OMG, if you don’t roll on the f*cking floor f*cking laughing your f*cking head off while watching this, you don’t have a f*cking heart. LOL! I love how the grandma says “Oh Lord!” after every stanza, but keeps on reading every next expletive-ridden part with such gusto and curiosity. I want the f*cking book!
Anyway, here’s the version read by Samuel L. Jackson:
Sooo Pinoy is a movement spearheaded by Unilever Food Solutions to promote Filipino Cuisine in the dining out market. The goal was to inform Filipinos about the rich cuisine we have as a nation and to encourage Pinoys to dine out and enjoy our very own rich cuisine. The movement started last year, and Sooo Pinoy came out with monthly articles talking about our all-time favorite Pinoy dishes such as Sinigang, Bulalo and Crispy Pata, which people voted on via mobile as their ultimate Filipino comfort food. Last year’s winner was Sinigang.
This year, the partnership goes bigger as Unilever Food Solutions team up with Philippine Daily Inquirer, Team manila, and the Sooo Pinoy ambassadors Chico And Delamar (woot, that’s us!) and Juana Change (Mae Paner), as the campaign promotes not only Filipino food but the local operators who serve our Filipino favorites.
Each month, the Philippine Star and the Philippine Daily Inquirer announce the dish feature of the month and the 30 restaurant nominees who serve the best focus dish. Diners then vote via Facebook which they think is the best restaurant serving that dish which culminates at the end of each month. The winning Top 10 are then featured via Facebok, PDI, Philstar and the Sooo Pinoy ambassadors.
As for us, Chico and Delamar, as ambassadors, we will participate in a 15-restaurant challenge. We will be dining is 15 restaurants that specialize in Pinoy Cuisine, and then we will blog about our experiences in each restaurant. How cool of a task is that? We’re very stoked because both Delle and i are big eaters and huge fans of Filipino food. Personally, I can eat adobo any time, anywhere. Kare-kare is also one of my all time favorites. And who can say no to crispy pata? Even our barkada is a huge fan of eating, in general, and Filipino cuisine specifically. One friend’s specialty is his asado, which melts in your mouth, and his white adobo, which sends us in paroxyms of pleasure. Another friend’s specialty is his binagoongan, which he cooks to a point where you can no longer distinguish which is meat and which is fat. Absolutely divine. They love to cook, and we love to eat. And whenever we eat out as a group, we gravitate towards our favorite Pinoy restos like Cafe Juanita, Fely J’s, O Kitchen, Via Mare, Abe, among many others. So you see, this cause is very dear to us personally. Even when we travel, one of the highlights is to discover the cuisine of whatever province we’re in (we’re also huge advocates of discovering the many beautiful travel spots in the Philippines).
So watch for our posts on our blogs, Twitter and Facebook accounts, and we’ll take you with us on our journey to rediscover Filipino Cuisine at its finest! For more details and updates, visit the Sooo Pinoy Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/SoooPinoy and you can also follow @SoooPinoy on Twitter. We’ll be starting our restaurant challenge this week, and we can’t wait!
We’re so honored to be the Sooo Pinoy ambassadors and hopefully we do a good job in bringing Pinoy cuisine back to the forefront of Pinoy palates all over the countries. And if because of our posts you guys troop to your favorite Pinoy restos, then we’ve done our jobs! We’re sooo excited to be part of Sooo Pinoy!
Watch this from beginning to end, I guarantee the investment will be worth it!
(thanks to @gabemercado for sharing this gem on Twitter!)
“Classic” is not big enough a word to describe this magnum opus! I didn’t quite know what the hell I was watching or why I was actually watching, but for some reason…I was watching. And by the time the punchline came, as hammy as it was delivered, panalo! Where the heck did they dredge up this cinematic masterpiece? And why did it take so long for it to re-surface? Is it really old, or is it one of those “bagong antique”? Whatever the case may be, I want MORE! 🙂
It actually reminds me of that Pepsi commercial:
Well, it’s been so long since we had an overhaul of our bank notes. The newest ones we had were the 2oo peso bill, and before that, the 1000 and 500 peso bills? So I’m so stoked to see the new bills, although the existing bills will still be honored for the next 3 years. I’m sure collectors will start setting aside bills they’d like to keep as commemorative items. I should’ve kept the 100 peso bill that had the U.P. stamp on it!
