Congress Has New Jobs, Philippines!

Calling all plagiarists, copycats and like-minded citizens: Good News!

Yes, you are wanted.

(Courtesy of www.careersearchtoday.com)

There is now a haven for members of the populace incapable of thinking for themselves!

If you spent your time in school resorting to cheating off a seatmate's paper, poring over term papers a decade ago to pass off as your own "research", mumbling your way through during recitation and when asked to enunciate better, end up saying "what she said", you may just be what Congress is looking for!

A place where copying is not only seen as "not illegal", it is encouraged and even defended!

This is especially victorious "bragging rights" news to those of you who were shamed, ridiculed, pinagsabihan ng titser, or even expelled by your teachers for deigning to take someone else's work and passing it off as your own, in order to pass a subject or course!

Nek nek niyo, mali kayong lahat!

As we all should be aware of by now, our lawmakers actually celebrate copying!

(http://www.rappler.com/video/16070-sotto-copying-highest-form-of-flattery)

Remember, our own Senate President has stated that legislators have immunity and "cannot be questioned".

(http://www.rappler.com/nation/15980-sotto-on-apology-call-huh,-for-what)

Happy day for all job seekers! If you have the qualifications, do send in your resume, show up at Congress, and chances are, you will leave with a job in the bag! It's your chance to give the _________ finger at all those goody-two shoes who made your life unbearable, berating you with concepts like "dishonesty" and "taking credit", as well as trying to impose funny sounding phrases like "unquestionable integrity" or "taking pride in your own words and work".

They can all suck it.

Don't Force Your Niqab On Us, CBCP

It's supposed to be a personal choice.

(Courtesy of onislam.net)

Did you hear about the woman in Egypt who was assaulted and whose hair was forcibly cut?

On Sunday, a Christian woman had her hairstyle forcibly changed by two women in Egypt (who happened to be wearing niqabs), in an apparent attempt to instill the notion that ALL Egyptian women should be wearing the niqab when in public.

(See http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/women-assault-cut-hair-christian-woman-metro for more details.)

The niqab is the veil or face covering that Islam requires of its' female members to wear in certain instances. (Not to be confused with the burka.)

The Christian woman was called an "infidel", and was pushed off the train (they were in the metro/train station) which broke her arm.

It brought to my mind what the CBCP is doing in our own country.

Specifically, with the RH Bill.

You see, the niqab wearing women confused their religious choice as being the standard to follow for all of Egypt - it has been established that the woman they assaulted was a Christian, but that didn't matter one whit to them: all they can think of was, if you are a woman in Egypt, you should wear a niqab.

Similarly, our bishops are confusing the entire Philippines as being Catholic.

They don't seem to care that under our form of government, a democracy that is secular in nature, anyone is free to choose their religion. It means you can choose to be a Catholic. It also means you can choose to be a non-Catholic, however that fact is manifested (one chooses another religion or no religion at all).

Once these facts are clearly established, it becomes incomprehensible why the CBCP is so adamant in insisting that their view on the RH Bill - particularly as to which forms of contraception they deem "acceptable" and "moral" - is the only "way to go".

I think it's because they have gotten away with it for so long, this "unchallenged" position that they have occupied in this country as the religious majority.

They don't care that this country has a sizable religious minority. They make threats - both veiled and obvious - to our lawmakers regarding their political mortality if they will approve of the RH Bill. The lawmakers who are against the bill have reasons like "it is against our faith", clearly a statement of intolerance, one that presumes and assumes that we have a uniform faith and a singular religion.

Being the religious majority does not give you the right to run roughshod over everyone else, the way these two Islamic women in Egypt broke the arm of the Christian woman.

Being the religious majority does not give you the right to assault our beliefs or non-belief as "immoral", the way these two Islamic women in Egypt thought of the Christian woman for not wearing a niqab..

Being the religious majority does not give you the right to change the laws in this land to suit your taste, the way these two Islamic women in Egypt tried to change the Christian woman's hairstyle.

Don't force your niqab on us.

You're Right, I Can't Get Pregnant

Think of the future matching this face.

(Courtesy of collegecandy.com)

The title formed my initial response to the person who posed to me a question that seemed easy enough to reply when I was first asked this:

"Bakit ba feel na feel mo ang topic ng RH, di ka naman mabubuntis, diba?" (Why are you so passionate about the RH Bill, it's not like you'll get pregnant, right?)

And, yes, as someone born biologically male, I won't get pregnant soon. Or ever.

On the surface, it seems like a fair question: why would someone (1) who doesn't have ovaries or a uterus, (2) who doesn't know what it feels like when the "regular visitor" comes every month, (3) who will never have to endure the intense agony (to understate it) of giving birth, and (4) will never have to feed anyone off one's body at the oddest hours, be utterly concerned with the right to decide how to plan one's family or the need for sex education to prevent teenage pregnancies?

The more I mulled about this seemingly innocent question, the more it dawned on me that this comprises a big component on why we are having difficulty passing the RH Bill. The question itself is laden with the very sentiment I was having a hard time pinpointing, but which became crystal clear once I spent time trying to answer it in any satisfactory manner.

It's not going to happen to me, so it's not my concern, and it shouldn't be yours, as well.

So, I would like to give a better response to the person who asked me this question, and it starts out with this: Just because I don't know what childbirth feels like doesn't mean I have to make it more difficult - and sometimes even fatal - for those who have to go through it.

I do not have to be a woman to know that they are still marginalized, cast aside, and ignored, their voices largely made out to be shrill when they are screaming in pain, and accused of being bitches whenever they instinctively draw their claws in a desperate attempt to be heard.

It is in the same vein, when I stand with people of color who are still discriminated on the basis of that uncontrollable quality, because I do not have to share color to know what being judged on something uncontrollable feels like.

It is in the same vein, when there is this gnawing ache in me when I hear children are abused - physically, sexually, emotionally - because I was a child once, and while it was not a "perfect" childhood, I was able to experience it without wondering when my very person would next be violated upon in ways that we should not even be thinking of inflicting on adults.

It is in the same vein, when I was told that there is only one "true" religion, that anyone outside of it was to be considered filthy and one who has chosen to wallow in debauchery and insatiable evil, that I found myself intolerant of intolerance, and I could not, in good conscience, call someone "evil" just because they happened to have chosen a different set of guidlines to live their life by.

The sum total of my life experiences - thus far - has led me to many realizations that have strayed far from the lessons that were taught to me as "indisputable" when I began my journey.

We each get one life - this one - and it would be the most hideous of tragedies if you would choose to spend it trying to live up to someone's belief of how you should run it. We are all distinctly, and amazingly unique. Until we realize the gravity and magnificence of that idea, we will still feel the need to belong to the herd, just because it has the cocoon's warmth of safety.

Not everyone will undergo both the joys and travails of childbirth - I am told that it is a package deal - so it is but right that when it does happen, you are prepared, in all ways. This is not a designer bag that you can just return whenever you don't "feel it", and it's certainly not something you can discard and replace it with next season's offering. (Technically, one could, but at a steep emotional cost.)

A child is to be treasured and loved, not someone seen to be contributing to the family income while other children are in school.

A child should never be made to feel like a curse, the heaviest of burdens, the bane of a family and its reason for not making any headway into economic relief.

