Top 12 Filipino Entertainers: The Criteria

Philippine's number 1 entertainer?

JoeAm is banned by law from having an opinion about election candidates. This is a recent discovery thrust by the Immigration Chief into Joe's brain along with a blunt deportation threat. 

So half of Joe's material is gone, poof. I mean, we all like down and dirty political mud slinging, piling on, lifting up, loud and boisterous electioneering. Now what's a guy to write about?

Foreigners must occupy themselves with sex tourism, I guess. I could write about that. Hmmmmm. Maybe not such a good idea. The Ambassador got his lip in a ringer over that. Hmmmm. Not smuggling or gun running. No we ought not do that. But eating and spending for sure, yes. We can do that. That is authorized, I'm sure. Spending, that is what we are to focus on I guess.

It's more fun in the Philippines as long as you like spending.

My problem is there is not much intellectual pursuit in that. I've delegated to my wife and she has developed exemplary skills.  Truly an artist. 

So, with political candidates being put "off limits" and not much else left to us foreigners, I need to shore up the blog content a little. Find a replacement line of inquiry, investigation and opinion mongering.

So I go to a topic which to most Filipinos is way MORE IMPORTANT than who the next senators will be. Way way more important. JoeAm herein announces that he takes up as a major theme in his blog:

• The entertainers who represent the soul, the verve, the elan, the pride of the Philippines.

Piolo doing his impression
of Johnny Lin

Now as we did in the political arena before we were declared offensive, we developed a set of criteria useful for comparing candidates. We called it the Rizal-Robredo Voter's Guide, and you can link over to see what outrageous malcontents we foreigners, along with a couple of rabble-rousing OFWs, can be in figuring out elections: Go to RR Voter's Guide web site. Truly, we are national security threats, trying to manipulate gullible Filipinos into applying a little discipline in evaluating candidates.

So we need similar criteria for those who work in the entertainment arena. Now we can't call this a "Rizal-Robredo" index, for sure. What might we call it?

We could say Poe-Estrada Index, as both were entertainers. But that leads us back into the banned political arena. I wonder if I can even say those names lest that be construed as trying to influence the election. Hmmm. Well, I've got one from both camp, so it seems neutral to me.

We can't call it the Jessica Sanchez Index because she is American except in the adoring hearts and minds of Filipinos.

So we need a name. That's issue number one.

Next we need to figure out some criteria for selecting the top entertainers. Now this is rather difficult because entertainers actually work in several areas of specialty. We have the movie and television actors. We have singers who work stages around the world. There are boxers who club each other's brains out so we can ooooooh and ahhhhhhh in animalistic delight. And politicians are also showboats if we observe the antics of Senator Santiago and Sotto, neither of whom are running for election right now and so are authorized subjects of discussion. Basketball players are entertainers, especially if they marry presidential sisters. Soccer players, too. There were some great magicians on the other night; a guy made big umbrellas from little ones. Truly amazing. Or clowns like BongV at Anti-Pinoy and benigno at Get Real Post. Our criteria should not rule clowns out, either.

Manny entertains us

Let me just propose some categories we can then refine with reader inputs. Here are some suggested criteria that can be used to select Top Filipino Entertainers:

• Physically appealing looks. Handsome or pretty; fit; sexy.

• Charisma and style.  Has that certain pizzazz that rocks our socks. Lights up a room when entering.

• Performing talent. This will vary according to specialty. Can beat a Mexican's brains in, or an American's, even better. Strong and pure of voice. Fleet of foot. Can cry real tears at the flip of a director's cue. Can magically turn any good deed into criticism. Those kinds of measures.

• Number of commercial sponsorships.  Shampoo, beer, cookies, pain medicine, shoes and cakes. Any product counts, and we'll need to count the minutes of airtime in, say, a week.

• Assets, whether in dollars or pesos or mansions or yachts. Rich = Success.

Brains are not an element that means much in the entertainment business. So we don't need to give credit for that. I mean, Senator Sotto was an entertainer. Point made.