The same heroes will be honored, with the notable addition of Corazon C. Aquino to accompany her husband Ninoy on the 500 peso bill. Having Cory there accounts I guess why Ninoy now smiles, as opposed to the previous version of the bill with a somber Ninoy on it. It also makes history because the bill will have both parents on the bill, with their son’s signature on it, current president Noynoy’s. GMA’s oath-taking is still on the 200 peso bill, but has been diminished significantly, so much that it’s almost not visible anymore.
Th new bills highlight the newest stars of our tourism industry, Puerto Princesa’s Subterranean River National Park, Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park, Banaue Rice Terraces, Taal Lake, Mayon Volcano and the Bohol Chocolate Hills. Also featured on the backs are highlighted wildlife like the kulasisi, the alamid, the maliputo, the tarier, and the now iconic butanding. I love how they would pair the wildlife with the natural wonder, like the way the whale shark is floating above majestic Mayon. And I love how the colors are so much brighter now, it doesn’t look as anemic and doleful as the previous colors. I swear, I’m so impressed! Good job, BSP! We really should speak up when government does something right, para naman hindi tayo puro reklamo lang. This almost erases the awful Pilipinas Kay Ganda brouhaha…ALMOST. Hahaha!
I love the designs, but I also l0ve that they now feature what for me are musts in representing the Philippines, especially Tubbataha and the butanding. I love how they really thought about their choices, not just the popular icons, but the deserving ones as well. I know I love the new bills (especially the 100 and the 1000 peso bills), but what do you guys think? here they are:
Let’s start with the “good”:
Wow. If this guy isn’t an international superstar, I don’t know what is. Very few athletes gain entry into mainstream Hollywood entertainment, no matter how great they are, much less Filipino athletes who aren’t exactly known to flourish internationally. So each time Manny wins a fight, or comes out in some TV show like this one, we beam as a nation, with so much pride. It’s not often we are painted in such heroic light, often made fun of in fact, so we relish every moment of triumph with Manny, as if his honor is every bit as ours.
And then there is the “bad”:
This is the nth time we’ve experienced being slighted or made fun of in international shores, from the Desperate Housewives brouhaha where the Teri Hatcher character refused to be examined if the doctor is from “some med school in the Philippines”, to comedian Adam Carolla bashing Manny Pacquiao, calling him illiterate and implying that the Philippines is a nation of whores. This time, it’s a Korean actress who makes fun of the Pinoy accent, when strangely, we’ve been practically swarmed by throngs of Korean kids here to study English from the very teachers she made fun of.
The obvious reaction is to bristle in anger. But there are 2 reactions to it. One is indignation, for feeling insulted by someone from a country who sends an endless supply of their people here, to mixed reactions. Koreans are now the most populous foreigners in the Philippines, eclipsing Japan and the U.S. To be frank, I felt very much stung by it, for her to make fun of our accent when Koreans aren’t exactly known for their impeccable English either, when in fact they send so many of their kids here precisely to learn English. But upon closer inspection, don’t we do the same? Don’t we make fun of the Chinese accent? When we do accents like: “Akyen odeh fly lice!”, how do the Chinese feel about it? Let’s move closer to the Visayas: don’t we have the endless “Wag pu koya, dadating na si ati!”, not to mention our ribbing (fondly of course, but ribbing nonetheless) of our hero Manny Pacquiao himself? Jokes like, “Hidden Soldiers!” – Manny Pacquiao telling the world his choice of anti-dandruff shampoo. Or, “Noodle! Noodle!” – Manny Pacquiao on Deal Or No Deal. It’s the same, right? Don’t the Visayans feel offended when we mimic (some say mock) the way they speak? Revered local comics like Rex Navarette or YouTube sensation Happy Slip have made careers out of spoofing the way their parents speak. Does it mean we can make fun of our own local accents but not Koreans, or other nationalities for that matter? It’s a tough call. When Comedian Russell Peters mimics the Pinoy accent, we howl with laughter. When Lee Da Hae does it, we protest in disgust. I guess like anything in life, it’s the thin line between laughing WITH you and laughing AT you. If you feel as if you’re in on the joke, then it’s okay. But when you feel as if you’re made fun of, then it hurts.
So in my opinion, there is no “correct” reaction to these things. If you feel affronted, then you have every right to feel so. But if it rolls off your back and it isn’t a big deal to you, then it is just as valid a reaction as any.