A child is not to be seen as an extra pair of hands asking for alms.

How can a child be brought up, cared for and provided for, when the parents cannot even do the same for themselves?

It is time to eradicate this cultural insistence on bahala na (let's leave it to fate). Anyone who applies this on an individual level is free to do so - it is your life - but it is terribly unfair and unconscionable to force that world view on someone who is in no capacity to refuse it nor support him or herself.

We do not live in a vaccum.

We should act accordingly. All of us.

Now, About These Bills...

Yes, this is directed to both Houses of Congress.

Where are you going?

(Courtesy of apgovernment2010.yolasite.com)

The past few days have been all about R.A. 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Since some of the legislators who approved this bill are rushing to amend it, and given the overwhelming reaction of the public - a negative one, in case this needs to be spelled out - on top of the fact that the United Nations has declared internet freedom a basic human right, and add to that the many lawyers/groups who have gone to the Supreme Court to address this, we can safely assume that this bill was not fleshed out thoroughly.

And since the President has signed this, it's now a law, not just a bill.

What astonished many people - myself included - was the ease and speed by which this bill was approved. The only conclusion any rational person can come up with is that if there is political will, it can be done. If the legislators want to approve something, they can do it - see how quickly this bill was sent to the President for his signature.

So, may we direct your attention to these bills? And we ask that you act on them with the same swiftness and ferocity that you rushed the Cybercrime Prevention Act by us. Napabilib nyo kami sa bilis nyo, sana ganito din kayo sa mga ito. 

1. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL

This bill has not just been languishing in Congress for more than a decade, it's set up house, is done watching Home Along The Riles and has moved on to Korea-novelas, and has its feet up on the couch, with the rollers permanently glued in its hair.

How can we say this with finesse...oh, right: VOTE ON IT ALREADY!

Both sides have kicked around this political football, or more appropriately for us, dribbled this political basketball back and forth, with no one ever sinking a basket. Stop the period of amendments already. We, the citizens, are tired of it. What we want is an answer. Yes or no. Approve it or discard it.

Stop airing your grievances in public, wringing out sympathy, and whatnot. Desist from making veiled utterances like "at its current state, it won't have a chance of being approved" and...what's the phrase again...oh yes: VOTE ON IT ALREADY!

Let the record show who voted for and against it, as well as why.

Do this NOW so the people will judge you come election day.

You have NO REASON to delay this, given how fast you approved the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

2. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

What we, the citizens of a democratic country, want is accountability from our public officials. The only way we can ensure this is if government transactions and records are available to the public for scrutiny and review.

It may be time for a social science lesson: in a democracy, the power lies in its citizens, not public officials, who are also called public servants. So it makes sense that when the boss (that's us) gives you money (our taxes/your salary) to do a job (file bills), we have the right to know what it is you've been doing, yes?

Unless you want to contest this basic structure of democracy?

This bill will make it easier to see who's been sleeping on the job, or worse, stealing from public coffers or tampering anything illegally.

This bill is the one we want. We did not ask for a bill that will stifle our right to speak.

In case that wasn't clear, we are making it exceedingly crystal clear now.

--------------------

While we're at this, here's one thing we also want to ask:

Did you know that political dynasties are PROHIBITED by our Constitution? Eto ang nakasulat:

"The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law." (Section 26, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

If our law still hasn't defined it since 1987, can we do it now, ASAP?

We ask these questions because of the lineup being offered by "parties" - the quotes are used to distinguish it from the political parties in places like the USA, where these are anchored by issues and not personalities or name recognition - which seem to suggest that there is no such "thing" in our Constitution.

What will it take for this prohibition to be actualized in real life?

Nagtatanong lang po.

Clause-ible Denial

Some days, you have to wonder if fact has outstripped fiction in the incredulity department just a little bit too much, that J.K. Rowling may soon conceivably be working at your local burger joint for her next paycheck.

Today, a news item I caught online made me wonder if the crop of "reality shows" we've been exposed to for years was really just a worldwide, systematic attempt to prevent the expression of anything resembling surprise.

Senator Tito Sotto denies having anything to do with the insertion of the libel clause in the recently approved (signed into law by our President) Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. (See more here: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/09/21/12/internet-libel-it-wasnt-me-sotto-says)

Is the senator happier these days?

(Courtesy of blogwatch.tv)

I stop dead in my tracks as I am reading this particular news on a mobile device, and find myself having to sit it out for a moment, to ensure that my eyes weren't fooling me.

In his turno en contra speech assailing the Reproductive Health Bill - or should I say speeches, since it went on for days - he made a statement that suggested that critics, especially of the online variety, would soon need to be wary in expressing their sentiments in cyberspace.

As soon as Republic Act 10175 was signed into law, netizens were abuzz - rightfully - about a specific provision in the final version approved that would penalize libel with a number of years in prison, without the possibility of parole.

If this is not a baldfaced attempt to silence critics of any public figure, I don't know what is.

Some points that I feel shouldn't be glossed over:

(1) Free speech is guaranteed by our Constitution. This covers the speech you may not want to hear - for instance, bigoted assumptions like comparing homosexuality as being akin to bestiality would be hysterically laughed at by any credible medical organization, but you are free to proclaim that as your "belief".

(2) Sotto focused on this very issue when he/his office (at this point, I'm not sure who does what when it comes to his public pronouncements) were roundly criticized for the issues of "plagiarism" and "translations", with it going so far as having Sarah Pope, a US based blogger, calling the senator a plagiarist, point blank.

(3) Raissa Robles, a journalist/blogger who focuses on political issues, interviewed Sotto's (now famous or infamous, depending on your view) Chief of Staff, Atty. Villacorta, who essentially admitted that Sotto was responsible for the imsertion of the libel clause. (See http://raissarobles.com/2012/09/18/who-inserted-that-libel-clause-in-the-cybercrime-law-at-the-last-minute/ for more.)

(4) The Senate record for this particular bill has a portion entitled "Sotto Amendment" which narrates how Sotto rationalized the insertion of this clause, citing Lacsa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (161 SCRA 427) to bolster his case for it.

Given these facts, and the senator's claim that he is a victim of cyberbullying, I cannot fathom how he can distance himself from an issue that he is clearly and unequivocally passionate about. Unless his own chief of staff and the senate secretary are also part of some "conspiracy" to have the senator appear a certain way to the public?

But given the recent statements and actions of the senator the past few months, I don't think anyone is - anymore - surprised that he denies any involvement in the inclusion of libel in this recently approved law.

And that best sums it up as far as expectations for him is concerned.

The Camsur Envy of RH Bill Advocates

The smackdown that occurred the other day between Senate President Enrile and Senator Trillanes IV could not have been missed by news followers, which had the elements of a telenovela: insults, accusations of backdoor dealings, bombastic speeches, a walkout, and the casting of aspersions on character.

Have you placed your bets?

(Courtesy of untvweb.com)

My, my. What a show.

While social media is bursting at the (cyber) seams with commentaries on why a single senator is representing foreign policy decisions on behalf of our government (which is the gist of Enrile's speech in the Senate that day, punctuated with the never-neutral word "traitor"), I am focusing on why Trillanes IV spoke up: a bill that was not really brought to public consciousness until he did, pushing for the partitioning of Camarines Sur.