But maybe we should consider only current performers.

Is Sotto acting at the present time or not? That's a rather interesting question, is it not?

Nor do we need to concern ourselves with values. If entertainers sleep around, have been married a few dozen times, are gay or straight, fail to attend church. These things don't matter. Indeed, a "bad boy" or "bad girl" image can actually raise an entertainer's popularity and stature.

RJ, my favorite guitarist after
Keith Richards

Or what we might be able to do is list the entertainers we like best, and then jig up the measures to fit that. To justify it. That's another approach we could take. Also that way, I wouldn't have to work so hard. You see, I don't follow entertainers at all. I follow political candidates.

Well, I used to. Now I flip mournfully past all the articles about the election, resigned to the notion that Filipinos will get what they deserve.

But enough of this maudlin self-pity. Back to rating entertainers.

I know of the following Filipino entertainers, currently in the business:

• Charice
• Manny Pacquiao
• Kris Aquino
• Kris Aquino's ex-husband, the father of Baby James
• Piolo Pasqual
• Christina Reyes
• Willie Wowowee Reviling
• Martin Nivera
• Guitarist and guitar peddler RJ
• Jessica Sanchez
• Justin Bieber
• The Weatherman Naturalist on Showtime
• The Crossover Guy/Lady on Showtime
• The Shampoo Lady from the Family of Actors
• The Mother of a Senatorial Candidate

I think you'll have to help me out here . . .I've done a dump of all my cranial gigabytes and only gotten those few crumbs.

Who should we consider on a list of "Top 12 Filipino Entertainers"? Let's say they have to be alive, or a reasonable proximity thereto.

And how would you rejig the criteria?

Oh, and the name. What should the name of our criteria and list be?

It's Quieter in the Philippines

Excerpt from JoeAm's Blog Scheduled Monday

Is President Aquino an Idiot?

"The defenders of this monstrosity of totalitarian intimidation have not a clue as to the grace and wisdom of Jose Rizal or Thomas Jefferson. They've gone to the best schools in the world, many in the United States. They have studied law and passed the bar. They have more diplomas on the wall than Jose dela Cruz has plates in the cupboard.

And they are stunningly tone deaf about democracy requiring OPEN DOORS to expression. Not doors with huge, muscular body guards standing by with batons and telescopes and listening devices and pliers to snip the internet lines, determining who can pass through."

Libel and Onion Skin

This is not a legal forum. It is just a guy full of opinions trying to figure out how the Philippines works.

This whole episode about the libel provision of the Cybercrime Act is fascinating. Libel is one of those crimes that is extraordinarily difficult to prove because the prosecution must show intent to harm.

If you want a quick study on libel laws in the Philippines, please refer to this article, from which the following paragraph was extracted: Libel Laws of the Philippines, abogadomo.com.

• Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.  [Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67]

Reader GabbyD challenged my thinking on libel a couple of days ago by stating the challenging question:

• "oh, then you are against the core logic of libel -- that words have REAL effects. "

It is a powerful challenge because I had previously acknowledged that words have effects, but are properly countered with words. A libel charge counters words with acts . . . like 12 years in jail or somesuch.

My response to GabbyD was, in part:

• Words do have real effect, but sometimes words that person A finds negative are positive in a different context. I can call Senator Sotto a scoundrel, which he finds harmful, with the aim of encouraging other senators not to repeat his acts, or readers not to live according to his standards. So my words make him a personal sacrifice to a higher cause.

What is the point of free speech? It is that we ought to have the right to protest that with which we disagree, and not be punished for it. It envisions an open state where ideas put out in the public arena can help shape the values and institutions of democracy.

As I reflect on that, I would use a technology term and peg America as an "open-sourced" nation. Opinions are a part of the fabric that drives social values ever forward and upward.

The Philippines appears to want to be open-sourced, too, but some of the totalitarian players in government are having a hard time letting go of their own sensitivities, their own thin onion skin, to get there. I am quite confident that Senator Sotto does not have Thomas Jefferson's grasp of what a government free of totalitarian influence would look like, and act like.

