MY FATHER GONE "CRAZY" AFTER DEBATING ME

MY FATHER GONE "CRAZY" AFTER DEBATING ME

It was 08, January 2010, friday night when that event started, as I, writing something, was being scolded by my father out of a debate, that debate must be intended as an intellectual, gentlemanly talk, but my father turned it into a personal one-just because he hates the left-inclined, and one of them is I.

While writing, my drunkard father spoke something, speaking about the late New People's Army rebel being killed by the military during a battle, it was featured in the Inquirer at that time, and he even spoke of what the article being said that she was doing god's work, of serving the people and even 'faith without action is dead'.

And for sure, as what I expected, he would oppose it and even condemn the left for this kind of incident, and even spoke of anything christian just to counter what the christian left spoke regarding to the martyr; and upon hearing what my father said, I accepted some of his points, but then I told him that the bible has different interpretations and ideas, same as different lines to be said. Especially the words "I came here not to bring peace but a sword" in which different from Christ's healing of a Roman soldier's ear after being wounded by Peter, his desciple. And even spoke of Christ sacrificing himself, of opposing violence, etc.

Fine! But then how come Christ spoke of "to bring a sword?" Of calling for change? Of calling for action alongside faith? How come Christ even attacked the moneymakers and vendors in the temple? For me, Christianity is not a mere faith based institution, but rather more of a mass movement whose objective is faith-based salvation through action, by all means necessary in order to save the people from structural sin.

And yet my father still opposed to it. There he started to say things hysterically and in paranoia against the left, of turning it too personal although I tried much to remind him not to turn anything personally while my mother wanted our discussion to be to stop to prevent from becoming a fight-just because my father was drunk and speaking things too hysterical, contradicting, and trying to put me down.

And as we continue debating, there he spoke too much, too hysterical and event too personal; he even brag to me that he's speaking it too personal and starting to show being a father just to argue, well... I still resist what he's saying despite having a point just because he, a right winger who is even against the reformists, was acting too hysterical, a paranoid especially against the leftists-like me! Even bragging his "democracy" just to counter my "communism."

Since I kept on hearing too much of his words that I even wanted to speak but stopping me off, I started to speak this:

"YOU ARE CRAZY!"

And my father, being onion skinned to be a lawyer, reacted badly and started to speak me badly, really badly for what I have said to him. I spoke it to him for he's speaking too hysterical, too personal that contradicts the way lawyers speak and think, and even trying much to pull me down by showing his actions as a disciplinarian? Of speaking of personal ones in the middle of an intellectual-intended discussion? Perhaps respect for different ideas is not part of his, but rather more of dominating it.

Secondly,

I was quite in doubt what kind of democracy was he saying? Especially to a die-hard right-winger whose side supported the Marcos dictatorship? To me, he, my father, like those of the right-wingers tend to defend "democracy" which in fact a "constitutional authoritarian" type of government, and somehow being a "consitutional authoritarian" tends to show much of an extreme "disciplinarian", of focusing much in controlling through an ideological state apparatus, dictating policies in a pain of opposition while bragging "democracy" to others.

But then,

Despite all of these, the main cause to speak me too much was his drunkeness. So what's the use of arguing if he wanted a fistfight? Bah! That's a desparate action to a once lawyer-to-be with a transcript full of low grades arguing against his son whose grades are worth better than his!

On comfort food, makeshift meal and drink

On comfort food, makeshift meal and drink

It was early in the morning when I was preparing myself for breakfast, and the what I am preparing was mostly instant ones-of sausages in can, of instant pancit canton noodles, and even frying an egg to complete the meal plus a hot chocolate for drink.

And as I started eating that instant breakfast fare, it seems that anything around from the ones inside the can to the plastic foil is in an instant-creating a series of makeshift meals in which trying to replace slow ones despite having lack of some basic nutritional content according to the recommended dietary allowance just because it was mass made, fortified with supplimentary ones and being prepared in an instant.

