the class be moved to his branch.

“I was the Head Teacher at the main branch and I had a lot of duties. I did not refuse the class, I wanted it moved to my branch where I work because since my contract ends in May, I wanted to have the opportunity to train the teachers, and I had other responsibilities in my branch given to me by the Owner/BOD: Ms. Bui Thi Le Hang, and Senior Admissions Officer: Ha Thuc Dieu Linh.”

In his letter to the ambassador, dela Cruz wrote many alleged violations of GLN English Learning Center. In July 2010, according to Dela Cruz, General Manager Bui Thi Le Hang ordered then Tran Dai Nghia Branch Manager Hoang Nhung to forcibly take the Philippine passport of one Filipina teacher there. In the same year an electrical fire broke out at the Nguen Thi Dinh branch. According to his account, there were no fire extinguishers and no fire safety procedures in place, which he said was in violation of the Vietnam’s Labor Code. According to him, there were still no fire extinguishers when he left their employ.

According to Dela Cruz, on February 21, 2013, at 2pm, a meeting was held at GLN’s Head Office. GLN’s HR Manager Nguyen Thi Lan Huong and Keangnam Senior Admissions Officer Ha Thuc Dieu Linh represented the company. The Philippine Consul joined dela Cruz in that meeting. The Human Resources Manager, according to dela Cruz talked about his poor performance.

Dela Cruz countered with an annual performance appraisal letter, congratulating him of his achievements and a hand written note from the General Manager over New Year’s saying that she liked how dela Cruz “strictly follow rules and regulations”. Dela Cruz argued that there were no official records of complaint filed against him by students. Dela Cruz claims that the company falsified public documents. Dela Cruz said his work visa was for “Business Staff”, but his contract stated that he was an “ESL Teacher”.

So, Johnny’s response to the five points raised by his employer?

  1. That he did not refuse the Sunday class, but that he had wanted it moved to the branch where he was.
  2. That his employer were guilty of many violations, although he specified only two: the taking of the passport of one of the Filipina teachers, and the lack of fire extinguishers in the place.
  3. That, in response to allegations of poor performance, he had a positive annual performance appraisal letter and a hand-written note from the General Manager saying that she liked him being a stickler for the rules.
  4. That there was no official record of complaints filed against him; and
  5. That his contract called him an “ESL Teacher” but his work visa said “Business Staff,” and that therefore, his employer was guilty of falsifying public records.

In a Skype chat, the piece reports, Johnny goes on to drop the statement that the owner “explicitly said” that she can hire Filipinos anytime, and that she once refused to see the Filipino consul.

All of this, of course, goes to the argument that Filipinos are – as Johnny said – brutalized, mistreated by Vietnamese employers, and therefore, Vietnamese employers should be prevented from hiring Filipinos.

Whoa, right?

First of all, shouldn’t we ask Johnny why the company had to move the class to his branch, just because he said so? And if the company refused to do as he said, would that refusal justify anything other than his compliance with the terms of his contract? I can think of several reasons why the company would refuse to move a class from one branch to another, but at the top of that list would be the students. Why should one teacher’s preference be paramount over the paying clientele’s convenience?

Second, the employer’s behavior – for which we only have Johnny’s word, btw – towards any other Filipino employee, is hardly a justifiable reason for Johnny to be anything less than a good employee himself. Neither is the absence of fire extinguishers a good excuse. Seriously, if the working conditions made him that uncomfortable, Johnny should have just upped and left. But he didn’t, did he?

Third, a positive annual performance appraisal letter doesn’t guarantee that an employee will always be a model employee. In fact, the usual track is for people to start out spectacularly and for performance to dip over time, as things like ennui or complacency creep in. At best, this claim by Johnny only proves that he had at least one good year with the company – a situation not incompatible with a later deterioration of his desirability.

Fourth, the fact that there were no official records of complaints against him proves squat. For one thing, any description of the character traits of Vietnamese will include assertions that they are timid, polite, easily frightened – remember how his employer said “[his] behavior made our students scare to study with him?” – and not very self-confident, preferring instead the strength that comes from collective action. None of these character traits would seem to predispose to the filing of official complaints against a person in authority. In other words, the absence of such complaints seems, in fact, inevitable.

