One day on a River

 Once again, one of my works is going to be displayed at the GSIS as I join notable artists in an exhibit. I am experimenting a new form, this time giving my impressions of our Yanagawa River cruise in Fukuoka, Japan. I am attaching my work and a little poetry that should go with it. I will attach it at the back of the painting.

One day on a river

I ride the donkobune with care,

strange boatman in his white happi coat

in traditional kimono greets me,

smiles, utters words not understood,

he gestures where I should sit.

He uses his long bamboo pole,

pushes, stirs and starts the hour long journey.

He navigates the canal with care,

knows each turn as he has done

a thousand times, with different

faces, color or weight. He does not care.

He blabbers continually, probably narrating

an important tale of samurai bravery

or of a beautiful maiden bequeathed

to a mortal as told in lore – all lost to me.

Going underneath a long bridge

he breaks into a song, with a melody

more peculiar than its words.

how can the still waters be so clean,

I wonder. Nary a paper cup nor plastic

can be found anywhere. It does not smell

like I am used to with the esteros in my own land.

Just majestic, willowing trees

calmly listening to the breeze.

Then, an egress perched on a tree

flaps its wings as if to welcome me

to his abode.

I traverse the canal with nameless

strangers, oblivious of my existence

as I am of them. Just like the river and

everything I see and experience.

All I get to do is wonder - if anything

concrete shall be retained in my head.

Tito Rolly

Impressions of Yanagawa

Watercolor on paper

25 x 36 in

The Senate and PRRD

 The recent appearance of former PRRD before the senate gave me some personal insights. Remember. These are my personal insights.

 First of all, once again, he has shown the lack of proper breeding and no sense of decorum. I wonder what kind of household he had growing up and what kind of family he had reared.  He constantly cursed and even with extreme pride.  Never mind. We have always known the kind of man he is.  Let us just say his conflicting pronouncements gave me a headache. 

To paraphrase the main theme of his statements, he said, sounding noble to his minions by the way they clapped and cheered, “I shall be held liable for all the killings. Do not blame it on the cops… If I am given another chance, I shall do these again.”  Was he true to his words? I have reason to believe that the former President’s pronouncements are not really that gallant. These pronouncements may even be ignoble.  When confronted by Sen Risa Hontiveros if his commitment extended to those innocent civilians who died from the police, his response can be attributed to either, he did not understand the question fully or that he thinks he has something up his sleeves.  He waivered saying something like “walang maniniwalang abugado dyan.”  So, he believes, just like Roque, that his smugness is coming from a technical standpoint.  Me lusot, ika nga. The Bill of Rights guarantee that no person shall be a witness against himself.  Therefore, his words cannot be used against him.  These have to be proven which might take a long time maybe until his death and then he shall go scot free.  Also, he is a septuagenarian, a mitigating circumstance in the Revised Penal Code of the country.  What that means is that he cannot suffer the full extent of the law.

On a deeper level, cops who followed his directives should be held responsible and cannot claim they were just following orders.  A subordinate should ONLY follow lawful orders.  To kill an accused without the benefit of a fair trial is wrong in any country, in any jurisdiction, unless it is a dictatorial form of government, perhaps.  Duterte knows this, as a matter of fact, he said no PMAer would have followed had he categorically said that.  However, there are a lot of footages that see him explicitly or impliedly mentioning this directive. This can even be felt with his pronouncements before the Senate. He probably thinks because he was the President, he was giving a lawful order because, in his way of thinking, that is his way.  Well, is he correct?  The death penalty is no longer being meted out to even heinous crimes by our laws.  So, even if any criminal who will be found guilty in a court of law, cannot be given the death penalty.  Duterte’s claim clearly is in violation of the principle of “innocence unless proven guilty.”  A principle lost on all his believers.  Even more problematic is his admission having told the police to plant evidence just to pin down a suspect. According to him, that was his way when he was still a prosecutor.   How horrible it will be for a parent if his/her child is suspected and planted evidence and be killed just so he will have no more “problems” with criminal elements. Such was the case when out of nowhere, the government would have a list of addicts and pushers and be accosted and killed as in the famous “tokhang” series.  Imagine if you had a quarrel with a neighbor or a Barangay captain and they included your child to that list?  What a nightmare that would have been, right?  True enough, it happened many times before. Imagine, no right to a fair trial. Duterte’s kind of justice. Kill and get rid of these criminals.  Futhermore, there are evidences now that point out that big time criminals are not touched because they are being favored. But that has yet to be proven. 