Apparently, the Lower House has approved this bill that would divide the said province, and it was forwarded to the Senate for approval.

Trillanes IV maintains that this was the handiwork of former President Arroyo, whose son is a legislator in the said province. He also brought to the fore the fact that Rep. Villafuerte has been seen "lounging" around Enrile's office, apparently lobbying for the bill to be approved. Enrile admitted as much during his interview posted at the ANC Facebook page, and considers the congressman a friend.

Which brings me to a confession: I have Camsur Envy.

I wish the Senate President felt an urgent need to discuss the Reproductive Health Bill, and bring the matter to a vote, the way Trillanes IV has described Enrile with regards to House Bill 4820: "pressured".

(See more here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/274556/camsur-bill-dead-in-wake-of-word-war)

Far be it for a "mere" citizen like me to remind any senator that s/he was voted not as a local, but as a national representative. That they are supposed to give priority to measures and bills that are national in scope, that have implications for everyone in this country, that their votes have consequences that extend beyond their terms.

Comparing the scope, implications and consequences of the RH Bill with Camsur's division, and considering the latter to be more "urgent" says to me that our senators have a rather cavalier attitude towards matters like maternal deaths, but would rise up in parliamentary anger should their biases ever be questioned.

I chanced upon Enrile being interviewed by Mareng Winnie Monsod, who asked for his reaction when he is thought of as delaying voting on the RH Bill. He denied it, saying that without the amendments, the bill would surely lose.

You would think that as a staunch opponent of the said bill, he would immediately call for the period of amendments to end and to immediately vote for or against it in order to...how did Sen. Sotto say it, get it out of their hairs.

A quote I find to be truer with each breath I take is that "people may not always believe what you say, but they'll always believe what you do." Or in Enrile's case, what he doesn't do.

This latest revelation merely proves one thing: what is deemed "necessary" to be discussed in the halls of the Philippine Senate is a matter of will, political and otherwise.

Buti pa ang paghahatian ng Camsur, napagtoonan ng pansin ng Senado. (The partitioning of Camsur fared better, because the Senate gave it due attention.)

Kawawa naman ang RH Bill. Boto lang ang kailangan para mairesolba, di pa magawa. (Alas for the Reproductive Health Bill, all it needs for the issue to be resolved is to vote for or against it, and the senators couldn't even be bothered to do so.)

And so, my Camsur Envy goes on.

I Lost Lucy

Representative Lucy Torres-Gomez just showcased how our legislators have a problem differentiating their personal beliefs and their work as lawmakers in a secular democracy.

Morality's muse.

(Courtesy of southernleytetimes.com)

On a morning show hosted by anchor Karen Davila, she expressed her concern about the country's "moral fiber" - more specifically, what would happen to it should the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill be passed. She also mentions her faith as the force that drives her to oppose the said measure, claiming that the Philippines is a religious country and that she cannot make a decision that will go against it.

I don't know about you, but my first, instinctive reaction was to laugh out loud. (A real life LOL.)

See, the representative makes it no secret that she is devoted and loyal to the Catholic Church in the country. All one needs to do is to Google "Lucy Torres Gomez anti RH", and what comes out are articles that juxtapose the terms "RH", "CBCP", "church", "Catholic" and her name, as proof of this.

Clearly, the moral standard she is advocating or sees as "golden" is the morality as approved by the Catholic hierarchy in the country.

And let's not forget - how can we, when the CBCP reminds us every chance it gets - that a majority of this country identifies itself as Catholic, when asked for religious affiliation.

So why did I LOL?

The question is, how can anyone not laugh at the absurdity highlighted by such a devotion to the so-called Catholic "moral fiber", compared with what is happening around us? After centuries of Catholic "superiority", what moral tempertaure can be felt in this bastion of Christianity in Asia? (Full disclosure: I am not a Catholic.)

We are constantly rated as one of the most corrupt nations in the world.

We have priests - supposedly sworn to celibacy - who have sired offspring.

The pictures of priests surrounding former President Macapagal-Arroyo and former Chief Justice Renato Corona speak volumes: their eerie silence while various anomalous, highly questionable transactions happened and blatant disregard for public calls for accountability can render even the sharpest of hearing aids inutile.

We have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Southeast Asia.

You can find vendors selling concoctions that are supposed to induce abortion right outside one of the country's most flocked Catholic churches.

Hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed in the country, every year.

News reports about a dead fetus showing up in a trash can have become staples in broadsheets, they have since desensitized us from the initial shock value.

Journalists are killed left and right in this country, making it one of the most dangerous places in the world to practice this vital profession, moreso in a democracy.

Our jails are packed to the rafters.

We have a mayor overly concerned with the supposedly "satanic" lyrics from a foreign performer, who earned revenue for the city by playing her concert in a place known for its sex dens, with permits to operate issued by the mayor's office.

We have elevated undisciplined behavior into a dubious art: public vehicles that unload passengers in the middle of the road, pedestrians who play roulette with their lives by crossing underneath a pedestrian overpass, throwing our plastic waste and cigarette butts wherever we please, motorists slapping traffic enforcers who try to do their jobs, and policemen who extort money from drivers, to start with.

And who could forget the priests who were satirically referred to as "Mitsubishops", an obvious reference to the car manufacturer, for even more obvious reasons?

Or politicians who like to claim the "high road", when they (1) run in their husband's place because the husband was disqualified from running; (2) post tarpaulins of their faces and supposed projects in public places, as if these were theirs to do so, some of whom even place pictures of their "Chief of Staff", someone who was not even elected; (3) appear in television commercials, and even host morning shows and "amazing" specials, while being a full-time legislator?

How can we not mention a special legislator who thinks nothing of plagiarism, under the pretext that it is not explicitly stated as illegal in our laws, who translates a famous American speech in the vernacular and claims no copying took place, all the while acting like some maligned defender of the "unborn" - yes, you may commence eye-rolling - and perched ever so highly secured in a self proclaimed mantle of superiority?

Given these facts, it becomes hideously indefensible - and indubitably laughable - to oppose the RH Bill on the absurd notion that its approval would cause the country's "Catholic morality" to be under attack.

Again, let me ask Rep. Torres-Gomez: what "moral fiber"?

This country that you claim as "religious" (let's not forget: most people here are Catholics) is so morally bankrupt, it surprises me that you would parade its Catholic credentials in so righteous a manner. One of your religion's recently deceased leaders has proclaimed your faith as "200 years" out of sync with the present time. I think he was even being charitable with that description.

How can a religion that has been described as misogynistic, homophobic and intolerant of any other views other than its own be considered a morality manual, at a time in the world where women are slowly catching up to the opportunities and earning potential of men (some even surpassing the men in "their own game"), where gay people are (glacially) gaining rights, denied for so long, but accorded every other human being, and where religious leaders like the Dalai Lama are saying that religion may no longer be solely sufficient to be the basis for ethical behavior?

In "I Love Lucy", the entire cast seemed to be in suspended ditziness, which is where it got its comic power, but at the end of the day, we know that it's only a show, it's just for fun, and it will end after half an hour.

It cannot be said in this case, where real lives are affected, it's called survival, and the end to suffering is nowhere in sight.

Explaining Secular Democracy To Tito

Hello, public officials of the Republic of the Philippines,

Some things to clear about us.

