How To Make Ilocos Empanada (In Pictures)

Thanks to the accommodating staff at Fariñas Ilocos Empanada for allowing me to take pictures. A step by step guide to making this delectable snack from the northern region. (Yes, this version has bagnet. Mwahaha.)

Start with a pinch of the dough (they didn't reply when I asked what it was/why it had that orange hue)

Roll it out to make it larger.

Start placing the veggies.

Place raw egg at the center.

Top with minced meat.

Finish with bagnet.

Fold it in to seal.

Dunk in oil and let chemistry do its' magic.

Serve and enjoy.

Dee-lish.

Head over to The Collective at Malugay Street in Makati, where you will find this delectable number, as well as a number of other dining establishments.

The Ramen Virgin's Plunge

Technically, I can't really claim virginity as far as ramen is concerned. I have (vague) memories of having had this noodle dish (with no broth, though) as far back as my elementary school years. Besides, I wouldn't want to risk guffaws if I was to claim I was a virgin anything.

I am, however, a novice where the recent surge of ramen places all over Metro Manila is concerned. What confirmed my late arrival to the ramen party: I actually saw lists for 2013 declaring the Top 5 (even 10!) Ramen Places in Manila!

As they say, better ramen than never.

Having decided to meet at the East Wing of Shangri-la Plaza without a firm commitment as to where we were parking our taste buds, my friends Liza, Malyn and Winnie decided to let our feet and eyes make the decision.

Not wanting to go for something heavy like steak, we were on the lookout for lighter fare. Malyn then suggested we settle on Ikkoryu Fukuoka Ramen, as the place usually has a line outside (which was strangely absent that Thursday evening).

I excused myself to wash my hands and came back to find this served at our table.

Edamame, or before-they-harden, young soybeans, blanched or boiled then salted. Liza was the first to react: "That's what it is? I keep hearing about edamame this, edamame that, and it's all the rage in the States...and this is it?"

While we initially dismissed it (I thought of it as a less appealing version of peanuts), we ended up finishing the entire bowl. (Feel free to draw your own conclusions.)

I was thankful that the menu had descriptions of the various tonkotsu ramen, and I instantly gravitated towards one entry: Black Garlic Tonkotsu. (380 Pesos) I was curious because a black garlic usually means you burned it (though it was described as having black garlic oil, along with charsiu/pork, green onions, wood ear mushrooms, and bamboo shoots) so I went for it if only to see how this would be translated.

It turned out to be what Malyn and Liza ordered as well. Only Winnie ordered a different ramen, one that was featured in their "new" section, described as a spice experience.

Tonkotsu broth is liquid that is simmered from bones, bone marrow, fat, and other parts, a quick peek online reveals. Before we had time to discuss what that means, our orders arrived.

It looked exactly like the picture in the menu, but I was not prepared for what assaulted my taste buds a few seconds later.

It didn't look heavy but the liquid was creamy, and yet it wasn't cloying (nakakasuya) because it enticed you to take one more sip. And another. And another.

We were sure it wasn't because of milk, gata, or any other milk substitute, and we concluded (correctly) that this was the end product of dissolving all those delicious parts described in our online search earlier. (If you are vegan, you will probably recoil at the description. As a good friend said, more for us, then.)

I remember our server asking how we wanted our noodles. Winnie asked for her recommendation and she proposed "hard" so that the noodles would be al dente. It was the right texture to stand up to and carry the immense flavors swirling in our mouths that instant.

I'm not really a ramen connoisseur (again, think virgin, cough, cough) and I have to admit that the real reason it took me so long to take part of the ramen-mania was that other than sinigang, I was hard pressed to imagine any soup dish as the dish, often thinking of it as the foreplay to the entrée.

But this mélange of rich, hearty flavors certainly opened by eyes - and mouth - to the wonderful world that local foodies have been raving over for quite some time. Ikkoryu Fukuoka has set the bar - for me, since this is my first (okay, I'll stop harping on the virgin line now) - and I'm afraid this signifies a closer inspection on what the other ramen places are serving and how they compare to the first time.

Okay, now I'm done with the virgin references.

