Friday, November 28, 2008

Like father, like son?

[caption id="attachment_109" align="alignleft" width="350" caption="L-R: Arvin Antonio V. Ortiz, JDV III, Jed I. Bete, and Christine Camus"]JDV III with Arvin, Christine and Jedp[/caption]

In the midst of the NBN-ZTE scandal and despite death threats, Jose de Venecia III, son of then House Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr., had been making campus tours as though he is a telemarketer trying hard to sell his product. Not surprisingly, his product sold like hotcake.


 


On March 9, 2008 when he came in Davao City, student leaders were invited to have a dinner with him. Christine Camus, then SSG President-elect of HCDC, asked me and my friend Jed to accompany her since her VP was attending a forum which was underway that time. Held at Assumption College of Davao, the dinner started at around 8:00 pm. Student leaders from ADDU and UP Min were invited as well. Among the visitors were Joel Virador and Jeppie Ramada---both are from Bayan Muna.  


 


Together with the Assumption sisters, the younger de Venecia entertained some questions. One thing that lodged in my mind was when Jed, with no-holds-barred, asked de Venecia why he let the cat out of the bag.




[caption id="attachment_110" align="alignright" width="331" caption="Dinner with JDV III which was attended, among others, by Joel Virador and Jeppie Ramada---both are from Bayan Muna"]Dinner with JDV III[/caption]

JDV III groped for words. Then he managed to give a few intelligible words; the most memorable were: “Because I am a Filipino.” Or words to that effect.


 


The older de Venecia might find himself in a similar situation. Recently, Jose de Venecia, Jr. released his book, “Global Filipino: The Authorized Biography of Jose de Venecia, Jr.” written by Brett Decker. There, he talked, among others, about the corruption in the government he himself propped up. Excerpts of the book were published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.


 




The question still lingers. Why only now? Someone should ask the older de Venecia why he is exposing the misdeeds of the people he once avidly defended. Like his son, is it because he is a Filipino; and as a Filipino he is duty-bound to do so? Or is he only piqued? Whatever, there seems to be no reconciliation in sight between GMA and JDV.


 


But who knows? In this country where the impossible becomes possible and today’s enemies become tomorrow’s friends, nobody really knows.


 

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Environmental education, Happy LA style

If my memory serves me best, it was in 2006 when 1st District Councilor Leo Avila III--Happy LA to his radio listeners--visited HCDC where he gave a talk on coastal environmental education. I remember Sir Giovs, a former high school Science teacher, asked a soft copy of the councilor's presentation. The good councilor obliged. I searched for it in one of the library's computer units where Sir Giovs saved it. Luckily, I found the file. The presentation is instructive. So I thought it would be better to post it online although I don't have the councilor's permission. But I presume he would have also wanted others to have a copy of it.

His presentation is entitled "Coastal Environment: Protecting and Conserving Our Resources." For those who want to have a copy of it, e-mail me at arvin_1123@yahoo.com.ph and I'll send it. It would be a lot easier, though, if I'll simply post it here, but the computer won't cooperate. Maybe next time.

Clemency, popularity, and GMA presidency

Published in Mindanao Times, 10/18/08

It is not unusual for the President of this country to grant convicts executive clemency. It is part of the pardoning power of the President as Chief Executive. No less than the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that power for the President to exercise judiciously. Article VII, Sec. 19 states: “Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardon…”


           


But when the convict of the Chapman-Hultman murder case, Claudio Teehankee Jr., was released on the night of October 3 through the executive clemency granted by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the grant raised a howl of protest not only from the victims’ families but also from the people who believe that justice was cheapened.



"It came out of the blue. We had no warning at all that this has happened, that this will happen, that this was in the process of happening,” Vivian Hultman, mother of the murdered Maureen Hultman, was quoted as saying. “When we heard of the report, it was done already. He was pardoned and already out of prison. And it was a big shock. And then, just this feeling of disgust and anger."

Opposition spokesman Atty. Adel Tamano also criticized GMA’s granting of executive clemency to Claudio Teehankee, Jr., saying that there are other prisoners who deserve to be pardoned. Without rejecting altogether the President’s power to grant executive clemency, Tamano believed that GMA misused that power. “Bakit siya ang binigyan ng pardon? There must be other more deserving persons. Why him in particular? Is it because mayaman siya? O may koneksiyon siya?,” Tamano asked.