Well, he always said he is going to hell. There is a strong possibility he will.  Life is all about choices and he made a choice.  At least there is one thing we

In Aid of Legislation

  The country has been witness to very interesting events in congress today.  Thanks to the introduction of the internet, youtube and other platforms, one of the functions of government, the legislature and its inquisitive nature to investigate in aid of legislation, and how the players perform such function is now open to every citizen who has the mind to watch and observe how these things work and the trimmings that go with it.  Sometimes, though, I find myself in a quandary whether such opportunity is good or bad for the country.  For one, many observers can be misled and come to misguided conclusions simply because somewhere along the way, something has been lost, like the real purpose for why such a thing is happening.

For starters, I find it odd that congressmen and senators would, instead of ferreting the truth out of their resource speakers by trapping them and inadvertently admitting their participation with illegal activities, just like Luistro or Gutierrez and/or the other young congressmen who are probably lawyers, these lawmen would use intimidation like they would a stubborn child, which actually, does not hold water, after a long while.  We would always hear a congressman threaten a witness by citing him or her in contempt, sometimes for more than one until said witness is banished till kingdom come.  What they fail to take into consideration is that it becomes too ordinary it is no longer a threat.  A child who has been admonished for an offense, will likely be immune to a punishment that has been given repeatedly over time until such punishment does not serve its purpose anymore. 

What perplexes me more is that when a witness has already given an answer, they would pounce on the witness if such an answer did not conform to what they expected.  It is common knowledge that the onus probandi or burden of proof lies on an accuser.  If they think the witness is lying, it is their duty to prove that such pronouncement is a lie but nevertheless, they should take the answer as it has been given at face value. For after all, they always claim that they have the records that belie a testimony given.  Remember that the proceeding is just in aid of legislation, hence, the committee is not a court of law and as such, the main proponents should neither be accusatory nor give a verdict in nature and should be thankful for their resource people for making themselves available and be of assistance to the task at hand, make laws that are logical and sound.  Instead, what the public sees is a game of intimidation to the point of bullying their witnesse, shouting and rebuking their testimonies.One must remember that these witnesses are not to be considered as criminals and have yet to be proven as such in a court of law.  There was one senator who was heard to say, “Napipiikon na ko sayo!”  like as if he was talking to an errant child.  Had I been the witness, I would have said, “that is your prerogative, your honor, but I have given you my response!”  Another senator that gets into my nerve is a newly elected senator who even before interrogating Guo, uttered, in all arrogance, “humanda ka at pihadong papawisan ka ng husto sa mga itatanong ko!” Was that even a proper utterance from a certain person who shall be addressed as “Your Honor? Said senator is known to have a show that actually condemns before it hears which, of course, is contrary to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.   I also heard another senator a while back, saying to Guo, “You have to prove to us that you are innocent!” A very wrong notion, if you ask me for the simple reason that again, the burden of proof lies on an accuser.  I have been a one-time debate coach and I have always been telling my team that the negative does not have any responsibility to prove its case for the burden of proof always lie on the affirmative and that the negative’s responsibility is just to negate unless the affirmative has either proven their case or the negative is on the attack.  She, as a lawmaker should have known better, shouldn’t she?

Sayang lang, I can see that Cassandra Ong, notwithstanding her pronouncements that she has only reached, and not even finished Grade 6, can communicate in English rather well, as in her testimony, she was just the interpreter of the Chinese as they neither speak Tagalog nor English, the medium of instruction in the country. And yet, she can, in the words of Congressman Abante, drive circles around their heads.  It seems that these people have rehearsed what they are going to say until a verdict of reasonable doubt has been established and they are acquitted.   At a very young age, she owns fifty-eight percent of a company that has earned billions which is very unlikely.  It is apparent to me that she is a mere dummy and is being used by these POGO operators to gain advantage out of our laws which hopefully will be corrected by the proceedings in aid of legislation. I got that assumption just listening to her testimonies and yes, they need not have to cite her in contempt.   I wonder what kind of law should come out of these.  Just the same, I am still hopeful that the Filipinos’ real interest shall be served.

Of Shameless and Alzheimer's

     When I get to discover what I feel is a good movie, or in this case, a Netflix series, I cannot stop watching until I have finished the whole thing.  My latest is a series called Shameless. I am now on its eleventh episode of the eighth season. Three more to go.  Anyway, it is about a dysfunctional family at the south side of Chicago, said to be known for its disreputable location where poverty stricken families, homeless, addicts, and drug pushers thrive. The Gallagher family, due to a neglectful father, is supposedly headed by the eldest daughter, Fiona, played by Emmy Rossum, who had to single handedly raise her siblings since she was herself a toddler because the father, Frank, (William H. Macey), is a no good addict, alcoholic who is always wasted. The mother, Monica, was herself an addict and a bipolar who came and went always abandoning her family. The children, naturally, had to live using cunning ways to get by.  They grew up to be thieves and con artists just to survive and a dog eats dog world.

