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.

The Ten Commandments For Plagiarists

I'd like to take an ethics class under him.

(Courtesy of facebook.com)

1. Laugh. Portray the accusation as a vendetta, poo-pooh it by saying things like "they're just jealous of me". Make it seem insignificant, the way diarrhea can be.

2. Act imperious, and do it with conviction, as if you are coming from a place of moral certainty: remember, you're only acting.

3. Utilize the Bart Simpson defense/tactic: No one saw me do it, you can't prove it, you can't be blamed. In short, channel your inner belligerent kid. Unless you are the belligerent kid, in which case you only have to be more of yourself.

4. Denial should be part of your DNA, a mantra to be applied daily. Like moisturizer.

5. Have a lackey who you can blame: "tinext lang naman sa akin eh!" or "blame my staff!" are popular catch-all lines that absolve you of any responsibility.

6. Portray all internet users as no-good, shiftless and aimless morons, who, surprisingly, are adept at fact checking (insert audible gasp here) and for calling out your BS, but despite this, find time to make you the center of their world.

7. Push for legislation that will punish people for saying what's on their mind. So, freedom of speech will be impaired. A basic democratic tenet will be rendered useless. It will gag people, most especially the truth-tellers. WHO CARES. As long as they all shut up, which is what you wanted, everyone can suck it, right?

8. Remember, if you translate something, it becomes original. Better if you translate it from English to Tagalog. It will soon be a college degree: B.S. And no, not Bachelor of Science. The other meaning of B.S.

9. Petition for all schools to remove plagiarism as an academic offense: why should anyone demand students to have integrity in their work? What conceivable purpose does "giving someone proper credit" do? Will you be rewarded for being "honest"? Kailangan ba lahat orig? As long as something isn't declared "illegal", game lang yan!

10. Run for any legislative post. You decide what passes for legal, you have "parliamentary immunity", you can make bombastic speeches all day long uninterrupted - who cares if they are devoid of any thought, original or otherwise - and most importantly, you are called "honorable".

Sweet deal, huh?

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.

The Pink Sibuyas In The Room

Would this be an apt first post, right after the Cybercrime Prevention Act (CPA) has taken effect?

Probably not.

Yes, the tears are expected.

(Courtesy of indiamart.com)

But before you turn away, maybe you can hear me out. You see, while the Act is legal in nature, my observation will border on the cultural. This was actually something that was impressed on us in Social Studies class back when I was in elementary school, something that I have found to be true with each working day of my life, and was at the back of my mind until I heard two news items today.

Christopher Lao, a law student back then when he gained national prominence, supports the CPA.

(See: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/10/03/12/you-are-informed-chris-lao-backs-anti-cybercrime-law)

Celebrities like Sharon Cuneta, Regine Velasquez and Ciara Sotto also support the same measure.

(See: http://www.interaksyon.com/entertainment/sharon-regine-ciara-support-cybercrime-law/)

It led to me to find the common thread between the three fields where these personalities became known: Senator Sotto, currently in politics, was for the longest time a variety show host and actor. Christopher is from the legal profession (he is now a lawyer), while the three ladies are from the entertainment business.

At first glance - probably moreso to someone not from our country - this would seem like a diverse mix, that a politician, a lawyer and entertainers would find common ground, rallying behind a single piece of legislation. (My gut feel is that we in this country are now desensitized from the fusion of the political and entertainment fields. This warrants actual research, so if you know of one, please do let me know.)

So, what is it that binds them together?

My observation is that all of them were in some way, and somehow, made fun of, ridiculed, criticized, even to the point of being villified, albeit with different reasons, but with a similar fate. In short, they all underwent public crucifixion, most notably over cyberspace.

Senator Sotto is no stranger to controversy, being one of the staunchest critics of the Reproductive Health Bill. (Important note: PLEASE VOTE ON THE RH BILL NOW, SENATORS.) It was when he was delivering his speeches about that bill, when it was alleged that he plagiarized parts of his speech from different bloggers. One of them, Sarah Pope, directly called him out on this.

