Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg marries “sweetheart”

At twenty eight years old, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire to have ever walked on this earth. He owns majority shares of this hugely popular social media site which has over a billion members and now, being opened for Initial Public Offering (IPO). The potentials of the site is enormous. 

At 28, Zuckerberg probably thinks that it is now time for him to settle down, seeing that his sweetheart, Pricilla Chan, has just finished med school at the University of California. Zuckerberg and Chan met when the young FB inventor was still an unknown geek at Harvard. When Zuckerberg founded FB in 2004, Chan was there with him.

Zuckerberg’s marriage with Chan was extremely private. Not more than a 100 guests took part in the ceremony which most did not even witnessed since most of the guests were ushered in during the wedding feast. Anyway, no one balked. That’s a signature Zuckerberg feat.

The only question really is–was there a prenup signed? Knowing Zuckerberg, there is,probably.

Lady Gaga target of religious and political puritans in Philippines

A group composed of Filipino politicians and men of unknown religious denominations held a press con last Friday, denouncing Lady Gaga’s forthcoming concert at the Mall of Asia, SM arena. I will not dignify what these people of the frock and men of politics accused Lady Gaga of one by one, I will just lump their statements together into one–indecency. They are accusing Lady Gaga of being indecent.

Lady Gaga is what you call a “performance artist”, someone who uses a variety of tools for her performance. She is what others call a “shock artist”–someone who shows very lewd actions to attract attention. Lately, there has been a slew of online material depicting her acts as “Satanic”, even accusing her of being a high priestess of Baphomet, a mythical demon in Christian theology.

What these people want is prevent Lady Gaga from performing at the arena. They accuse her of being Satanic, and of promoting indecent behavior.

I don’t know about you, but there is something sinister with the things these people are trying to do.

For one, this is not the first time Lady Gaga will visit and perform in Manila. This is the second time around.

The first time was when Lady Gaga performed at the Araneta, attended by thousands of screaming and shrieking teenage fans. At that time, no one protested. No Lito Atienza, former Manila mayor was there. No shadow of Congressman Benny Abante and his brother, the alleged leader of Bible International were there.

That concert which was held I think in 2009, was a smash hit. That’s why there is a repeat here at the SM MOA Arena.

Maybe because The Araneta is not like SM? Maybe because SM MOA is very near Manila, which happens to be the place where Congressman Abante and former mayor Lito Atienza sees as their turf? Which is why such actions are now justified because it can be used for political purposes, seeing that 2013 is just around the corner?

Last 2009, no one tried to bar Lady Gaga from her “weird” performance. No one actually tried to threaten her with criminal suits when she donned sexy dresses and sang “Bad Romance”. No one.

Now, maybe these political figures saw an opportunity to create a scene, and blow this up as an issue so that the people will talk about them, again.

An artist has every right to express herself yes. In the Philippines, freedom of expression is being recognized but with some limitations. If that expression has offended the sensitivities of others, then, it is tantamount to a criminal suit.

In this issue, these people are using religion as a cause for heightening political awareness of themselves.

What if, for example, Lady Gaga does indeed worship the devil. In democracies, worshipping the devil is a right enshrined by the Constitution. Religion is someone’s belief. When that belief opposes another belief is not in the realm of rights but in the realm of debate. Every one has the right to believe in something, and to be respected of such right is common in democracies.

Fact is, this issue opens up a discussion on what Filipinos do think about democracy. We are predominantly a Catholic country due to the sheer number of believers on Roman Catholicism, but it does not necessarily mean that we exclude other “religions” just because majority are Roman Catholics. No.

If we respect the Indigenous Peoples’ rights to believe in animism, why will we bar someone who believes in a religion contrary with Christianity? Whose rights will the state recognize–the right of the Christian or the right of a supposed devil worshipper? In democracies, both rights are recognized.

Hence, Christians have the right to be offended by Lady Gaga’s performances on the same vein that Lady Gaga has also the right to express her offensive views on Christianity. All is fair in democracies.

Now, puritans among us would really be very angry with what I wrote here, but, I’m sorry to say, that is the truth. We live in a democracy where respect of rights is one of the bedrock by which we live. If we always say that ours is a thriving and living democracy, then, we must, by all means, respect Lady Gaga.

