Chain of Thoughts: Most Interesting Details (So Far) About the 'All-New, All-Different' Marvel Universe

Based on the information from the previews that Marvel has officially released, as well as from the recent leaks of the titles shipping in October, we now have a general idea on what the new, post-Secret Wars Marvel Universe will look like.  And I’m really looking forward to it.  Personally, I’m enjoying this Secret Wars mega-event so far, but I really can’t wait for the new status quo to arrive.  Here are what intrigues and/or excites me the most about the “All-New, All-Different” Marvel Universe:

    

 

→ Deadpool finally gets an Avengers gig!

→ There are three Avengers teams.  Now, this isn’t the first time that there are multiple, independent Avengers teams, but I’m nonetheless intrigued by the new Avengers dynamic.

→ A rift seems to have happened between Steve Rogers and Sam Wilson, and I guess their respective teams – Uncanny and All-New, All-Different respectively – will have some sort of rivalry.  And, yet, I think these two teams will nonetheless be allied and/or centralized somewhat since the Avengers lineup featured in Rage of Ultron graphic novel – which was obviously set in the new Marvel Universe – were made up of members of both Avengers teams.

→ Meanwhile, over at the New Avengers lineup, I’m happy that some prominent Young Avengers are finally graduating into Avengers, and that A.I.M. (which Sunspot bought pre-Secret Wars) will seemingly play “support” for this team.

→ Aside from Avengers, an “Ultimates” – which was originally the name of the Ultimate Universe’s version of the Avengers – team is also interestingly existing in the new Marvel Universe.

→ And -- Whoa! Galactus is in this new Ultimates’ line-up????!!!

→ The Justice League is coming to the Marvel Universe… sort of.  This amalgam of the Justice League has been around for quite some time already and has undergone different incarnations (and this new Squadron Supreme team is going to be composed of members from these different incarnations), but, I think, this is the first time that a Squadron Supreme team is having this kind of prominence.  And I approve.
→ All that said, I prefer for Hyperion to stay with the Avengers. 

→ Having an “Ultimates” team and a “Justice League” (a.k.a. Squadron Supreme) team co-existing with the Avengers in the same universe is a funny but fascinating editorial decision.

→ Spider-Woman is pregnant.  Of course, the first question that pops to mind is “Who’s the father?”

→ There’s still no concrete confirmation that Tony Stark is still the person behind the Iron Man armor, but my curiosity about it is minimal compared to my curiosity on the identity of the new Hulk.  I just feel that the reveal about the latter is going to be bigger, more mindblowing than the former (it could still be Tony Stark after all).  And the way Marvel is handling it, it seems that it’s going to be a secret until, at least, a day before the book is released.

→ And why is the left arm hidden along with the face?  Is that a clue to his identity?  Is he someone with an amputated left arm? Bucky Barnes?  Thor Odinson?  Daken? 

→ We know that the Thing will become a member of the Guardians of the Galaxy, and the Human Torch is going to hang around with the Inhumans.  But the Richards family – Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman, Valeria, and Franklin – as well as the Future Foundation members seem to be MIA.

→ Other notable MIA characters are the Punisher, Loki, Red Hulk, Moon Knight, Ghost Rider, Luke Cage, Nick Fury, and Black Widow.

→ Gambit is Daredevil’s new sidekick?!  It’s not confirmed yet, but the guy with Daredevil in the preview really looks like Gambit.  If true, Gambit as Daredevil’s apprentice is plain crazy!

→ There will be multiple versions of a character existing simultaneously in the All-New, All-Different Marvel Universe.  The time-displaced original, teenage X-Men are still around, so there should be teenage and adult versions of Cyclops (the elder is confirmed to be MIA eight months post-Secret Wars), Angel, Beast, and Ice Man (adult Jean Grey is, apparently, still dead).  A new female Star-Lord – which some mentioned is going to be Kitty Pryde – is part of the new Rocket Racoon-led Guardians of the Galaxy, but Peter Quill is still around and in a solo series.  There have always been two Hawkeyes and Human Torches.  There will be more than one Wolverine and Spider-Man.  And I believe there are going to be other cases.  It’s no big deal for regular fans, but new and casual readers might find this confusing.

→ Old Man Logan – who will be getting a solo series and be part of an X-Men team – is joining the Marvel Universe, and along with X-23, they will now serve as the Wolverines of the Marvel Universe (after the original was killed off last year).  I’m not yet sure if this concept will work, but I really find it cool and unique.

→ Miles Morales is joining the Marvel Universe.  Hence, there will be now two different Spider-Men runningswinging around.  Three, if Miguel O’Hara remains stranded in the present timeline.

→ The existence of Web Warriors – a new series featuring the Secret Wars’ Spider-Verse line-up – is strong proof that a Marvel multiverse will still exist post-Secret Wars.

→ Also, will we ever know what Peter discovered when he Googled Miles at the end of Spider-Men?

→ “Big Time” was the title given to The Amazing Spider-Man’s run of storylines from 2010-2011 due to the fact that Peter Parker – whose financial woes had been part of the character’s status quo from the start until that point – finally got a high-paying job as a scientist/researcher/inventor for Horizon Labs.  But this post-Secret Wars status quo of Peter Parker is definitely the real moment wherein the character hit “big time.”  He’s now going to be a rich, successful businessman/inventor, and Parker Industries – which came to being while Otto Octavius occupied his body – will become a flourishing multinational company.  Basically, Peter Parker is going to be the new Tony Stark – but more wholesome and light-hearted and awesome.

→ I’m happy about Peter Parker’s good fortune.  Those like me that grew up on Spider-Man – following Peter Parker’s struggling with a continuous barrage of problems – have learned to deeply sympathize with the character.  Yes, this aspect really made the character more relatable and appealing, but we nevertheless wished that he would eventually catch a break as well.  That’s why we rejoiced when he was employed at Horizon Labs, and are now rejoicing about Peter Parker’s post-Secret Wars status quo.  This is something earned after years of struggling with life problems.

→ Besides, though he’s now rich, I’m pretty sure the notorious (but charming) “Parker luck” will continue to come at play to make life difficult for him.