Netizens being netizens, it was a field day to make satirical and humorous posts about this incident. I have read an observation that because of Martial Law in the 70's, it honed us as a people to retaliate against authorities using humor and sarcasm, because an outright confrontation might mean someone's mortality. I am inclined to believe that this is the same phenomenon, since citizens are not in a position to make parliamentary speeches - uninterrupted - the way a senator has the privilege of doing so.

It prompted Sotto to verbally say in one of his speeches that (to paraphrase him) online commenters and critics would soon have to guard and watch what they say and post.

I don't follow local showbiz, but even I was aware that Sharon, known as the Megastar, figured in a public tussle with some fans online, regarding the state of her daughter KC's ended relationship with a hearthrob. And there have been many disparaging remarks about her weight, as well. Apparently, Regine has had to field some online comments about her son, and Ciara did post a buzz-worthy tweet, which I found understandable, because when she posted this, her father was already getting a lot of flak publicly.

Christopher, of course, became an overnight sensation, but in a negative sense: his famous line, "I was not informed!" when he drove his car over a flooded area raised a lot of heckles and jeers online, and spawned off many posters and jokes.

Fast forward to now: depending on which news article you read, Senator Sotto was responsible for inserting the now-talked-about libel provision in the CPA, or he is adamant in denying that he was responsible for its inclusion.

And I was not at all surprised when Christopher and the three entertainers now voice support for the CPA. It goes back to what I was taught: hiya, shame, is a powerful concept in dictating the way we, as a people, relate with each other, and guides the way our relationships - filial, business, romantic - run their course, to a significant extent. (It's something I find we share with our Asian neighbors.)

We revel in the indirect route, and do not relish those who are frank, to the point and forthright. Those who choose to do so run the risk of being called bastos (rude), and it will find cultural support. There is a preoccupation with taking care not to offend another person's sentiments, to the point that sometimes, we prefer uncomfortable silences, leading to so many mixed messages as a result, in order to allow each party to "save face".

Which is why, with their reputations raked over cyberspace, it would but seem natural that those on the receiving end of public scrutiny and ridicule would find solace in each other.

At the end of the day, no one wants to be skewered for all of cyberspace to see.

I do have to say this, though: those in public office, entertainment and people who consent to being interviewed on television should understand that when they volunteered to be where they are at - yes, it is a choice, not one "forced" on you - they will receive feedback, and invariably, not all of them will be pleasant to hear or digest. If the notion of getting flak as a result of "doing what you do" is too much to bear, you may need to ask yourself if the cons outweigh the benefits.

As someone who has maintained a blog for some time now, I readily admit that when I received my first negative response to something I wrote, it stopped me more than I expected to, and with the same reason that Sharon gave (see link): it was under a pseudonym, so I could not really see who I was responding to, and given that s/he sent me words dipped in bile and coated with acid, it did affect me.

But when I looked at my collective responses, and I can now confidently and quantitatively say that there are more people who agree with or support my point of view, or dissent with respect and with good reasons to, than those who make snide remarks (often attacking emotionally and not on the basis of what I have written), I chalk it up to the fact that not everyone will like what I've written, and that is just fine.

Who am I to dictate to people how they feel after reading something, or how they react? Hell, I write my posts with the hope of getting some discourse and reactions going, and possibly a fruitful exchange of ideas. I will have no chance of getting that if I insist that we all have a one-track mind.

That is why I choose not to focus on my feelings of offense - believe me, they happen - and I try to dissect it and see why it is I felt offended. And part of what I know is that, no matter how hard you try, some people will hate your guts, with no logic, rhyme or reason. It could be the way you look, or how nauseated they feel when you open your mouth - it doesn't have to make sense, but guess what?

That is their right, and under their control.

Just as letting it affect you is also under your control.

But, hey, that's just me.

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?

Not Just For Senator Sotto

Hope his staff doesn't read it first.

(Courtesy of barriosiete.com)

Dear Senator Sotto,

Many events have taken place since my last blogpost, more than 24 hours ago.

And they have to do with your public disavowal of plagiarism on a television show; the subsequent discovery of the blogger of all this brouhaha happening halfway around the world from where she is; and her reactions - first being "amused" and then later writing a rather pointed blogpost and mentioning you directly that leaves no doubt as to what she wants to say. We also have the "apology letter" written by the head of your staff now going viral, which is basically an admission that your office committed plagiarism, and the pecuiliar way the apology came off.