Same as in comfort food, in the sidewalks of Recto lies an array of comfort foods, or in laymen's term street foods that makes students and even the stowaways enjoying it-from a fishball worth 50 cents to a chickenball woth a peso somehow gives a mouthful appetite to them, and with a plastic glass of coconut water worth ten or a dirty ice cream coming from a sorbetero woth five to quench their thirst after day's work or a long walk. Somehow these comfort foods, like those from the can and in the plastic foil gives cheap but simple pleasure, and a means to enjoy oneself.
How about drinks?From Coconut water, sago't gulaman to the soda and ice-cold coffee lies the array of drinks that seemed enjoying to the people as a non-alcoholic alternative. Like beer or hard drinks, especially brandy, these softdrinks somehow is also a means to bind friendship and solidarity to other men aside from quenching one's thirst. And even a cheap means to complete the meal alongside the Nawasa juice (water).

Anyway,

Despite all of these, better not to forget a well balanced diet. These comfort, makeshift, and instant meals are not consumed in a daily basis although it is cheaper to buy with. These kind of foods and drinks we see in the streets are no match from the Ulam and kanin freshly cooked in our bahays courtesy of our loving nanays to give us a healthy meal and a means of love for us.

KATLEAH: A GOOD INSPIRATION FOR (ART)WORK

KATLEAH: A GOOD INSPIRATION FOR (ART)WORK

It was all started when I was looking for a good inspiration for some artworks to be drawn, looking until I sought a girl whose looks seemed good, more of a proletarian kind-a lively face, of a pleasing but strong willed personality, and a good built that seemingly reminds of a female Kolkhoz farmer working for hours tilling the soil; and thus that girl became a good basis for "revolutionary artworks" featuring women.

But then,
That girl, whose name is Katleah, perhaps unknowingly didn't think it badly regarding this kind of thing being done, or being made through a series of drawings and perhaps even some stories whose female protagonist and its image can be based on her, well... for me she knew that I am drawing and even recognizing my talent, although on the other side it can be considered as annoying-especially in getting "drawn" and end up in a piece of paper featuring a girl wearing a gimsterka, pants, boots, a budenovka as her headgear and carrying an AK47 or some sort-for based on what I have seen for her, more of "that", a Kolkhoz woman, a proletarian, a revolutionary-anything, left, radical especially for that girl.

And in addition to that,
I am deeply influenced by the left through a series of books (like the communist manifesto, the French revolution, Les Miserables) and other writeups since childhood, somehow drawing or writing stories anything based on Katleah or even other ones also expresses more of personifying the struggle, like Berglend back then whom I drawn her as a female knight or Charmel as a beautiful empress with a humble heart, Katleah somehow to me is the struggle as a woman, a maiden whose prowess in the protest-battlefield is her outmost devotion to the people, including the acceptance of death..

Anyway,

Katleah is struggle, like Lorena she is the woman who gives anything to the people.

NEW YEAR'S MESSAGE

NEW YEAR'S MESSAGE

Comrades, Allies, Friends, I bring to you my warmest greetings.

We are now entering another decade in the history of mankind, and for sure we are trying hard to think of it as promising since the global society tends to create new ways to solve anything, especially after years of crises being set upon against the people, whether it is war, finance, and perhaps even love and sex affairs.

However,
Not all things man surely thinks of can be promising, since some tend to think curses instead of promises and insisting on piting against other people, somehow as what the conservatives in UK said "intenting on waging a negative and pointless class war". True, for the ones who started an untimely mess against the oppressed masses wanted a negative and pointless class war even in the 21st century! Anyway, we cannot deny this kind of event for that kind of struggle, altough they tried to call it pointless has a point, especially in the creation and destruction of human society, and that includes how people treated people and people treated the society same as society treating people,-including things like machinery and others that makes the world going.

But then,
Despite the growing tide of modernity, of change, we didn't notice that most of the people are still facing backwardness as the society, run by the oppressing classes tends to make them in a state of barbarity and ignorance as they force us to join the flow courtesy of consumerism and of the like. And somehow we don't even like to be ignorant and be a part of this growing threat what a backward-forward system wanted against us. For sure people wanted to stop this kind of "flow" by all means necessary for the sake of saving social sanity and mankind in general.

