Filipino Star - December 2010 Edition
Filipino Star - December 2010 Edition
Filipino Star - December 2010 Edition
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2010</strong> The North American <strong>Filipino</strong> <strong>Star</strong><br />
7<br />
From Page 5 Any Which Way<br />
Doon naman sa September 16-<br />
October 15, <strong>2010</strong> edition ng kanyang<br />
Forum, nababaliw na pinalabas n’ya na<br />
si Mrs. Zeny F. Kharroubi ang<br />
iresponsableng journalist gayong s’ya<br />
itong nahatulan na nagkasala ng pagkairesponsable<br />
sa journalism. Doon din sa<br />
nasabing edition, sinabihan n’ya ako na<br />
tuwirin o tamain ko raw muna ang aking<br />
mga facts bago ko ilathala ang aking<br />
mga artikulo. Ugok s’yang talaga dahil<br />
mismong ang kanyang mga artikulo ang<br />
punung-puno ng mga kuwentong<br />
kutsero at kasinungalingan.<br />
*******<br />
RENEGADES (“RATS” TO SOME<br />
PEOPLE) OF THE FCBL – People who<br />
had keenly followed the eight-month<br />
travails of the FAMAS Constitution and<br />
Bylaws (FCBL) Committee dubbed<br />
Marlene Birao-Schachter, Felix Salazar,<br />
and Denie and Paz Guloy “Four Rats of<br />
the FCBL” for deep-throating to<br />
Frauderico Crass Magallanes<br />
information that he would later use to<br />
malign FAMAS and the FCBL<br />
Committee.<br />
At the outset, I was reluctant to<br />
subscribe to that depiction of the four. I<br />
even insisted that the Guloys were<br />
decent people despite strong objection<br />
from those who knew them better. But<br />
after the “un-Christed” couple, together<br />
with Marlene and Felix, tried all the tricks<br />
they could come up with, even quoting<br />
Biblical passages, to derogate Mandy<br />
Tolentino’s and his supporters’ steadfast<br />
and trenchant stand against Magallanes,<br />
and then tried to emend what to them<br />
was a faulty letter written in response to<br />
Magallanes’ malicious article, and then<br />
ultimately reneged on their promise to<br />
sign the letter on the flimsy excuse that it<br />
wasn’t in accordance with their<br />
principles or beliefs (as if they had<br />
principle to speak of in the first place), I<br />
had a better grasp why some people<br />
likened those four to said loathsome<br />
rodents. In fact, I don’t object anymore if<br />
people would like to label them “Rats of<br />
the FCBL.”<br />
I’ve realized, to my<br />
disappointment, that Marlene, Felix,<br />
Denie and Paz are the type of people<br />
who don’t have any qualm leaving you in<br />
the lurch for their selfish motives. Worse<br />
yet, they, particularly the Guloys, have<br />
been using the name of God in vain.<br />
Frankly, I hadn’t met such hypocritical<br />
people until now.<br />
*******<br />
LATEST MEMBER OF FILIPINO<br />
ASSOCIATION OF HYPOCRITICAL<br />
CITIZENS OF QUEBEC (FAHCQ) –<br />
Long time ago, Demosthenes D. Guloy<br />
talked to the editor-in-chief of this<br />
newspaper about submitting an article to<br />
the <strong>Filipino</strong> <strong>Star</strong>. Reasonably cautious,<br />
the good editor told Guloy that<br />
Magallanes would not allow that, but he<br />
bragged to her that he was not being<br />
paid so he could do whatever he<br />
wanted. Then he had to back out and<br />
admitted to her that Magallanes did not<br />
want him to write for the <strong>Star</strong>.<br />
Still later on, Guloy offered to<br />
write a few articles in the <strong>Star</strong> as he<br />
claimed he did not want to write for<br />
Magallanes anymore. She eventually<br />
allowed him to contribute an article but it<br />
did not last long as he probably ran out<br />
of ideas. Guloy then crawled back to<br />
Magallanes and started to write for him<br />
again. Apparently ingratiating himself to<br />
Magallanes, he even sponsored his<br />
request to take pictures of the FCBL<br />
Committee while it was in session. Amid<br />
objection from already “Magallanestraumatized”<br />
members of the FCBL<br />
Committee who knew Magallanes’ dirty<br />
ways and mean streak, Guloy<br />
volunteered to guarantee that<br />