We live in a world of gray. Not black and white.

To protest something is always an attack on somebody or something, and it is hard to know who is right or wrong. People seeking complete independence for the Philippines protest American troops on Philippine soil. So America is thrown out of Clark and Subic. The result is that the Philippines is more vulnerable to intimidation by China 25 years later. And independence is more at risk. What is right or wrong is murky gray.

Believe me, during those arguments, a lot of people were attacked for their views. Even called treasonous.  Just like Senator Enrile and Senator Trillanes have both accused other loyal Filipinos of treason during the recent dust-up over Trillanes engagement with China.

• Does Senator Trillanes really believe Foreign Affairs Secretary Del Rosario should be thrown into prison for life?

• Does Senator Enrile, a rehabilitated coup plotter himself, really believe Senator Trillanes should be thrown into prison for life?

Words mean what the speaker intends, not what the hearer hears. The speaker means "you are hurting the Philippines", the hearer hears "you want me in jail when I am innocent; that is malice."

Libel is difficult to prove, but it doesn't stop those who perceive an injury from  seeking redress and a few million pesos in the courts.

Libel does not mean words can't be hurtful or offensive. But hurt is one thing and malice another. Hurtful words are often descriptions with a punch, nothing more than protests. Admirable qualities in light of what the Constitution says about free speech and freedom to assemble.

Libel is something different. Something deeper. Something more harmful and intentional.  It is the point where the intent upon uttering the words is damage, not argument. Libel would be if Senator Enrile knows Senator Trillanes is not treasonous, but claims he is with the intent that he would be thrown into jail. It would take a hypnotist or psychic to plumb Senator Enrile's brain to find out what he really thinks.

Onion skin. Was it James Fallows of the Atlantic who coined this attribute of Filipinos in his commentary on the Philippines several years ago?  I referred to the Humpty Dumpty New World Dictionary on "onion skin" and came up with two definitions:

(1) a kind of paper that is so thin you can see through it; ideal for tracing, and

(2) a condition in which human emotions that are so sensitive that every perceived criticism is taken as deeply personal, rendering candid dialogue impossible.

Big egos, thin skins. Put the legal tool of "libel' on the table in a culture of onion skin and suddenly the democratic premises of lawful protest and free speech stand at risk.  That's where we are today, in the Philippines, in dealing with characters like Senator Sotto.

They are trying to shift the definition of words to the hearer rather than the speaker. The words hurt; they must be libelous.

No, not if the overriding aim was to protest perceived wrongful deeds or achieve some greater good. Like encourage other senators to be ethical.

It is important, in looking for tomorrow's leaders, to find those who are confident of their own knowledge, and the limits of their own knowledge. Those who are open to contrary views without taking them personally.

I think the term "libel" should be stricken from all law books, and certainly from the Cybercrime Act. The word is itself a libel to the concept of free speech and right of protest. It is an intimidating word, seeking to suppress expression.

Look at the result. Actual injury. Not the use of words that are sometimes painful to an individual, but meant for good purpose.

Words can be countered with words. They need not be countered with jail time because someone with thin skin can't stand the heat.

So yes, GabbyD, I believe words have REAL effects. Most of the time, well intended, even if spoken in anger. We should legislate to a standard of thick skin, able to withstand aggressive protest and rabid free speech. Not thin skin, crying and running to Mommy Law at every perceived slight.

Sexual Predators, Bloggers and Senator Sotto

You da man! You da woman! You da Filipino who is clued in.

Who be da most reviled man in the Philippines these days, eh? Clue: It is not Puno. It's not Enrile. It's not even Trillanes.

What entity of government be da least respected in the Philippines these days, eh? Clue: this body passed a bill threatening to send Philippine free speech back into the stone ages whilst simultaneously ignoring gross ethical violations by one of its own. It also featured a mud-wrestling match yesterday that was only missing the babes and boobs in bikinis.