And therefore,
There are events in which the growing tide of opposition against the flow becomes rampant. The rallies against the masacre in Maguindanao and the unveiling of fascist -style violence made by the government courtesy of its warlords, the opposition against extrajudicial killings and justice for its victims, a call for a genuine agrarian reform program to replace the landlord-sponsored CARP, and others, in which it was well-coordinated with the events happned around the world, and now growing as ever.

And of course, there are more and more remains to be done, but the progress and struggles of the past year gives me confidence that we are heading in the right direction towards a just, progressive peaceful society. In this, we must intensify our calls for genuine change and justice, and we should redouble our efforts to forge a real new century of peace and freedom. The challenges we face today are no less daunting, but with good will and determination on both sides, I and the rest of the peoples of the world are confident that we will continue intensifying the struggle we about to continue, as what the song "Internationale" says:

"Tis' the final conflict,

And the last fight must face,

The Internationale,

Unites the human race."

Again, Thank you, God bless you, and have a liberating and promising New Year to the peoples of the world!

Peace, Land and Bread to all the nations of the world!

Solidarity and Friendship,
PAUL

SEEING "RED" AGAIN?

SEEING "RED" AGAIN?

Years after the Manila Times writeup "Seeing Red", there comes another wave of red-baiting and witch hunting, of seeing "red" again after Martial Law and succeeding eras in the Philippines. This writeup also tackles how people, blinded too much by propaganda seemingly reviving another batch of McCarthyites trying to bring back the nation in a state of "national blame" towards the "Communist-Terrorists" (stressing as what they say so). And how are they trying much in creating fabricated truths.

I remember last time reading a comment from a policeman saying "If you don't vote for Palparan you are a pro-communist." And for sure we all know that former AFP general Jovito Palparan was known for being a rabid anti-communist, especially of his extra-judicial tactics all in the name of "democracy" as he and others may say, that all communists are murderers, killers, thieves, anything deregatory against them all for the sake of "democracy", "peace", or even "defending the system."

As what I expect,

It all reminds of the Manila Times writeup. Of blaming communists for anything else against the country, for sure they know how to blame towards without any reason at all and insisting on the "crimes" the left they've committed during the past and being rectified as errors like those of the purges and other actions that made the communist movement in a state of crisis! But then blaming the left in general seemed to be a paranoia for the right since they wanted to "cleanse the nation out of communists, or rather say all the left-including social democrats even like those of their allies like the Philippine Democratic Socialist Party! If that's the case, then they are like devouring their own too as they wanted no left, no red, no commie, no socialist in a democratic land!

Somehow in this kind of idea, it is as if they ought to blame and wanting to join the fray of "killing them" a la Indonesia during the Soeharto era. Since they, like Palparan, Alcover and their cohorts wanted that, of blaming them for lawlessness, poverty, high prices of food and commodities, of compartmentalized justice and of the likes of it, while at the same time bannering their populist rhetoric borrowed from the "left" like those of Norberto Gonzales and even the apologists who originally the ones who instigated the crimes while during their "left days!" So what's the use of blaming the left while at the same time coddling with their left-leaning allies? Isn't it questionable-like blaming the insurgency instead of the system they protecting for poverty?

According to ANAD, im its press statement issued in time for the 41st founding anniversary of the CPP, said:
"Insurgency breeds poverty and not the other way around, In provinces where CPP-instigated insurgency is pronounced, poverty incidence is also high. The stronger the communist insurgency, the higher is the poverty...The CPP is partly to be blamed if the Philippine economy is stagnating all these years.
The vicious cycle of ignorance and poverty, and vice versa, is the very situation that the CPP is feeding on since the inception of the communist insurgency movement on Dec. 26, 1968.
Many Filipinos are ignorant because they are poor. Conversely, they are poor because they are ignorant."

Well...
In their message, it shows how these right-wingers tend to be too McCarthyist in what they are saying otherwise they also tend to show proofs that they preferred defending a rotten, corrupt system they're benefiting which is also the ultimate root of poverty, which is also the root insurgency and not on the other way around as what they said so! If Filipinos are ignorant because they are poor and vice versa, then who is benefiting from their ignorance? The Communists? The Muslim separatists? Or the Corrupt officials? The Traditional Politicians? the Landlords and the Comprador Bourgeoisie?

