EU Whiz: Just like a tattoo

I didn't know that Mindanao Daily Mirror had also covered the EU Whiz held last July; I thought it was only the Mindanao Times, until I stumbled an on-line version of the Mirror's account of the contest:

"UP Mindanao team won the grand championship in the recently concluded EU Whiz ’08 Mind Encounter Kaya Mo To! held at the event center of SM City Davao on July 10.

***
"The third round was between Holy Cross of Davao (Jed Bete, Kharren Ray Pala, Arvin Antonio Ortiz, Rolando Pelayo, and coach Teresa Fabiana), UP Mindanao, and Jose Maria College (Gretchen Belleza, Rizz Monique Juan, Earl Evangelio, Annie Rose Labong, and coach Rachel Amad).

"In the end UP Mindanao won, followed by Brokenshire as first runner-up, and AdDU as second runner-up."

The EU Whiz is  one event that will always remind me of 2008. Just like a tattoo, I'll always have it.  (Yuk-wasn't that line from Jordin Sparks' "Tattoo" song?)

It's not that I am  still harboring  a sayang-naman-hindi-kami-nanalo-feeling that I keep remembering that unfateful event. EU Whiz is memorable to me for two reasons:

1. It is my first time to join a quiz bee outside the school.


2. At least I did one thing in 2008 that I can be proud of:  imperiling the UP Min's chance of winning.

We  are desperate to win the contest. We even studied several facts and figures culled from the most unreliable of sources, just to secure that we left no stones unturned. Happenstance decreed otherwise. We lost. But I can say that it was a heroic defeat---at least for me.

While the article detailed how UP Min. won the contest, it forgot to mention how we made the UP Min's road to victory an uphill climb. Yes, making the Iskolar ng Bayan 's lives miserable (only in quiz bee, of course) is something that one can be proud, considering that the people in the audience (from what I heard from my friends who were there) are all rooting for them.

They are deserving indeed. But so are we. Although we know the answers, the  judges know  the UP  studes better. Tsk...Tsk...Tsk...

The moral of the story: Press the buzzer harder. And make sure the light works. Otherwise, the rival team will be called.

Nothing's changed

It has become an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure for the uninitiated) for teachers to require their students to write their New Year’s resolutions when they’re back to school. Even college students are not exempted. Putting another twist, my college teacher required us to write not a New Year’s resolution but our vision for the New Year. I grudgingly obliged. Now we are about to end 2008 and welcome yet another year, I re-read the piece I wrote. I was surprised to know that nothing’s really changed since then. Below is the full text of that piece I wrote as my vision for 2008:

After a long time of not sitting on a pew to receive the Holy Eucharist because partly of my prohibitive class schedule, it was a respite to sit again on one to listen, reflect, and pray. On New Year’s Day, I had had a taste of this respite when I attended the second mass scheduled for that day. It was also a more welcome respite to hear it from Fr. Dondon whose homily was as hefty as his weight. The attendance was relatively scarce, which made me wonder, considering that Catholics, in name and in fact, should be profusely thankful for that day, nay, everyday, for having survived and lived the bliss and the curse; the grace and disgrace of the previous year. Moreover, not only should that day be for devout Catholics to thank God, but also that day should be for Catholics—who profess to be one but seldom or never had practiced it—to contemplate. The attendance’s scarcity was due perhaps to the tired bones from the previous night’s celebration or the hangover from the previous night’s inebriation, or both.

Back to the mass, the priest’s homily was pregnant with insights on how to start the year right. To start the year right, said Fr. Dondon, is to start with a right disposition in life, like Mary, Mother of God who is full of grace, whose disposition in life is crystal clear. I agree with him because, drawing from my own experience, there was never a person who arrived to where he wanted to arrive without an exact destination of where he wanted to go. In the same vein, there was never a person who accomplished something without a sure knowledge of what he wanted to accomplish.

For the previous year, we had seen reforms of every kind, not because of, but despite the socio-politico-economic maladies that bedeviled. That is exactly what I want—an untrammeled search for reforms, for hope, despite the circumstances that might sometimes lead us to loose hope in hoping.