Congratulations to Top Blogger Raissa Robles on her latest article detailing how Senator Sotto is acting to back up his threat to go after bloggers who criticize him.  He appears to have surreptitiously inserted an amendment into the Cybercrime Bill that includes online libel as one of the crimes to be policed. The amendment was not objected to when it was proposed during the heat of the Corona impeachment trial, so it was added to the bill. Then it was approved, all the way up through the President's signature.

It is now the law of the land.

It appears to be a case of fine print ignored, or if not ignored, not thought through as to how the provision can be used to suppress free expression. It is a step backward in the Philippine drive toward a more respected human rights standing in the global and investment communities.

The Cybercrime Bill creates a policing unit under the Executive Branch:

• SEC. 24. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center. — There is hereby created, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, an inter-agency body to be known as the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), under the administrative supervision of the Office of the President, for policy coordination among concerned agencies and for the formulation and enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.”

So we will soon have a police force assigned to the internet. Rather like China. These cybercops will hunt down crimes. Hackers. Stalkers online. People peddling girls online. People selling sex online. Pedophiles online.  Bloggers issuing uncomfortable opinions online.

Here is what we are hypothetically likely to see:

• Senator Sotto once again steals another author's original work and uses it word for word without attribution.

• A blogger who runs a web site calls the senator a moron for doing it again. Commenters drop off their notes screaming "moron, moron!"

• Senator Sotto registers a complaint with the cybercops.

• The cybercops, knowing that a senator's reputation is of national security interest and must be protected, file a libel case against the blogger.

• The case gets kicked around for 5 years and eventually reaches the Supreme Court.

• The Supreme Court considers whether or not the description of Senator Sotto is disparaging. That is, is he a moron or not, in the context in which the word is used?

• The Supreme Court reads the Constitution and rules in favor of the blogger. The libel provision of the Cybercrime law is struck down as unconstitutional.

You see, this amendment has turned a well-intended law inside out, into a law that is potentially of use to suppress free speech.

Sex predators and bloggers, pulled together under one law.

Hell, this LAW is a libel to bloggers for equating online opinions with the acts of sex predators.

JoeAm will henceforth refer to the new law as the "Cybercrime and Totalitarianism Enhancement Law".

Well, the law is fact. And it will reshape what is said online. For sure, JoeAm will change his words.

Rather than say "Senator Sotto is an ethically challenged vindictive thug" he will say:

• "Is it possible that Senator Sotto is an ethically challenged vindictive thug?", or

• "Some might say Senator Sotto is an ethically challenged vindictive thug.", or

• "I fear that the good Senator Sotto will come across as an ethically challenged vindictive thug."

Or maybe my readers in America and Australia and Europe and the Middle East will send in comments calling Senator Sotto an ethically challenged vindictive thug.

To that point, I have amended the legal terms of this blog found in the tab "Policy and Terms".

The paragraph that once said:

• Comments are a shared property of the commenter and the Society of Honor. Excerpts from comments may be freely taken and re-published as long is attribution is granted to the commenter (name or alias) and the Society of Honor by Joe America.

Has been changed to read:

• Comments are the property of the commenter who grants the Society of Honor full right of re-publication and use. Excerpts from comments may be freely taken and re-published as long is attribution is granted to the commenter (name or alias) and the Society of Honor by Joe America.

This little tweak assigns responsibility for the content of comments to the commenter.

The problem with the Cybercrime and Totalitarianism Enhancement Law is that it puts bloggers who welcome robust commentary in a bind. The bloggers have a choice: (1) tighten up their editorial ship and exclude any comment that anyone might conceivably consider libelous (a virtually impossible task), or (2) allow robust and open commentary and significantly increase their risk of getting sued for publishing libelous words.

I am not an attorney and am wholly unqualified to parse comments for possible libelous content. I furthermore find it offensive that this law would insist that I become an agent of the State's newfound totalitarian twist to dampen free speech.