Magallanes wouldn’t write anything<br />
derogatory about FAMAS. Ensuing<br />
development would render his guaranty<br />
useless because Magallanes would later<br />
write an offensive article against FAMAS.<br />
When this writer, a member of FCBL<br />
Committee, confronted Guloy about the<br />
guaranty he gave in Magallanes’ behalf,<br />
he denied having given one. As soon as<br />
I heard him deny that, I decided, “This<br />
guy isn’t a man of his words.”<br />
Obviously, Guloy was principled<br />
only in words, but never in deeds. Could<br />
it be the reason he and his wife aren’t<br />
with the Couple for Christ anymore? Or<br />
is there another reason? Well, God<br />
bless! Right, Denie?<br />
*******<br />
MARLENE BIRAO SCHACHTER:<br />
DENSE AND SPINELESS – Whatever<br />
little respect I had for Marlene Birao-<br />
Schachter has vanished without any<br />
trace, particularly after she impetuously<br />
and empathically told the FCBL<br />
Committee during its meeting of October<br />
23, <strong>2010</strong> that it was Magallanes’ right to<br />
write whatever he would like to write<br />
even if it was to the detriment of FAMAS<br />
and the FCBL Committee of which she’s<br />
a member. Her shocking and emetic<br />
statement sent a jolt down the spine of<br />
all discerning FCBL Committee<br />
members and some observers who were<br />
at that meeting.<br />
Not only that, Birao-Schachter<br />
(rhymes with “Shockter”) refused to sign<br />
the FCBL Committee letter to<br />
Magallanes in the pretext that it was<br />
against her principle, as if she had one<br />
to begin with. But when asked, for the<br />
sake of argument, what principle of hers<br />
was adversely affected, she couldn’t cite<br />
any. It is truly thought-provoking that<br />
someone who never had the ability to<br />
make insightful judgment was once<br />
president of both FAMAS and the whilom<br />
respectable Federation of <strong>Filipino</strong>-<br />
Canadian Associations of Quebec<br />
(FFCAQ).<br />
I’m now more convinced than<br />
ever that life is indeed full of ironies and<br />
paradoxes. Marlene Birao-Schachter is<br />
definitely one of them. She is fond of<br />
saying “I know” or “I understand,” but<br />
the truth is she doesn’t know, and she<br />
doesn’t understand anything either! And<br />
the fact that she allows herself to be<br />
Frauderico’s virtual myrmidon and<br />
remains rabidly loyal to him despite the<br />
outrageous things that he has been<br />
doing over the years is an indication of<br />
her very low self-esteem and<br />
masochistic tendency. But then again, it<br />
could be merely her stupidity. I can’t<br />
think of a more plausible explanation.<br />
Can you? Why do you think Frauderico<br />
and Marlene get along with each other<br />
very well? It’s elementary, Mr. Watson!<br />
He’s a sadist and she’s a masochist.<br />
He’s narcissistic and she’s a narcissistic<br />
supply. They’re the equivalent of mortise<br />
and tenon in carpentry. And the list goes<br />
on.<br />
(Readers’ comments are welcome. Send<br />
your e-mail at<br />
badosarmiento@yahoo.com)<br />
Common mistakes and confusing<br />
words in English By Budz Sarmiento<br />
www.filipinostar.org<br />
disinterested vs. uninterested<br />
DISINTERESTED and UNINTERESTED<br />
share a confused and confusing history.<br />
DISINTERESTED was originally used to<br />
mean “not interested, indifferent”;<br />
UNINTERESTED in its earliest use meant<br />
“impartial.” By various developmental<br />
twists, DISINTERESTED is now used in<br />
both senses. UNINTERESTED is used<br />
mainly in the sense “not interested,<br />
indifferent.” It is occasionally used to mean<br />
“not having a personal or property<br />
interest.”<br />
Many object to the use of DISINTERESTED<br />
to mean “not interested, indifferent.” They<br />
insist that DISINTERESTED can mean only<br />
“impartial”: A disinterested observer is the<br />
best judge of behavior. However, both<br />
senses are well established in all varieties<br />
of English, and the sense intended is<br />
almost always clear from the context.<br />