(Courtesy of iconarchive.com)

In recent days, there has been much intermingling of politics and religion (one in particular) in the news, particularly where the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill is concerned.

We've heard of a legislator invoking his deity should the bill pass. We've heard of another legislator saying certain provisions in the bill should be stricken out because it goes against religion (one in particular). And we've heard of a legislator aiming for a "compromise" by meeting with religious leaders (one in particular) to draft an "acceptable" version of the same bill.

Now, I realize that even though you are duly elected or appointed public servants, no one has explicitly informed you of the framework by which our government operates. Imagine my surprise when I did not see a Cliffs Notes version about this at all! (In my day - a long time ago - students who failed to write their term papers or book reviews were routinely saved by this creation, a condensed version of mostly literary works.)

Here, then, is my attempt to provide such a service.

(1) This country is a secular democracy.

For those who ran for their positions, you know this very well, having partaken of an important part in this type of government: the election of public officials.

A democracy is popularly known as a government "for, of and by the people", one where citizens have a say as to who should be running the government through elections, what bills are needed through its representatives, and an expectation of a fair hearing in disputes, through its judges. (Formally, the three branches of a democratic government.)

Ultimate power in this government lies in its citizenry, not officials, who are also called public servants. Officials are given certain powers to carry out their duties in the service of the citizens. (It was never meant to be used to enrich oneself or one's family.)

There is no requirement that says you have to belong to a religion (one in particular) to run for office or be appointed as one. This is enforced in our very Constitution, the document that gives life to our way of government. Something about "no religious test will be required", blah, blah - the lawyers can explain this better, because this is supposed to be the shorthand version, so we won't go into detail.

This also means that someone who says "I don't belong to any faith-based group" is eligible to run for public office, as eligible as someone who goes to a place of worship (one in particular) twice a day, seven days a week, and gives money to religious leaders (one in particular) when a collection plate goes by.

Secular, therefore, simply means we don't care about your religious status. A simple test for this would be: are you barred from voting based on your religion, or lack of it?

(2) It follows, then, that our laws should be secular and democratic.

Legislators create/amend laws, executives enforce it, and judges interpret it (and hand out punishments for those who go against it). That is how it works in a democracy. (For those who think this is too simplistic - condensed version, hello. I highlight the big things, don't worry.)

Since our rights as citizens are not in any way hampered by our choice of religion (one in particular) - see above example on voting - then the laws we have governing everyone should also be equally unhampered by any religion (one in particular), and should be applied equally regardless of religion.

In this respect, in a secular democracy, government laws trump any religion's (one in particular) beliefs. A simple test would be: since citizens are guaranteed the right to happiness, can a religion (any which one) get away with, say, raping a virgin, since it is "demanded" by its religious rules? Obviously no, the government can press rape and assault charges on those who claim that raping a young maiden is their "religious right".

And that goes for all so-called "religious rights".

I often hear rebuttals from theists about how they "answer to a higher power" and that they "will be judged in an afterlife". That is a personal call, guaranteed by our secular laws, our freedom to each choose our own religion. If it makes you feel "superior", kindly gloat in your own home, and wait until after your last breath to do so - the freedom to choose my own religion also means I don't have to believe in your specific interpretation of a higher power or your version of an afterlife.

Anyone can create a religion, just to prove that point.

(3) Religious leaders (one religion in particular) should stay out of formulating secular laws.

Time to drill the point home: public officials are not required to belong to any religion (one in particular), and laws cannot be made with any religion (one in particular) in mind.

It stands to reason, then, that anyone affiliated with any particular faith as its leader cannot be "in charge" of making laws in a government that allows you to choose your own religion. That would contravene - go against - the principle of being able to freely choose your own religion,  because that particular leader would make into secular law what he personally believes as a matter of faith.

Thereby, forcing a person of a different faith to follow that particular leader's religious rules.

As an example: vegetarianism is self imposed by some faiths because they believe that animal cruelty is heinous. (I find that reasoning odd - what about cruelty to plants, then? - but we'll save that for another time.) If a leader of such a faith became, I don't know, Secretary of Trade and Industry, would that person, based on his or her religious beliefs, be allowed to ban livestock trading because it "offends" his or her faith?

(4) It cannot be a numbers game.

One particular religion is saying that since they claim the most number of adherents in this country, "majority wins".

Aside from the reasons already stated, here's another one: what if that particular religion became number two in terms of claiming their "number of sheep"? If laws were enacted and made to suit that particular religion, should we overhaul these laws and repeal them if they aren't "top dog" in terms of membership?

Already, this one particular religion is losing members - just Google the statistics - because of its flock losing faith in its human leaders, child molestation cases, inability to follow their own advice to members about frugality and the temporary nature of earthly riches, and so many more reasons. It is not at all farfetched - maybe not in this country but worldwide - to think that they will soon be toppled off their supposed vaunted position and standing.

As my friend who voiced this out said, ano to, magririgodon tayo depende kung anong relihiyon ang inaangkin ng mayorya? (what's this, will we go on a carousel depending on which is the most "popular" religion?)

Secular laws - by definition free from any religious bias - should be able to withstand on its own regardless of where the faith-based winds may howl.

(5) Secular democracy is essentially agreeing to disagree.

Since we all have different "views" about beliefs, to each his or her own. Secular laws are the ones we all agree upon regardless of religious affiliation.

I hope that this very short primer on our way of government will help you conduct yourself in matters of the State.

While I do not claim to be an expert who can make perfect arguments, as a reasonably intelligent member of this country, I feel it is my duty to let you know how I think and feel.

Any mistake in my interpretation of our existing laws and social systems can be traced to the fact that I am not a lawyer or a social scientist by trade. It does not mean that I cannot participate in legal matters or cannot be a social observer, in the same way that not all our senators are lawyers, or how astute observations can come from the unlikeliest of sources.

It only means that I care for the direction that this country is headed.

Sincerely,
A Citizen of a Secular Democracy (known as the Republic of the Philippines)

The Robredo Standard

I am part of the unlucky majority who has never personally met Secretary Jesse Robredo. And yet, this did not stop me from feeling the weight of losing him the way we did.

My gold standard for public service.

(Courtesy of pcij.org)

This country is poorer with his death.

Many of the public eulogies and adulations being showered on him are centered on him being an effective and efficient mayor of Naga City, turning it around from being poverty stricken to being a model city, for which he was given the Ramon Magsaysay award; for being a homesick father who could not wait to go home, to his family, and to his hometown; for being overly zealous in his last post, so much so that he was working on a Saturday, a practically novel phenomenon for a country that can consider itself lucky if public officials come in every weekday; for being first to arrive and last to leave in any disaster, calamity and other perilous situations, if only so that he could help any of his constituents with as much as he could.

He championed transparency and accountability, even before talk of the Freedom of Information bill made its way to the public consciousness; he didn't tell his wife to run for mayor after his successful stint for almost a decade; he refused that giant monolith, SM, from planting its feet into his hometown, and instead thought of what would happen if it did and could not fathom that future; he went up against organized gambling and entrenched politicians who did not want to change the old ways; he never understood the need for bodyguards and was uncomfortable to have them, preferring to take public transportation when possible; he believed in involving the people in doing public service, so that everyone has a personal stake in achieving mutual goals to benefit the community; and he was always seen at gatherings, events, occassions that put him in touch with "everyman", not barricaded with high ivory walls in a gated community.