→ Moreover, we have Miles Morales around now to play the part of the classic “dealing with life problems” Spider-Man.
→ In addition, the classic, ludicrous Spider-Mobile is coming back.  Now, I find this silly, but I’m nonetheless very intrigued.  To see this in action is reason enough why I can’t wait for the debut of the All-New, All-Different Marvel Universe.    

Read More

The Date Is Wrong, But Let's Enjoy Our Independence Day Nonetheless (While We Still Can)

Art found on the back of the obsolete five peso bill depicts the June 12, 1989 declaration of independence.  Yep, I was alive already when this was still being circulated.

Today is supposed to be the Philippines’ 117^th Independence Day.  But it’s a misleading statement.  The Philippines isn’t really 117 years independent.  When Emilio Aguinaldo gathered his supporters at his home in Kawit, Cavite on June 12, 1898 to declare the Philippines’ independence, he intended it to be a means to direct other nations to recognize the independence of the country.  However, this didn’t accomplish anything, as neither Spain nor the United States recognized Philippine independence.  To add insult to injury, Spain transferred the Philippines to United States’ control through the 1898 Treaty of Paris.  So, basically, the declaration of independence on June 12, 1898 didn’t have any actual substance.

That’s why I don’t think celebrating Independence Day on June 12 is proper.  It felt kind of delusional if we think that Aguinaldo’s declaration of independence on June 12, 1898 actually contributed in giving the Philippines independence.  Personally, I think that the more rightful date to celebrate our Independence Day is on July 4^th, since it was only on July 4, 1946 that the Philippines actually received a de facto, self-ruling identity for the first time.  In fact, for some time, our Independence Day was correctly celebrated on the 4^th of July, while June 12 was reserved for Flag Day.  However, for a reason that perplexes me, Diosdado Macapagal thought it a brilliant idea to declare in 1964 that June 12 is the appropriate date to celebrate our Independence Day.  He argued that since it’s the date when the Filipinos declared and exercised their “right to self-determination, liberty and independence”, and that it was a “legitimate assertion by the Filipino nation of their natural and inalienable claim to freedom and independence”, then it was only right to commemorate that date as the Philippines’ Independence Day.

For years, this bugged me.  Just saying something to be true without it being an actual reality doesn’t make it true.  It’s pretty basic.  When the Philippines said it was an independent country in 1898, but it really wasn’t in reality, then it wasn’t.  It would have been another story if the June 12, 1898 declaration has a direct influence in bringing about a legitimate independence happening on a future date.  But it didn’t.  After declaring independence, the Philippines didn’t have actual independence until nearly half a century later.  The Americans and the Japanese ruled the Philippines during that span.  And when we finally got our independence, it was something given to us by the Americans – we didn’t really win it.  Aguinaldo’s declaring Philippine independence on June 12, 1898 had nothing to do with that happening.  So, no, June 12 is not a better date than July 4.

Nevertheless, regardless of my issue with the date, I do value Independence Day.  It’s a holiday after all.  But, more than that, it is nice to reflect on the value of having freedom.  I’m grateful that I wasn’t born in an era wherein, being a Filipino, I could be forcibly asked to do hard labor without payment through polo y servicio.  Or have an encomendero lawfully exact excessive taxes from me or take my property by whim.  Or be tortured or beheaded by the Kempeitai.  Or witness the women I know and love be raped by Japanese soldiers.  Yes, I am actually blessed and fortunate to live in a time wherein the greatest bane of being a Filipino is just having corrupt politicians in our government (no sarcasm… okay, maybe a bit).  And Independence Day makes me realize that.

So we Filipinos really need to enjoy and appreciate our Independence Day.  Especially considering the fact that the looming possibility of Chinese invasion is just around the corner, and we might not enjoy our independence for long (LOL.  I hope I’m just overthinking it.  But the likelihood can’t really be dismissed easily).  Independence and freedom are things that shouldn’t be taken for granted.

Happy Independence Day, everyone!  117 might not be the actual years the Philippines are genuinely independent and free, but, at the very least, I pray the country will enjoy 117 years more of being so.

Read More

‘Legends of Tomorrow’ Trailer Incites Excitement

The Legends of Tomorrow trailer just came out a few days ago.  And I was blown away.  With the goodwill that its parent shows, Arrow and The Flash, have established, I was already sure to watch this from episode one.  But because of the trailer, I’m now really excited for it.

Constantine is cancelled, Gothamis awfully stupid (glad I stopped watching it early), and Supergirl(which had a recent trailer as well) isn’t looking too promising (but I will still give it a try).  But with Legends of Tomorrow to join Arrow and The Flash, I think that DC’s TV series line-up is enough to keep Marvel’s small screen surge at bay for a while.  And I approve of the competition.  These two trying to out-do each other in adapting their properties in the small screen (and big screen) will only mean that us fans are going to be the winners.

Anyway, Legends of Tomorrow is a truly intriguing and original show.  Yes, the characters are adapted from DC comics, but the team and premise have no concrete comic book connections.  There is no “Legends of Tomorrow” team in comics, and it is in this show that this unlikely roster of characters will get to team up for the first time.  Thus, this is the most unique thing happening in the DC TV universe.

I love how villains Captain Cold and Heatwave are part of the team.  In the comics, Cold and his rogues are “crooks with a code”, only concerned in profiting from “honest” crimes like robbery and burglary, that when the fate of the world is at stake, it is more likely for them to team up with the heroes to save it than fight against them.  I appreciate how this facet – as implied by Cold and Heatwave’s inclusion to the team – is being translated into the TV universe.  This provides a genuinely interesting dynamic for the team.

But above anything else, my most favorite thing about this show is…

Caity Lotz was fantastic as Sarah Lance and being the original Black Canary in Arrow.  As a comic book fan, I wasn’t surprised when Katie Cassidy’s Laurel Lance was eventually made into the Black Canary in Arrow (in the comics, the real name of Black Canary is Dinah Laurel Lance after all), but, at that point, it was already apparent that Laurel is an inferior, annoying character (though she gradually improved in the latter part of Arrow’s third season) while Sarah is just plain awesome that I prefer for Sarah to remain as Black Canary.  Hence, when the character was killed off, I was pissed and heartbroken.  So, ever since it was being mentioned during this spin-off’s early days of development that Caity Lotz is going to be part of the main cast, my want for this show to happen is 150% affirmative.  I want Sarah Lance back to life so bad.  Hence, I’m so elated that this trailer confirmed that she’ll really be back via Lazarus Pit.  I don’t even care that the name “White Canary” originally belongs to a Birds of Preyvillainess – that can easily be retconned (and bring Sarah Lance to the comics).

