Being Special: Good Morning, President

3 different eras. 3 different situations. 3 different political and personal problems. 3 presidents of South Korea. This, my friends, is one of the most entertaining political movies of all time. It shows the lighter side of politics in a humorous manner. It touches the common people's minds because they can relate to what the movie is trying to project. Unlike other political movies that tries to show the political side of things, and the nitty gritty stuff of politics, Good Morning President tries to enlighten people about the silly human mistakes that every individual goes through in his/her life. There is simplicity and life in politics, not just the debates we see in TV or the corruption we experience everyday.

The movie shows how a president, for how powerful his political power will ever be, is also subjected to failure and problems, both personal and political. It goes to show the paradox of being a president: Although you are the most powerful man/woman in the country, you are still subjected to normal problems that a normal citizen faces. Dilemmas may seem not to be big or important as any public issue, yet are in dire need of answers. Personal problems hidden under political issues, with the assistance of the media, is something that is normal, yet we do not recognize as something that is happening. We tend to assert that a politician would always get the best, and would always have an incentive in comparison to a normal citizen, whether it is in lines in airports, or the traffic in the streets, or getting media attention. Clearly, this is happening in some cases, it is very obvious. But we must all remember that before a president is elected, or any political leader is in legitimate office, he/she was once a citizen of the country, dealing with problems day in and day out. Being a president would make you powerful, yet it would not help you alleviate your personal problems.

I really like the last quote given by the chef at the end of the movie. (not verbatim):

Most of us think that a President is special. And you are right, the President is special. But we must all remember that the President is someone's father or mother or child.

Bromance: The Special Relationship

The Anglo-American relationship had always been quite special through history. Each side of the partnership shared their moments as the hegemon of this world. Both are intertwined with each other, like Siamese twins. Politically, they shared the same views and general ideology of a democratic society, preaching democracy across the globe as if it was their crusade to liberate rogue states. Historically, the US is conceived by the rebels of the British Empire, and would then be a forever ally of the Brits at the World Wars. There are a lot more parallelisms that we could compare the two states, societies and countries. But, how can we say that the Anglo-American relationship is a very special kind of relationship apart from other state to state relationships such as American-Filipino or the Franco-British relationships?

Jobs. A specialty of Mr. Clinton

I never really intellectually digested the movie/documentary. For starters, I never really got across Tony Blair and Bill Clinton except through the readings in my majors and in some political news that I read in the past. I never really cared about their legacies, I never really cared who they are, for all I know is that they are the President and Prime Minister of their respective countries. I never grew up appreciating, studying, and and doing extensive research about this 2 people. For me, Anglo-American relationship, between leaders is about the Churchill-Roosevelt. The Blair-Clinton partnership, is born out of concepts and ideologies and tainted legacies that makes people who do not study political science scratch their heads for they do not understand anything. For me, who is a war person and appreciates old school personalities, I would never appreciate nor would want to know and do extensive studies about the Blair-Clinton partnership. It is, really, kind of boring.

Bush: Providing humor for the world since pre and post Clinton days

The Anglo-American marriage is always frowned upon by the world. Two highly industrialized and powerful state conniving with each other. Maybe only the Moscow-Beijing relationship can rival this kind of relationship, had it not been for the fall of USSR. Imagine, 2 states that have veto power in the UN Security Council. 2 states that publicly declares their ties with each other. 2 states that in the past 50 or 60 years had been allies through battles, whether it is in Germany or Kosovo or in Afghanistan. It is as if they always got their backs held by each other, and that in pressing times they would help each other. The United States and the United Kingdom. Through the years, through leaders, and through wars, they taken care of each other like a friend should be. That unlike other countries who change their relationship with one another within a year or a change in the leadership, the US-UK partnership held their ties strong. Unlike other countries who form their alliance or relationship with another country through wars or because of security dilemma or because she is your border, the US-UK partnership found its oddity by using ideology, which is democracy, as their hinge to continue their partnership. There are a lot of ways to distinguish the relative uniqueness of this relationship apart from the rest.

US-UK: Our special relationship

Standing on the ground of spreading democracy across the globe, the UK-US relationship is indeed a special one.