The PhP 1049 Breakfast

Which consists of 49 pesos for the Jollibee Hotdog Meal Breakfast. And 1000 pesos for the impounding fee.

The one time that I - the perrenial law abider, the guy who hates it when someone cuts in line, the one who insists that everyone walk on their side of the road - did the wrong thing (parking outside the store, on a no parking street, and hopefully take out a meal and be gone in three minutes) and a traffic enforcer and tow truck operators appear so swiftly it made me a believer of the law enforcement system.

If only we were this quick in charging lawmakers who squander our money, lapping it up with their friends using bogus NGOs, and hauling their asses into court and jail.

Yes, I'm talking about you, Tanda, Seksi, and Pogi.

(And yes, you may think that my Jollibee caper has nothing to do with the pork barrel scam. I guess this is where being a writer comes in handy.)

Plus, while I did pay my fine, was issued a ticket, and paid for my offense literally (they even escorted me to the ATM machine as I did not have cash on hand), my biggest regret was that I inadvertently added to the coffers of the Binay dynasty's city.

So, should 2016 see us with a Binay presidency, I will fully admit I contributed to that victory.

Against my will.

A Call For Financial Literacy

Having woken up a little later than usual, I decided to hail a cab (which is not so easy a task in Makati, where everyone seems to be hailing one). Thankfully, I was able to snag one as our area has a nearby tambayan for taxi drivers.

As I occupied the back seat, I noticed the driver had to be pushing 60, at least. He was definitely hard of hearing as he had to ask me twice for my destination, and he drove in a rather tentative manner. No, it wasn't because he had just gotten his license, but rather, he had a hard time turning his head to watch for oncoming vehicles. His reflexes - or lack of it - gave me pause, but since I needed a ride ASAP, I considered myself lucky enough to have snagged a cab.

As a financial advisor, I am confronted on a daily basis of an uncomfortable truth: so much of this country's population cannot afford to retire.

At a time when we should be savoring the fruits of the labor we have toiled for decades, people like my taxi driver that day are still working because they don't have a choice.

(Courtesy of tourism.gov.ph)

It's easy enough to pass it off as "unavoidable": prices keep going up, the exchange rate is dismal, the government keeps piling on taxes, family members keep asking for help, loans have to be paid, etc. Much of these factors are beyond our individual control, so it behooves us all to ask ourselves:

What part of our finances can we control?

And did we do our part in matters within our control, to ensure that we will see an end to working out of need, at an age when we are, to use that phrase, put out to pasture?

I submit that much of our financial woes are due to the fact that our financial literacy is quite low. And while I'm sure our parents, in one way or another, did impart to us some "tips" on saving money - like turning off the iron 30 minutes before you're through pressing clothes, or having us open "kiddie" bank accounts - we don't seem to have a formal structure for learning about finances in our educational institutions.

We are unaware - and thoroughly unprepared - for how pervasive the matter of financial management will permeate all of our adult lives.

It contributes to why we have so many OFWs, or people having more than one job: we aren't earning enough, we aren't saving enough, we fall for the "easy way out" - using credit cards and going to loan sharks as a way to cope with financial demands, not realizing the grave we are digging ourselves, we don't keep track of our expenses and continue railing against the wages we get but don't find it contradictory that we will pull out all the stops just to have the latest Galaxy or iPhone model.

I wish our schools taught us the basics of personal finance. I remember taking up Economics in third year high school, but that isn't the kind of education I'm referring to. Yes, it's important to know what comprises the Gross National Product, but it is essential and vital to realize why we should save first before spending.

I was taught that inflation means being able to buy less goods with the same 100 pesos I had in 1984, but no one told me about why finding the right savings or investment vehicle is vital in blunting the effects of inflation.

And while some parents always run away when an insurance agent comes around, you only need to see the survivors of Yolanda, Ondoy and countless other calamities on TV wailing "Paano na kami?!? Siya lang ang bumubuhay sa amin, kinuha pa siya?!?" to realize how important risk management is for all families.

My line of work has given me a glimpse into some very interesting financial habits, and by interesting, I mean quizzical.