Many people thought that the loud protests that came shortly after Teehankee’s release had only served to cement the belief that in this country there is a double standard justice. It goes by various names: compartmentalized justice, selective justice, etc. (Go, take your pick.) This kind of justice essentially means that there is one set of laws for the rich and powerful and another set for the poor and powerless although they are the same laws. Worse, in a society where compartmentalized justice persists, laws can be so lenient when it comes to the rich and influential, but stringent when it comes to the poor and powerless.


Is Claudio Teehankee, Jr. a beneficiary of compartmentalized justice? Claudio Teehankee Jr.’s brother, former Justice Undersecretary and currently Philippine Representative to the World Trade Organization Ambassador Emmanuel Teehankee, said his brother is by no means a beneficiary of compartmentalized justice. He refuted the claim that his brother was released because they have connections to the Malacañang. His brother’s release went through legal processes. Nothing was “hasty” and “sneaky” contrary to the Hultmans’ claim.


If indeed it was legal and nothing was dubious about the executive clemency GMA gave, how come it was met with protests here and there?


The problem I think lies not on who was pardoned, but rather on who gave the pardon. Up to today, GMA’s legitimacy has been severely questioned. Aside from that, among the previous presidents since 1986, GMA is the most unpopular one. A Social Weather Station poll released in July this year showed that her approval rating hit its lowest point, garnering a pathetic negative 38 points. The people’s low confidence on the administration, plus the numerous controversies and less than impressive performance is at the heart of the stirrings spurred by the executive clemency GMA gave to Claudio Teehankee, Jr.







[caption id="attachment_87" align="aligncenter" width="513" caption="Source: SWS"]SWS[/caption]

 


If you are unpopular, it makes your decisions unpopular, too. If the people do not like you, it’s hard for the people to see the goodness in the things you do. Even if you do something right, the people would only hurl blanket criticisms of your actions.


But GMA is not alone. Look at what is happening to USA’s George W. Bush. In the August 2008 double issue of Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria wrote a cover essay titled “What Bush Got Right,” wherein he talked about the right things the [Bush} administration somehow managed to do amidst the American people’s perception of Bush as a failed president.


Zakaria said of Bush’s least acknowledged accomplishment particularly in foreign policy: “The foreign policies that aroused the greater anger and opposition were mostly pursued in Bush’s first term: the invasion in Iraq…many of these policies have been modified, abandoned, or reversed…the foreign policies in place now are more sensible, moderate and mainstream.” But still, “no matter what he [Bush] does or whatever happens in the world,” Zakaria said, “the public seems to have decided that Bush has been a failure.”


The same thing can be said of GMA. No matter how her army of apologists desperately tries to convince the people that she works hard, that she cares for the poor, and that she sincerely does all she can do for the welfare of the country, the public seems to have decided not to give credit where credit is due. Bush and Arroyo must console each other by sending this =) or this :D.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Meh! Meh! Meh!

Two years ago, Hector Bryant L. Macale of Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility blogged about “the increasing importance of society pages to newspaper publishers and/or editors.” Then he asked if we are “seeing similar trends in the other sections, especially the youth?”


 


Today, a reader in the Inquirer dished out a mouthful of criticisms against society pages parading the profligacy of the upper crust, unmindful of the millions who live in “abject poverty and destitution.” The situation seems akin to what the lunatic Roman Emperor Nero did in the past: fiddling while Rome is burning.


 


How would the “socialites” react to these criticisms? I venture to speculate that they would simply say, Meh! Meh! Meh!


 


Early this month, Collins English Dictionary included the word “meh” in its 30th anniversary edition. “Meh” is defined as an interjection for indifference or lack of interest.


 


Telling them that they should not flaunt their flamboyant lifestyle because many are living in abject poverty and destitution? Like Bart and Lisa who were invited to a trip by their father Bert (the three are all characters in “The Simpsons”), they would just reply, Meh! Meh! Meh!    

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Financial or intellectual?

Crossroads, the official student publication of Holy Cross of Davao College (HCDC) is cash-strapped. That is why the paper’s staff is pushing for the increase of the publication fee. Among the student publications in Davao City, the Crossroads of HCDC collects the lowest publication fee, a measly P25.00.






But every time it releases its issue for the semester, I read the paper with displeasure. Its articles, especially its commentaries on specific issues that bedevil the school, reek of shallowness. Its writers’ complaints are platitudinous. Yes, its writers bring up issues, but seldom do they prove them. Add to that the paper’s penchant for dedicating a whole spreadsheet to photos alone.








