Choosing sides is everyone’s business

When I was around six years old, my brother Nilo came up to me after school one day and asked, "Who are you rooting for – Ali or Foreman?’

I said, "Ali what? Fore who? What are you talking about?"

"The boxing match, silly. It’s Muhammad Ali versus George Foreman. Who are you going to cheer for, Ali or Foreman?" Of course, I had no idea what the heck he was talking about. I was six years old so all I cared about was Batman and the Green Lantern. At that time, the famous boxing match, "Rumble in the Jungle: Ali vs. Foreman" was about to happen and Foreman, the erstwhile undefeated and merciless knockout monster, was the odds-on favorite to win over Ali, who was still feeling his way back into the ring after spending three years in jail for dodging the draft during the Vietnam War. Of course, I was totally clueless as to who these guys were. Let alone their boxing reputations at that time.

"Uhh, who’s better ba?" I asked innocently.

"Ali! Choose Ali! " Nilo replied, taking full advantage of my naivety.

So I said, "OK, I choose Ali."

Nilo responded enthusiastically, "Good! I will be Foreman! Put on your gloves. It’s time to rumble!"

By "gloves," my brother actually meant "T-shirts." We would wrap T-shirts around our tiny little fists and we would then knock each other’s milk teeth out until we were essentially toothless. Anyway, in this particular fight, Nilo won. But I had the pleasure of two things – first, I was able to convert the tooth that he knocked loose into cash courtesy of the blessed tooth fairy; second, I rooted for the right guy. As everyone knows, Ali convincingly – and quite unexpectedly – beat the living daylights out of Foreman.

From that time on, I discovered one thing: one of the great joys and privileges in life is being able to choose which side to root for.

As I got older, I appreciated this privilege more and more. I became a basketball freak and I got interested in the PBA. For years I rooted for the fabled Crispa Redmanizers, and I was a rabid fan. I would get into word wars with my best friend Jorge Wieneke who was a Jaworski-clone and a Toyota die-hard. My mom used to massage my chest during close games because I felt like I would have a heart attack. But that’s the fun of it, I thought to myself. I was cheering and I was full of life.

Then came the NBA. Since Day One I have been a Lakers fan. I don’t know why. I just liked them, even when they sucked. And I often found myself cold-sweating whenever I would watch them play a close match. Then I got interested in tennis. And for some reason, I liked Andre Agassi – even if Pete Sampras was better and generally more likeable. I enjoyed watching their classic duels, cheering Agassi on, even if I knew he would eventually lose to the more superior Sampras.

And then I got hooked on golf. And Tiger was my guy. Every time I watch a golf game where Tiger is playing, I find myself glued to the set. And frankly, I don’t get it. I hate golf. In my very first game, I shot an 86. On the freakin’ front nine!!! So, you can imagine what my eventual score was. I set a course record for number of strokes and number of gimmes that day. Thus, I never really got into the game – except of course when I watch Tiger play. When Tiger plays, I say, "That’s my guy!" Even when he loses, and that’s been happening quite a bit right now – I still cheer for him. I check out his website and I follow his tournaments.

And of course there’s the UAAP. No matter what happens, I will always be on the side of the Blue and White – Ateneo being my alma mater. And I get a kick during Ateneo-La Salle games when my friends and I tease each other. I try to act cool during games, but deep inside I am shouting, "Beat those darn Archers!"

The Neutral era

Now there came a point in my life when I said to myself, "Why I am allowing myself to be overcome with emotion over athletes who have no direct relevance in my life?" I wondered why I complicated my life and allowed the performance of my chosen athletes to dictate the flow of my day. For example, if the Lakers lost, I would be grumpy the whole day. If Agassi lost, I would be down in the dumps. And whenever Ateneo would lose (and in the past decade, there was a lot of that going on), I wouldn’t hear the end of it from my La Salle friends, and I’d end up petulant and cross. So I thought to myself, "Darn it, I’m tired of this, I will stay neutral and simplify my life."

So, at one point, I decided – I will not cheer for anything. I will adopt the "policy of cold neutrality." I will just live my life and not care about what’s going on. If the Lakers lose, big deal. My life will still be the same and I will still be beset with the same everyday problems. It will not change anything. And if Ateneo loses and my La Salle friends would tease me, I would just tell them, "Congrats, nice game." I thought to myself, "I will stay in between – that way I avoid the risk of losing and feeling bad."