I don’t, however, mean that I want a repeat of 2007 where reforms found their way, not because of, but despite the socio-politico-economic maladies. Nor do I mean to try the same ways of seeking reforms when distressed with another maladies. For, as the timeworn cliché goes, we can’t step twice into the same river.

What I certainly mean is to search for reforms, not from without but from within; or as the Bishops put it, a "Cha-Cha"—Character Change. If in the previous year/s, we tried to push for amendments/revisions in our Constitution in order to solve our problems, maybe it’s time to put into practice the wisdom enshrined in it. Rather than change its basic principles so that they may suit our actions or correct our vices, maybe it’s time to change our actions and correct our vices so that they may be in accordance with the Constitution’s principles. There simply are things we can’t legislate nor impose. If we were disappointed in the previous year/s to find no alternatives because we were looking for reform from without, maybe it’s time to try looking for reform from within. We might be surprised to see how many alternatives we have from within. But when, in our lifetime, everything else fails and every step of the way is blocked, and neither reform from without nor reform from within is effective, have faith, be hopeful; faith is hope. And in hope we were saved. “SPE SALVI facti sumus.” (Mindanao Times, 12/21/08)

Prophecy fulfilled

[caption id="attachment_186" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="RAZED. Taj Mahal Hotel was one of the targets of the recent carnage led which was led by an Islamist group suspected to have a link with Al-Qaeda. (Photo courtesy of Reuters)"][/caption]

On October 18, 2008, Selig Harrison, director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy and a Senior Scholar at Woordrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, wrote an article in Newsweek that sounded like an early warning. A key passage read:

Unless Washington broadens its counterterrorism strategy and forces Islamabad to crack down, the Islamists could end up wreaking havoc not only in Pakistan but also in India—eight times larger, a rising global power with growing ties to the United States and a huge and restive Muslim minority."

And havoc they wreaked.

On November 27, 2008, more than a month later when the article came out, news of terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India came out.

--------

For the timeline of the recent carnage, read Timeline-Attack on Mumbai.

For an account that the Pakistani militant that attacked Mumbai , India's financial capital, has a link with Al-Qaeda, read Follow the 8 links to Al-Qaeda by Maria A. Ressa, ABS-CBN's VP for News and Current Affairs, who is also the author of Seeds or Terror: An Eyewitness Account of Al-Qaeda’s Newest Center of Operations in Southeast Asia .

For excellent analyses on on the "whys" of the attack, read The Fire Needs to Be Put  Out by Fareed Zakaria and The Problem is Politics by Shekhar Gupta.

Time for smart government

Gone are the days when debates over the role (if at all) of the government vis-à-vis the economy centered on whether markets need big or small government intervention. With the whiplash of global economic crisis expected to hit badly by 2009, arguing if there’s a necessity—nay, urgency— for government interventions is simply not advisable. Economists of different persuasions believe that governments should. Why? Because as those who have gone through Economics 101 (Principles of Economics) with the assistance of Prof. Gregory Mankiw’s textbook know, Principle No.7 says that “The government can sometimes improve market outcomes.”

Now isn’t the time to cry over spilled milk either. Rather, it’s time to think of ways how we can get out of this—alive and kicking. Prof. Cielito Habito, for instance, argued that there is a way out of crisis if only the government acts smartly.

Register now or else...

[caption id="attachment_174" align="aligncenter" width="250" caption="Photo courtesy of Hon. Mabel Sunga Acosta"][/caption]

There is a differing opinion over whether the 2010 elections will be held considering that Cha-cha moves are under way in the House of Representatives. But I do still invest a dash of  belief that the 2010 elections will be held as scheduled, thanks to the efforts of some Senators and other concerned sectors---civil society, religious sectors, international NGOs, etc. Which is why I encourage those who are not yet registered but are already qualified to vote to register now or else...you will not see the change you want in this country.