I have to admit that for so many times, over and over, this country, being represented by its public officials, has broken my heart and spirit in ways too numerous to mention: the rampant and shameless corruption practiced in the broadest of daylights; the wanton disregard for the space of others, that anyone can just enroach on another's property and claim poverty as their birthright to appropriate any land for themselves illegally, which local officials look the other way from because they need these votes on election day; this privileged insularity that public officials claim for themselves that they refused to be scrutinized by people on their finances, and claim that the law protects them, when we all know they are looking for their own interests; where a politician, once barred from running, fields his wife, children, uncles, aunts, neighbor, godchildren and even their pets if it was possible, to run for the position being vacated, until he can return to that same post.

Secretary Robredo embodied so much of what I believe should be the very standard of all public officials. He was living proof that you can serve and not see yourself as a ruler, because public service means you are there for others, not for yourself. He preferred going back home to his loved ones, and not hobnobbing with the "elite" who have vested interests of their own; and he believed in the Filipino, that we should all be involved if we are to raise this country up, who never saw himself as privileged by virtue of his positions, but as a conduit to effect great change and greater things.

May we all be inspired to emulate his worthy example, not just in words, but by his deeds and his very life. Let us not let his life end in tragedy, but may it give birth to a renewed hope - and action plan, for he was indeed a man of action - that we have to link arms together if we want our country to stand tall among the family of nations.

I now view Secretary Robredo as the gold standard by which all other public officials must be measured against. May we all be up to the task, left by your legacy in public service.

Rest in peace, Sir.

Should Sotto Run With Corona?

Should we weep for defending plagiarism, also?

(Courtesy of philippinenews.com)

While last week was largely about Sotto and his office's plagiarism (which some have already begun to call "Bloggergate"), I was struck by a sense of familiarity that can best be described as uneasy, and then it hit me: this seems like a replay of when former Chief Justice Renato Corona was on (impeachment) trial.

Tears have been making very public rounds lately.

(Courtesy of interaksyon.com)

I can hear defenders of both of them going ballistic, so let me explain why I drew the comparison.

Both of them would never be my choice for their government positions.

In the last senatorial elections, Sotto was on the top of my "I'm never voting for you" list. I have made my feelings about entertainers running for public office known in my past blogposts, and the way he is defending himself in "Bloggergate" just confirms I made a correct assessment.

Corona was forced on someone like me, because I didn't vote for GMA in 2004. Unfortunately, that is the way our democratic system works, and the sitting president gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Chief Justice. Had the post been up for a vote, I would never have voted for Corona, either.

Both of them were caught in "ambiguous" legal scenarios.

Sotto has maintained that there is no cut-and-dried law about lifting excerpts from a blog, and to warrant calling that as illegal, and his chief of staff has basically described the internet as an open source so that there would be (from the chief of staff's perspective) no need to credit anyone for anything as long as it is sourced online. (I wonder how Sotto would feel if somebody copies Eat Bulaga - the show largely instrumental for his fame as he co-hosted it for years - from any social media site that has their episodes.)

Corona has also maintained that there is no need to declare his dollar accounts because as far as he and his lawyers know, the law only requires him to state his peso accounts. Despite the differeing interpretations of  various legal provisions, Corona chose to use the situation to claim that he is correct in his interpretation.

Both have little, if any, appreciation for ethical considerations, and consider these inferior to legal ones.

As far as Sotto and his staff were concerned, no "stealing" took place. Never mind that they already admitted to plagiarizing Sarah Pope's blog. Never mind that most social commentaries have focused on how the act of plagiarism is never an act of accident and how stealing a gold bracelet is no different from stealing a writer's words, even though the writer is "just a blogger". (The senator's wanton use of a blogger's words to advance his cause regarding the RH Bill betrays how he really views them.)

Corona also maintained that he has done everything "legally". Never mind if lawyers cannot agree on one interpretation. Never mind that his very appointment was shrouded in much controversy. Never mind that his stance on declaring dollar accounts as unnecessary would make us practically a safe haven for money laundering. Never mind that the spirit in which the law intended - to make public officials accountable - would be circumvented by a specific way of interpreting the written law.

Ethical considerations demand that they act according to the highest levels of propriety. And both of them have defenders decrying this "unfair" standard, saying that they should be measured "just like any other citizen". Last I checked, "any other citizen" cannot filibuster a bill that's been stalled for years or reverse a decision that's been ruled with finality. Three times.

And yet, "any other" public official like Delsa Flores could be sacked for not declaring her market stall. And "any other" student can be expelled for plagiarizing an academic paper.

Both of them threw their (positions') weight around.

Sotto: "Whatever it is, the buck stops with me. I'm the senator."

Corona: "And now, the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines wishes to be excused."

Hmmm.

Both of them are/were in positions that issue decisions I have no choice but to obey.

As Senate Majority floor leader, Sotto gets to determine to a large extent what bills to give attention to, and as is rather painfully obvious, he is doing everything in his power to prevent the RH Bill from seeing the light of day by giving speeches day in and day out. Yet again.

Even now that Corona has been booted out of office, his decisions when he was Supreme Court Chief Justice stays. How he interpreted the law when he was in power is how everyone is supposed to interpret it, until the decision is changed.

While glancing the news overseas, it struck me that both of them are actually being represented in the upcoming US elections, via the Republican Party.

Could they be the template?

(Courtesy of boston.com)

Mitt Romney refuses to show his tax returns, while Paul Ryan believes women should have few, if any, choices regarding their reproductive health, among other "odd" stances.

Anyone here who wants to field the Corona-Sotto tandem for the next elections?

Personally Yours, Sotto

One of the most vociferous critics of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, senator Tito Sotto, has been front page material this week. In the Senate, on papers both printed and electronic, on social media platforms, his name has become ubiquitous as of late.

The lightning rod, as he calls himself on ANC's Head Start.

(Courtesy of philmusicregistry.net)

How can he not be, when he has made himself a spectacle.

The opening salvo was on Monday, when he "opened up" about his personal experience - the death of his 5 month old son - and directly linked his wife's taking of contraceptive pills to the baby having a weak heart and causing his death.

It seems obligatory somehow to preface any statement with "not to disregard the senator's tragedy/we're sorry for your loss" if you were to criticize him. And since everyone else has done it, let's get right to the accusation he inserted in his first speech: a causal link between pills and a weak heart.

Senator, here is a fact sheet from the World Health Organization for family planning methods. I urge you - in the strongest possible terms - to use science, not emotions, to make pronouncements about causes and risks regarding something that should be used with a doctor's consultation. It illustrates (in summary view) the pill as well as the "minipill", citing method, description, how it works, effectiveness to prevent pregnancy and comments that are inimical to the particular method.

(See: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs351/en/index.html)

This is a July 2012 Fact Sheet from WHO, as current as it gets. Your experience in the 1970's, especially where scientific advances are concerned, will be markedly different from the experience of women nowadays who choose to go on the pill. Science is not static: in fact, the one hallmark it is known for is that old ideas and facts must give way to newer ones, especially in the face of objective evidence.

