Monday, March 10, 2008

despicable titles

It is not only repulsive but also excruciating to hear, think and write about the realities and implications behind titles given to a person in insulting and demeaning words—especially so when they are predicated about one and the same subject person, holding no less than the highest public office in the Country. It is incredible but true that such atrocious and despicable attributions appended to a key national leader came to far and wide public attention on three separate occasions in rather fast succession. Never before in the long history of this otherwise kind, considerate and forgiving country was such a trio of highly derogatory and disparaging descriptive words were said clearly and even loudly attached to a woman of such supposedly distinct official stature.

To be called “duende” is offensive enough. More than its direct meaning of someone who is a dwarf or a midget in physical size, the term also has the connotation of diminutive feature in competence and dignity. There is even the implication that the subject person thus alluded to, is someone to be treated with fun and jest in their mean insinuation. In its real pejorative sense, one individual belonging to such a mythological group of small people is perceived as a bad omen, or as an agent of not simply some mischief but also of bad fate authored in bad taste. In short, to be called a “duende” means someone who is either a joke or a curse—more than any shallow thought or irrelevant intention.

To be further titled a “bitch” is a much bigger scorn. While it is true that the shameful term has somehow become a common expression especially in the American language, it is nevertheless certainly not a title a woman could rejoice about or be proud of. In addition to the reality that the word is appended to a female irrational animal, it also strongly implies a woman who is spiteful, vicious, nasty—in addition to base carnal insinuations. In other words, the one who says it about another certainly looks down on the latter with disdain and contempt. And even if assuming it was said as joke, such is a very bad and awful one—to say the least—for both the one who said it and the other about whom it is said.

But to be still qualified as “evil”—this is the worst it can get. In the material or spiritual level, in the natural or super-natural sphere, in the ethical or moral order, the word says it all in the context of certain individuals who for many reasons are sinister and wicked, malevolent and villainous, heinous and vicious. The term carries practically limitless vicious and odious factors. No wonder that the considered prince of moral darkness, the causal agent of all sins and the origin of all vices, carries exactly the same designation—evil which is a derivative of “devil”! This is the summit of anything that stands for malevolence, everything that implies wickedness and depravity.

It would be hard to imagine that such despicable titles appended to one and the same woman has absolutely no foundation in fact. In other words, while it may be granted that the woman thus qualified and identified might not be altogether that bad, it is harder to conclude that she is the epitome of goodness and virtue.

Sad but true!

+OVCRUZ, DD
10 March 2208