Sarah Lance – and the rest of Legends of Tomorrow – will kick butt in January 2016.  Yep, still several months away, unfortunately.

Read More

Insane Theory: Natalie Portman Is Going to Be the Next Thor

When it was announced last year, as part of Avengers NOW!, that a female will not only assume Thor’s powers and Mjolnir but his name as well, I wasn’t particularly sold on the whole idea.  I argued in a past post that “Thor” is much of a definitive male name as “Spider-Man”, and letting a female assume the “Thor” name will make as less sense as Carlie Cooper assuming the name of “Spider-Man.” 

But, now, eight Thor issues later (and a couple of appearances in other books), I found the character so likable that I’m prepared to overlook the problem with the character name’s gender semantics.  Of course, if this were Spider-Man, I would have been greatly pissed (and I was, when Otto Octavius became the Superior Spider-Man) of the status quo change even if everything was done compellingly.  I do am a Thor fan, but not as deeply as I am a Spidey fan to passionately mind it.

One of my favorite 2015 comic book moments so far

Hours ago (as of writing), it was finally revealed that this new Thor is Jane Foster, and the first thought that came to my mind is --
NATALIE PORTMAN SHOULD DEFINITELY BECOME THE NEXT THOR IN THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE!

Natalie Portman – who plays Jane Foster in the MCU – is a smart, brilliant, Oscar-winning actress (and one my most favorite actresses ever).  When the first Thor movie came out, an observation made by some critics was that Portman was overqualified to play the role of a mere “love-interest character” as Jane Foster (and going gaga for Chris Hemsworth’s abs).  There was an understandable bafflement with Marvel’s casting choice.  Now, think about it: what if an actress of Portman’s caliber was cast for Jane Foster because the plan all along was for her to inherit the mantle of Thor from Chris Hemsworth?  Crazy, unlikely theory, I know, but there’s also some sense in it. 

Moreover, back in 2013, while being interviewed for Thor: Dark World, Portman teased:

“There are definitely many strong women [in the MCU], but it will be exciting when there is a central female character which I think is coming – I have heard is coming…”

Was she merely referring to the Captain Marvel movie (this was long before an official announcement)?  Was it just a coincidence that it was her that announced of “hearing” such project in the works?  Or could it be that she was already aware of Marvel’s plans for her character?  Was she already in talks of becoming the next MCU’s Thor?   Very intriguing questions.    

Regardless of it being Marvel’s plan or not, it’s something I really want to see.  I know that Hemsworth is at his peak right now, but, seriously, a choice between him continuing as Thor or seeing the female Thor – as to be portrayed by Portman – being adapted into the big screen is a no contest.  The latter scenario is just much more exciting!   (Besides Hemsworth could still hang around, but, as with the comics, he is no longer the central character, and instead of wielding Mjolnir, he would have Jarnbjorn as weapon.)   

If Natalie Portman’s Jane Foster becoming Thor isn’t actually in the plot of Thor: Ragnarok, well, it should be.  Make it happen, Marvel!    

Read More

What Can Christians Learn from Spider-Man

Jesus Christ is the ultimate standard of every Christian.  But through our earthly heroes – whether real or fictional – we receive reflections of the good and praiseworthy qualities that we can fully see in Jesus Christ.  And, at the same time, the good and praiseworthy qualities that we find in our heroes – real or fictional – are traced back or projected towards our admiration of the supreme worth of Jesus Christ. 

As far as I can remember, Spider-Man has always been one of my most favorite fictional characters ever.  However, it’s not only because of the coolness and uniqueness of the character that I get to love Spider-Man but, most importantly, because of the admirable qualities that make him a genuine role model despite of being a fictional character.  And Christians can learn some really deep lessons from Spider-Man. 

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY

Let’s start with the most obvious – Spidey’s iconic motto: “With great power comes great responsibility.”  From what I’ve written about it before:

It simply means that responsibility always accompanies power, and the amount of responsibility is directly proportional to the amount of power; hence, the greater the power, the greater the responsibility.  And what is this responsibility?  To do the right thing, of course!  If you found yourself possessing the capability or are in the position to do the right thing, then you should do it.  Or as Martin Sheen (as Uncle Ben in 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man) put it, “…if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things.  That's what at stake here.  Not a choice, responsibility.”

Therefore, if Spidey is put in a situation where he knows he can do something good, he jumps into it with no hesitation.  When facing a difficult choice, but it’s apparent that it’s the right thing to do, he will still choose it.  He takes responsibility of the good he could do with the power he found himself having.      

In the same way, we Christians have been given much “power” (2 Timothy 1:7, Acts 1:8, Philippians 4:13, Ephesians 3:20, Luke 10:19, etc.), hence, we should act on the “responsibility” that has been entrusted to us (Matthew 28:19, Matthew 5:13-16, Luke 10:30-37, Hebrews 10:24, Titus 2:7-9, etc.).  Nonetheless, we should not think that we have to immediately go “save the world” (besides, saving the world was Jesus’ job, not ours).  Yes, Spider-Man has been instrumental or has contributed to saving the world a couple of times.  But it’s only because of his consistent willingness to take responsibility and do his best in every chance he can do good that he developed the moral instinct and preparedness to do good in whatever scenario, regardless of being big or small in scale.  Likewise, we should just do the best we can in doing good whenever the opportunity or situation calls for it – whether it be small or big (Luke 16: 10).

DO THE RIGHT THING.  NO MATTER WHAT.