There is NO mention of heart disease as a side effect of taking pills. To illustrate a "caution", in the same fact sheet, "monthly injectables" has this written under the Comments column: "irregular vaginal bleeding common, but not harmful" - it indicates per method any effect you may have as well as the degree or severity. I invite you to take a look at what it says for both pill types. If they thought it prudent to warn people about vaginal bleeding, wouldn't a cardiac side effect be practically mandatory to mention? Yet WHO makes no statement to that effect regarding pills.

The next item that online commenters have noted was that your speech was, in almost perfect fashion, lifted from a blogger, who calls herself Sarah.

(See http://raissarobles.com/2012/08/16/did-sen-sotto-just-lie-on-national-tv/ as just one of many, many items now online asking the same thing.)

I was surprised to learn that you are an English major, so the concept of plagiarism should not be at all foreign or unheard of. In fact, I would think it cardinal that this concept must have been drilled into all English majors as one of the most reprehensible things you can do. Your interview on ANC's Head Start with Karen Davila didn't really illuminate the questions raised by the plagiarism issue. You claimed that you and the blogger were quoting Dr. McBride. But in your speech, quoting your source, you said "According to Dr. McBride..."

Does that even make sense?

If you were quoting the doctor directly, wouldn't she have said "My research indicates..." and not mention herself in the third person? (I know someone who refers to himself that way, but then we've also written him off as an idiot.)

Did you plagiarize it from the blogger, senator? Yes or no?

On the second day of your speech, you adopted a more combative stance - was it to counter the crying episode of the previous day? - and in movie-like fashion, declared that you're barely getting warmed up. This is exactly why I prefer facts, not posturings. You are not on camera to entertain - not anymore, Senator. This is a piece of legislation that has an effect in the lives of mothers and children. You would be well advised to stop the emotional outbursts, as these may have worked in your previous occupations.

Not here. Not now.

I will wait for the replay of your interview, because you touched on how the RH Bill "restricts" choice, on how the bill is intruding in the Church (?), and how local officials should have the right to decide on what their public health centers contain owing to "freedom of choice". I saw the live interview but my head was spinning after one statement after the other from you - I had to check and see that it really was coming from a senator of this country.

Let's tackle your statements in the Karen Davila interview in the next post.

The De Lima Perception

By now, every news outfit is reporting on the disqualification of Justice Secretary Leila De Lima for the post of Chief Justice.

Perception is reality.

(Courtesy of bulatlat.com)

(See more here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/248913/jbc-disqualifies-de-lima)

I have to say that it was correct of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to have done so, both from a procedural (letter) and substantive (spirit) point of view.

There is no shortage of news reports of how her appointment was flawed to begin with, as most legal analysts have pointed out how clear the JBC rules are regarding candidates with pending cases: they are automatically disqualified, as it uses the word "are" to describe the disqualification, and not allowing any wiggle room, as compared to, say, if the language used was "may be" or "is subject to".

I know De Lima has made overtures about how no one should "count her out", and I'm not sure if she can appeal the JBC decision, but from the viewpoint of someone who values the spirit of the law above and beyond the letter, it reinforces my belief that De Lima can not take the CJ position, precisely because of how she is perceived, and that perception would affect how we all look at the judiciary.

One of the reasons why former Chief Justice Renato Corona was brought into the impeachment trial was because of his perceived "protectionist" stance as far as his benefactor, former President Arroyo, was concerned. Hiring De Lima would be merely a change in casting, but with the same problem: a judiciary perceived to be malleable to the dictates of the Chief Executive of the country.

As Justice Secretary, she has been armed with the duties and powers prescribed by law accorded to her position, as well as the blessing of the President, to do "as she must", which I have no doubt undergoes numerous consultations with her superior - in other words, whatever she does in that capacity has an underlying current of approval from the person who hired her.

The position of Chief Justice demands one to be cleared of that perceived partiality - as much as one can achieve despite the fact that it is the President who chooses who becomes CJ from a list of nominees. One way that effect is stifled, even if not in totality, is that the JBC is composed of members of different occupations and interests, who have the unenviable job of being scrutinized while doing the scrutiny of candidates. But that is precisely how it works in a democracy: there has to be transparency and accountability, where citizens are free to view the processes, and if necessary, question them, because it is OUR money that pays for their salaries.

De Lima in the position would require all of us the tremendous undertaking of suspending our disbelief that she is in no way partial to what the Chief Executive wants, not with how she has been pushed and prodded as the choice of PNoy (it's not really a secret, is it?), and a judge - and to be the country's top judge, no less - requires the highest level of impartiality. That is clearly not the hallmark of Renato Corona.

And the same can be said for Leila De Lima.

The JBC has already come up with the shortlist. What I am hoping for is that the President chooses someone who has been known to diverge from him on some issues, but with reasons that are grounded, valid and causing one to challenge one's thinking. Not because it has to be someone "opposite" you, but because no good can come from having someone continuously saying yes to you, and in particular, the head of a supposedly independent branch of government.

It just wasn't in the cards for De Lima. But I've never subscribed to any form of clairvoyance, and I certainly am not about to start now. Not when both the letter and the spirit of the law are revealing to us all we need to know.

Let's Get "Real" About The RH Bill

Last Saturday, the Catholic Church mounted its forces and called for a "prayer rally" in order to make a statement to the government that they are prepared to fight tooth and nail in opposing the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

I don't even know what to say to this.

(Courtesy of raissarobles.com)

I know of many friends who are actually against the RH Bill. I cannot and will not begrudge them their opinion, based on their religious beliefs and what their (religious) leaders have told them, based on what they perceive the bill to be all about. I don't know if any of them actually managed to make it to the said show of protest at the EDSA Shrine, which was befitting as the event venue since it was clearly a religious-based opposition.

I am directing my comments and questions to the Catholic leadership in this country.

As can be gleaned by various news articles and pronouncements, there is an overwhelming support by various sectors for the passage of this bill. 

The United Nations figures in today's headline of the country's most read paper, recognizing how family planning contributes to development.

(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/243039/un-weighs-in-on-ph-birth-control-dispute)

Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof has come out to refute how his words have been presented to suit the needs and biases of those against the bill, with special mention of the CBCP.

(http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/33-editors-pick-moveph/9859-nobel-prize-winner-contradicts-cbcp)

Business groups have publicly declared their support for the measure.

(http://www.interaksyon.com/business/39510/big-business-calls-on-congress-to-pass-rh-bill)

As this is a democracy, there are other religious groups existing as well, and some of them have given their support for the RH Bill.

(https://www.facebook.com/efraim.tendero/posts/10151161259219612)

Survey after survey have shown that majority of Filipinos want the bill to pass.

(http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101201-306256/Pulse-69-favor-RH-bill)

My questions/comments, then, are:

(1) If you are truly against contraception, why do you support natural methods of family planning?

This has always been my biggest concern (if that's the word I should be using) whenever the prelates would start preaching against the condom, the pill, the IUD.

Why are you so vigorously opposed to modern methods of preventing conception, calling it "anti-life" even, when they have exactly the same end as the natural methods?

I never understood why you always seemed to be on some moral high ground. I remember how, in an online forum, one of your defenders was haughtily proclaiming that because of some Catholic doctrine and how natural methods are "open to life", it is perfectly fine to push these methods.