While money is needed to finance the publication, I wonder if its single most problem is financial. Judging from the quality of the publication’s content, it could be that the Crossroads' biggest challenge is not money but brain.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Climate change: Barking up the wrong tree

Published in Mindanao Times, 11/23/08

In the 2007 synthesis report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific body created by World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP), it declared that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” The indicators are crystal clear: “increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.”


           


According to the doomsayers, climate change, if unmitigated, will have irreversible consequences, one of which is the eventual demise of the polar bears living in the Arctic region. Perhaps this was effectively shown in Al Gore’s award-winning documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth. The message was made more dramatic by showing a hapless polar bear struggling to hold on to the last remaining piece of ice, which is slowly shrinking, thanks to global warming.


 


The plight of polar bears is, of course, remote to most of us Filipinos because there are no polar bears living in the Philippines and thus we feel no certain affinity to them, in the same manner that we have for pawikan, Philippine Eagle, and other endemic species in the Philippines. But An Inconvenient Truth has a powerful way of getting the message across different nationalities. It is no surprise, therefore, to hear people, who have presumably not seen a polar bear in person, urging the government to act swiftly and make drastic measures.


But the purported extinction of polar bears because of global warming is in fact exaggerated. According to Bjørn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, “over the past 40 years—while temperatures have risen—the global polar bear population has increased from 5,000 to 25,000.”


Dr. Perry S. Ong of UP’s Institute of Biology, in his lecture “Anthropogenic Global Warming: Beyond the Hype, Doing the Right Thing for the Right Reason,” also disputed the claim that polar bears are dying because of global warming.


Are we, then, barking up the wrong tree when we are urging the government to cut CO2 emissions in order to save the polar bears, and by extension,  the rest who will be affected by global warming?


To Lomborg, yes. It’s because global warming isn’t the main culprit why polar bears are dying, but rather it’s wanton hunting. “Campaigners and the media claim that we should cut our CO2 emissions to save the polar bear,” Lomborg said. “Well, then, let’s do the math. Let’s imagine that every country in the world—including the United States and Australia—were to sign the Kyoto Protocol and cut its CO2 emissions for the rest of this century. Looking at the best-studied polar bear population of 1,000 bears, in the West Hudson Bay, how many polar bears would we save in a year? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? Actually, we would save less than one-tenth of a polar bear.”


The most effective way of saving the polar bears, according to Lomborg, is to ban hunting them. “Each year, 49 bears are shot in the West Hudson Bay alone. So why don’t we stop killing 49 bears a year before we commit trillions of dollars to do hundreds of times less good?”


The case of the polar bears, which have become the “poster children of global warming,” is just one of the many “one-sided warnings” that are constantly recited by several people—environmentalists, politician-lawmakers, etc. It is also a manifestation of how our panic about climate change and its impact, as Lomborg said, “does distort the lens through which we see the big picture.”


Thus, the goal in bringing up Dr. Perry S. Ong’s and Bjørn Lomborg’s ideas is to ensure that two sides of the story are heard. Things need to be placed in their proper perspectives lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The heretics' views on global warming

Much of the hot (pun fully intended) rhetoric on global warming comes from Al Gore, a former Vice President of USA and now Nobel Laureate on Peace. Citing evidences spurred over the years by various scientists, Al Gore contends that the warming of the earth  is caused by the unprecedented rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.

But from the least publicized views of certain "heretics", the notion that CO2 caused global warming has been thought of as fundamentally flawed. Where Al Gore contends CO2 as the driver of global warming, these "heretics" contend otherwise.

In a video posted at YouTube, Al Gore was pitted against some of the climatologists who hold views opposite to Al Gore's. Here's what they say:
Prof. Ian Clark (Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa): If we look at climate from the geological timeframe, we would never suspect CO2 is a major climate driver.

We can't say that CO2 would drive climate. It certainly never did in the past.

Piers Corbyn (Climate Forecaster, Weather Action): None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2.