See the following for full details:
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/on-plagiarism-the-pill-and-presumptuousness/
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/08/16/12/blogger-cant-believe-work-was-plagiarized
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/08/16/12/sottos-office-admits-copying-us-blog

First, an admission.

I did not vote for you. That is because I have been consistently vocal about my extreme discomfort with entertainers subsequently running for public office. Personally, I feel the lopsidedness in your advantage as far as name recall is concerned: your position as entertainers assures that you will stand out in some way. And name recall is king in our elections. Or at least our brand of it.

I am well aware that as a citizen of a secular democracy, you are entitled to run for any elective office. The question is not can you?...but rather, should you? The recently deceased local King of Comedy said it quite well (and I will paraphrase it in English): It's easy to win an election, but what happens after?

Also, let me say this off the bat: I am not a lawyer, a legal expert, not even a paralegal. I am "just" a blogger - the way you casually mentioned bakit ko naman iquo-quote ang blogger should tell everyone how you view anyone who "just" blogs. But as I understand it, a senator is someone with a national mandate to write, amend, and if needed, change completely, our laws.

(Quote from http://professionalheckler.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/gotcha/)

Are you aware of what an awesome responsibility that is? I am desisting from using the word power, as that is all we have been brought up in and known, all our lives - a politician is to be feared, respected, bowed down to. I want to focus on the other side of the coin, a cliche thanks to Spider-Man: with great power comes great responsibility.

You can effect laws that can change our very lives: Economic provisions, the taxes we pay, whether foreign bases can (again) set foot in the country, the punishment to be meted out to child molesters, what it means to uphold the separation of state and religion in a tangible, concrete way and not as a vague concept only to be discussed in political science courses...

It can also affect he state of maternal mortality and teenage pregnancies in the country, one of the many issues that can be helped, even in some measure, by the passage of the RH Bill. Actual lives - human lives - are at stake by choosing which pieces of legislation to pass. That is how encompassing your responsibility as a senator is.

Which is why I cannot hide my dejection, disappointment and most of all, my anger, with this issue of plagiarism, something your chief of staff wanted Sarah Pope to stop focusing on, something you yourself dismissed nonchalantly as an attempt to discredit your person, under the (erroneous) assumption that what you have charged about the ill effects of the RH Bill cannot be countered by those who support it (they have been answered point by point squarely, by your co-senators and by many, many groups and people, over and over again).

I expect that all senators - even the ones I did not vote for - be personally responsible for what they say and do, because whether I like it or not, your decisions will affect me in a personal way. And as a citizen of this secular, democratic country, I will be bound by the laws that you and the other senators approve.

You cannot pass off this "incident" and say "my staff did it": they won't be voting on crucial bills. YOU ARE. It is your vote, your decision and your signature that will determine what passes for law in this country. It behooves you, therefore, to have armed yourself with the latest scientific findings and factual research when it comes to issues regarding reproductive health.

You do this country a great disservice by not researching things on your own, and while you are not barred from hiring people to help you with your work, it is your responsibility to ensure that they have provided you with accurate information for the purposes of crafting legislation. You do us an even greater disservice by passing this off as the work of those under you, and doing what is colloquially called a Pontius Pilate: washing your hands off the incident.

Do you not comprehend the gravity of what you may have done had the blogger not called you out on this?

Whenever I hear of "how much work" senators have to do, of how many meetings you have to attend, of how many committee hearings are scheduled, of how your backlog is so huge, it strikes me as odd - I've edited myself here - that I now see senators posing for ad campaigns of processed meats, computer universities, and even hosting morning and primetime television shows.

Surely, in between takes, you could at least verify that the information you are using as the basis for legislative decisions are, at the very least, identified by source?

This recent debacle you are now facing has reinforced my vote in the last senatorial elections as being the correct one. I am hoping that many more of our citizens will come to the same realization, too, as well as one more thing:

Public officials answer to us.

Sincerely,
Guy With A Blog

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

*As I was about to post this, a news item was alerted to my attention. I'm guessing this is how the senator plans to handle this - a friend called it Sotto Pilato.

http://www.rappler.com/nation/10692-sotto-isn%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99t-sorry,-says-chief-of-staff

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.