I was able to talk to a call center agent who told me she was hard pressed to save a thousand pesos every month, but during the course of our conversation, proudly reveals that she spent 25,000 pesos a few months back to see a foreign pop act, "the best show I've ever seen!"

Or the fashion ingenue who had all the designer bags, clothes and accessories a human body can carry, but revealed to me that it was all on installment basis, and that her relatively large salary is already bondaged to three credit card companies for at least 3 years.

So it's quite amazing to be able to meet an office worker - who earns a little over 20,000 pesos a month - who is able to invest almost half a million in one fell swoop, proof that what matters is not what you have, but what you do with it.

It is often said that education is the key to a better life.

And an important life lesson I wish everyone learns early on is that we have to take control of our finances, lest they take control of our lives.

LGBT: The One Dimensional Minority

First off, I'd like to apologize to my readers for the lack of posts as of late. My new work doesn't allow me much time to write as often as I used to, but when something upsetting happens, I find that writing about it can be cathartic and renewing, letting the toxin out of my system.

I am in the middle of a month long seminar that will further my skills in financial coaching, and one of the most engaging parts is when coaches share real life experiences of how our sessions with our clients have commenced. The topic of financial coaching might be foreign sounding to Pinoys, but it is badly needed as many Filipinos do not save their money, choosing to be one-day millionaires. (Something I will write more about in the future.)

On a daily basis, we would swap stories, on how difficult it is to make people face the truth about their finances, to make a financial plan for themselves, their loved ones, their retirement, etc. Through this process, we learn to troubleshoot objections we hear, and it prepares us if the situation should arise.

On the day Mandela died - poetically now, it seems - one coach began sharing about an unusual dilemma: he had a client who was more-than-adequate in the financial literacy department. This client was under 30, a single male, who already owned a handful of condo units being rented out; he has insurance policies in place from different companies, he invests in various instruments ranging from stocks to variable unit linked products, and still had extra money to place elsewhere.

The coach threw the question to the moderator and to all of us: does he even need a coach? Personally, I would classify this client as an ideal one, who needs no prodding as far as saving and investing are concerned. The coach felt that he was almost useless in a scenario like this, and was opening the floor to suggestions.

I was quite excited to hear how different coaches would "attack" the problem, but before anyone could contribute anything useful, the coach concerned uttered: "I think I should have worn a tighter shirt."

There was a palapable moment when the room could have heard a pin drop, then chaos ensued.

"Aaaaaaaaay! Bakla ang kliente mo?" (Your client is a gay man?)

"You're right! You should have won a tight shirt...or flexed your arms!" (Note: this particular coach was into bodybuilding)

"Dapat sa gym mo binentahan! Sa may showers!" (You should have attempted the sale at the gym, at the shower area!)

The coach replies: "Ayoko nga! Baka may mangyaring iba, hahaha!" (No way! Something 'else' might happen!)

Even more suggestions followed.

"Spottan mo sa gym!" (Spot him at the gym!)

"Go on a date, one on one!"

"Anything for the sale, I'm sure your girlfriend won't mind!"

"Tell him you'll do anything for the sale...anything!!!"

"Alamin mo kung may boyfriend! Ligawan mo!" (Find out if he has a boyfriend! Court him!)

I couldn't believe what I was hearing. It was truly one of those moments where I had to ask, is this sh*t really happening?

For weeks, we have been complaining about how difficult it is to re-educate the Filipino public about saving up for a rainy day. We wailed at how, the moment we suggest a plan to set money aside for future use, clients would immediately shut down and say "I have no money!" even if they were decked out in the latest shoes or sporting the latest gadget. We wanted to shake the people we talked to, in order to knock some financial sense into their consumer-driven habits.

Here comes this client, a self made man before reaching 30 years old, having no dependents, various properties and other assets to his name, and still looking for ways to make his money grow. This was a person who we didn't have to coach from scratch, who was aware of fiscal responsibility and appreciation, and acted prudently beyond his years.

And the best thing we can suggest is to wear a tighter shirt? All because he is a gay man? (I didn't even get to ask the coach how he knew this piece of information.)