In Soviet Russia...: Spinning Boris

All of the countries have different things at tastes. And it can also be seen during elections. Let's take for example in the Philippine setting. Last 2010 election was marred by a lot of mud slinging on whether or not should we believe in surveys. A data based on empirical analysis, done by science and calculated by math. Knowing how we, Filipinos accept things, we can't just agree on some random numbers. "Look at the streets! Look at Twitter and Facebook! I will win! Everybody loves me." For some odd reason, Filipinos would not just be swayed by surveys for they always believe in the concept of a "comeback win", so we should all have this "puso lang" factor. Puso lang, mananalo din tayo, puso! As Filipinos, we would always think that whoever has the name, whoever is popular, whoever is shown in TV (as artist or hosts or TONS OF COMMERCIALS) it is an easy win for them. We can only hope for a miracle, ergo, puso lang.

Most of us failed to realize that the system, ideology, and concept we are using are western. And that in order to win or produce good results in a fight or battle, you have to know how the system works. For example, in playing American Football, you do not use strategies of basketball or football (soccer), you have to play the strategies of the game itself. The lack of knowledge about the system would make you, your team, and all of what is at stake futile and in danger of losing. Western democratic elections have certain values and predicaments that political advisers use to the advantage of their politician bosses. Surveys (which in Russia, Philippines or any low Asian countries is a big no no), FGD, knowing what your constituent want are some of the keys politicians can use in order to find the 'soft spots' they can utilize. Sometimes, people would fail to realize that the strategy they are using is not fit in the system simply because it is 'working'. As the saying goes, why fix if it is working.

What is probably the most important thing in that I can get from the movie is that in order to succeed, you must play the game as it is. Strategy wise, value wise. It is not that we have to play straight head to head. It is just that we have to limit ourselves into knowing that there are things we can strategically use in this field and that there are things may hamper us when we use them. It is just a matter of executing it, performing it, and innovating the basics for your own good.

Oh na na, what's my name?: The Distinguished Gentleman

Remember, remember, the 5th of November. No, it has nothing to do with this blog. I am just fascinated by how the people cared the least on certain things important in their lives, which may affect them directly or indirectly, i.e. elections. In some cases, when there is a politician or political family who lords over a city or a province for a few decades to a century, the people would simply vote based on their last name. The Revilla/Bautista and Remulla of Cavite, the Aguilar of Las Pinas, the Leviste of Batangas, the Asistio of Caloocan and many others in different parts of the country and the world. Popularity (of artistas and athletes) is just 2nd to having a political last name. You would forever have the critical advantage in winning. Take for example close elections, when people do not know who to vote for. For most of the urban poor intellectuals, they would rather pick someone who 1). under the name of Binay or Marcos or Aquino 2) who they already seen on TV. Picking a candidate is just like picking a product at the supermarket. In general, people would pick someone with a top notch name than the one with a top notch performance.

But wait! There's more!

What is more alarming than just electing nitwits who relies on their last name are the "veterans" of politics. These veterans are the old guard dogs of the system, knowing how to do what and when to do so. They knew how to keep the public quiet and when to clap for their sake. They knew how to twist our minds without us knowing it. New politicians injected in the system are poisoned by these sly snakes, getting their confidence (as well as their votes) and introducing them to the "politicians way" of doing things. These honorable (dishonorable) gentlemen provides us with speeches that touched our hearts, mesmerize our souls and kills our body. They continue to manufacture and maintain the rotten political system we have, due to the fact that it is much MUCH comfortable controlling the lives of others.

Calm 'yo t*ts down. I got this

Can we still change? Is there something we can change? Of course there is always room for change, a change for the better. We do not need to retort into rallies or People Power or going to Mendiola screamin "MAKIBAKA! WAG SUSUKO!" We can all do this in a quiet, legal, civilized manner. All we need is that one man who could lead these exposes.