And fifth, I can’t help but wonder why he didn’t bring up the disparity in job titles earlier. Also, there seems to be no great difference between business staff and esl teacher, with the former being a more generic description of his relationship to his employer, and the latter being a more specific designation of his duties within the business. And besides, what the heck does any of that have to do with his termination???

As for the claims he made via Skype – presumably talking with the author of the piece, or at least someone already predisposed to accepting his sob story – about how Filipinos can be hired anytime, well, don’t we go to Vietnam to work? How is this particularly offensive? In a similar vein, are we supposed to get all offended when a foreign national, on her native soil, refuses to see our diplomat? While it may have been bad manners for his employer to not come out to see the consul, can that snub really be significant to the question of whether he was unlawfully terminated?


Reading this piece, which intrinsically exhorts a kind of stop deployment order for Vietnam and is marketed on Twitter as a call for Filipinos to avoid employment in Vietnam on the basis of one disgruntled employee’s largely incoherent claims of unfair treatment, I imagine that the more responsible take would be an attempt to discover whether the 30-day notice requirement was actually complied with. But then again, this didn’t seem to be the goal in the first place.

Instead, this piece clearly set out to portray the Filipino as a victim, once again; tapping into the collective outrage at Filipinos being mistreated as a kind of shortcut to generating support for this particular Filipino. Better by far to have just avoided the victim card altogether.

So why don’t I believe John? I don’t believe him because he – and the author of this piece – seems content to just paint a picture of himself as an oppressed Filipino without bothering to clearly and definitively debunk the accusations against him. That’s lazy and it doesn’t do justice to all the other Filipinos who, by hard work and integrity, have made it abroad.

Filed under: Filipino, international, ,

If you can’t beat it, work with it

I think it’s time the Comelec faced the facts.

Candidates will not be dissuaded from putting up their posters wherever they damn well please, there will never be enough outraged people to outweigh the voting power of those who don’t care, and the common poster area rule is perhaps one of the most ridiculously unenforceable rules in the entire history of unenforceable rules.

And orbiting this nucleus of hard facts, are a number of satellite postulates that can’t be ignored either: no matter how fairly the Comelec treats candidates and party-list organizations, those candidates and party-list organizations with the ability to mobilize media coverage will always be able to portray the Comelec as biased; the leveling effect of the common poster area is illusory at best; and – apart from the common poster area rule itself being intrinsically unenforceable – the Comelec’s own field personnel are either incapable or unwilling or too poorly motivated to even mount the good ole college try at tilting at windmills.

This isn’t to say that the idea behind the common poster area rule is trash. On the contrary, the concept that candidates should be restricted in this way is a good one because, if nothing else, the opposite means that candidates will most likely plaster anything and everything with campaign propaganda that they are not responsible enough to clean up afterwards; and because the practice of proliferate postering only reinforces the notion that it takes money, not character, to win in elections.

These laudable considerations aside, however, the fact remains that the mechanism for achieving those ends are pitifully laughable, exposing the Comelec to ridicule and accomplishing little beyond chipping away at what little credibility the poll body still has.

Hopefully, the Comelec’s bright boys and girls will soon realize that, perhaps, the Fair Elections Act is approaching the problem wrongly.

Obviously conceived as a means of making the elections more sober, for lack of a better word, using the boring American campaigns as a model, the Fair Elections Act ignores the fact that we Filipinos do elections differently. For us, this isn’t a process imbued with quiet dignity and somber gravity. It’s a fiesta – a festive occasion ultimately not far removed from basketball. And there isn’t anything intrinsically wrong with that if you were to accept that as it is and not compare with your idea of what elections should be, i.e., the way the Americans do it.

Take phone banking for instance. The Americans use rows and rows of telephones to actually call people on election day urging them to vote. Both the Republicans and the Democrats do it. They also send out vehicles to pick people up from their homes and take them to the polling places. Here at home, we call that hakot.

So, if some aspects of the way Americans run elections are undesirable to us, why should a boring campaign be more acceptable? It’s like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Sure, you can smash it into place but it’ll be a terrible fit.

Better by far to simply embrace the cultural realities in which the election campaigns are embedded and then institute process controls. Kinda like how they stopped men pissing on the floors of Schipol airport toilets. It’s a case of since you can’t beat it, work with it.