An integral facet established by Spider-Man co-creator, Stan Lee, for the character to make him relatable is how his alter ego, Peter Parker, is constantly struggling with personal troubles such as financial difficulties and getting bullied (especially during his earlier days).  Moreover, his personal life is even affected negatively because of prioritizing the good he does as Spider-Man – he’s always late on appointments and school, benefits and opportunities are sacrificed, and even his relationships with the important people in his life suffer.  It’s as if he can’t catch a break.  What’s even worse is, due to the works of haters like J. Jonah Jameson, any good that he does is unappreciated by the public as he’s branded as a “menace.”  But regardless of the circumstance he’s in or any consequences it might cost him personally, he makes no excuses and he will do the right thing at every opportunity. 

Facing difficulties is always part of being a Christian.   But even in the midst of whatever degree or form of difficulties, just as Spider-Man constantly brings justice to the being of his Spider-Man identity, we should likewise constantly uphold our Christian identity.  We, Christians, are to obey Christ’s commandments and pursue God’s glory in all things.  With the same consistency and selflessness that Spider-Man displays in doing the right thing, so should we likewise display in doing right in every situation.  No.  Matter.  What. 

Doing the right thing is often not easy.  There will be times we will be sacrificing a personal benefit or advantage.  And there will be times that a good deed will go unappreciated.  And there will be even times when the right thing to do is an unpopular one.  But we learn from Spider-Man that we ought to do the right thing, no matter how hard it proves to be. 

For us Christians, if it’s worth doing for God’s glory, then we need to do it.  Even at the point of death (Revelations 2:10).            

PRESS ON.  NO MATTER WHAT.   

Spider-Man displays inspiring resiliency.  Whatever antagonisms and difficulties he faces as both Spider-Man and Peter Parker, he continues to fight on.  He will do the best that he can in any situation to do the right thing and to overcome the challenges in front of him.

But he does fall sometimes.  He gets discouraged.  There are times he wishes that he never became Spider-Man.  There are times that he wants to quit – or even had quit.  Despite the spider-powers, he is human after all and subject to human failings.  However, he never permanently stays down.  He eventually rises back to his feet.  Stronger than ever.  He presses onwards.  He continues being Spider-Man.    

Resiliency – and, most importantly, faithfulness – in all circumstances is necessary for a Christian.  In discussing my life slogan, “Keep Calm and Press On”, I wrote, with regards to Philippians 3:7-14:

Despite the tremendous amount of hardships and struggles that he had undergone in his life, Paul remained enthusiastic, resolute, and kept moving forward.  Why?  For he understood the great value of this future prize that God has set for him in Heaven, and that no earthly pleasure or glory can ever come close in matching that.  So he worked hard for the glory of God – storing riches in Heaven that will last for eternity – rather than seeking earthly pleasures and glory that are all temporary anyway.  In everything, he gave it his all, no matter what.  He knew that every sacrifice, every pain, every drop of effort, is going to be worth it; the glory and happiness that he would receive as reward far outweigh the sufferings that he experienced in this world while working for God’s glory.

While Spider-Man probably only has a noble – but incomplete – sense of altruism that keeps him fighting, Christians have the advantage of having an infinitely valuable Heavenly Prize to look forward to – a Reward that will more than make up for all sacrifices done in this world.  Hence, don’t Christians have more reason to fight for?  Don’t Christians have more reason to be resilient about?  Don’t Christians have more reason to rise up after falling?  Don’t Christians have more reason to press onwards?  Don’t Christians have more reason to continue upholding their Christian identity? 

BE JOYFUL.  NO MATTER WHAT. 

With the many problems that he experiences in his life, and with his strong sense of duty of doing right no matter what, it would come to no surprise if he ended up being a burdened and grave superhero.  But, ironically, he is quite the opposite.  Spider-Man is one of the most joyful superheroes around.  Yes, there are some times that he feels that being Spider-Man is a curse, but as I’ve mentioned earlier, he eventually gets over his brooding.  Most of the time, he enjoys being Spider-Man and delights in what he does.  And that is reflected on his cheerful, goofy attitude when he goes around doing his Spider-Man duties. 

In the same way, despite the hardships, there is much to rejoice about as a Christian (1 Peter 1:8, Philippians 4:4, Luke 10:20, etc.).  I no longer need to go at length discussing how or in what ways.  Yes, we have crosses to bear (Luke 9:23), and pain and struggles will always be part of the Christian life, but there is much joy in the presence of Christ.  And it should be apparent for the world to see as we live out our Christian identity and do our Christian duties.

Read More

China's Invasion of the Philippines Will Happen in Our Lifetime

Satellite photo of the development of a Chinese military base in the West Philippine Sea

I have joked in the past that the Philippines is more or less ready for Chinese occupation due to the reality that most of our rich people have Chinese ancestry and surnames, numerous Chinese temples are scattered across the country, and Filipinos are fond of buying cheap, China-made knockoffs.  But, seriously, I extremely hate to see a Chinese invasion happening – to have the Philippines go to war with China, lose, and be occupied.  It’s a troubling scenario. 

Besides, if the Philippines will go to war, I will be probably be drawn to the conflict – whether by being conscripted to the Philippine military, or helping in the resistance.  It’s something I’m not particularly equipped for.  I’m awfully out of shape.  And after experiencing riding or witnessing some rides in Enchanted Kingdom about a year and a half ago, I learned that I’m pathetic in facing life-threatening danger.  I will arguably be useless in a fight.

I wish I’m just fooling around with the title of this article.  But there’s half of me that really believes the Chinese will make a move to invade us.  Probably not soon.  But maybe within the next two decades.  Yes, China has been historically controversially aggressive, but it seems that the communist country has been more so recently.  Sure, other countries are presently threatened by China, too.  But, looking at the signs being shown by our current status quo, if ever China decides to go an invasion spree, the Philippines is the likeliest first target.        

For years, China has constantly disrespected the sovereignty and boundaries of the Philippines.  But its recent construction of artificial islands and military bases within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone is its most disturbing action so far.  Some of those bases are only a little bit over a hundred kilometers away from Philippine mainland!  If ever China decides to invade the Philippines, its military logistics will easily flow through those military bases as entry points.  Definitely, China’s behavior is a clear prelude to invasion.  In fact, by clear violation of the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone set by UNCLOS, it is already, technically, an invasion.        