A Low Blow Amidst High Waters

We certainly don't need any of those given the terrible weather conditions.

Divine wrath?

(Courtesy of daylife.com)

Unfortunately, it was an opportunity too good to pass up to those who feel they have a direct line to God. (And how eagerly He supposedly agrees to anything they say.)

After yesterday's historic vote in Congress that ended the debates regarding the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, an unusually large amount of rainfall characterized most of today, so much so that it has already exceeded the rainfall produced during typhoon Ondoy last 2009, which is viewed as the worst storm we've had in the country in recent years.

(See http://www.rappler.com/nation/10004-rainfall-over-metro-surpasses-ondoy-record for more details.)

Given the weather, most of us were "grounded" at home, giving us the time to stay online much more than normally possible (read: during work days). It also afforded us time to see posts from those against the RH Bill, claiming that "justice" is now being done from "high above".

"Heaven is letting out tears for the RH Bill."

"This is God speaking through nature for approving of immorality approved by Congress!"

"Maybe now you will understand that we will not be ignored! Down with the RH Bill! Let the rains wash it away!"

These are just a few of the online comments I have read, linking the heavy rainfall with the ending of the RH debates. Or, as these comments show, these posters believe the rains to be "God's response" for the RH Bill vote.

I don't know about you, but I would be very careful about claiming to speak for an all-powerful and all-knowing deity. If there's anything that stories about gods have shown us, it's that they don't need to justify anything they do: they do it precisely because they simply can.

You see that when Zeus had his way with any number of women. You see that in the God of the Christian Bible, who suddenly gave Abraham and his wife a son in their old age, only to tell them to kill their son as a sacrifice - all for a test. In modern day (psychology) terminology, we would call Zeus a rapist and the Christian God a sadist.

Their comments also disregard the fact that we have typhoons every year, aside from various weather disturbances not considered as a full-blown typhoon. Not to mention, when the anti-RH forces were having their "prayer rally", it was raining as well: we can quibble about the amount of rainfall, but if I followed their so-called "logic", God hates both those who are for and against the RH Bill?

But more importantly, it betrays who they are and what their priorities are: they disregard the suffering caused by the rains, and would rather gloat about their supposed moral superiority than trying to extend help to those who are directly affected by the rains.

They have painted their God as vengeful (for their cause), capable of causing loss and damage to innocent people, and quite frankly, petty, if a God so all-powerful didn't directly punish the lawmakers who supposedly "disobeyed His will."

Are they trying to drive people away from their religion? Well, they're doing a marvelous job.

For A Brother's Love

Dying for brotherhood.

(Courtesy of newsinfo.inquirer.net)

Senseless.

That's how I would describe the death of Marc Andre Marcos.

Seeing his lifeless body on the television news, I tried not to wince when the camera focused on the blackish red hues on his arms and legs, indicating that these were the areas so lovingly beaten by his supposed "brothers", so that they could be given proof that he would be...I don't know, is loyal the right word?

There are no right words to justify a horrible and grievous wrong, perpetrated in the name of a mockery of sibling affection.

Having never been part of a fraternity, I am not at all misty-eyed about how "outsiders" will never understand how deep their bonds supposedly are, and how they are there for each other, through the direst of situations.

I can't think of a situation more desperately dire than the death of someone you wished to initiate into this brotherhood you so romantically sing paeans about when there are "others" around, a death caused by those within this organization professing an embracing and welcoming of new recruits. (This would be the type of welcome I would expect from an S and M Club, and I understand that even they have "rules", like control words that can be utilized when the masochist has "had enough".)

What does a fraternity offer, by way of advantages, that pushes men who are about to enter their productive years into salivating for places in these hallowed "houses"?

In my college years, there were two standout reasons that I have heard, having been surrounded by fraternities in UP, and the wannabes who so desperately wanted to be "included".

One, when you get into a brawl, your "brothers" will come to your aid.

Two, your job security is, well, secured, because the "upper classmen" (older fraternity brothers, those already entrenched in government, big business and other industries) will give you sterling recommendations, open career doors and even outright hire you and groom you for a successful financial future.