                The family had a trusted husband and wife neighbors who owned a bar named Kev, an almost naïve but honest man who loves his wife, V, an African American. They are joined in by a Russian hooker who forced her way to their lives until she ended up owning the bar because of her intelligence.  The series has introduced interesting characters all throughout the entire show and I am really enticed to watch it in between work. 

                Anyway, the father, Frank, is just no ignorant fool.  In spite of his addiction and alcoholism, there lies a man who has developed his own philosophy in life.  In one of the episodes, he blurted out his thoughts on Alzheimer’s which I have been thinking about since I have seen my mother being afflicted with the disease.  Frank said, “Alzheimer is an evolutionary advantage that we’ve developed so we won’t have to be aware of the depth of misery we face in our dotage!”

                I have always thought along those lines.  Alzheimer’s to me is a coping mechanism.  It is something that numbs away our pain having to see how we deteriorate and not be a part of a society who does not give a damn on destitute and old folks while they are trying to survive in a world that only cares for those who can live independently and better yet, comfortably. 

Third Time Around

 My friends know that I went under the knife twice last year - nephrology in July where they took out my cancer riddled right kidney and a complete thyroidectomy last November. While I am not complaining, my wallet is. I thought that I have already completed my health issues by then and I will never have to see the operating room again with all the hassles from blood donation, securing clearances and finally, not being able to pee while stabilizing in the recovery room. Let me illustrate:

Blood donation - upon learning that my urologist, Dr. Joel Aldana, required blood just in case I may need it, my sons and a brother-in-law were quick to donate blood to St. Luke's at BGC where I was supposed to have my surgery. However, that surgery was postponed because i could not complete my clearances. The blood donation had to be wasted, well, on me anyway. When it was time for my surgery, there still was no blood as my donors can no longer donate as it was still to soon from their previous donation. My son, Mickey, rescued the day when he bought the needed blood, thanks to his organization, the JCI who had contacts with the Red cross a day before surgery.

Securing clearances - During my very first operation, I have to secure clearances from a cardiologist, a nephrologist, gastro, endo and ENT. It would have been a simple one until my chest xray showed that there is a deviation on my right chest as a result of my growing thyroid. As I had to undergo another CT scan with contrast, a clearance from my nephrologist was needed which proved to have given me the hardest time. When I was about to see her for a clearance, I was told that she was attending a convention the whole week. I was delayed for a week.

The week I was supposed to see my nephro, she had changed location to far away Alabang. I tried contacting her thru teleconsult but I am really not comfortable doing that. I had to go to another nephro who gave me my needed clearance.

Peeing- it has always been my problem eversince - I cannot pee on a bedpan. I have to be standing and alone. I realized this problem when I had my first operation, a partial thyroidectomy in 1986. They wouldn't let me stand and go to the toilet in spite of my insistence that I am no longer groggy. After several hours, and too much prodding, a male nurse accompanied me to the toilet. When I reached the toilet, I got the bottle of IV from him and asked him to step out. Only then was I able to pee. This happened again during the thyroidectomy in November. I was so frustrated they would not return me to my room unless I peed. I told them of my dilemma and even bargained to sign a waiver, just let me go. They enclosed my bed with standing covers and allowed me to stand and yet, no dice. Finally, they succumbed and returned me to my room where my wife was patiently waiting.

Enough of my woes.

Last December, I noticed that my left abdomen was bulging. Alarmed, I contacted a surgeon, the daughter of a very close friend. She asked if I had an incision on my tummy when I had my nephrectomy. I had one because while they did a laparoscopy on me, they had to make an incision to take out the kidney. She told me that sometimes, it could result into a bulging and advised me to see my urologist who did the operation. Having known that, I googled reasons why an abdomen would bulge after a surgery. Turns out to be hernia.

I went to my urologist as I was due to see him in January, anyway. He looked at the bulge and saw that it was not due to the incision thus ruling out incisional hernia. He asked me to lie down and felt my abdomen and suspected it to be an abdominal hernia. He recommended a surgeon, Dr. Dante Ang.

So, today, I. together with my wife, am due to go to the Philippine General Hospital for the third time for admittance. I shall undergo another surgery tomorrow. I hope everything is in order.

A little prayer for me will go a long way. Thank you all.

PS.

This post yielded about 387 reactions and 286 comments in response to my request for prayers. I feel so loved at this point 

All reactions:

397Mizel De Los Santos, Nitz Delos Santos and 395 others