As the great Gandhi said: Be the change you want to be. Unless you want this country to be doomed eternally, do not let your vote go to waste. In the words of Conrado de Quiros:

...the wasted vote is the one you withhold from the candidate you deem deserving because “he is not going to win anyway.” That is a self-fulfilling prophecy, guaranteeing doom -- and not just for your candidate. The only thing worse than being disempowered is having the power and not knowing you do. Or worse, knowing you do and abdicating it. The vote is a great power, and it is something we hold in our hands. The victory of candidates is not written in the stars, it is written in our hearts. The victory of candidates is not foreordained, it is decided by us. We do not vote for candidates, they do not win. We vote for candidates, they win.

Even if the candidate you believe in is not a popular one, what of it? Voting is not just something you do for a candidate, it is something you do for yourself. Or to yourself. Elections are a test of character, but it is not just a test of character for the candidate, it is a test of character for the voter, too. It’s not just the candidate who’s on trial in elections, it is you, too. When you vote, you do not just decide the kind of life you want for the nation, you decide what kind of life you want for yourself. You can choose either the life of a lemming and throw yourself off a cliff because everybody is doing so or the life of a human being and act as reason and conviction tell you to.

At the end of the day, you do not just have to live with the candidate you have inflicted on the nation, you have to live with yourself and the wound you have inflicted on yourself. You can’t be true to yourself, you can’t be true to the nation. Stop complaining about this country going nowhere. There is no vote that is wasted on a candidate you believe is fit to run this country, whether he wins or not. You do not win when you vote a fool or a tyrant to office because he or she is the “strong candidate,” you lose -- even if he or she wins. Above all when he or she wins. And you do not lose when you vote for a candidate as your conscience bids, you win -- even if he or she loses. Above all if he or she loses: It is but the beginning of struggle.

The “wasted vote” is a stupid concept. You keep worrying about it, you’re wasting your time, your energy and your life.

It's entirely up to us voters. Register now!

A united and independent Senate

Yesterday's PDI headline read: Senate junks Con-ass

Relevant economics

Everyone's decision is somehow guided, if not totally governed, by economics. It is thus important to study economics to make a sound decision, one that is built on solid foundations. But the study of economics tends to divorce the theories and principles of economics from real life. And this has led countless students in the past as well as in the present to debate the relevance---or the lack of it---of studying economics.

Principles such as "People think at the margin," "Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns," to name just two, are the usual stuffs students learn in elementary economics (Econ. 101). These are useful economic tools students can use even in dealing with their own realities and dilemmas. But oftentimes students do not see this fact, partly because economics teachers don't show how economics can make our complex lives manageable. When economics teachers start to teach, they create, unconsciously I believe, a comfortable distance between what they are teaching and what is currently happening in the world.

One of the ways to address this problem is to require students to read an article that, say, attempts to marry or shows how theory and practice go together.

For starters, the teacher can recommend to students  Why Barriers Don't Matter by Barrett Sheridan to make them appreciate how time was not able to render the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns obsolete, especially in international trade.

Sports and politics: The twain sometimes meet

[caption id="attachment_151" align="aligncenter" width="594" caption="Photo Courtesy of www.zimbio.com"][/caption]

Before the fight there was a consensus among boxing analysts and ordinary boxing fans that the Pacquiao-de la Hoya fight was a mismatch. Manny Pacquiao’s speed and age would stand no match against Oscar de la Hoya’s apparent advantages—his height, reach, and experience.

As the events unfolded, however, Pacquiao dwarfed de la Hoya. There were many speculations on the “hows” and “whys” of Pacquiao’s victory. On one hand, there are those who said, rightly or wrongly, that it was scripted, with Pacquiao taking the role of the victor and de la Hoya, the vanquished. On the other hand, there are those who said it was a combination of Pacquiao’s determination, his brilliance in executing his game plan, and his unrelenting faith in God. Whatever, one thing is sure: His victory, then as now, brought yet another pride to the country.

And some benefits, too.