This issue regarding China’s penetration into Philippine waters and its building of military bases should be dealt with ASAP.  I’m a bit upset that there seems to be a general ignorance and apathy about the matter, not only in the international community, but among Filipinos as well.  It is a matter that I believe deserves everyone’s utmost attention and should be addressed urgently.  Here are some things that I would like to see happen right now:      

Filipinos should be more attentive regarding the matter.  I understand that our country is dealing with countless problems internally.  But I still believe that the issue with China deserves a top priority.  I hope that the Philippine government and media will provide the attention that the issue deserves.  How can other nations see the urgency and magnitude of the problem if we Filipinos aren’t giving it the concern it deserves?  I understand that P-Noy wants to leave a great legacy.  And there’s probably no greater legacy than managing to address this matter, or at least, laying the groundwork for the next president to do it.

The Philippines should start lobbying for other countries’ support.  If the Philippines fall, other countries in the region is also open to invasion.  As early as now, the Philippines and other countries (India, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc.) that have problems with China should openly declare an alliance already.  I want all these countries to strongly imply that they will gang up on China if necessary.

Strong reassurance from the US.  Our main military ally is the US.  The US promised that it will take military response if China continues to push its aggressiveness.  But, more than this, I hope the US will tangibly provide military assistance now by giving (or loaning) the Philippines a couple of modern military hardware.  A couple of drones, especially.  Such gesture will not only provide us some valuable weapons when time comes, but it will send the message to China that the US is committed on aiding us if they continue their aggressiveness.  In fact, I wouldn’t even mind if the Philippine government will officially declare what the Chinese are doing now is an invasion (which technically is exactly that anyway) and then request US aid in destroying those bases.

A US military base in Mindanao.  It has always been one of my realistic – because I also have a couple of far-fetched ones – dreams for this country, up there with a modern rail system operating in Luzon.  Let that sink in.  Think of the huge effect that a US military base will provide.

The US and the UN declaring an ultimatum for China to remove those bases.  If China refuses to comply, sanctions should be given.  The Philippines had already filed a case against China in the world court.  This case is a sure win for the Philippines (since simple common sense shows that China is at fault here), but China has made it clear that they won’t adhere to any decision in favor of the Philippines.  UN should grow a pair, and make a clear, firm statement right now of the actions they will take to enforce their ruling on the matter.

Diplomacy and taking legal action – which are the only things the Philippines is doing at the present – are of course the ideal ways to resolve this.  But the Philippines should, at this point, seriously consider what should be done once this channel is exhausted.  I’m not asking the Philippines to make a strong, hasty mobilization for war against China right now (besides, we don’t have the firepower to back it up).  But I believe it is necessary for the Philippines to relay the message that, regardless of our limited capability, we are prepared to make a move and destroy those Chinese bases once UN makes a resolution regarding the matter and China refuses to comply.  Moreover – and most importantly, because we can’t do this alone – the Philippines should also actively request the UN, the US, and our other allies to make official statements and pledges on what they intend to do if China will choose to disregard UN decision and continue their aggressive behavior.             

There’s the saying, “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”  China’s bases within Philippine waters are the metaphorical “inch” we can’t afford to yield.  Therefore, what I would really like to see is for the Philippines to prioritize this matter and make substantial, calculated moves right now.  We should not wait until China is already comfortably positioned to take the metaphorical “mile.”    

Read More

Chain of Thoughts: February's 'Spider-Man' Happenings

Last February was a big Spider-Man month.  First, the epic “Spider-Verse” concluded. Second – and most importantly – Marvel and Sony reached a deal to bring Spider-Man to the Marvel Cinematic Universe!   Here are my musings…

Part 1: Spider-Verse

→ “Spider-Verse” wasn’t perfect.  But it had a lot of good things going for it.  I greatly enjoyed the premise and the story, and I’m mostly satisfied with how everything unfolded.  Seeing all of those Spider-Men (and –Women) banding together was awesome.   However, I don’t believe that it made true to its promise to feature “every Spider-Man” ever.  But I have to give props to Dan Slott and his people, for it was obvious that they truly tried.  There were plenty of delightful surprise participants. 

Example: Supaidāman and Leopardon!

→ I also appreciated a lot the inclusion of the cartoon-y, lighter versions of Spider-Man – like Spider-Ham, the Spider-Man from the Hostess snack ads back in the 70’s and 80’s, the Spider-Man from Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends (there were many deaths among the ranks of alternate Spider-Men but this one was what disturbed me most), the Spider-Man from the campy 60’s animated series version, the lil' Spider-Man from Bullpen Bits/Mini Marvel (just a cameo though), the Spider-Man from the popular Capcom crossover arcade games, the newspaper strip Spider-Man, and the Spider-Man from the Ultimate Spider-Man TV series.

→ Too bad that Marvel’s Sony deal couldn’t have happened earlier (or the Spider-Verse story couldn’t have happened later) for it prevented the use of the Spider-Man from the awesome Spectacular Spider-Man TV series(which, if I understand it right, is co-owned by Sony).  The writers, however, used a clever approach in referencing the cinematic versions of Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield.

Along with a mention of the Spider-Man: Turn of the Dark version

→ It seemed that the Spider-Man from the awesome 90’s animated series was not included (if he was, I haven’t caught sight of him).  Even if I’ve always had the skepticism in me of the truthfulness of the claim that all Spider-Men will make an appearance, I was still surprised that that version was not given a part in the story.       

→ I acknowledge that the featured “Spider” characters have been extensive already.  But I was really expecting a Spider-Army of Captain Britain Corps proportions, especially in the climactic battle.  But the mass of the Spider-Army – which I presume were the recruits of Miles Morales’ team (his was the only logical contingent that could have brought all those Spidey cameos in the final battle) – were mere “glimpses” during the chaos.  The ambiguity of the attendance and quantity of the different Spider-Men in the final battle was likely to be Slott’s way of implying that “every Spider-Men ever” were participating in the climactic battle.  It’s kind of disappointing, really.

The best look of the assembled Spider-Army during the final battle was from Spider-Verse #2.       

→ My biggest nitpick with “Spider-Verse”, however, is that my most favorite alternate version of Spider-Man – Spider-Man Noir – was sidelined early in the game.  Bummer. 