Prof. Patrick Michaels (IPCC & Dept. of Environmental Science, University of Virginia): Anyone who goes around and says that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming of 2oth century hasn't looked at the basic numbers.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="286" caption="The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1856 to 2001. Data from Jones et al., 1998; and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (www.cru.uea.ac.uk; compilation by Phil Jones). Source: Earthguide"]The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1856 to 2001. Data from Jones et al., 1998; and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (www.cru.uea.ac.uk; compilation by Phil Jones).[/caption]
In the past hundred fifty years, the temperature has risen just over half of degrees celsius. But the strange thing is most of that lies in the early decades of the 20th century--between 1905 and 1940 when industrial production was still...on its mold. At 1940, as industry expanded, for some reason, the world cooled.

Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Director, International Arctic Research Center): CO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940. But temperature actually began to decrease in 1940 and continue to about 1975...When the CO2 is increasing rapidly and yet the temperature is decreasing, then we can not say that CO2 and temperature go together.

Dr. Tim Ball (Former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg): Temperature went up significantly up to 1940 when human production of CO2 was relatively low. And then in the post-war years when industry and the whole economies of the world really got going and human production of CO2 just soared, the global temperature was going down. In other words, the facts didn't fit the theory (CO2 caused global warming).

There have now been several major ice core surveys. Every one of them shows the same thing: the temperature rises or falls, then after a few hundred years CO2 follows.

Dr. Tim Ball (Former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg): The ice-cold record goes to the very heart of the problem we have here. It said, if the CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up. But the ice core record shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption--the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change to the humans--is shown to be wrong.

As it said towards the end of the video, THEY DEBATE, YOU DECIDE.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Risks present in going organic

Published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer's opinion section, this is a reply to Ma. Ceres P. Doyo's column.

Organic foods have been thought of as beneficial to people and to the planet. Which makes it good news for Ma. Ceres Doyo that the Department of Agriculture has launched a campaign that encourages farmers to use organic fertilizers and produce organic foods. (“Going organic, better late than never,” Inquirer, 11/13/08)

However well-meaning the campaign may be, going organic will prove to be detrimental in the long run. Looking at the marginal cost and benefit of going organic, Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank under the auspices of the Copenhagen Business School, has this to say:

“You know how you are told to give your kids organic food because pesticides will give them cancer? Well, it’s technically true that there is a link between the chemicals and illness, but the risk is miniscule in any well-regulated country.

“There is another threat that you haven’t been told much about. One of the best ways to avoid cancer is to eat lots of fruits and vegetables. Organic items are 10 or 20 percent more expensive than regular produce, so most of us naturally buy less when we ‘go organic.’

“If you reduce your child’s intake of fruits and vegetables by just 0.03 grams a day (that’s the equivalent of half a grain of rice) when you opt for more expensive organic produce, the total risk of cancer goes up, not down. Omit buying just one apple every 20 years because you have gone organic, and your child is worse off.”

The intention here, in Lomborg’s term, “isn’t to scare people away from organic food,” and if I may add, the government from making policies encouraging farmers to go organic. “But we should hear both sides of any story.”

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Avoiding Wikipedia

Some professors have expressed their grave concerns over the students' use of Wikipedia as their source in research papers, theses, etc. Instead, they would suggest to cite credible sources like books, journals, and trustworthy electronic sources.

What if the book one is using cited Wikipedia as its source? That's where problem comes in.

A case in point is the book we are using right now for our subject Educ M (The Teaching Profession). The book is authored by Purita P. Bilbao, Brenda B. Corpuz, Avelina T. Lagas and Gloria G. Salandanan, all of whom are Ed.D. and Ph.D. holders.

Evidence: In page 6, it said in the second paragraph:
After you have gotten an idea on the philosophy/ies you lean [sic] let us know more about each of them. The following notes were lifted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Let's be prudent when it comes to Obama

Obama won. And the rest of the world is happy, nay, euphoric.

World leaders rushed to congratulate the president-elect. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo wasn't lucky enough to have a word or two with Obama. To Amando Doronila, the seasoned and cerebral analyst of Inquirer, it is a sign that he [Obama] is not RP's friend. He said:
The sidelining of the Arroyo call gave a glimpse of the importance of the Philippines to the United States at the moment of change of administration. It is clear that the Philippines stands on the outer permiter of US concerns in world affairs.

If we were to believe Doronila's thesis, then let's exercise some prudence in lavishing Obama with praises, no matter how meaningfully symbolic or symbolically meaningful is Obama's victory to us; no matter how good an Obama presidency might be for our economy, as Prof. Cielito Habito asserted. Doronila concluded:
It is important that Manila should rearrange its priorities vis-à-vis Washington. Obama is not our friend.