The day of the Pacquiao-de la Hoya match gave everyone a temporary respite from the discouraging political scene in the country. With the House of Representative poised to ram through changes in the Constitution for whatever ends the Representatives have in mind, one can’t help but be thankful for that boxing match. For it was as if the plans to pursue Cha-cha ground to a halt.

While the Pacquiao-de la Hoya match did breathe fresh air into the smothering atmosphere of politics, it did not dispense with politics altogether. Not that some of our Congressmen were there or Lito Atienza having failed to appear in the Senate hearing to defend his department’s (DENR) budget because he watched the fight in Las Vegas. It is that those boisterous exchange of punches; raucous cheers and jeers from the audience; and swollen eyes and bruises de la Hoya earned thereafter, are as much present in boxing as they are in politics.

The political game, as in boxing or any sports for that matter, can get exceedingly dirty and bruising, albeit figuratively. However athletes and politicians play their game, they still have to play by the rules. But with all its similarities, there is one thing that makes politics distinct from sports. In sports, you can’t take both roles; you can never be a player and at the same time a rule maker. In politics, however, you can be both; you can be a player and at the same time a rule maker. Even if, say, a boxer is very much eager to win, he can’t go beyond what is prescribed by the rules. His game plan must constantly be aligned vis-à-vis the rules that govern the game.

That is what makes the political player different from an athlete. If the rules go against them, should they follow? Not necessarily. At least not when they have the means at their disposal to change the rules so that the rules fit their game plan.

Batangas Rep. Hermilando Mandanas’ House Resolution No. 550 is an example. Had it succeeded, it would have postponed the 2010 elections to 2011, thereby extending by one-year the terms of local officials, and by extension, PGMA's. Fortunately, though, it hadn’t.

However, it is only one of the strings of attempts to change the Constitution. It definitely won’t be the last. Expect more in the coming days as the players and rule makers are still out in the wild.

Kids let loose in a candy store

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. had a very interesting thing to say the other day:

...there is good technical reason for opposing the proposal [for Congress to convene as Constituent Assembly].... The good technical reason is that a constituent assembly, whether consisting of both houses of Congress or of a constitutional convention, is a peculiar sort of animal. Once it comes into existence and is convened, it takes on an independent life of its own. Nobody can limit the scope of what it wants to do.

Or to put it mildly, members of the Con-ass would be like kids let loose in a candy store.

Neal Cruz seconded

In a previous post, I said that the reason why GMA's life after 2010---

[caption id="attachment_144" align="alignright" width="300" caption=""FROM PRESIDENT TO JAILBIRD" She certainly can't afford it. (Photo courtesy of Teo Marasigan)"] [/caption]

supposing that she will indeed step down by that time---will not be peaceful is that she will be facing a deluge of complaints. It will be more stressful than her work in Malacañang. And the only way to keep herself out of that impending mess is to remain in power. Philippine Daily Inquirer's columnist Neal Cruz, in his column yesterday, thought the same:

So why doesn’t she step down? Because it may mean imprisonment. Because she may lose all the wealth she has accumulated. It would mean humiliation.

She knows that when she is no longer president, she will lose her immunity from suit. And considering her many grievous sins to the nation, she knows that she will be swamped with lawsuits once she is out of power. From president to jailbird—that is not acceptable. She has to avoid that at all costs.

Will it be halcyon days for GMA after 2010?

Pampanga Rep. Juan Miguel “Mikey” Arroyo, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s (GMA) eldest son, has been soliciting support from die-hard colleagues for a resolution that will call for both chambers of the Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate—to convene as Constituent Assembly to reconsider certain provisions in the Constitution.

In response to the apprehensions of the many, the younger Arroyo belied the allegations that it will be a pretext to extend his mother’s term. “I think she will take care of her grandchildren, Mikey was reported as saying. “I think she will go back to teaching or give lectures [as] what many former presidents do all over the world.”

I wonder where has Mikey Arroyo been all these days. Unless he was lying dormant in a remote enclave, he must have known that his mother’s administration is hounded by several controversies, scams, scandals, issues (whatever you call them), for which many sectors want to hold his mother accountable.