→ At the end of “Spider-Verse”, what does Otto’s instruction to his Anna Marie AI mean?  Did Otto Octavius prepare a contingency plan to reclaim Peter Parker’s body?  Will it activate after a hundred days?  Is SpOck or Dr. Octopus set to return?  Will I be compelled to write a series of love-hate blog posts once again?  

Uh-oh.

→ I was hoping that something awesomely creative was intended for Silk.  But being “The Bride” is not enough at all.  I still have the same issues on her as before.  If she would have been a Spider-Woman replacement for Jessica Drew, then that would have been a lot, lot better for the character.  At this point, for me, she just seems to be a gratuitous additional Spider character that made the crowd of present Spider-characters feel more crowded and contributes in the diminishment of the uniqueness of Spider-Man.  Silk, however, is popular enough to receive her own ongoing series.  Hopefully, my opinion for the character might improve during this series’ development.

It was really funny that these two still commit PDI even in the midst of their Spider brethren.

→ The Spider-Woman Gwen Stacy introduced in “Spider-Verse” was also popular enough to receive her own series.  She’s indeed an intriguing character that deserves more exposure so that her character and universe can develop further.   The only bad thing about it?  Spider-Gwen is a stupid, unimaginative title for the series.

→ Spider-Woman rocked in “Spider-Verse”, and she has her costume updated afterwards.  I’m kind of split regarding the change.  I already got used to the original look, but she definitely was in need of a costume upgrade.  Best thing about it was the banter between her and Carol Danvers as they make fun of each other’s past costume choices.

Hahahaha.            

→ In the aftermath of “Spider-Verse”, some of the Spider-Men, led by Spider-UK, decided to continue teaming up, and their adventures are going to be the basis of the Secret Wars’ spin-off series, Spider-Verse, coming later this year.  That’s cool.  I definitely want more team-ups of different Spider-Men from different universes.

Part 2: Spider-Man Joins the MCU
    

→ I got wind of the announcement that Marvel and Sony has agreed to let Spider-Man join the Marvel Cinematic Universe while browsing my Facebook newsfeed on an afternoon, after a tiring work-day.  After reading the headline, I went…

It was a surreal moment for me.  I’ve always wanted for Spidey to be in an Avengers film.  (But, to be honest, I will give this up in a heartbeat for a Spider-Verse movie instead.)

This scene is from the Avengers 2 trailer, and someone edited Spider-Man in.  Cool.

→ I’m very excited for some news on how Spider-Man will be introduced to the MCU.  But I hope that Spidey’s inclusion to Marvel’s Phase 3 plans won’t sacrifice the development schedule and quality of the originally planned Marvel movies. 

→ When announcement that it’s almost definite that the next film version of Spider-Man won’t be white, my elation transformed to horrified distress.  And it’s not a racist thing.  It’s simply an ignorant, bigoted thing for someone to accuse another of racism simply because he prefers Spider-Man to be white.  (Heck, I myself am not even white.)  It’s just that Spider-Man is my most favorite character that has originated from comics, and I just want Spider-Man to be as accurate and genuine as possible when translated into the big screen.  It is imperative that that Spider-Man should be Peter Parker because the qualities that made me love the character is essentially founded in him.   

→ The counter-argument is to point out that Peter Parker already had two different cinematic depictions before.  Well, that may be true.  But this is a different thing.  This is the first time Spider-Man will be teaming up with other Marvel heroes in the big screen, and I badly want it to be Peter Parker having this cinematic honor.  Miles Morales has to wait.

→ Of course, none of those qualities that made Peter Parker integral as Spider-Man is because he is white.  So am I good then with a non-white Peter Parker?  Still, a no.   Peter Parker/Spider-Man is such an important, iconic character that accuracy on the race is still a significant part of his individuality as much as what his sex is.  Making Peter Parker black or Hispanic makes me as uncomfortable and upset as making him a girl instead (like “Petra Parker.” Ugh).  In the same way, I will be extremely upset if Sherlock Holmes is depicted as an American woman instead of a British male (heck, I hate “Joan Watson” of Elementary, even though I find the show entertaining).  Sex and race might not be the most important substances of what makes a character special, but they are still a big part of how the character is consciously defined.  Changing the race or sex when depicting a character – especially if it’s an iconic one like Spider-Man – in another medium could take a lot out of the character.

→ So, please, please, Marvel.  Let Peter Parker be the Spider-Man of the MCU.  And white.         

Read More

Savoring the Glory of God By Means of Man-Made Pleasures

This essay is somewhat of a sequel to an essay I wrote about two years ago entitled “The Purpose of the World’s Pleasures” (I encourage you to read that one first before proceeding).  These are basically the important points of that particular essay: 

• There are, of course, sinful pleasures – things that God has explicitly commanded us to avoid.  And even innocent pleasures can tempt us to idolatry.  But the act of enjoying the world’s pleasures by itself is not automatically sinful.
• God has designed us to have desires.  And God is the Author of the world’s pleasures.  God intended for us to enjoy them.  God intended for us to be thankful for them.
• The world’s pleasures are not the ends.  The purpose of the world’s pleasures is the same as the purpose of the world’s pains: it should lead us to God.  The world’s pleasures should eventually bring us to the realization that God is the only source of Ultimate Pleasure; the world’s pleasures should help direct our innate desires to Him.  The delight found in Him is incomparable, unspeakable, and full of glory.  Pleasures given up for it and pains endured for it are all going to be infinitely worth it. 
• If we fail to seek the Pleasure beyond the world’s pleasures – settling with and prioritizing these lesser pleasures – then we dishonor God.  We pathetically give up the greatest glory for something preposterously lesser.  We are like, as the great C.S. Lewis puts it, “half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.”       
• Not all aspects of the world’s pleasures are good or helpful.  Our faith, our understanding for the purpose of pleasure, and our desire to glorify God will serve as “filters” when we are in the act of enjoying the world’s pleasures – retaining the positive, and discarding the negative.   

Now in this new essay, I will be expanding a bit more about the topic, but I will be focusing more on – as the title has made obvious – man-made pleasures. 