I am for free speech. I am for people being able to call JoeAm an unmitigated moron, an asshole of the Nth degree, and to instruct him to get his ass back to the States. You see, I can counter words with words. That is the beauty of freedom.

If my response to an insult is to try to jail or fine the author of the offensive words, I am, at heart, a totalitarian, vindictive thug.

It is too bad that senators who many would consider ethically challenged and ignorant as to the importance of freedom of expression don't get it.

They will, it time.

The internet. A new era. A new power.

Use it well.

That, after all, is the intent of the Cybercrime legislation. To stop crimes.

It is also a useful medium with which to call out the ethically challenged. After all, the Senate appears unwilling to take up this righteous task.

And so the entire Senate is called out, too. Some might say they are not much better than clowns when they see an ethical violation right on the floor of the Senate and merely turn their heads away.

Ignore a gross ethics violation. Pass a law that may be used to suppress free speech.

You can write your own description as to what kind of leaders these are and what kind of future the Philippines has with them at the helm.

The Philippines Rams Headlong into the Internet

The internet is a wonderful but lawless land. It is open to all, regardless of age or ethnicity, religion, nationality, political party or moral persuasion.

It is this latter quality, unrestrained moral persuasion, that makes the internet a lawless land. And the most powerful force on the planet for good.

Who roams there?

Identity thieves, hackers, child-hunting perverts, deceitful people pretending to be who they are not, manipulators, slanderers. Angry people. Men who post naked pictures of ex-girl friends on line. Trolls. Stalkers. Casual slanderers. Destructive hackers. Anonymous people who roam about spouting revolution or even terror.

Google, tracking your every click.

Photo source: socratezonline

Facebook, revealing your intimate details to friends who can reveal you to the whole world.

Let me tell you, it is a dangerous place.

Convenient, no doubt. Cool. Far reaching. Amazing knowledge is available at the click of a mouse.

But dangerous.

Some countries such as Iran and China build walls to keep unsavory internet information offshore. Their net is managed. It is their way of forcing integrity, or their version of the law, onto the wild beast that is the world-wide-web. And they seek to punish those who don't abide by their thinking.

There are hackers and blog site operators who share the values of Iran and China. They abhor those who think differently, or attack, not the ideas, but the person who would have the audacity to break with their thinking. They bully and slander and deceive and damage, and, like Iran and China, or old-school Filipino tribal lords, cannot comprehend a different way forward.

But there is no courtroom on the internet, no regulator.

There is only open-sourced integrity.  And there is a lot of that around.

Integrity is the desire to be constructive within a huge community. The internet forms the most brilliant brain in the world, dedicated to acquiring all knowledge and spreading it. The potential to do harm or even destroy is large, but subordinate to good will, for now. The internet is more angel than devil.

How will we use this power?

The Philippines is a place where archaic values and the forces of the internet collide. The internet is a broadminded institution, the broadest. It advocates all ideologies simultaneously. It brooks no censorship, no control. Because it is completely free-thinking, it is also a massive exercise in checks and balances.

Archaic censorship values confront Lady Gaga and get blasted back to the dark ages by the free-wheeling internet. "I'm not a creature of your government, Manila!", she roars defiantly, and launches into the Christian- condemned "Judas". I figure that video is going viral about the time of this posting.

Well now, Lady Gaga may have just coined a superb motto for the internet.

"I'm not a creature of your government, Manila!"

Government officials hang onto the misconception that they have some kind of special privilege, the right to be thuggish bosses. To hide their illicit transactions, like in the old days. To lord it over the masses. To intimidate and bluster and threaten. But it's a new world. The forces of public awareness and condemnation, marshaled on the internet, strip them naked.

Senator Santiago can rant and she will be ranted at. It is not her world any longer. Hers to manipulate.

Senators of the archaic mold may think they can push away the wave of public confrontation that is smacking the Chief Justice into humiliation. They may think they are immune, powerful enough to hold challenge of their own SALN's at bay. Maybe they can. For a month. For a year. For three years.