None of those reasons sound very appealing to me, and to my mind, to anyone who is not enamored with the words "heritage" or "tradition" when you can be killed as part of the initiation rites.

For the first reason:

Why get in a brawl in the first place?

The usual fights I have witnessed when I was in school were among opposing fraternities, and none of these "brothers" are pretty much willing to discuss the root of their fights, except to say that the other fraternity "started it first".

Do we even need a reason to say that this really isn't a good justification for upholding fraternities?

For the second reason:

I don't see how this differs from people that we accuse of being corrupt, or of practicing nepotism.

See, my parents brought us up in a meritocracy: that everything we would seek as a reward should have a corresponding "work" behind it. Whenever we would get perfect grades or do our chores, my mom would give us a list of "prizes" and to choose only one from it. You can call it cruel Pavlovian training, you can ask "didn't you feel like you were being strung along?"...but it definitely reinforced the fact that if you wanted the good stuff, there'd better be some sweat under your brow or some serious study time, soemtimes lasting well into the night.

And I have carried that belief into my own professional life now. I am extremely averse to people who schmooze their way into positions, who get a job because they happened to be a relative, who don't bother working their way up and instead, expect to be given privileges on the basis of some "feature" that  didn't require them to do anything other than mention, "oh, by the way, did I mention that I..."

Giving privileges to younger people who just happened to be from the same fraternity doesn't make them try harder, do better, go further. It only inculcates a smug sense of superiority for someone just joining the workforce, probably looking at his co-applicants with pity, all along mentally congratulating himself that he already has the job in the bag, owing to the bonds of brotherhood.

Is this how they infuse new blood into The Old Boys' Club?

Can anyone give me a good reason why fraternities should be patronized, defended, and possibly even celebrated?

If it's because of their charity works, you can do that without joining one.

If it's to have camaraderie and friendship, and to be accepted into a secret circle to feel validated, that may point to a flaw in self esteem.

Andre, like so many fatal hazing victims, who have given their lives so willingly, all to be part of this society, is calling out to all of us.

The question is, how do we respond to Andre's senseless death?

Do we just wink, say "that's what it means to be in a fraternity" and look away?

Or do we make sense of his death by doing what's right?

I Finally Saw Those PBB Teens

That's time I won't be able to take back.

Remind me again why they're "heroes", according to one columnist.

(Courtesy of pinoystarblog.com)

All I could think of while they were describing their pairing off with one another:

Inbreeding?

As part of my fact-finding about Sen. Chiz Escudero on taking another career path by being the co-host of Kris Aquino in her morning show, I had the excruciating...joy of beholding these teenagers who "fought" against one another for prizes in the millions of pesos by being the most "votable", sometime this week.

(http://theguywithablog.blogspot.com/2012/07/were-not-working-our-senators-hard.html is where I write about a senator's job probably being easy, thanks to Chiz and Bong showing us how to juggle their way through many hats.)

There were these twins (finalists for this season) that would make drag queen behavior passe.

There were the (predictably) pa-cute guys - not finalists - professing their "affection" for the girls who were finalists. (Can anyone say "hanging on those darned 15 minutes?")

And then the "big winner", Myrtle, who, when asked by Kris if she was really outspoken and had a strong personality, responded by nodding her head meekly and acted as if she was mute.

Do we have a Ministry of Time? I'd like to get back those wasted minutes, please.

And don't get me started on Sen. Escudero acting all kilig (gushy) around these teenagers.

I couldn't decide which car crash was worse.

If Anderson Had Said "I'm Straight"

I hear scores of straight women mourning.

(Courtesy of cnn.com)

There wouldn't be the online buzz that has now been unleashed by what Anderson actually admitted, what many are saying is an "open secret, anyway."

But it can now be officially said.

Anderson Cooper, CNN reporter and talk show host, son of Gloria Vanderbilt, generally acknowledged as a "looker" who happens to be darned good at what he does, has come out. Finally. With those three words, he has inched the civil rights movement forward:

I am gay.