“Man-made pleasures”, for a better term escapes me at the moment, are all the products of human arts and mass media that we derive enjoyment from.  This includes pop culture, music, literature, gadgetries, movies, TV shows, games, etc.  In this essay, I will be arguing that God can and will use these “lesser pleasures” in revealing His infinite glory to us.  (Of course, it’s always a possibility that I err with my understanding and, thus, also err with my arguments.  I welcome correction from those wiser than me.) 

HOW TO ENJOY THE WORLD’S PLEASURES WITHOUT BEING “WORLDLY”

I have already tackled this in the previous essay.  But let me elaborate.  Let us start with what 1 Timothy 4:4-5 says:

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.

The passage provided these important points:

1. God’s Creation – which includes the world’s pleasures – is good. 
2. These are God’s gifts.  And we should receive them with thankfulness.
3. These gifts – these pleasures that God allows us to enjoy – are sanctified.  

To be “sanctified” means setting something apart or transforming something into a means or state that can and will be used to glorify God.  This applies to everything (as stated by 1 Timothy 4:4) created by God – which includes, by extension, the creations of His creatures (I’ll get to this later).  Sanctification applies to people (John 17:17, 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.); sanctification applies on other things as well: food, money, property, practices (like what early Christians did with Christmas Day, December 25, which was formerly a date for a pagan festival), etc. 

So how are these things – particularly the world’s pleasures – sanctified?  In two ways, according to 1 Timothy 4:5: God’s Word and prayer. 

Firstly, God’s Word provides us with parameters on how to enjoy the world’s pleasures (no love for money, no sex outside of marriage, no drunkenness, no idolatry, etc.) as well as the revelation that God’s glory is manifested in the physical world and that the delight we derive from them must bring us to the glory of God (Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:20, Psalm 148:1-6, Colossians 1:16, Psalm 108:5, etc.).  So our adherence to God’s standards and willingness to learn about what He has to say about these pleasures brings sanctification to our enjoyment of the world’s pleasures. 

Secondly, through prayer, we are able to acknowledge that these pleasures that God allows us to enjoy are His gifts, and thank Him sincerely for we are able to freely enjoy His blessings because Christ already paid for them (Romans 8:32).  But aside from a means to say “thank you” to God, most importantly, prayer is the way we can ask His blessing and the Holy Spirit’s guidance in being able to really see the glory of God through the world’s pleasures.  By our own, we will easily fall to temptation and idolatry.  Only God can truly prepare our hearts to enjoy the world’s pleasures in the way He intended.  Only God can truly sanctify.   

DON’T JUST “LOOK AT THE BEAM”, BUT “LOOK ALONG THE BEAM”

The Bible has made it apparent that the majesty of the physical realm – Creation – serves as “appetizers” or “signposts” that should direct us to the glory of the Creator.  As what Psalm 19:1 says of the wonders of the heavens, they “declare” the glory of God.  C.S. Lewis shared this anecdote to wonderfully illustrate how the majesty and pleasures of this world are merely pointing us to the Source of supreme majesty and pleasure:

I was standing today in the dark toolshed. The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place.  Everything else was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it. Then I moved so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.

“Looking at the beams” is settling with the world’s beauty and pleasures – hence, idolatry.  “Looking along the beams” is tracing back the “beams” of the world’s pleasures towards its Source, which is God, where supreme beauty and pleasure lie. 

BUT DOES THE FUNCTION OF THE WORLD IN POINTING TO THE GLORY OF GOD ALSO EXTEND TO MAN-MADE PLEASURES?

Absolutely. 

We are created by God in His image.  God designed us to have innate creativity, intellect, and capability of making beautiful creations in our own limited attempt to physically express or represent God’s glory, just as what the Creator did with His Creation.  Whenever we create – making the most of our God-given talents and abilities – we also “declare” the glory of God as much as what the heavens do in Psalm 19:1.  Therefore, man-made creations, are still, by extension, part of God’s Creation wherein he reveals His glory. 

Even the artistic outputs of non-believers – people who create without God consciously in mind – can still “declare” the glory of God.  Art is art, and beauty is beauty, regardless of who made it – a Christian or a non-believer.  Art and beauty are concepts invented by God, hence, ultimately, art and beauty comes from God.  Every human being – Christian or non-believer, consciously or unconsciously – deeply aches for God’s glory and is always compelled by the intuitive sense – whether he or she admits to it or not, realizes it or not – that there is Something beyond, Something bigger than what he or she can physically perceive.  Thus, human efforts and artistic outputs are still governed by a sovereign God that directs everything so that His intention of displaying His glory through physical representations – which includes man-made pleasures – comes through, regardless of the creators’ personal motivations.  A non-believing creator might have not honored God with his purpose, but, unbeknownst to him, he was nonetheless used by God to declare His glory when he exercised his creative impulses.    

The danger of a man-made pleasure is not necessarily because of the non-believer that created it.  Enjoying man-made pleasures created by non-believers is never an issue.  In this world, we always come into contact with services, products, and goods handled or built by unbelievers.  Your lunch might have been the cumulative contribution of an unbelieving farmer, an unbelieving fisherman, an unbelieving proprietor, and an unbelieving cook, and yet you still eat it.  The doctor that you have consulted about your health might be an unbeliever.  The mechanic that you went to to fix your car might be an unbeliever.  Your employer – the man providing your income – might be an unbeliever.  And so on.  It’s basically the same principle with enjoying a man-made pleasure created by an unbeliever.  God is sovereign over this world and everything we receive ultimately comes from God by using people – Christians or non-believers.           

Man-made pleasures, even those created by non-believers, are permissible to a Christian to enjoy (1 Cor. 6:12) because they are ultimately from God, and everything from God is good (1 Timothy 4:4), and God can sanctify them (1 Timothy 4:5) and make use of them to reveal His glory.  So for a Christian, someone who knows the truthful connection between the world’s pleasures and God’s glory, there is really no such thing as “secular.”  When he’s enjoying something secular by itself, like a Michael Jackson concert, it becomes sanctified when he is enjoying it with the holy purpose of seeking God’s glory – “looking along the beam” of MJ’s amazing talent. 

