May is a Myth. It is not true because it can also mean May Not. Can is a Meta-myth.
Nonetheless, it is also not true because it may also mean Can Not. But May is more notorious than Can, as the latter carries more intention or, at least, air of capability to act. Another thing, the identification of May with May Not is much perceived than that of Can with Can Not.
In the ordinary world of brotherhood, friendship, and other relations, May, besides being audaciously open, also cloaks itself under the "I'll see", "We'll see", "Pwede", and "Bahala na" brouhahas. Far from being disdained as the culprit of idleness and regression, May and its personas are hailed as preserver of goodwill, the power against appearing offensive when we itch to say "NO".
In the not-so special realm of our beloved Constitution, you may or can encounter this provision:
“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
Don't be fooled by "The State shall" conviction or else you will be unaware eaten alive by "as may be defined by law" fraud. And while you are being masticated and digested, you will be enlightened that the the provision means as well that the law MAY NOT define neither "The State's drive to prohibit", "the prohibition of political dynasties", nor at the least "political dynaties". And after about 20 years of waiting, it MAY now be safe, and we are merry and happy, to say that the law will no longer define them!
We heard it, that the family was the basic institution of the land. Families should rule, indeed. In any case, we are merrier and happier after reaping the consolation prize:
The State has already guaranteed equal access to opportunities for public service. That is so, believe me, even without the definition by law. Have not we seen Pac-Man, Jones, Baldemor, Calope, and a lot more, around? Thanks, it's only "opportunities" they've fortuned to access to.
I love my country. Don't you?
Nonetheless, it is also not true because it may also mean Can Not. But May is more notorious than Can, as the latter carries more intention or, at least, air of capability to act. Another thing, the identification of May with May Not is much perceived than that of Can with Can Not.
In the ordinary world of brotherhood, friendship, and other relations, May, besides being audaciously open, also cloaks itself under the "I'll see", "We'll see", "Pwede", and "Bahala na" brouhahas. Far from being disdained as the culprit of idleness and regression, May and its personas are hailed as preserver of goodwill, the power against appearing offensive when we itch to say "NO".
In the not-so special realm of our beloved Constitution, you may or can encounter this provision:
“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
Don't be fooled by "The State shall" conviction or else you will be unaware eaten alive by "as may be defined by law" fraud. And while you are being masticated and digested, you will be enlightened that the the provision means as well that the law MAY NOT define neither "The State's drive to prohibit", "the prohibition of political dynasties", nor at the least "political dynaties". And after about 20 years of waiting, it MAY now be safe, and we are merry and happy, to say that the law will no longer define them!
We heard it, that the family was the basic institution of the land. Families should rule, indeed. In any case, we are merrier and happier after reaping the consolation prize:
The State has already guaranteed equal access to opportunities for public service. That is so, believe me, even without the definition by law. Have not we seen Pac-Man, Jones, Baldemor, Calope, and a lot more, around? Thanks, it's only "opportunities" they've fortuned to access to.
I love my country. Don't you?
No comments:
Post a Comment