Just as when Obama finally clinched the presidency (and will hopefully do it again this year), it mattered much more to African Americans, because it is a concrete, real, and tangible demonstration that finally, after all this time, they can now claim that their color is no longer a hindrance to doing anything. Those who know how it is truly like to be judged on the basis of skin color - on an everyday basis - consider Obama's victory symbolic, poetic and powerful.

And when Anderson Cooper finally came out, I heard and read both straight and gay people commenting "as if we didn't know" and "does it really matter?"

Well, does it matter?

Here is where I am coming from.

As someone who has been told that I am evil, that I will amount to nothing worthwhile, that I am "making (my) life difficult", who has been told that I am not worthy to be loved by either God or fellow humans, that I am "choosing to sin" (as if people "chose" to be straight), and that by reaffirming who I am and refusing to cave in to demands that I be "normal", I will be causing the downfall of so-called "traditional values", who has been exposed to absurd portrayals in popular media as fully made-up losers in women's clothing as the only way to "be", and closed off to various job opportunities because I do not make an attempt to hide who I am.

Let me tell you what I think of what Anderson said means.

It matters to me.

It's the reason I prefaced this in my post title: it is an act of courage for Anderson, and those who have reached the career heights that Anderson has, to come out while they are at the top of their game. Saying those three seemingly little, short words carries with it a host, nay, a multitude of questions and fears, and these are concerns that straight people never have to wrestle and contend with by virtue of being the sexual majority.

Will I lose my job over this?

Will people look down on me?

Will I lose my inheritance?

Will straight relatives petition me as "undeserving" of any inheritance rights?

Why can't I stay with my partner of 25 years in the hospital while he is being treated, but his brother who is homophobic, hates him and beat him up, gets to decide on the questions about life-and-death?

What will my friends say behind my back?

Will I still have friends?

What happens to all the legal benefits I have?

Why don't I have the same rights as my heterosexual counterparts?

Will I stunt my own promotion with this admission?

Will somebody beat me up for "failing" to live up to their "religious standard"?

Am I counting the days until someone murders me in the name of their deity?

And among these and other questions, I find this to be at the core of all these:

Can you love me and accept me for who I truly am?

None of these scenarios ever play out in one's mind when a person has to go through the painless admission of saying "I'm straight!"

So let me make it clear, why I seem to be making "a big deal" over what Anderson Cooper has just verbalized, admitted and come out in the open with, on behalf of every gay person who wondered if their family would still love them, if they can ever find love in this life, worried over work and health benefits, and especially on behalf of every gay kid who was bullied, ridiculed, called names and even murdered for being "different", I will state it in unflinchingly clear terms:

It Matters To Me.

A Cheesy, Guilty Pleasure?

You want fries with that mess-waiting-to-happen?

(Courtesy of www.facebook.com/kfcphilippines)

Seeing this ad, the first question I had was how are consumers supposed to eat that?

If you say with a knife and spoon, it defeats the purpose of what a sandwich is supposed to be. Unless it's meant to be treated as an open faced sandwich, which it's not since there's also half a bun on top.

If you say "with lots of tissue paper!" then the cheese topping will get "wiped off" and the intent of having a cheesy, gooey mess coating your fingers would be lost. Not to mention an unfriendly environmental tactic, unless there is a tie-up with napkin companies, as hinted by one commentator.

(See http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/06/28/12/kfc-rolls-out-%E2%80%98cheese-top%E2%80%99-burger-ph for other reactions to the Cheese Top Burger of KFC.)

I won't even go into the subject of calorie counting - this is a country that eats lechon kawali and chicharon with pride so this cheese laden concoction from KFC is hardly a blip in the "evil foods" scale that is available in the local market. (I will have to say, though, that as an American Council on Exercise certified professional, there is a plethora of healthier options available. One of KFC's competitors in the chicken sandwich department featured a roasted chicken fillet in barbecue sauce. Ehem.)

It's a free country, we have free will, you choose what you want to load up on. As a liberal at heart, I always leave it up to people what they want to consume, as long as they are aware of the repercussions of their choices.

In this case, it looks like an unmitigated (but cheesy) mess on your fingers. I can't help but see the words Guilty Pleasure written all over the new KFC sandwich.

She's 6. She Needs Heels.

That, apparently, is what Michael Kors wants to say to parents.

