Recently, it was formally published that “unfriend” has been chosen as the “Oxford Word of the Year”. Immediately thereafter, questions were raised: How come such an ambivalent term? What does the strange word mean? Why has the curious expression come to fore? And so on, so forth. The glaring fact is that the word is emphatically rejected even by well updated computers – as wrongly spelled. Hence, it is but just and proper to ask the New Oxford American Dictionary what this curiously unfamiliar and intriguing locution “unfriend” is all about.
First, it is said that “unfriend” is a verb.
This is quite simulating if not actually confusing. As a verb, the following would be in order: To unfriend someone. To be unfriending somebody. To have been unfriended by him or her. While the said verb uses are not really that queer or unnerving, they are certainly neither that settling or quieting. Perhaps – just perhaps – it would be better sounding and easier understood if it were an adjective such were instead noun or an adjective: “He is an unfriend.” “She has become an unfriend.” “All of them are unfriends.”
Second, it is considered that “unfriend” is understood.
This simply means that the very mention of the word conveys a ready and accepted meaning. In other words, someone who is an “unfriend” immediately says that the person concerned is certainly not a friend but definitely neither an enemy. The term wherefore must have come to use, precisely in order to qualify somebody who may be an acquaintance but not yet a friend, may belong to a group but still not a friend to all. It however appears that an unfriend is certainly neither an adversary nor a foe, a rival or the like.
Third, it is a given that “unfriend” is here to stay.
It is a probability that the term can easily become of constant use, particularly in the language young people, the adventurous youth, the inventive teenagers. In the event that this projection becomes an actuality, then the following could come to fore: One, the word “enemy” would be less used. Two, the expression “unfriend” could be then used to mollify dislike, displeasure or dismay. Three, the same term might lessen untruth if not hypocrisy in human relations.
Hence: Dear unfriends: Thus we are because we are really do not know one another – or do not know either the wrong things about us or do not know the good things about each other. While to become enemies is neither right nor unpleasant, it will be great if we become friends – instead of staying unfriends. Know what? Friends say so much wonderful things than what is commonly understood about friendship. Hanging out together, laughing together, talking to one another, kidding and making fun of each other, this is great. Friend?
OVCruz, JCD
November 25, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
republican democracy and state of poverty
It is well known that democracy stands for the rule of the people through the government they choose, acting as free and sovereign citizens. Needless to say, a fundamental element of democracy is the freedom of the people precisely to choose/elect the members of the government they want. When a democracy is further qualified by the reality-word “republican”, this in fact is a strong buttress of the freedom of the public more specifically in terms of their government categorically working for the affirmation and promotion of their public welfare whereby the population in general is thus empowered to freely pursue their respective aspirations and contentment.
A free people determining not only the form of their government but also those who govern them by their majority will, a free people thereby benefiting by the common good actualized by their formed and chosen or elected government and a free people therefore individually and/or in group working towards their respective opted lot and chosen destiny – this is the pivotal element of a democracy, this is the essential attribute of a republican democracy: People freedom! In other words, both the content and spirit of the Fundamental Law of the land as reflected in the Philippine Constitution are distilled in the truth that this Country has a Republican Democracy.
The urgent, both realistic and practical questions are the following: In a state of poverty, can there be a true and factual Republican Democracy? Is Republican Democracy consonant with a state of poverty? Do the state of poverty and a Republican Democracy make a suitable, compatible or viable pairing. While those in government are not simply free in their choices but even licentious in their living, are people who are impoverished, hungry and destitute, free? It is not true that empty stomachs have no ears to hear, no leisure to listen?
Recently, a group of recognized economics in the Country came out with the really bad news that no less than some 35% Filipinos are convinced that they are living below the poverty line. Translation: More than one-third of the population consider themselves not simply poor – but poorer even! It would take a lot of erratic mental gymnastics to conclude that they are free, that they enjoy the benefits of democracy, that they relish the blessings of a Republican Democracy.
Recently too, there was one Comelec official who pontificated and practically condemned people who sell their votes - adding that those who consider themselves guardians of morals better do their job and teach them the sanctity of the ballot, the duty of voting for the right candidates, etc. etc. Incidentally, the official concerned is big-bellied, over-weight and evidently well fed. How gross can one get?! While it is a rudimentary truth that vote-selling is objectively a big offense to the electoral profess and a taboo to elementary ethics, when a hungry man does sell his vote for him and his family to have something to buy food with – what? Condemn him? Jail him? Shoot him?
OVCruz, JCD
November 23, 2009
A free people determining not only the form of their government but also those who govern them by their majority will, a free people thereby benefiting by the common good actualized by their formed and chosen or elected government and a free people therefore individually and/or in group working towards their respective opted lot and chosen destiny – this is the pivotal element of a democracy, this is the essential attribute of a republican democracy: People freedom! In other words, both the content and spirit of the Fundamental Law of the land as reflected in the Philippine Constitution are distilled in the truth that this Country has a Republican Democracy.