I countered that I am not a Catholic, so I am just going by what I see as someone "not immersed": Isn't that hypocrisy?

You are basically saying that one method is better than the other, but you do realize that both those methods have the same end? Namely, not letting the egg meet the sperm. It is spelled out clearly in the term contraception.

Contra = Against

Ception = Conception

It would be akin to someone defending his method to kill another person using his bare hands ("natural" method) to wring out the life of the intended target, but saying that he is morally superior to someone who employs a gun or a hacksaw (using weapons) to achieve the same end: murdering someone.

How can you sit on your moral high horse? I see no difference.

(2) You do know that the government and (any) church are separate in any democracy?

I need to point this out because whenever you make your pronouncements on how candidates should fear your "influence" should any of them decide to vote for the RH Bill's passage, you are clearly establishing a threat - it's not even a subtle one - that secular lawmakers in a democratic country have to bow down to one specific religion's doctrine.

Or else.

Do you understand what the terms "secular" and "democracy" even mean?

Yes, even though you are in denial of it, it means one thing: You in the Catholic leadership are in the same position as every other religion in the country. You are on equal footing, no one religion is supposed to be "better", and neither is one supposed to be favored. You only have an advantage in that Catholicism - imported via Spain - has been here since Magellan landed so you have almost 5 centuries of a headstart.

And I deliberately inserted the fact that Catholicism is a foreign concept to these islands, as many of your defenders like to say that it is "foreign influence" that is pushing for the modern methods of family planning. If these same people are so adamant about being "controlled" by concepts that are from other shores, they should be renouncing Catholicism this very instant.

The silence - and the hypocrisy - is deafening.

(3) Have you tried raising children or ever applied for a job?

I mean that question in the most non-antagonistic way possible.

Going with this post's title, it behooves me to wonder how is it that you think yourselves so well-versed in advising people on the ways of family life, or making claims like "contraception leads to corruption", as mentioned in last Saturday's rally.

Have you ever had a baby wake you up at night? Have you had 10 children simultaneously asking you where your next meal will be coming from? Have you had to fend off feelings of guilt, knowing in the pit of your stomach you can only send one of them to school, and just to elementary school at that? Have you tried walking around in the searing sun and horrendous rains, handing out your resumes and not hearing about a positive development in your job hunt for weeks, months, and even years? Have you even worried about where to sleep or what to wear?

The posturing, as if you had such a wealth of experience in these matters, is what is most offensive to my eyes, ears and most of all, heart.

Millions of people in this country - almost 100 million as of last count - are struggling to make it through the next day, even the next meal. Until you have come face to face with those stark realities, in an authentic way, that you have actually experienced and lived through, all your platitudes just come off as armchair pronouncements, one that is devoid of real world experience.

(4) Do you think subsidizing the distribution of modern methods of family planning is a waste of money?

Then you should be equally consistent and call for the immediate end of all subsidies provided for by government.

I highlight this because I read an online comment, saying that "condoms are legal and can be purchased anyway, don't use tax money to buy them, anyone who wishes to buy them should pay full price!"

Following that logic, we should tear down all public schools, demolish public hospitals, declare public health centers as a large deficit contributor, and so on.

These services have been provided because in a democratic government, it falls on the state to ensure that each citizen has a fighting chance of getting educated, having good health services, and everything else that make one not only have an existence, but a life. And they are given to support the most financially disadvantaged of its citizens.

Let me repeat that: it is the duty of the State to empower and equip its citizens with the right and basic tools to make it through life, whatever and however a person fashions that life to be. It is also responsible for managing the taxes it collects to fund these services - these are not "Catholic money", as some of your supporters claim they do not wish to "fund condoms" (as if that is the only thing the RH Bill provides). Public money, tax money - these are all property of the government, our "admission price" for being citizens in a democratic country. No religion can dictate a secular, democratic government what to do with it.

The RH Bill is meant to provide information and services regarding reproductive health for the country's poorest, those who don't even know where to get their next meal, much in the same way that public schools are meant for those who cannot afford it. You do not say "everyone should pay full price!" - have you seen what Catholic schools charge as tuition fees?

5. Lastly, the Philippines is not Catholic property. Deal with it.

Another Term?

Take me back. Again. And again. And again.

(Courtesy of forbes.com)

According to a news report following Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's "victory" at the Sandiganbayan, her spokesperson has hinted that Arroyo will be seeking a second term as legislator.

(See http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/238085/gloria-macapagal-arroyo-gunning-for-2nd-house-term for more details.)

Are people with pending court cases allowed by our current electoral system to run for public office in any capacity?

Just asking aloud.

I went to the Comelec (Commission on Elections) website to look for candidate qualifications and requirements.

I'm still in the dark as there is no information about those there. (Or maybe the website isn't very "friendly".) There are a whole lot of links for voter requirements, though.

Hmm.

Now Showing (At The Ballot): Artistas

A recent poster by GMA News reminded me of a sterling fact that has been more pronounced with each election that I am witness to in our country: the rise of the artista (celebrity) cannot be denied.

A twist to "a star-studded affair."

(Courtesy of GMA News)

Enter the artista into our political lives.

We not only get to see them in the big and small screens, they now write our laws and enforce them as well.

Who can forget President Estrada, attaining the highest post of the land? (His defenders keep reminding everyone that "to be fair", he did rise up the ranks in San Juan, a city where his family is now considered the de facto rulers. I guess he's done with San Juan beause he now wants to battle it out with Mayor Lim for Manila.)

When I am asked about how I feel about it, I respond by saying both sides of the coin have compelling reasons.

Those who see their entry into politics as "perfectly fine" say that (1) you can't fault the artista for having popularity on their side because other candidates have a track record, or money, or entrenched underlings as their trump card and (2) it would infringe on the right of a citizen of this country - who just happens to be an artista - to run for an elective post, if that person satisfies the bare, minimum requirements for the post.

On the other hand, those who are appalled with their foray into politics believe (1) it is an undue advantage that they are exploting their mass appeal and fame and convert it to votes and a shot at another career (since some of those running are considered "inactive" or "not really successful" with their showbiz careers) and (2) voters are nasisilawan (blinded) by the name recognition/recall that they don't bother electing a more "deserving" candidate - probably a career civil servant - and end up making the "wrong" choice.

If you have seen my posts about the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, it would be hypocritical of me to say that I cannot trust people to make the "right" decisions when that is exactly what I am voicing out when I support the RH Bill, that people should be given the choice - and the correct, scientific information help make those choices, to plan their families the best way it suits their needs.

I am also passionate about education being the great equalizer - we may have different stands on so many different issues, but as long as you have facts, and not just rhetoric, "conventional wisdom" (which I see no difference with "tradition") or dogma, as your basis for your decision, then I will respect that decision or choice.

And so it is with the celebrities who now take on a political route.

At the end of the day, we get the (democratic) government we elected, and we will deserve that choice.

Quick question, though: how do we expect to be a robust, economic powerhouse if we are perfectly happy that the people we elect to lead us satisfy only the barest of (legal) requirements?

A Twist To Drive Thru Service

Where the vendors are the ones who drive their trucks up to where people are and foodies get to sample different fares, while merchants get to keep their costs low. Or at least lower.

