Joma Sison: He Did It Mao's Way

Jose Maria Sison.

For decades, when "communist" was the worst thing the United States could say about someone, he was a communist. Now that "terrorist" is the worst thing the U.S. can say about someone, he's a terrorist.

Without labels, and indisputably: he's an intellectual ally and source of inspiration for the 9,000 soldiers still fighting for a communist revolution in the Philippines, a country of 90 million people.

He suffered for his cause, class struggle, while many others have suffered worse be-cause of it. Who but the impoverished people of the Philippines can say whether Sison represents (some of) them? Or whether they see "revolutionary taxes" as mere extortion?

The Philippines has a bloody history, thanks in part to its best and worst friend, the United States. I wonder whether Sison's conscience ever troubles him about his role in it all.

At any rate, I think he still has a part to play on the world's stage, and I felt it was my duty to interview him.

I could write 5,000 words about the contradictions and ironies of an American reporter interviewing Sison in the Netherlands.

But in summary, life's strange mutations brought two people of radically different world views to the same spot, far from our respective homes, to play our respective roles.

Superficially, he probably sees me as a numbskull, or ignorant; and I told him I see him in part as an anachronism.

The truth is more complicated.

Anyhow, I filmed a brief fragment of the interview, and here it is.

He's saying that since his (most recent) release from prison, he's "been up to good things."





And here, a special treat for anyone who kept reading past the "jump."

This is a sound clip from Sison's website, nestled among the protest songs, of him singing "I Did It My Way." With a lyric or two tweaked.

Sinatra he's not; but you certainly can't accuse him of not having a sense of humor.

MORE

Hufterproof ("jerk-proof") bus stop destroyed. Jerks suspected.

(photo:algemeen dagblad)
"Hufters" have destroyed one of the Netherlands' new "Hufter proof" bus stops.
"Hufter" means something like jerk, or anti-social. In this case, it really means, juvenile delinquents.

The bus stops were installed to great fanfare on Oct. 12 in the town of Maasdam. That's part of Binnenmaas. That's part of Holland.

Saturday night, the destroyers stacked some kind of kindling in one, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it to the ground.

(photo:nieuws.nl)

If I read the website of manufacturer "Havadi" correctly, the bus stops were made of styrofoam, and covered with some kind of special fiberglass resin to repel graffiti. The side doors were of plexiglass.

It could only be burned by a fire of 500 degrees centigrade. The paper said.

"We never said that they couldn't be broken," spokesman Erik Franc told Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad. "When you say something like that, you just provoke the youth."


Actually, the company's website pretty clearly claims to have developed "hufterproof" bus stops.

"The first "hufterproof" bus stops were placed in Binnenmaas on Oct. 12. The police of this municipality went crazy on the bus stop with rocks and baseball bats and it withstood the trial with great success!"

So, to their credit, they did use "smart" quotation marks around the word "hufterproof."
On the other hand, company employees also appeared saying the bus stops were invincible on youth television program "BNN."
(nieuws.nl)

According to the paper, now Havadi is going to try adding a fireproof material.
MORE

Back to School: Omnia Vanitas or Omnis Vanitas?

Flurtissimo:

Your Asterix and Obelix comic was right of course, the quote from the Vulgate bible (Ecclesiastes) is: "Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas," famously translated in the King James Bible as "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."

Lots of people don't like that translation anymore because the Elizabethan (okay, Jamesean) era language has drifted away from modern usage.

Wikipedia:

The word translated senseless, הבל (hevel), literally means vapor, breath. Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) uses it metaphorically, and its precise meaning is extensively debated. Older English translations often render it 'vanity'. Because in modern usage this word has often come to mean "self-pride," losing its Latinate connotation of emptiness, some translators have abandoned it. Other translations include empty, futile, meaningless, absurd, fleeting or senseless. Some translations use the literal rendering 'vapor of vapors' and so claim to leave the interpretation to the reader.

I actually like the King James version.
But leave it to a pretentious punk like me to challenge the vulgate Latin!

*Flashback to school*

(Monty Python: Romani ite domum!)



I learned a little Latin (little Latin, less Greek) in college, and as the saying goes, 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.'

Latin is leaving out the verbs, which should be "Vanitas vanitatum (est), omnia vanitas (sunt)."

I've got no quarrel with the first part, 'Vanity is made up of vanities.'

But focus in on the second phrase, "Omnia vanitas (sunt)."

For "omnia" _ "all things" _ to be the subject, it has to be neuter plural (see table at the very bottom of the post if you're interested). But if that's true, and it's the subject, shouldn't the last word ("vanitas") also be neuter plural? Because it ain't.

Here's some Latin grammar page I pulled up:

The verb “to be” (“sum”) is such a verb. It merely couples the subject with some other noun, or an adjective. For example, “Catherine is the queen (noun)” or, “Catherine is old (adjective).” Hence “sum” is called a COPULATIVE VERB. The nouns and adjectives that are coupled to the subject are called PREDICATE NOMINATIVES, to distinguish them from the typical nominative, the subject of the sentence. When you translate, make sure that the adjective on one side of the copulative verb “sum” is the same gender, number, and case as the noun on the other side. For instance, “Femina est antiqua”; “vir est antiquus; “feminae sunt antiquae.”

So if Omnia is the subject it should "agree" in number and gender with the form of "vanity" that you use.

If it were Omnis Vanitas, as I put it, no problem: "All is Vanity."