Pa-arbor, bro: Pirates of Silicon Valley

Pa Arbor. A Pinoy colloquial term for borrowing without returning. "pa arbor naman nyang jacket. pa arbor naman niyang bolpen. pa arbor naman niyang bag" In some societies, this is something that is not to be tolerated. By de jure, it is stealing. The law does not permit someone to just get the property of a person, even if it is his friend. By de facto, we can cite gifts as an example of things we give or receive from a person (not buy or sell). But when we are talking about "pa arbor", one intrinsic feature it posses is that the person does NOT give it. He is forced to give it because his friend or someone asked him for that thing. It is a phenomenon that distorts the normal process of buy-sell or give-take. The person may not want to give it to you, but due to social pressure applied by the one asking the "pa arbor", you are forced to give it. And for us Filipinos, this is normal. We do not ask people to give that thing as a present (like Americans and Western Europeans do), we ask if we can "arbor" that thing. Plain and simple.

The human society, for thousands of years, tried to protect their rights. Right to life, right to everything and anything. One of the more profound, interesting, and controversial one is about Copyrights. Intellectual rights. Patents. The right that protects a persons idea or property. And true enough, through time, people created counter measures to protect their ideas from others, claiming their idea is 'original' and that no one should claim it. Patent offices. Copyright laws. Intellectual rights law. And of course the concept of plagiarism. For me, these things forced the people to be innovative in their field and to try things that are not "in-textbook" or are unusual to a commoners eye. But the thing is, we failed to realize that most of the things we see and we use are shameless ripoffs of an 'original' concept. In Yakitate! Japan (an anime), Kai (one of the sub characters) asked his sword master why he can't make a good enough bread to beat Azuma (the protagonist) The sensei replied in rhetoric: Azuma didn't create bread out of nothing. He used the concepts that is around him and made it his own. Even the greatest geniuses did shameless ripoffs of their greatest innovation. The thing is, in order to create innovation, you must base it with something practical, pragmatic, and feasible. An idea can be shaped, chopped, diced in a thousand times. All you have to do is get a piece and claim it as your own.

Is it bad to 'steal' an idea? Not really. Maybe a yes and a no. An idea that is stolen and is presented as it is is classified as stealing. Without innovations nor changes, it is merely piracy of an idea. However. An idea that shaped, personalized and evolved is not the same idea in comparison to its original state. When someone tries to manipulate a thing out of its original state and morph it into something he can call his own, to that I do not consider it stealing. It is merely innovating something passe. Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs did not steal nor pirate an idea from each other or from IBM or any third party. They simply "arbor-ed" it.

Destiny's Child: Iginuhit ng Tadhana

Ferdinand Marcos. His name equates fear for the Filipinos. He connotes something great yet something terrible. Some says he is just an authoritarian, a dictator by nature. Some would argue that had he not marry Imelda, he will be etched as one of the greatest leader in the history. His intelligence and charm helped him to climb the political ranks from a lowly Congressman of Ilocos to the most powerful position in the islands. IMHO (In my honest opinion), Marcos is the best, most badass, greatest president we had. He had a vision, he had a legacy. He knew where to put the whats and how to hid the what nots. He placed the Philippines on a situation of where in we are towards reform and advancement. As a political leader, he knew his core ideologies and mastered how to utilize them to entice the public to swing with his decisions. He stood his ground when things are getting out of hand (people rallying, strikes, International pressure, Martial Law, People Power) Ferdinand Marcos. His name equates what we lack as Filipinos.

"I will make this nation great AGAIN"

The movie, however, proved to be a tailored Pinoy style fairy tale. Marcos is destined to be the president. Period. He is the man, your man, my man, our man. He is the most fitting man for the position, as if his life is made to become a great leader. It showcased a few insights of his genuine charm and intelligence. Of course, all of this is experienced from a Pinoy soapopera style of movie. His birth was very intense, storm thunder rain. All signs of giving birth to someone great. His childhood is marred as his "loser stage". He was bullied by neighborhood kids because he is a lola's boy. During this stage, he was fairly guided by his father on his path and ideology while his mother to care of his values and attitude. On forth his early adulthood, he was portrayed as a man of books. Always reading, always wise, always intelligent, though not a nerdy bookworm. He showed flashes of brilliance as he topped the bar with a 99% grade (though because of this, he was given by the Supreme Court an oral exam to legitimize his score. He got a 94%) And good Lord he defended his own case at the Supreme Court. And guess what. He won the case. He won it with conviction and passion, by using whip lashing Tagalog words. He won his constituents hearts, as he is perceived as an intelligent local hero, not as the killer of his father's old political nemesis. From this point of the movie, it is rather obvious that they try to project Marcos as a man for the people, not just the masses. He is the man of politicians, the man of the poor, the man of the elite. He can change style and flavor to suit the occasion. He can blend with anybody you put with him. He can talk with anybody he is with. He listens to everybody's plea. He is everything you want him to be. He will give out everything for his constituents. He is destined to do this job. He is destined to become Marcos. Iginuhit ng tadhana ang kanyang kapalaran.