How about the peasantry?

For years the peasant war has been a part of our society and for sure the government and the right-wingers who supported tried much to gain support from the peasantry by its variety of "land reform" programs while at the same time enjoying the benefit from the landlords who tend to oppress these people! Worst was that some right-wingers also joined the caravan of the "Left" through its extended agrarian reform with reforms as they may say, and I notice that how come these right-wingers who are supposed to be rabid anti-left joined in the "left"-sponsored caravan? Why not create their own agrarian reform bill like those of Taiwan instead to curry support from the peasantry before the peasantry-dominated left whom they hated much successfully put their agrarian reform concepts in action as the peasant war continues in the 21st century?

And secondly, I notice that as they denounce communism and defending their actions, how come they didn't also accuse their allies, especially those who are as if having the law in their hands as they create a caravan of death against their "enemies" and insisting on blaming towards the left very much? Well... just like what I have read, just like Marcos and their successors, as more and more of them continues to do so, of oppressing innocents end even those who are in the left, legal or illegal didn't notice that more and more of them will rise from those who have been fallen, especially to those who are deeply affected by the atrocities made by theirs and insisting that their enemies made it, using recycled reasons as possible!

And once I also read an article made by a right-winger about the massacres in Maguindanao, and as what I expect, he, like those of the rightists, insisting that the Communists and not the warlord Ampatuan made the genocide, and seems that due to that kind of writeup he've made, he was trying to divert the people from the warlord and instead blame it rather to the Communists or even the Muslim separatists in Mindanao? Worst was that he tends to revive much of the incidents in the past and trying to connect with the present as a means to blame it further. Well... that man, as what I have said, thinks much of the past events the left made and now conceived as errors and never to be repeated as he kept on watching the news about the massacres made last November 23.

Since they continue doing so, it seems that blaming is part of their lives, blaming without analyzing the society in which makes the Philippines and other nations languish in poverty and insisiting much on insurgency as its root cause instead of what makes the poor into insurgents. Anyway, that's their choice of doing so, and perhaps all the dead right-wingers like Hitler, of Mussolini, of McCarthy, of Chiang Kai Shek, of Pinochet and Franco are starting to roll in their graves as they notice that their die-hard followers are doing the same tactics as theirs! And to make the long story short, seeing red all the times even those who wear Che Guevarra, of wearing Mao Caps, and blaming it to them too much is the root cause of their paranoia. Seeing "red" is not the way for progress and for alleviating poverty, especially in this so-called hell-ran goddamned democracy.

And if they continue so in blaming, what's next? Blaming the left-wing for the acts of god calamities? For the eruption of volcanoes and typhoons? Flashfloods and landslides? Oh god! If that's the case, they are really in an eternal state of paranoia same as their "left" allies than ever-of blaming, of seeing and of thinking "red" too much as if like hell.

Nepal's Dahal calls for world socialist revolution

Nepal's Dahal calls for world socialist revolution*

KATHMANDU, Dec 26, Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has called on all the revolutionaries of the world to be ready to lead a new world socialist revolution.

Concluding that the new wave of socialist revolution is all set to sweep across the world, Dahal has asked the revolutionaries from across the world to move ahead with great courage.

"At last, on the birth anniversary of Mao, we regard it our responsibility to call on the revolutionaries from around the world to be ready to lead the forthcoming wave of revolution," reads a statement issued by Dahal on the 116th birth anniversary of Mao Zedong.

"The new wave of world revolution has already been seen on the horizon," Dahal states, adding that the revolutionaries can achieve their goal through the political philosophy and strategy of Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism.

The former rebel leader has also called on the revolutionaries of the world to move ahead to achieve their goals with courage.

Born on December 26, 1893, Mao was a Chinese revolutionary, political theorist and controversial communist leader. He died in 1976. Mao is regarded as one of the most influential figures in modern world history, and named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.

*Originally posted at Republica (www.myrepublica.com)

POPULAR SOVEREIGNITY? (OR STATE?)

POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY? (OR STATE?)