What is it about the word "gay" that induces so much myopia, particularly from those who are afflicted with homophobia?

Just because someone is gay, it doesn't mean sex is the only thing on that person's mind - at least, no more or less than a straight person's.

When we portray gay people as having sex, sexual acts, and sexual positions on the brain 24/7 - and we act, think and speak about them accordingly - we make the LGBT community caricatures of a whole person.

We make it okay to think of the LGBT community as inferior to those who are heterosexual, incapable of rising above sexual urges, always succumbing to lust at the slightest whiff.

We make it okay to make laws that demean the LGBT community, after all, the popular notion is that they are "sex-obsessed" and should be policed and restricted legally.

On the day Mandela died, a man who fought for equality and freedom, the amount of homophobia that oozed out of practically every participant in that seminar served as a stark reminder that his work is not done.

We pride ourselves in thinking we are "tolerant" towards the LGBT community. We fancy ourselves "moral" being Asia's bastion of Christianity. We think that because we have a gay friend, that makes us "accepting".

Until we learn to see "gay" as just a part of one's totality - albeit an important part - then straight people should be ready to be judged along those same, narrow, bigoted lines.

Half of (straight) marriages end in divorce - and we're not even counting those who are legally separated, annulled, or living separately. Using that same yardstick, what would that say about straight people?

A friend summed it up quite nicely: our sexual orientations may be diverse, but we all deserve equality.

(Courtesy of sexualitycounselingnyc.com)

Indeed.

The Death Of Objectivity

As we are all coming to terms with typhoon Haiyan's (local name: Yolanda) destruction of lives and properties, it's no surprise that news organizations are jostling for the "best", be it angle, human interest story,  or scandal. A disaster of this magnitude has gotten the world's attention - and helping hand - and that is where CNN's Anderson Cooper comes in.

(Courtesy of nydailynews.com)

One of the most recognizable faces where news reporting is concerned, Cooper has been to various high-risk areas (calamities, war zones) and is often seen reporting "from the ground" - where the action is. It seemed rather natural and expected that he would do the same in Haiyan's wake, as he has the experience in covering similar events.

What he reported from Tacloban City on the fifth day (after Haiyan left) was certainly a blow to our rescue efforts capabilities: he noted that power was still out, roads were still blocked, corpses were piled up by the road, there was extremely minimal - if any at all - government presence to convey authority and order. He compared our plight with those of Japan and Haiti's after they experienced their worst disasters, and found us to have the slowest response time, from an official government source.

Local news reader Korina Sanchez, wife of the current DILG (Department of Interior and Local Government) secretary Mar Roxas, was reportedly displeased with Cooper's report, and shot back in her own radio show, saying (I'm paraphrasing) that he doesn't know what he was talking about/reporting on.

(Courtesy of sarablack.com)

This was certainly not unexpected on Korina's part. It is but natural to defend one's spouse, especially when he is cast in a bad light, in such public a manner.

The way I see it, there are two questions that are front and center:

(1) Was Cooper's report factual and objective?
(2) If so, why would a fellow journalist take issue with it?

If the answer to the first question is a No, the second question need not be tackled. (It opens up a whole slew of other concerns focusing on Cooper.)

I watched Cooper's report and found nothing false, misleading or exaggerated as to approach falsehood: there was no centralized government presence where he was reporting from, no makeshift medical booth or treatment area, no official giving out rations or supplies, bodies were strewn on roads, concrete, fallen roofs. It was the fifth day after Haiyan left, and Cooper was quite objective in stating what he saw, what we all saw on our TV screens.

It leads us to the second question: why was Sanchez bothered by facts? I presume that her comment was in response to the same Cooper report, and unless she saw something else, I am hard pressed to see why she would take issue with someone who did a textbook definition of objective reporting.

In my past blog entries, I have spoken against and taken issue with journalists who are seen endorsing products, or are relatives of current government officials, for the same reason: one way or another, their objectivity is bound to be compromised.