And here I thought people always complain about how "kids are growing up too fast".

(Both photos courtesy of www.dailymail.co.uk)

In his defense, he isn't the only one making these heeled shoes for kids who aren't even in elementary school. Kenneth Cole and Jessica Simpson have their own offerings for the same age group.

(See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2162364/The-Suri-Cruise-effect-Designer-Michael-Kors-selling-inch-heels-girls-young-six.html)

Health experts have cautioned that shoes like these would shorten the calf muscle and affect posture. But a buck is a buck, eh, Michael?

Time for parenting - the responsible kind - to come to the rescue.

Is Ruffa Serious?

One reason I love Facebook is because I get news feeds of articles that my friends find interesting, and by extension of having the same interests, I would find the same way, too. Browsing this morning's feed, I saw 2 news posts about Ruffa Gutierrez, actress, beauty queen and media personality, walking out of her showbiz talk show.

The muse of intrigue?

(Courtesy of moviespad.com)

Let the collective eye rolling begin.

Apparently, for her birthday celebration, she would be placed on the "hot seat" in a segment of the show called "Bulong Ng Palad" (Whisper of Fate?), where the other co-hosts would ask her questions of a "sensitive" or "controversial" nature.

In other words, a roast.

(See http://ph.omg.yahoo.com/news/ruffa-says-tv5-talk-show-disrespected-her.html for more.)

Ruffa's subsequent "reactions" stemmed from the fact that these highly-charged questions were asked:
(1) when she brought her children on the set
(2) a representative of her commercial sponsor was in the audience
(3) she felt "disrespected"

Teka lang, Ruffa.

You've been a host for this show for quite some time, right? (I really don't follow showbiz shows as a general rule, it's time I can't take back.) Why are you now feigning "surprise" at the type of questions asked of you during a segment you have been part of many, many times in the past? Should the rules be changed just because you are now the "askee" instead of being the interviewer?

The questions they asked were of your past romantic liaisons. In fact, one of the interviewers, Zoren Legaspi, was one of those "linked" to you in the past. These things are a matter of public record - if I was to be blunt, you actually paraded these relationships for maximum exposure at the height of their, uh, sizzle. Why are you now acting as if everyone should now treat you with kid gloves about them, when you wringed out so much publicity from them at the time that you were "in love" with this guy and that guy?

Isn't that the whole point of showbiz?

Aren't your entire careers built on the amount of buzz and interest that you can supposedly generate? That once an artista is laos na, that means no more film offers, no more commercials, no more TV series, no more hosting gigs? That some of you actually wail at how fickle and harsh the industry can be - whilst being silent about this facet of the industry you chose to be in when fame and fortune and attention were so easily bestowed upon you?

I don't get the hand-wringing. Or is this - as many social commenters have noted - an attempt to revive a sagging career where you have to compete with the hottest stars of today, who happen to be young enough to be your children?

You brought your own kids to the show. I will not question your parental authority, that is your prerogative, if you think it is proper to expose them to your workplace, that is your call. But you can't expect the world to stop turning - for you - on account of your kids. The protection of their minds from what you deem "unsavory" is also your responsibility. Showbiz is about intrigue, and if you brought your kids to a set that celebrates this fact with pride, I really don't get the "my kids are with me" card you pulled out.

And about the milk sponsor, I'm sure they have factored your past in when they decided to ask you to be their model. You are now more known as a mother with two kids - that should have been the card you played when you were asked questions you found "sensitive". No matter how your co-hosts cajoled and needled you for "juicy" details of past relationships - does anyone not see the irony of this situation? - you could have always put your foot down, as a mother and the birthday celebrator, on account of your daughters. I would expect no less from any parent who does what they do for the sake of their children.

And apparently, you also took to Twitter after your show with a slew of statements detailing your sentiments about the whole she-bang. And announcing your "resignation" there instead of professionally telling the management of your decision - how can you stop people from thinking that this isn't some exposure stunt?

So, do you want publicity or not?

Ano ba talaga,Ruffa?

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?

Manny Is Human

If he loses like a human, he must be a human.