A Pinoy has been dubbed the “Filipino Ejaculator” after he has been accused by a female co-worker of ejaculating into her water bottle. She felt sick after drinking into her water bottle, so she got suspicious and had the water tested at a lab which yielded the result that the water has been laced with human semen. The alleged “depositor” was eventually fired from their office and is now facing six misdemeanor charges which include depositing offensive substances and assault. He has denied all accusations. Read the full article courtesy of http://www.balitangamerica.tv HERE.
Of course the key word here is, and no it’s not “ejaculator”, it’s “alleged”. We don’t know the whole story. The guy in question, Michael Kevin Lallana, is a married man, and we can only speculate why, if proven guilty, he would do such a dastardly act. Some say it’s just a simple case of the usual dipping the toothbrush in the toilet or pissing in the coffee dispenser (not that these are any better or more hygienic), but this could have dire consequences. Many sexually transmitted diseases, many of which are incurable, and a handful fatal, are passed on through exchanges of bodily fluids. Even if he’s perfectly healthy, it’s already gross, but imagine if he had any infection of any sort. I don’t even want to think about it. But of course, we go back to waiting until he guy is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proving that there is sperm in the water bottle is one thing, but proving that the sperm is Lallana’s is another. I don’t know if there is a way of matching the sperm found in the water with fresh samples from Lallana, because that’s the only way I can think of proving it with finality. Does sperm even survive in water?
Many Filipinos were commenting on how unfair it was to call Lallana “Filipino” when he is an American citizen. Some claim he should have been more accurately identified as “Filipino-American”, as if to halve the blame with his adopted nation. But others point out that we are quick to claim celebs like Nicole Scherzinger and Enrique Iglesias as “Half-Filipino”, yet refer to notorious Pinoys as “Half-American”. They claim we should take the bad as graciously as the good.
Was he a spurned sperm donor? Were they having an illicit affair? How did he do his dastardly deed? Was he really the jerk who jerked off in her water bottle? Was the banker the wanker? Many questions have been left unanswered. It’s a mortifying crime to be accused of. If he’s guilty, then he should own the ignominy that from hereon shall hound his character. But if he’s innocent, then I pray he’s cleared soon because this type of accusation smears not only his name, but his family’s as well.
This is an incredibly insightful article on something that was in the forefront of the tragically concluded hostage drama involving the Hong Kong nationals. I suggest you read it because it’s something that everyone needs to know, whether you’re a media practioner or not. For the full article, click HERE.
Inasmuch as I may have my personal opinions on the matter, I wouldn’t have any idea on the rules of engagement as far as the police are concerned. Many say they were incompetent, others argue that they did the best they could under their much compromised position. But on the part of media, which we are a part of to a lesser degree, I very much feel the need to weigh in on the urgency of redefining our respective roles in situations like this. That’s why I find this article fascinating because many of these guidelines were either unknown by may mediamen or simply ignored. Since I assume you read the full article, let me just focus on some salient points.
“Always assume that the hostage taker, gunman, or terrorist has access to the reporting. “
“Avoid describing with words or showing with still photography and video any information that could divulge the tactics or positions of SWAT team members.”
Early on, we already knew that Rolando Mendoza had access to both radio and TV reports on what was happening. So it’s safe to assume that all media outlets know that whatever they throw out there could potentially be heard or watched by the hostage-taker. And yet the blow-by-blow reports of everything that was happening could be seen and heard over any media outlet. That’s why now, congress is studying a new law requiring media blackouts during hostage situations. Even P-Noy told the media that if he ordered a blackout, he would be accused of censoring media or curtailing press freedom. He alluded once again to the Peninsula debacle, where the media refused to leave ground zero, on the basis of press freedom, allegedly hampering the military’s efforts to storm the place. I remember when I was in Seattle, there was a hostage situation that was broadcast. Everyone reported on it, but there was no footage, no details, no live coverage until AFTER the situation was resolved. It was only then that the TV stations aired all the footage they took while it was happening, after the broadcast could no longer affect the outcome of the crisis.
“Fight the urge to become a player in any standoff, hostage situation, or terrorist incident. Journalists should become personally involved only as a last resort and with the explicit approval of top news management and the consultation of trained hostage negotiators on the scene.”
Stone stone in the sky, if you’re hit, don’t mad. Let’s face it, there are mediamen who exude grace and class whenever they cover any high-tension situation, regardless of their stress level. Think Cheche Lazaro. But there are also those who exude the opposite, and epal their way into the situation, becoming part of the tableau, participating, instead of merely chronicling the events as they unfold. Many personalities have become so much larger than their actual role as media, that they become the news, instead of merely documenting it. Nowadays, many media personalities would give an arm and a leg to somehow have a part in the drama, no matter how little their expertise in such matters, just to outscoop the competition.