REDUNDANT WORDS AND PHRASES<br />
added bonus: This is one that I see<br />
frequently in Internet marketing sales<br />
letters and infomercials. Since the word<br />
“bonus” implies that an additional good is<br />
being included with the existing product,<br />
the “added” part is redundant. In most<br />
cases, you can just write “bonus.”<br />
free gift: This one is also very common in<br />
the Internet marketing world as well as in<br />
offline retailing. If something is truly a gift,<br />
it is not supposed to cost anything and is<br />
automatically free. On the other hand, if<br />
something is NOT free, then it is not<br />
actually a gift; instead it would be<br />
considered as a purchase or trade. This<br />
should simply be written as “gift” or “free<br />
X”, where X is the name of the product<br />
you’re giving away.<br />
past (or prior, previous) experience:<br />
Experience already refers to things that<br />
you have done in the past, so you do not<br />
need to include “past”, “prior”, or<br />
“previous” in your résumé here.<br />
future planning, plan in the future: A plan is<br />
always something that you are thinking<br />
about doing in the future; you cannot plan<br />
to do something in the past or present.<br />
Therefore, you just need to say “plan” or<br />
“planning.”<br />
revert back: The word revert means “to go<br />
back to”, making the “back” part of this<br />
phrase redundant. Other words in this<br />
same category include refer, return, and<br />
repay — you don’t need to use “back” with<br />
any of these.<br />
completely surrounded, surrounded on all<br />
sides: The word surrounded implies that<br />
something is enclosed on all sides and the<br />
notion of completeness is already included<br />
here. So just use “surrounded.”<br />
advance warning: A warning is something<br />
given in advance, usually in the form of a<br />
notification that unfavorable circumstances<br />
may occur in the future. The “advance”<br />
part is not needed.<br />
unexpected emergency, unexpected<br />
surprise: Neither an emergency nor a<br />
surprise can occur if you’re actually<br />
expecting it. Drop “unexpected.”<br />
completely (or totally, utterly) destroyed: If<br />
something is destroyed, this means that it<br />
has been rendered completely unusable<br />
or inoperable. An item cannot have a<br />
“partially destroyed” status any more than<br />
one can be “partially pregnant.” If<br />
something is still partially functioning, the<br />
proper word to use is damaged, not<br />
destroyed.<br />
absolutely (or completely) essential: This<br />
is another case where the modifiers are<br />
not necessary. Something is either<br />
essential or not essential; there is no such<br />
thing as “partially essential.”<br />
Link (or join, assemble, collaborate)<br />
together: All of these verbs relate to<br />
bringing things together, making the<br />
“together” part superfluous. Simply use<br />
the word that best fits the context of the<br />
sentence.<br />
round (or square, triangular, etc.) in<br />
shape: If something is round, this already<br />
refers to its shape, making the “in shape”<br />
part redundant.<br />
large (or small) in size: Similar to the<br />
above situation, both large and small<br />
already refer to size. Drop “in size.”<br />
few (or many) in number: The “in<br />
number” part is redundant. Just use “few”<br />
or “many.”<br />
filled to capacity: If something is filled or<br />
full, it has already reached its capacity. So<br />
we only need to say “full” or “at capacity”<br />
depending on context.<br />
12 (o’ clock) noon, 12 midnight: Both<br />
noon and midnight always occur at 12:00,<br />
so we don’t need the “12? part. Just say<br />
noon or midnight.<br />
discuss about: Discuss means “to talk<br />
about”, so it is preferable to simply write<br />
either “discuss” or “talk about” but not<br />
both.<br />
See Page 10 Common Mistakes<br />
MEN AND WOMEN<br />
HOMMES ET FEMMES<br />
Hair Cut / Wash & Dry / ColorRoots / Permanent / Highlighs / Streaks<br />
4661 Van Horne Suite 5, Montreal, QC<br />
Tel.: 514-884-2925