FICTION IS THE DEEPER REVELATION OF REALITY BY LIKENING IT TO WHAT IT IS NOT

The world’s pleasures, by stirring our sensations and emotions, arouse our deeper, inherent yearnings for greater awesome things than what we see in this world.  And, personally, outside of the complexity and loveliness of natural Creation, no other pleasure of this world is able to match fiction on blowing my mind away and awakening the desire in me for something bigger beyond my perceived reality.  That’s why I’m extremely fond of fiction. 

Some think that fiction is merely a “distraction” or an “escape” from reality.  Nothing can be more wrong.  Fiction “awakens” us to reality.  Kevin Vanhoozer wrote:

The sad truth is that many of us are, at best, only half awake. We think we’re engaged with the real world—you know, the world of stock markets, stock-car racing, and stockpiles of chemical weapons—but in fact we’re living in what [C.S.] Lewis calls the “shadowlands.” We think we’re awake, but we’re really only daydreaming. We’re sleepwalking our way through life—asleep at the wheel of existence—only semi-conscious of the eternal, those things that are truly solid that bear the weight of glory.

The world is full of wonders.  When we first come in contact with them, we probably had been awed.  But, over time, we got used to these wonders, taking them for granted, and our sense of awe is replaced with boredom and apathy – we “fall asleep.” And one of the best ways for us to “wake up” is through fiction.  For fiction articulates reality in a new light, providing for us an enhanced focus on the actual marvels found in things we had dismissed as ordinary.  As what G.K. Chesterton has perfectly analyzed:

When we are very young children we don’t need fairy tales: we only need tales.  Mere life is interesting enough.  A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door.  Boys like romantic tales; but babies like realistic tales— because they find them romantic… This proves that even nursery tales only echo an almost pre-natal leap of interest and amazement. These tales say that apples are golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green. They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water.

Once our sense of awe on the world’s wonders and miracles are rekindled, fiction could then further reveal to us what reality really is.  Often it is not enough to just describe reality for what it is.  When the Source of the deepest meaning of reality lies beyond it, then likening reality to what it is not actually reveals more deeply what it is (it’s another C.S. Lewis-ian concept).  Fiction does this. 

Besides, God himself opted to display His Reality through representation, making Creation – our reality – as means of revealing His glory to us.  In the same way, fiction serves as representation of our reality.  Of course, I’m not implying that we are merely God’s “computer simulations” in a The Thirteenth Floor sort of way (it’s a cool, underrated movie by the way) – that our existence lacked no real substance.  It’s just that God’s Reality is so grand, that our physical reality is much of a “figment” of God’s Reality as fiction a “figment” of our physical reality.                  

Simply, we are creatures that often require metaphors and analogies and illustrations and such to thoroughly grasp concepts and aspects of reality.  It’s simply the way we are designed by our Creator.  There’s a reason Jesus spoke in parables.  God has always intended fiction to serve as a means of intensifying our appreciation, understanding, and perspective of reality – and beyond! 

THE DANGER OF MAN-MADE PLEASURES

Of course, the fact that God reveals His glory through man-made pleasures is no excuse for us to consume every piece of it just because.  What do I mean by that?  We still have responsibility of choosing wisely the kind and amount of man-made pleasures that we choose to enjoy.  Seeking God’s glory is the chief reason for everything we Christians do in this world, including our choice of man-made pleasures.  Thus, if it’s already apparent that God’s glory is absent from a particular man-made pleasure, or it’s failing to bring us towards Christ, but, on the contrary, is actually leading us away, then there’s no reason to continue consuming it. 

We all have to constantly remember that the greatest danger of enjoying the world’s pleasures is how easily the Devil can use them to tempt us to idolatry.  If we are just immersing ourselves to banal entertainment – failing to “look along the beam” – we are vulnerable to the Devil’s attack.  Just like with idle hands, idle minds are also the Devil’s playground.  Man-made pleasures, whether enjoying them properly or not, will always arouse our desires.  When we fail to direct these aroused desires towards God, the Devil always jumps at the opportunity to exploit and redirect our desires towards idols.  Looked at how the Serpent tempted Adam and Even to eat the Forbidden Fruit when their imaginations and desires (“You will be like God!”) were aroused. 

Hence, we have to be honest with ourselves if a particular man-made pleasure is truly aiding us in our pursuit of God’s glory, or if it’s turning out to be a genuine unhelpful distraction.  Are we more engrossed during prayer than watching a movie?  Are we spending more time reading our Bibles than novels?  Are we more thrilled with God than Stephen Amell?

If we discover upon reflection that enjoying a particular man-made pleasure is not really helping us in our pursuit of God’s glory, or, worse, it’s actually leading us to sin, then we should completely abstain from it.  The Bible calls for radical cutting off of things that tempt us to sin.  Matthew 18:6-9 tells us:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.  Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!  If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.  And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”

Jesus means business.  If you’re always being lured towards pornographic sites, then cut off your Internet service.   If you’re spending more time and delighting more in watching TV than praying and reading the Bible, then sell or give it away.  If you’re always succumbing into drunkenness whenever you taste alcohol, then completely abstain from alcoholic beverages.

Take in mind that God doesn’t exclusively reveal His glory through man-made pleasures.  He can use other kinds of innocent pleasures as well.  He can even use suffering.  Abstaining from a man-made pleasure when necessary is not a loss at all.  Don’t think of it that you’re missing out on something.  Ultimate Pleasure is found in God anyway, and God has continually guaranteed that giving up something for Him is infinitely worth it. 

USING CREATION AND MAN-MADE PLEASURES TO DELIGHT IN GOD

In conclusion: if God chooses to display his glory through something, whether through the natural facets and elements of Creation or through man-made pleasures, then we should proceed to enjoy them.  God designed us to have physical desires and sensations so that we can perceive God’s glory through physical manifestations.  And through them, we will realize that there is more to it than these, that there is a Delight that transcends the pleasures of the world.  The world’s pleasures are not the ends.  They are merely the means to sharpen our longings for something – Someone – greater than physical pleasures.  The ultimate objective has always been about finding our complete, supreme joy in God alone.  

Read More