I first came across Off The Grid on Andrew Zimmern's show Bizarre Foods. He was in San Francisco (known for its counter-culture, er, culture) and I suppose that characteristic of the city makes it an ideal place for Off The Grid to take off.

I don't see why it can't work here. We do have lots of spaces that remain underutilized, or local city governments could designate areas to be blocked off to entice local food producers and chefs to come together to showcase their produce, wares and food discoveries. (All pictures from and more information can be found at http://offthegridsf.com/)

Currently, the "markets" I see are, yes, cross cultural - I came across Persian, French, regional Filipino, Thai and Mexican cuisines all under one roof - but the prices of the foods ensured that only members of certain economic classes could partake of them. (I don't know about you, but getting a slice of Moussaka for almost 300 Philippine Pesos is not something I would say is "consumer friendly", in the context of a public market setting.)

I wonder if any of our local city governments would consider the Off The Grid model.

Kowtowing To Religion

That is what "Chiz" Escudero, Philippine Senator, is doing.

Religious considerations outweigh politics - for this senator.

(Courtesy of talakayanatkalusugan.com)

In a recent forum, the senator, who is separated from his wife, declared that he is not in favor of divorce. As has been noted many times, the Philippines - apart from the Catholic Dreamland known as Vatican City - is the only country in the world that does not have a divorce law.

(See http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/213255/separated-senator-says-no-to-divorce)

It is a rather odd stance for someone who did not have a successful marital relationship to be the first to oppose divorce. But, listening to his reason, it becomes clear that the Senator does not understand the separation clause of our Constitution.

"In my view, there is a serious disagreement between the government, Congress and the (Catholic) Church (emphasis mine), so this is not the right time to exacerbate this (rift)."

Say what?

Since when did the Catholic Church become part and parcel of making laws?

Have these facts occurred to the senator?

(1) You can have a civil marriage, legal and binding, without going to any church.
(2) A church wedding isn't legal/binding until the parties sign a civil contract.

I have been consistent in arguing for secularization where our secular, democratic laws are concerned. My stance is hinged on the irrefutable fact that in a democracy, RELIGION IS A CHOICE. Why is the Catholic Church now considered a stakeholder in the discussions regarding bills like Reproductive Health and divorce?

If the argument is that "they have the highest number of adherents in the country", that becomes a gateway for our democracy to be turned into a Catholic theocracy. It should not matter how many "believers" a certain faith has, it still does not give that religion the right to dictate what is to be inscribed into our secular laws, for the very simple reason that by doing so, it negates the concept of having the right to choose your own religion under a democracy, and would force people who choose another faith to follow the tenets of the "most adherents" religion, which presently is the Catholic Church.

Yes, the "presently" is deliberate, because Escudero, in all probability, has not read the following articles.

http://ncronline.org/news/people/young-millennials-losing-faith-record-numbers
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=11211
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/cw/post.php?id=565

The last link, on a site called Catholic News Agency, has for its' title Don't Leave The Church, an outright admission that Catholics are, indeed, leaving the faith.

I expected Escudero, being an elected representative of the people, to be especially wary of intermingling politics and religion, and be the very first to contest any religious interference in the making of our laws, that being his principal duty as a public official.

I also expected him to be especially sensitive to the needs of couples whose marriages did not work, not being successful in his own marriage. No, I'm not being "judgemental" , this is a statement of fact.

Are these particularly high expectations?

Message for Senators Escudero and Pimentel

So we don't matter?

(Courtesy of coolbuster.net)

Senators,

I saw a snippet of your interview this morning regarding the appearance of Chief Justice Corona today on his own impeachment trial. The interviewer wanted to know how much public opinion would weigh in your final decision regarding Corona.

Both of you answered that public opinion will not be a factor in any way when you arrive at a decision, in determining whether Corona is still fit to stay in his current position as Chief Justice.

Some notes:

(1) The impeachment proceedings - a political process.

(2) Why the need to televise the whole shebang if public opinion has no bearing on the proceedings naman pala? (anyway)

(3) Senators are also called Representatives. Which means you speak for us. If you say public opinion doesn't matter, who are you representing, then?

And finally, you do know your tenure is temporary at best, yes? Your evaluation will be a period known as "elections". If I remember correctly, candidates practically grovel and beg for votes during this time, walking in the sun, kissing babies, acting like teenybopper stars, singing and dancing, generally making a spectacle of themselves.

Strange stance for someone who fought tooth and nail for their position.

(Courtesy of noypi.ph)

Something Lady Gaga does, but at least she doesn't do it under the pretense of "public service".

So, a little refresher may be in order.

It's time to reacquaint you with the power of public opinion.

It's Still Too Early, Mrs. Villar

I had a late class the other day and arrived home, wanting to just lay my head on our pillow on our bed to get a little shut eye before Art woke me for (a very late) dinner. The television was on and a slew of commercials were playing, which I treated as white noise.

Something piqued my interest, though: an ad came along, where there were testimonials of workers who had turned their lives around. I am a sucker for people who through sheer will and dint of hard work were able to throw back the cards they have been dealt directly on Fate's face and say "Screw that, I make my own fate!"

It turned out to be a parading of achievements of a foundation headed by Cynthia Villar, the Villar Foundation.

Helping others or helping yourself?

(Courtesy of article.wn.com)

She is a former legislator (in Congress, preceded by her husband before she took the slot and followed by her son after her terms have expired), and wife of now-Senator and former Presidential candidate Manny Villar.

I didn't know our television could produce smells on top of images and sounds, because the odious stink of early election campaigning assaulted not only my olfactory nerves but my very being.

Ano ba naman? Ang aga aga, nangangampanya na. (What the heck? She is campaigning this early in the game.)

What infuriates me no end is that, in the same way that past candidates were able to use this loophole, the Comelec (Commission on Elections) will most likely do nothing, and refer to their rulebook and say "Well, there's nothing in the ad that says Vote For Me so it can't really be considered campaigning, all she's doing is showing what her organization has done."

Give me a big frigging break. Let's call a spade a spade.

This is exactly why the spirit of the law should always be superior to the letter of the law.

She is using her vast resources - after all, Manny used his rags to riches story to appeal to voters, especially to the masses, when he made a bid for the presidency, so it's not a secret that they are rich - to initiate voter recall, and several surveys have shown that recall is one of, if not the most, important factor for "winnability" in elections.

In Pulse Asia's recent surveys for senators, Kris Aquino amd Willie Revillame, both media personalities, made it to the top 20, and they haven't announced plans to run for the Senate at all, or expressed any interest! Clearly, there is something wrong, when voters choose on the basis of the name that jumps out at them, instead of screening candidates on the basis of qualifications. This is the supposed "wisdom" of democracy, but that deserves a separate post.

I would be happy to be proven wrong, if Cynthia Villar did not run for any elective position in the upcoming 2013 elections. Or any of her immediate family.

But the timing of the ad is suspect, since the organization she heads has been in existence for years (since 1992). Not to mention the fact that ads cost hundreds of thousands, scratch that, millions of pesos, which could have funded more livelihood projects if the said organization is to be true to its calling.

Prove me wrong, Mrs. Villar.

I dare you - or anyone in your family - not to run for any elective position in the upcoming elections.

This is one time I don't mind being proven wrong.