Whether they realize it or not, once they are connected - by ad or marriage - they can no longer claim impartiality, a hallmark of journalists, at least that's what I was taught. If a journalist is compromised, it is akin to being a lobbyist, only much worse: at least a lobbyist starts out with an agenda in mind, and makes that agenda known. With a journalist, s/he may act contrary to the public interest and the truth while assuming a deluded mantle of incorruptibility by way of his or her profession.

Think about it: how can you speak out against your own spouse - in public - when you are married to him? Even when factual observation bears out the truth, it becomes an untenable position to be in, the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Add to that Mr. Roxas' "chances" for 2016, and it becomes an everyday question I ask when I see Korina's face delivering the news: how can she effectively deliver the news about any inefficiencies of, say, the DILG, if she is married to its' head honcho?

There's a reason why raffle contests do not allow relatives of the organizers to join. And also why our Constitution wisely prohibits political dynasties. The outcomes, the processes cannot be undermined by a cloud of suspicion, the chance of tampering, the spectre of nepotism. It is to ensure that our tallies will be considered correct, that no intervention has taken place, and no corruption is allowed to fester. Once there is doubt, once there is compromise, everything and everyone becomes suspect.

Journalism, the press - sometimes referred to as the fourth branch of government in democracies - is given much leeway and latitude to ensure that the other three branches perform their duties, with the knowledge that they are always under scrutiny.

How can a journalist perform her duty, to her utmost capability of upholding the tenet of impartiality, when she is, quite literally, in bed with the subject of her report?

A Question For Our Senators

Have you ever heard of the term "conflict of interest"?

I ask this because I have not heard of anyone bringing this up publicly, in light of what is about to transpire on November 7: alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Napoles is set to appear before the Senate to answer your questions, and the unsaid objective is that you will be able to get to the bottom of this elaborate scheme after subjecting her to your collective scrutiny.

(Courtesy of whattalking.com)

No one is mentioning a glaring fact: aren't the legislators supposedly involved in this scam the ones who are truly on trial?

The Commission on Audit report already makes mention of at least three senators and other representatives from the Lower House who have unsettled, questionable or dubious ways of managing their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), lovingly called pork barrel by everyone in the country.

Using that frame of reference, we can liken the legislators as the accused in any court case. So I harken back to my first question, in a more detailed manner:

Isn't there a clear conflict of interest, in the matter of senators questioning Napoles?

Would our justice system allow the accused in any other criminal case do the cross examination of a vital witness? In what universe - or at least the universe of democracies with a corresponding justice system - does the one charged with an offense or a crime be the one to test that an eyewitness account can be considered valid/reliable?

When the whistleblowers first appeared in the Senate, and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada made a calculated gesture of appearing as well but announcing at the start of the session that he was inhibiting himself, and excusing himself while all cameras were focused there, the only question I had racing in my mind was, shouldn't ALL legislators be inhibiting themselves, given that THEY are the ones we want to be held accountable?

Our money was entrusted to these legislators, and the best responses they can give us are:

- my signature was forged!
- it's not my job to check where I allocate my funds!
- I only allocated so-and-so, why are you all raising hell?

The distrust and anger we collectively feel is heightened by the fact that it is OUR REPRESENTATIVES - supposedly the ones we elected for our interests - involved in this maze of anomalous transactions.

Which part of "it's not your money, it's ours!" is particularly difficult to understand? Is that the reason why these legislators have such a cavalier attitude towards how money that was placed at their disposal be spent?

And when we find senators whose net worth have increased dramatically over the same period, can you stop us from having the gravest of doubts of how that could have occurred?

As a public official once put it (and I'm paraphrasing), no one gets rich by entering public service, and if you do amass wealth while serving, you are doing something wrong.

We haven't even begun the question of impartiality: how can the senators be neutral when they - some of them, anyway - are already crying foul at how the COA report has already painted them as far as public perception goes, even going so far as shedding copious tears on TV? (I guess it's hard to take the acting hat off for some.)

So the question really needs to be asked of our senators:

Why are you - the ones we citizens are demanding an accounting of public funds we entrusted to you - also the ones about to "grill" alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Napoles come November 7?

Wouldn't this be another monumental waste of time, money and effort, in a clear case of conflict of interest?

Or is this just a showcase for some of you with 2016 ambitions?