Oh darling. Kay dami mong sapatos, darling

Mamas Boy: Hitler: The Rise of Evil

Hitler. A man that is perceived by many as evil. The man that everybody in the contemporary world fear, that anyone know, and that even the simpletons recognize. Think of something evil, bam, Hitler would pop up in your mind. Hitler is always seen as an evil guy who manipulated Germany towards every war boy's dream (like myself), conquering the world. Hitler is always associated with some unique phrases, undoubtedly you'll remember him first than the event itself. Gas Chamber, Jews, Holocaust, World War 2, Blitz, Death, Genocide, Killing, Winning anything while losing everything. In short, everybody sees him as a walking talking assassin.

A brief summary of how Hitler can influence people through his speeches.

As a war fanatic, Hitler is my 2nd most favorite general (right behind Napoleon Bonaparte). As a kid, I grew up adoring his style, in today's jargon, swag. I see him as a war hero, a phenom, someone worthy to be called a leader for he led his army to decisive victories while maintaining his aura of invincibility through his speeches. I do always see him as a great military men, a great general that is an undying protagonist for some Pinoy soapopera. I would always see him as a man who is a killer, yet a noble killer for he had a cause that he is fighting for. Hitler, for me, would always be a savvy MAN who would strive for the greatest glory  honor and pride. But, sadly, heartbroken, as I grew up, the Hitler I knew is being devoured by reality through TV Documentaries in NatGeo and Discovery Channel, through the net, and through thorough readings (my books, extra reading, leisure reading, readings in class and majors) Based on these articles, Hitler was never a military genius. He was just a regular messenger during WWI. And during his campaigns, it was his generals that did the ground work for him while he was at Berlin doing the broad masterplan. Yes, as a leader he clearly showed that he was the control tower of Nazi Germany through his strategies at the war and his speeches for his men, but the thing that Hitler lack is his insight of things. He simply gets what he wants, not thinking of the causal mechanism of the things he will do. Take for example his failed attempt to invade Soviet Union. He knew that the Russian Winter is the best defense of USSR, yet he wanted to have a sweeping invasion of Europe as to not mobilize the Alies' strength. Alas, he was defeated for his stubbornness to delay his attack. This caused havoc to his men's numerical force and morale. Even God delays something to finish everything. (7 days of creation preference)

The "Hitler". Emo hair, toothbrush moustache, and hates Jews

Rise of Evil. Focusing on his battered-by-father childhood, urban poor adolescence, and war traumatic state early adulthood. The movie focused more on how he became Hitler, not who is Hitler, though the movie lacks deductive reasoning. It showed the human side of 'Evil', that he is subjected to hate, to bashing, to failure, to anything negative. He is our version of Milhouse. He is a loser, good for nothing man that Germany can conscript to continue the war. He is just an ordinary person. But here is the catch: in every single damn moment that there is in need of someone to shine and be the star, he is there to become one. As an old saying goes, 'at the right place at the right time'. As if destiny's child guided him to become one of the world's most feared man since the time of Napoleon or Caesar. It is in this chain of events that he transformed his life from a perennial loser to a warlord of an Empire. The movie showed that Hitler was not special, that he was just a 'victim' of destiny. Although we can argue that Hitler's upbringing brought a big deal in his life, it was his timing for the events that really made him 'Hitler'

Who is more evil, then? :)