Okay. At this point, you’re prolly waiting for some idea I can propose. Well, I don’t have anything at the moment. But, hey! That isn’t my job, is it? LOL

Seriously tho, I do have something, although I can’t guarantee lawfulness at this point. I was thinking that maybe, the Comelec can work something out with the DILG so that no winner can assume office without first organizing and carrying out a clean up operation, post-elections. While there is scant legal bases for this kind of move, there is a chance that it will appeal to the Filipino’s sense bayanihan *cringe* which, at the moment of victory, will be tripping high on euphoria.

I know it’s lame, alright? But you get the idea, right? Hopefully, the Comelec’s bright boys and girls do too.

If you have an idea on how illegal postering can be controlled in the absence of a common poster area rule, why not share it in the comments below?

Or don’t. LOL

Filed under: 2013 Elections, politics, polls, pop-culture, , ,

After four years

The last post on this blog was dated 4 February 2009, and here we are now in 2013 – more the four years later. Ain’t that a kick in the head.

In the meantime, my self-hosted site has gone to weed, and the people I used to exchange online pleasantries with have all gone on to be bigshots in government and the corporate world. I, on the other hand, am now a bigshot only to my lovely Ellie.

For awhile, I toyed with the idea of blogging about motherhood, but that inclination didn’t last very long. I could not imagine anyone being excited about the minutiae of maternity. And if I don’t enjoy waking up in the middle of the night to feed a baby with a weird circadian rhythm, I can’t see anyone else having much fun with it.

Don’t get me wrong. I love being a mother to the smartest kid this side of the Jupiter, but that’s a private kind of enjoyment, y’know? Maybe someday, I’ll share all these thoughts with Ellie and all the rest of the world, but for now, I am holding it close to my chest.

For now, there’s enough to do just catching up with the rhythms of the on-line life I used to revel in.


Filed under: Quick Posts, , ,


It takes a good leader to make hard decisions. It takes an awesome leader to make hard and unpopular decisions just when he needs to be popular – like in the run up to an election year for example?

From this news report, it seems like Noli de Castro knows what an awesome leader is. I mean, sure, it was Cerge Remonde who said

I think we should not glorify and glamorize these people by giving in to their demands as to whom they would want to negotiate with. I think that could be a very bad policy.

But the way things work around here, if de Castro wanted to score a few easy brownie points, he could’ve easily overriden sensible voices and gone on to Sulu for the photo ops. It is, I think, to his credit that he seems to be toeing the reasonable line with this one. 

Which prolly begs the question, when has he ever gone against this government? I’m all for that whole loyalty thing, but there comes a time in a politician’s life when, if he can’t break ranks, he can at least make his discomfiture known. Has de Castro ever done that?

The answer to that question will be relevant to those who are now considering him for 2010. He’s done a significant amount of good, sure; but a person who has kept his ass too safe will turn off the voters.

All told, de Castro might know what it takes to be an awesome leader, but is he good enough to actually be one?

Filed under: 2010 watch, news, politics, , , , ,

Nationality means nothing

In several FV posts, benign0 has been asking a very difficult question:  What does the “Filipino” stand for? Quite predictably – and prolly because of who asked the question rather than because of the question itself – the horde replied quite emotionally.

It’s actually a very simple question with a very simple answer: Filipino stands for parochial.

Parochial means – insular: narrowly restricted in outlook or scope; being provincial, being narrow in scope, or considering only small sections of an issue; narrow-minded. Ever heard a more concise description of a Filipino?

Flag-wavers of every stripe will of course complain. Not a few will trot out examples of ‘global Filipinos’ or some such bullshit. But, puh-leeze. To every general rule, there is an exception; and if you try to find a definition that will include even the exceptions, you’re gonna be looking for a very long time.