But after adopting this philosophy, I became a different person. During this neutral phase, I didn’t feel human. I felt like a robot. I felt I had no backbone, no conviction. And I wasn’t happier. I had lost the appetite for anything. I had no zest for life. I was dull. I was boring. And people began noticing this "new me." I had become a "middle of the road, neither-here-nor-there" guy. In John Lennon’s words, I became that guy he was describing in his classic song Nowhere Man: "He’s a real Nowhere Man/Sitting in his nowhere land/Making all his nowhere plans for nobody/Doesn’t have a point of view/Knows not where he’s going to/Isn’t he a bit like you and me…"

During UAAP games in this neutral phase, my La Salle friends would still taunt me. My Ateneo friends, on the other hand, distanced themselves from me because I was no fun anymore. I was indifferent. I was too blasé for them. And for them, if I wasn’t with them, I was against them. So soon, I found myself having two enemies – my La Sallite friends and my Ateneo friends.

And I soon realized, "Hey, being too neutral ain’t too cool after all."

Neutrality Does Not Usher in Peace

Sometimes, we think that in order for our lives to be peaceful, we have to stay in the middle of things, and not take sides. We think to ourselves, "If I stick in the middle and not get involved, I will be OK." But the reality of it is sometimes, by staying too neutral, you end up being the biggest loser.

One time, there was this friend of mine who was a manager in a firm who found himself in a quandary. He had two colleagues, let’s call them Bill and Harry, fellow managers who were fighting over some policy in the office. Bill and Harry asked if my friend could intervene and decide for them. As he didn’t want to take sides, my friend told them, "Pare, wala ako diyan sa away n’yo. You’ll have to fix that yourselves." The issue was ultimately settled by higher management, with Bill being affirmed by the bosses. Ultimately Bill got promoted. Later on though, my friend felt that both his friends had become indifferent to him. Bill was indifferent because my friend didn’t come to his aid even when he was right. On the other hand, Harry was mad at my friend because he felt that if my friend had only come to his aid, he, and not Bill, would have been affirmed by top management and he would have been the one promoted. In the end of the day, it was my friend who ended up losing because he lost two of his friends. And all because he stayed neutral.

Oftentimes, we confuse neutrality with peacemaking. We feel that being neutral is the same as being a peacemaker. But peacemaking is different from neutrality. Peacemaking is a pro-active process in which a third party is tasked to help find a solution between two opposing parties. In peacemaking, there is a genuine concern about both parties. Neutrality, on the other hand, is a passive, indifferent, blasé attitude. It is uncaring and unsympathetic. It is callous and selfish. Neutral people don’t really want peace, as they would like people to think. Neutral people want to be left alone. Neutral people are lazy, unfeeling people who care only about themselves. That’s why in the office, when someone tells me, "Pare, wala ako d’yan ha – neutral ako," I tell myself, "Now here’s one guy who won’t go too high up the corporate ladder."

At one point, in any dispute, you have to take a side —- and it must be the side you truly believe in – not just the side of the people close to you. You have to take the right side, regardless of the possible outcome, because in the end, that is what makes us who we are – our conviction.

This is not a new message. The Good Book has always condemned neutrality. We oftentimes picture the Good Lord as a kind, loving, humble and meek shepherd. And yes, in a way He is like that. But in the Good Book, the Lord also demonstrated that He would never take the middle of the road. He certainly wasn’t spineless and without opinions. When a bunch of self-righteous guys were about to stone a woman who had just been caught committing adultery, the guys asked Jesus if it would be all right to do it. Jesus didn’t cheer for either the mob or the woman – but he had a strong conviction: "Those who are free of sin, cast the first stone." For me, that’s a classic case of being on top of a situation by virtue of a certain conviction. He didn’t say, "Oops, oops, oops, wala ako diyan ha. Bahala kayo. ‘Di ako involved diyan." He said His point. And His point fixed an otherwise sticky situation. At another time, He was asked, "Would it be OK to pay taxes to Caesar?" Again, he didn’t back down from the question. He said with conviction, "Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar and give to God what is due to God." He didn’t give an "I-wash-my-hand" type of an answer. It was a statement with a strong conviction. And he took a stand. At one point, I think the Lord Himself got annoyed with neutral people. He said, "Your answer should either be yes or no. Anything in between is from the devil." Strong words from someone who is supposed to be meek and humble, right? But His words continue to reverberate – even until today. Especially today.

In this world, we must take sides. We cannot always stay neutral. And the sides we take in this life determine how we will eventually be judged – both here in this world and the next. Every day, there are so many choices placed before us: "Will I be a guy who says ‘No’ or a guy who compromises? Will I work hard or just work enough to avoid being fire? Will I be corrupt and be filthy rich or will I be clean and be just OK? Will I follow company rules or will I find a way around the rules." So many choices to make, right? But guess what – that’s a good thing.

How about you? Which side are you on? Me, I know what side I am on.

One big fight!

* * *

Thanks for your letters, folks. You may e-mail me at rodnepo@ yahoo.com.