But eventually, they, too, will go down if they adhere to the misconception they can abide by two masters: greed and public service. If they think they can hide. Too many sharp eyes are on the lookout, using the power of the internet to spread information that crooks until now have kept locked in a desk drawer. Somehow it will find its way to the Ombudsman, or a journalist. Or a popular blogger. Or a viral video.

Big Brother is not a government agency, spying on the people. It is the people, holding the government to account.

Values that no longer work are revealed for their failure.

Totalitarianism, big and small, in the cloaks of religion, the robes of scurrilous judges, or the suits of autocrats, cannot stand where there is a robust sharing of information, real time. And where there is a conscience.

And, if we are vigilant, those on the internet who have no integrity will, in due time, be consigned to the dustbins of irrelevance.

There can be no return to dark age thinking when enlightenment shines brighter than it ever has.

Aim high. Shoot straight.

Ban Lady Gaga and the Bible!

I tell you, the humiliations that Jesus has to put up with. Its enough to make a sinner weep.

I rarely venture into the area of "Glitz and Glitter" because it so seldom motivates my conscience or keyboard. But this is different.

From the Associated Press, May 18, 2012:

"Members of a group called Biblemode Youth Philippines said Friday that they are offended by Lady Gaga’s music and videos, in particular her song “Judas,” which they say mocks Jesus Christ.

Protest leader and former Philippine Congressman Ben Abante says his group plans to file a case against Lady Gaga and concert organizers if she sings “Judas” at her Manila gigs Monday and Tuesday."

The article reports that Lady Gaga had cancelled an Indonesian concert because of protests by conservative groups.

Now you know why I write in anonymity. What if I print the lyrics of "Judas" here? Will Mr. Abante have me evicted for being morally offensive? Even though he in effect gave me the lyrics by shoving this matter into my face.

This is what I think about Lady Gaga:

• She is an incredibly talented show-woman and singer. She is aware of what she is doing. She is successful.

• Many of her songs are disgusting to me, personally, glop in the jeans. I prefer understatement.

• Most of her songs are about sex. Her videos are sex acts in artistic disguise.

• She is popular. She is not some kool-aid sipping flake sect leader. Huge masses of people like her songs and her performances.

• I prefer Celine Dion and Bob Seger.

• I hope she performs. I hope she sings "Judas".

Here is a "Judas"  stanza that morality top-cop Abante may have missed:

 I wanna love you

But something's pulling me away from you

Jesus is my virtue

And Judas is the demon I cling to, I cling to

"Jesus is my virtue."

Now the rest of the song is decidedly sexual, with Judas the focus of the singer's desires.

I'm reminded of the Rolling Stones classic "Sympathy for the Devil". Should we not ban the Stones while we are at it? You know, a two-for-one sale?

I'm wondering here . . . pondering . . . thinking . . . a wholly unchristian act I know . . . is not the tug of sin against virtue the main theme of the Bible? Just like in this song, eh? Lady Gaga just presents it like a kick in the balls, that's all.

The song presents conflict, not worship of the devil. It is a theme as old as Adam and Eve. It is up to the listener to resolve that conflict. It is not up to Christians to impose resolution on our behalf. If they ban the song, please ban the Bible. Rid us of having to read of the insults Jesus had to bear.

And how many pregnant unmarried Filipino women does it take to establish a morality around here, anyway. I suggest these pious Christian blowhards go work where they are needed and educate the uneducated.

I believe corrupt government employees are far more dangerous than song lyrics. I believe ignorance is more dangerous than song lyrics. I believe these Christian protestors are more dangerous than Lady Gaga.

I heartily resent that Mr. Abante and his herd of mindless missionaries are trying to define what I can or cannot read or listen to or sing. I don't believe in the dark ages. I believe in a mind open wide.

What books are we burning next?

Give me a break.

If Mr. Abante succeeds in stifling Lady Gaga, here is a new descriptor that is likely to arise for the Philippines, to take the place of "A Nation of Servants".

Islands of the Dark Ages