Filed under: Filipino,



A tip o’ the beret to LaTtEX for this ‘un. garygGary Granada takes on GMA Kapuso Foundation for using his revisions to their lyrics (for a jingle he was commissioned to compose) without attribution – and here’s the kicker – using an audio-cast! Pure public relations genius, that! On one level, you’d think that the choice of medium – new media – was prolly a no-brainer. Granada was talking about music and lyrical composition after all, and it packs a helluva lot more punch to have the audience actually hear the claimed IP klepto-ing than to just say “I wuz robbed!” But on a PR level, Granada got his side out first, and did it in a way that puts GMA on the defensive in a really bad way. For one thing, Granada’s tone was calm and even throughout – not hysterical in the slightest. That alone clues you in that this is serious. But not so serious that he doesn’t joke a little. The touch of humor tells you that he isn’t desperate for sympathy – and by extension, that he’s not desperate for allies and is not out to raise a jihad. Like a general closely following Sun-Tzu’s play, Granada has chosen his battleground, and has clearly chosen it well. GMA is now on a slippery slope that it will, perforce, have to try to defend using legalese. In a country positively exhausted with the concept of “legally-right even if morally-questionable,” good luck with that


SIDEBAR: My quick and dirty analysis of the situation: Granada isn’t claiming that GMA used his music. What he claims is that GMA used his revisions of the lyrics – original copy was given to him and he tweaked it to fit the music he wrote – and set it to someone else’s music. According to Granada, the industry practice is that if the client isn’t happy with the work and decides to give it to someone else, then the client ought to give the new artist the original copy and let that new guy tweak it himself. GMA, according to Granada didn’t do that. Instead, GMA gave the new artist the lyrics as tweaked by Granada. Granada in effect says that the tweaking he did constitutes intellectual property, and that the use of his tweaked lyrics sans attribution is, at the very least, objectionable. I haven’t read GMA’s reply, but from what Granada himself quoted, it seems that GMA’s tack has been to claim that the tweaking of the lyrics was a ‘group effort.’ Granada admits that at least some of the changes were made during a pow-wow with GMA’s creatives – where presumably he suggested a few changes that the creatives agreed with. But he takes exception that that made it a group effort. At this point in the audiocast, Granada attempts to distinguish a song-writer from a copy-writer. Listen to the ‘cast and come to your own conclusions of course, but Granada’s distinctions seemed logical if a bit fuzzy. He basically says that adapting written copy – essentially a kind of poetic prose – to fit a song is something that only a song-writer can do; and that even if a song-writer does the tweaking in the company of a group of copy-writers who eventually agree, that still cannot qualify as group-writing. Group-writing to me implies that there was cooperative give and take; that it wasn’t Granada alone who made the changes but that some of the changes were proposed by the copyists. GMA may be implying that this is exactly how it went down, and Granda himself does not clearly refute this. He only sez that it’s ridiculous to call it a group effort. Like I said, fuzzy. Also: It is important to note that GMA has already telegraphed it’s potential defense that Granda’s tweaking was too minor to transform the original lyrics – copyright owned by GMA obviously – into a new work whose copyright belongs to Granada. But then again, even if the tweaks were major enough to create a new work out of the old, looking at the situation from an IP p-o-v, it is fairly safe to say that even tho’ the person who commissions the work does not necessarily own the copyright, he will usually have the right to use the work for the purpose for which the work was commissioned. And if GMA actually paid Granada for his work, you can imagine that it’ll be even easier to assume that GMA did have the right to use the work for their ad. On the other hand, the creator – Granada (assuming that the tweaked lyrics can be considered a new original) – also has the moral right to attribution. Now he can take action if the work is attributed to someone else, but does he have an actionable right if there was no attribution at all? Again, with only Granada’s ‘cast to go by, still pretty fuzzy. You can bet everything you own that this will be GMA’s playground if this tiff with Granada gets any bigger.

Over-all, even if GMA does prove that it owes Granada nothing, it will still come off as the bad-guy in this story. And for that, Granada has to be thankful to the power of new media. Me, I’m inclined to go with the moral aspect – the moral obligation of GMA to attribute at least some of the work to Granada. Besides, having Granada’s name attached to the project can only bring greater goodwill. Ironic that GMA apparently ignored that truth. VIDEO Hat tip to TSD for this one: Apparently, some people are starting to grumble about this ad, complaining about how it portrays Filipinos as ‘hungry’ and prone to violence. The prone to violence aspect is obvious. As for the ‘hungry,’ that can only make sense in the original tagalog idiom: patay-gutom. A better translation for that would be ‘greedy’ I guess. Or ‘greedy-guts.’ Whatevs. You get the point. Course, I would be happier if the guy who broke the mirror weren’t Filipino. But since he is, I have to wonder: so the fuck what? On another note, doesn’t the Skittles guy look familiar?


Filed under: blogging, Filipino, international, pop-culture, , , ,