A writeup regarding the state, society, and the people

By Lualhati Madlangawa-Guerrero

The state, in a theoretical sense, represents the people, and sovereignty rests upon to them. This idea states that the state must be or rather be supposed to be controlled by the entire people, different from the fact that was and is controlled by the few who interests into it, especially in a year where anything is in the state of crisis-that all of the developing countries are totally in a need of a total recover.

However,
Despite the need for a total recovery, the ruling class who controlled the state simply disregard it, they may be affected, but the worst is that they kept on doing anything to protect the rotten social order-of forcing people to wage slavery or the worst? Modern day serfdom, especially in a society where anything is "agricultural."

In this writeup, I think of saying that there is in need of unearthing facts about state and sovereignty as well as its supposed control. Somehow I think if sovereignty is vested directly to the people, and so is the state a well as its power; likely to conclude that the state must be dissolved into the society, given the fact that the people within the society totally hath carried its power.

According to Adam Muller, he said that the state is "not a mere factory, a farm, an insurance office or a commercial company." for it is "The inner union of all physical and moral needs, of all physical and spiritual wealth, of the whole inner and outer life of a nation, in a great, energetic, eternally active and living whole."
However,
In order to fulfill it, there lies the idea of having the people, particularly the united working class of proletariat and of the peasantry to grab state power and to dissolve it eventually into the society. And since sovereignty is intended to the people, and so is the state-similar to the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution trough the Soviets, the attempt for a German Socialist Republic through a Council-type of government, or even the era when the great slave emancipator Spartacus hath led thousands of slaves in a war for freedom.

Muller thinks that one must turn to nature and the origins of Communal life, but communal life was and is meant to be total equality, despite being a group of families, both cooperative and collective power is a requirement in order to survive. And not of dictating tasks without any questions asked; I even think that communal life is even an absolute, direct collective one since the elders, who spoke decrees and answering questions from the people tend to ask from the majority of the people whether to enforce it or not. Muller's perspective was more of an unequal one, being a conservative n analyzing the entire society during his time. But his words regarding the state is meant to be given by the majority and not of the few; since "They are the ones who have the power to create and therefore in order to achieve the 'inner union' of what Muller said, the people must grab state power and have the state dissolve into the society-same as economic, and cultural power.

Another idea what Muller spoke is that of the political community.
The political community is to be composed of that of family. Somehow the idea what he've said may consider right, but not of having the "nobility" corresponds as the wife and the "commoners" as the husband. In my Idea, I may say that in a society where there no "masters" and "slaves", family ties may remain, but in a new meaning; aside from being the "smallest unit of the communal society," families tend to have a degree of freedom and of equality, or in other words democratizing the family, especially in the relation of sexes. And in lieu of the "nobility" and of "commoners" as what Muller said, a real productive family is meant to be this: The proletariat corresponds as the husband whilst the peasantry as the wife, composing the new family, that is from the working class. Just like the statue in Moscow, the marriage of the worker and the Kolkhoz woman corresponds to the marriage of the two working class-of worker and of the peasant.

Back to the topic,
The idea of a "popular sovereignty" and of an "ideal people's community-state" lies in having the masses grab state power and dissolving it eventually into the society after the dictatorship of the proletariat. Somehow the concepts in the Philippines (as an example) like the "Barangay", "Bayanihan", "Pakikisama", "Pagkabayani", and "Pakikipagkapwa-tao" also lies into it-especially hat the traits of the working class corresponds to these, and having a Barangay a possible Commune wherein these traits are to be given and enacted. Bayanihan, a Filipino concept, is also an example of a communal-like cooperation, same as Pakikisama, and Pagkakaisa in order to attain Pagkabayani, or in other words, as heroes. Same as the ideas of Ujamaa (Familyhood), Juche (Self-reliance) and the models of community like those of Dazhai in China and of the Kolkhozes and Kibbutzes in then Soviet Union and in Palestine (Israel).

Thus,
If people has its sovereignty to a nation, then so must be the state-community, and through acquiring it and integrating it into the society lies the union of anything of physical, moral, spiritual needs and strength, all for the good of the people both as an individual and as a part of a greater society.