“Strongly resist the temptation to telephone a gunman or hostage taker. Journalists generally are not trained in negotiation techniques, and one wrong question or inappropriate word could jeopardize someone’s life. Furthermore, just calling in could tie up phone lines or otherwise complicate communication efforts of the negotiators.”
Just now I watched on TV that in the middle of the hostage drama, at least one TV station had a reporter talk to Mendoza on the phone. Regardless of what they talked about, that was really a risky move. When you have multiple people, including those outside of the negotiating panel, talking to a disturbed, highly-stressed, and in some cases possibly near-deranged hostage-taker, you increase the chances of agitating an already unstable personality to a dangerous tipping point. Regardless of whether or not you aired the phone conversation, it was a possible monkey wrench in an extremely delicate negotiation. One wrong word could spell the difference between resolution and tragedy. It would really have been most prudent to leave the talking to the actual negotiators. Imagine if all news outfits did the same?
“Challenge any gut reaction to “go live” from the scene of a hostage-taking crisis, unless there are strong journalistic reasons for a live, on-the-scene report. Things can go wrong very quickly in a live report, endangering lives or damaging negotiations. Furthermore, ask if the value of a live, on-the-scene report is really justifiable compared to the harm that could occur.”
In this competitive and cuthroat day and age, many broadcast journalists actually welcome being in the middle of any newsworthy crossfire, to get a leg up on the competition, or in some cases to make a name for themselves. There is no such thing as “challenging any gut reaction to go live”. If there is a hostage crisis, ALL media outlets will have at least one team to cover it live. Don’t get me wrong, I was GLUED to the television, eating up every morsel of the events as they happened. As a consumer, if it’s available, we’ll lap it up. But as a media man, you wonder what all that information could entail to a touch-and-go situation where lives hang in the balance. I guess it’s up to congress to decide that.
“Be very cautious in any reporting on the medical condition of hostages until after a crisis is concluded. Also, be cautious when interviewing hostages or released hostages while a crisis continues.”
Just reading the tweets during the crisis, you’ll see just how much chaos unreliable information can cause. First the bus driver said everyone was dead, which spread like wildfire. It wasn’t until after the final gunfire that we discovered many survivors. But that’s just it, all sorts of information, some confirmed, many unconfirmed, are released for public consumption, even to the utility of the hostage-taker. He can very well plan his next move depending on what he watches on TV. At the very moment of the assault, the police’s positions and movements, from all angles of the bus, was broadcast as they tried with futility to launch a surprise attack. If the TV was still on, Mendoza would have known EXACTLY how many policemen there were, where they were positioned, and what they were about to do. The police on the other hand, had ZERO information about what was happening inside the bus.
“Exercise care when interviewing family members or friends of those involved in standoff situations. Make sure the interview legitimately advances the story for the public and is not simply conducted for the shock value of the emotions conveyed or as a conduit for the interviewee to transmit messages to specific individuals.”
Many consider the arrest of the brother, Gregorio Mendoza, as the point where things irretrievably took a turn for the worse. It was after the brother resisted arrest, splashed all over our TV’s, that Mendoza fired his first shots. Many opined that he witnessed what was happening and further agitated his already turbulent disposition. On the part of the police, many find that the timing of the arrest was severely misplaced. On he part of the media, many find that had they not broadcast the arrest, had it been carried out under the radar, then Mendoza might not have been pushed off the emotional edge.
Understandably when this much sh*t hits the fan, fingers will be pointed. But maybe more than blame, there should really be a thorough post-mortem on what went wrong. Obviously this will include identifying the mistakes and who made them. With the exception of mistakes that warrant legal repercussions, it’s not so much to punish, but to improve. True, the police assault could have been leagues more efficient, but should they be punished for bungling the rescue? Maybe each one should find improvement in their own backyard. The police should beef up their training and equipment, learn from more advance police forces from abroad, and read up on the latest studies on hostage situations. On media’s part, maybe the law should redefine what our role is in situations like this BEFORE the need arises. We should know the boundaries and limitations of our so-called press freedom. When should we forge on? When do we back off? These are questions that will merit many debates before they are resolved. But whatever the outcome may be, it will dictate how future crises like these will play out.