(Courtesy of 15rounds.com)

That, to me, is the essential message from what people all over (to be fair, it's not just our countrymen who are doing it) are saying is an "unbelievable" loss for Manny Pacquiao when he faced off with still-unbeaten Timothy Bradley.

One can argue that it was "linuto" (rigged).

One can say the judges must be suffering from eye deficiencies.

One can shout whatever invectives they feel like to express their disbelief at what just transpired.

Carlos Celdran said it best: even Manny himself has accepted the decision, and he did so gracefully. We should all do the same. (Not me, specifically, since I have never considered getting paid astronomical sums for beating up another person bloody red and blackish blue as a "sport", but this is intended for everyone who has placed Manny on a pedestal.)

And for those who plan to "demand" a "recount", please don't. Just...don't.

Moving forward, may we be reminded that when our "heroes" end up disappointing us, or do not perform "to a certain standard", it is because they are, at the end of the day, just like the rest of us, just as capable of defeat and failure.

And that also means, we should never think that each of us may never be able to reach the heights of success - however this has been defined in our lives - that they have managed to.

Props to sports brand Adidas for capturing both sides of this situation succinctly with their slogan:

Nothing Is Impossible.

I See Rizal From My Bedroom Window

Why, hello there, Dr. Rizal.

(Photo courtesy of Carlos Celdran/Facebook)

If you plan to buy a condominium unit at Torre de Manila, DMCI Homes latest project, you could be saying that yourself.

You can quibble that technically, you'll only see a small portion of Rizal's back from your future property.

This sets a horrible precedent - yes, I went there and I said it out loud - if we allow every home developer, coffee chain and mega-mall to just park their butts wherever they please, who cares if the site they plan to build on is unmissable from a culturally significant one; or one that gives us our strongest ties to our past, colonial or otherwise.

I'm assuming that since DMCI Homes has a website and some "artist's rendition" mock-ups already online, the permits for this project have been approved and deemed "okay" by the city government of Manila. (See more at this address: http://www.torredemanila.com/?gclid=CMeTiMWwvrACFUNMpgodsQiVog)

If this project pushes through, all tourism pictures of Luneta Park will now be inextricably inseparable from a glossy, new condominium from one of the largest developers of the country. The builders must be patting themselves on the back for such a marvelous coup, getting free publicity by way of Rizal himself.

Just one question.

Surely, our supposed heroes and our cultural/national heritage deserve better treatment than this?

What Does This Ad Campaign Convey?

Was the percentage rounded off?

(Courtesy of muirneg-onelife.blogspot.com)

This ad campaign from a local clothing store caught my attention yesterday from my Facebook News Feed. I have treated advertisements as a gauge of (what advertising companies think is) the pulse of consumers and what they find appealing, and this is no exception to the general conclusion I have observed for quite some time now: having foreign lineage assures you of a career in local advertising campaigns.

One can argue that there is no "pure race", but this campaign had an accompanying text that raised more uhhh... moments than made the intention clear.

 Eugenics, the ad version.

(Courtesy of muirneg-onelife.blogspot.com)

It starts out by asking what your mix is. Personally, I have been mistaken for Chinese and Japanese, but there is no doubt what my nationality is.

It then talks about "mixing and matching", with both nationalities and fashion pieces in the same category.

Most days I wear my black pair of jeans, but sometimes I will choose my white jogging pants for a day that will be "sporty". Is this what the ad agency had in mind for "mixing nationalities"? What if I wasn't happy with the "result"? Should one keep searching to find "the right blend"? Does this mean I also get to have a different "match" during the day and a completely different one for the night, the way I would change my getup based on the time of day?

The next statement was "mixing...with Filipino blood is almost a sure formula for someone beautiful and world class."

What would be the reverse statement for this then? That is if there is no "mix", if one was a 100% "pure" Filipino, the resulting equation is someone hideous and lacking "world class"?

The ad goes on to say that "Having Filipino lineage is definitely something to be proud of", without expounding on why this is supposed to be stated as a fact. And it runs counter to their extolling the virtues of "mixing" with "different nationalities" earlier.

The neurosis continues when they ask people to BUY FILIPINO, while having models who, by their own admission - with specific percentages to back it up - are anything but 100% Filipino.

I don't need a headache this early in the morning.