But Omnia Vanitas seems to say "All things (plural) IS Vanity (singular)."

Where I come from, you have to say "All thing ARE Vanity."

To make them both plural, it would need to be "Omnia Vanitatia"
or at least "Omnes Vanitates"??

In sum, I don't get it.

This is why I was never that good in Latin.

Latinists out there? Have I discovered a huge error in the Vulgate bible that millions of people have overlooked all these years?

I have the sneaking suspicion the answer is: no.

Maybe "all things" can be considered to be some kind of group single. Like: The United States IS big.

Or maybe it's some "Church Latin" thing. I hate church Latin.

At any rate, I'm damn well not going to change it on my web page until somebody explains to me why I'm wrong.

I will be once again amazed at the power of the Internet if that actually happens.



***

As a footnote, I came across a nice Disraeli quote while trying to figure this out.

"There is a great mistake in the Vulgate. . .the Latin
translation of the Holy Scriptures, and that is that instead
of saying “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity” – Vanitas
vanitatum, omnia vanitas, the wise and witty king (Solomon)
really said, Sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas. Gentlemen,
it is impossible to overrate the importance of the
subject. After all, the first consideration of a
Minister should be the health of the people."

-Benjamin Disraeli, 1872.

(Here are the tables, sorry if they're not displaying correctly. I tried)

Declension of omnis, omnis, omne

masculine feminine neuter

(singular)

nominative omnis omnis omne
genitive omnis omnis omnis
dative omni omni omni
accusative omnem omnem omne
ablative omni omni omni

(plural)

nominative omnes omnes omnia
genitive omnium omnium omnium
dative omnibus omnibus omnibus
accusative omnes omnes omnia
ablative omnibus omnibus omnibus


Unfortunately, I had to do the declension of Vanitas (-atis 3f., a regular noun). myself, since I can't find it on the web. The masculine/feminine nominative plural is Vanitates, and the neuter is Vanitatia.

Masculine/Feminine Neuter

Nominative: Vanitas Vanitas
Genitive: Vanitatis Vanitatis
Dative: Vanitati Vanitati
Accusative: Vanitatem Vanitatem
Ablative: Vanitati Vanitati
(plural)
Nominative: Vanitates Vanitatia
Genitive: Vanitatium Vanitatium
Dative: Vanitatibus Vanitatibus
Accusative: Vanitates Vanitatia
Ablative: Vanitatibus Vanitatibus

MORE

Vanity prompts Journalists to Blog

(photo:zen)
An interesting article in The Observer, saying that basically the reason journalists are keeping or launching blogs is to promote themselves as a brand apart from their organizations.

True of me? I have several reasons for doing this:
First, to be able to talk a little bit about things other than stuff I can write about professionally. But I don't think it would work if a lot of people were looking here (it averages about 20 hits a day, about half Dutch and half U.S. or British visitors). So a little bit of a creative outlet.
Second, to communicate with people other than my friends and family about what I'm doing, and maybe reap some criticism or suggestions. In other words, looking for some feedback, but I'm not getting much of that either. (I'm thankful, though, for what I do get!).
Third, as a partial "record" _ links _ to some of what I'm doing professionally, so that it's collected in one place and doesn't totally disappear into the ether.
Fourth, self-education, especially about the technology. Tinkering with the HTML, editing clips, learning to take photos, etc.

All of those reasons are vain at some level. But then, Omnis Vanitas.

But as far as "personal branding" _ not so much. I intentionally avoid mentioning my employer here, in order to make it clear this is something separate. I'm pretty sure I'd be nowhere as a journalist without a big organization behind me, and my value to my employer is as an 'anonymous' hard worker; and I can't imagine an inherently self-limiting (see: Dylan posts) blog would make a difference in that regard.

Anyway, I think I'll always be employable *somewhere* after 9 years working for "the wires."

(photo: meredith_farmer)

In more vanity news,
I'm the new secretary of the BPV, de Buitenlandse Persvereiniging, also known as the Netherlands' Foreign Press Association.

***

Alleen voor de nederlanders:

hier te lezen op: "Villa Media" De Journalist. Tien woorden, en ze hebben een typefoutje gemaakt in mijn naam.

De Buitenlandse Persvereniging (BPV) in Nederland heeft een nieuw bestuur. Tijdens de algemene ledenvergadering werd verkozen tot voorzitter de Duitse correspondente Kerstin Schweighöfer (werkzaam voor FOCUS, DEUTSCHLANDFUNK en ARD-radio’s). Vice-voorzitter is de Zwitserse Elsbeth Gugger (Zwitserse Publieke Omroep Radio DRS, Tages-Anzeiger). De Amerikaan Toby Sperling (AP) is de nieuwe BPV-secretaris. Zijn landgenoot Douglas Heingartner (New York Times, The Economist) blijft penningmeester. En de Roemeense Claudia Marcu (Roemeense Publieke Radio) zorgt ook in 2008 voor de ledenadministratie. Verder zitten in het bestuur de Russische journalist Andrei Poskakukhin (RIA Novosti) en zijn Spaanse collega Isabel Ferrer (El País).

Hahahahaha ten minste niet "Toby Sperming."

Trouwens, ik ben ook nu een keer in de maand te hooren op "Desmet Live," 747AM of www.desmetlive.nl. Een segment over buitenlandse correspondenten in Nederland. Omgeveer 6uur, eerstevolgende zijn 13 november en 4 december.


MORE