Lady Gaga is foremost, an artist. She is not a religious preacher. She is, by all means, a singer. If, at all, Lady Gaga sings songs which offend the sensitivities of others, then, by all means, hit her with all you got. Boycott her. But, do it personally, and not campaign against her. Campaigning against the likes of Lady Gaga is showing extremism.

Now, don’t tell me that if you boycott Lady Gaga, you will also boycott Madonna, Aerosmith, even Jessica Sanchez. These singers, like Lady Gaga, sing songs which promote a different kind of love. Jessica Sanchez sang Bohemian Rhapsody, something which puritans of religion in the seventies believe contain implicit lyrics which condone demon worship. Don’t tell me that Atienza and his gang of puritans will also bar Jessica from performing Bohemian Rhapsody here in the Philippines when she visits the Philippines for a concert tour?

 

Joshua Ledet out–Jessica and Philip are in

Louisiana native Joshua Ledet, the man who idolizes Fantasia and was actually tagged as “Mantasia” by the American media, is out of the American Idol season 11. Ledet, whom the judges thought gave the best performance during the Top 3 performances, lost out in the vote. 

Unofficial results say, Jessica got the highest number of votes from the American public. Ninety million votes were counted, and program insiders say, Jessica got more than 80 million votes, with the rest divided between Ledet and Philips.

What probably pulled Jessica through is the choice of popular songs which connected with the American public. Though it was not Jessica’s best vocal performances, nonetheless, her songs resonated. 

Ledet’s style meanwhile, is getting boring. Yes, he gave his all but the judges thought that that was it, and he does not have the chops to really bring out a new side of him.

This is not what Philips is doing. Philips showed that he can hold a tune, and he can still show a new dimension in his performance. His two songs in the Top 3 performances are revelatory. It shows that Philips can still hold his own over the popular Jessica Sanchez.

Now, the finale will be very interesting. A Sanchez win will break the all male winners at AI. She will also be the youngest winner in AI history. She will also be the first member of the Filipino-American, and the Latino community to have clinched the title.

Who deserves to be on the finale of American Idol Season 11?

Who will be in the finale of American Idol Season 11?

Would it be 16 year old Californian Jessica Sanchez who sang her heart out in the Top 3 performances today? Or would it be Joshua Ledet, who is being packaged as the preacher’s son? Or Philip Philips who sings out of tune, and being praised for his “independence”?

Who will America vote this time?

 

 

Ombudsman Morales says Chief Justice keeps 82 bank accounts totalling US$12 million abroad

Yesterday’s Senate impeachment trial of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Renato Corona took a surprising twist when Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales presented alleged pieces of evidence indicating possible dollar accounts being maintained by Corona. Morales presented documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) which shows 82 bank accounts in 5 banks. The amounts totalled US$ 12 million.

The Senate voted to see the powerpoint presentation by Morales. The vote was conducted rather intelligently because it did not show partisanship. It cannot be used by both camps to claim early victory because it did not clearly show the true partisan colors of the Senators-judges.

Morales testified that Corona’s records were obtained not by the Ombudsman but by the AMLC. AMLC maintains a solid credibility before the eyes of the People. This agency of government first appeared during the impeachment trial of Joseph Estrada where his domestic bank accounts were scrutinized. Now, it seems that even without a court-instigated order, the AMLC can now even pry open dollar accounts being maintained by government officials abroad.

Anyway, it also seemed like Lead Defense Counsel Cuevas was not in his element yesterday. Morales appeared feisty while Cuevas appeared subdued. Most of the Senators concluded that the prosecution scored on this one.

The Defense meanwhile said, that they will also be presenting five more “hostile” witnesses before Corona appears before the court. Such a behavior suggests that the Defense will be trying to win this on a technicality, a wrong move, I should say.

This trial has two dimensions: one, a legal one and two, a public one. The most important for them especially to their client is to regain his tattered image before the public. Corona suffers from a negative public perception. Even if he survives this trial thru a technicality, but loses in the bar of public opinion, Corona will forever be harassed and debilitated.  A technicality will somewhat put Corona under siege. Corona must convince both the Senate and their publics of his innocence without resorting to a technicality, a very challenging thing to do.