The urgent, both realistic and practical questions are the following: In a state of poverty, can there be a true and factual Republican Democracy? Is Republican Democracy consonant with a state of poverty? Do the state of poverty and a Republican Democracy make a suitable, compatible or viable pairing. While those in government are not simply free in their choices but even licentious in their living, are people who are impoverished, hungry and destitute, free? It is not true that empty stomachs have no ears to hear, no leisure to listen?
Recently, a group of recognized economics in the Country came out with the really bad news that no less than some 35% Filipinos are convinced that they are living below the poverty line. Translation: More than one-third of the population consider themselves not simply poor – but poorer even! It would take a lot of erratic mental gymnastics to conclude that they are free, that they enjoy the benefits of democracy, that they relish the blessings of a Republican Democracy.
Recently too, there was one Comelec official who pontificated and practically condemned people who sell their votes - adding that those who consider themselves guardians of morals better do their job and teach them the sanctity of the ballot, the duty of voting for the right candidates, etc. etc. Incidentally, the official concerned is big-bellied, over-weight and evidently well fed. How gross can one get?! While it is a rudimentary truth that vote-selling is objectively a big offense to the electoral profess and a taboo to elementary ethics, when a hungry man does sell his vote for him and his family to have something to buy food with – what? Condemn him? Jail him? Shoot him?
OVCruz, JCD
November 23, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
“none of the above”
It is not really that hard to know and conclude that premised on the way Philippine politics is presently on-going – and even relatively long since – specially through the respective rhetoric and posturing of the present crop of lead candidates for the forthcoming May 2010 national elections, its three more common, similar or even identical features are the following:
There are no Political Parties:
Except for the very superficial differences in terms of titles, initials or what have you, there are but mere associations, affiliations or groupings not really unlike “Boy’s Clubs – not Political Parties. Yes, they all have their own slogans, they sport common group colored T-shirts and they all also wave and smile much. But they have no distinct ideas or “ideology”, no particular value systems, no proper avowed principles of action. That is why the so called “political butterflies” are the order of the day: Candidates fly from one to another “Political Party” where there are more possibilities of winning basically on account of resources and other resources. In short, there are no honest to goodness Political Parties with their set of beliefs and pursuant distinctive professed objectives.
There are no political Platforms
There are much said and loudly proclaimed motherhood statements. “Love of Country”, “Service to the People”, “Eradication of Poverty” – these are the same more popular and familiar songs that said associations, affiliations or groupings sing. On the other hand, in the past national elections that took place one after another, there were likewise the essentially the same verses recited by the then head political candidates of the recent past. And today, precisely, the Country is left behind by millions of Filipinos to go abroad. The people are still much wanting in public service and common good. And the Filipinos are now in fact much poorer than before. Oh yes! There are big and beautiful platforms built for political rallies and the like. But honest to goodness socio-political platforms – there are none.
There are no real choices among the principal Political Candidates:
With but tri-media publicity that differ in make and frequency and costing, with popularity as the main credential and with the customary and thereby awaited handouts in cash or in kind given here and there by the candidates specially as the election date comes nearer – not to mention the irrelevant endorsements of movie stars and beauty queens even as times – there can be no real or objective choices particularly among those aspiring for the highest elective position in the land. And this is the on-the-ground case with or without automated elections, with or without “Honest, Orderly and Peaceful Election” – something that appears to be the illusive HOPE of this Country and its people.
Poor Country! Pitiful Filipinos!
OVCruz, JCD
November 20, 2009
There are no Political Parties:
Except for the very superficial differences in terms of titles, initials or what have you, there are but mere associations, affiliations or groupings not really unlike “Boy’s Clubs – not Political Parties. Yes, they all have their own slogans, they sport common group colored T-shirts and they all also wave and smile much. But they have no distinct ideas or “ideology”, no particular value systems, no proper avowed principles of action. That is why the so called “political butterflies” are the order of the day: Candidates fly from one to another “Political Party” where there are more possibilities of winning basically on account of resources and other resources. In short, there are no honest to goodness Political Parties with their set of beliefs and pursuant distinctive professed objectives.
There are no political Platforms
There are much said and loudly proclaimed motherhood statements. “Love of Country”, “Service to the People”, “Eradication of Poverty” – these are the same more popular and familiar songs that said associations, affiliations or groupings sing. On the other hand, in the past national elections that took place one after another, there were likewise the essentially the same verses recited by the then head political candidates of the recent past. And today, precisely, the Country is left behind by millions of Filipinos to go abroad. The people are still much wanting in public service and common good. And the Filipinos are now in fact much poorer than before. Oh yes! There are big and beautiful platforms built for political rallies and the like. But honest to goodness socio-political platforms – there are none.
There are no real choices among the principal Political Candidates:
With but tri-media publicity that differ in make and frequency and costing, with popularity as the main credential and with the customary and thereby awaited handouts in cash or in kind given here and there by the candidates specially as the election date comes nearer – not to mention the irrelevant endorsements of movie stars and beauty queens even as times – there can be no real or objective choices particularly among those aspiring for the highest elective position in the land. And this is the on-the-ground case with or without automated elections, with or without “Honest, Orderly and Peaceful Election” – something that appears to be the illusive HOPE of this Country and its people.
Poor Country! Pitiful Filipinos!
OVCruz, JCD
November 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