It is highly doubtful whether GMA will have a moment’s peace by the time she’ll step down in 2010. To say that GMA will lead a peaceful life after 2010 is to be ignorant of GMA’s yet unanswered liabilities—from the fertilizer scam to the scuttled NBN-ZTE deal to the North Rail Project and a host of other issues.

If today she can not be held accountable for, it is because as a President, she can not be sued. In other words, she is immune. Which is why those people who want to indict GMA will have to wait for 2010. But that is if we invest a certain amount of belief that she will be true to her promise that she will step down in 2010 as mandated by the Constitution.

Granting GMA will no longer be in office by 2010, her life will be far from peaceful. After she leaves the presidency, she leaves with it the privileges she once enjoyed, chief of which is the immunity from suit. In effect, a barrage of complaints will definitely be coming her way. The first thing she'll do then is to postpone the idea of teaching or taking care of her grandchildren because she has yet to fulfill her responsibility to the people—a responsibility bigger than her responsibility to her family.

That is her responsibility to tell the people the truth.

The Consti's primordial intent: A bicameral Congress

Several attempts to amend or revise the Constitution (popularly known in this country as Charter change [Cha-cha]) in the recent past did not fail to raise a howl of protest. From the administration of Ramos to Estrada to Arroyo, Cha-cha as an agenda of every administration never ceased to have a nemesis coming from different sectors—religious, civil society, political opponents, etc. The ones that are underway in the House of Representatives are no exemption.

But aside from Cha-cha itself, the mode of carrying it out is equally problematic. There are three ways to do it as provided by the Constitution: (1) through Constitutional convention (Con-con); (2) through people’s initiative; and (3) through Constituent assembly. The third one is the option the proponents of Cha-cha in the House want to pursue. However, it is also the trickiest because up to today it is still unclear (and the Supreme Court hasn’t decided yet) whether the two chambers of Congress---Senate and House of Representative---vote separately or jointly should they convene as Con-ass to change the Constitution?

To the proponents of Cha-cha in the House, who are staunch allies of GMA, the two chambers should vote jointly. Seen that way, the Senate, which is independent of the House, would be nothing but a mere cog with virtually no influence whatsoever. That is, of course, not what the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended when they deliberately made the Congress bicameral.

The Constitution may be silent on the question at hand—whether the House and the Senate vote jointly or separately—but a “structural interpretation” could shed light on the debate.

In his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. said “that the vote required is three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and three-fourths of all the members of the House taken separately.” The reason being that “Congress is bicameral and a bicameral body votes separately.” Fr. Bernas added:

When the Constitution wants the two houses to vote jointly, the Constitution says so. This it does when Congress is authorized to override a declaration of martial law. And even when Congress can act only in joint session, as it is the case when called to declare the existence of a state of war, the Constitution still commands that they vote separately. Similarly, under the 1935 Constitution, when Congress could propose amendments only if assembled in joint session, the Constitution commanded that they vote separately.

The reason for separate voting is simple: voting jointly, unless authorized as an exception by the Constitution, destroys the bicameral character of Congress. Thus, the silence of the constitutional text on the manner of voting must be interpreted in the light of the bicameral structure of Congress. Structural interpretation is one of the modes of constitutional construction.

One of the attempts to effect constitutional change comes from Rep. Mikey Arroyo, the President’s eldest son. His is an attempt to amend the Constitution through Constituent Assembly with the Senate and the House voting jointly, not separately.

What the Constitution put asunder let no fools join together.

How to rectify Bush's errors?

TIME's columnist Joe Klein wrote that ironic as it may seem,

...if Obama really wants to make a clean break from his predecessor, he should start by retaining George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense [Robert Gates].

A press release from The Office of the President-Elect said:

President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden officially announced key members of their national security team today: nominating Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, selecting Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense...

To use Klein's terms, that's truly Obama's "team of rivals."

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"][/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"][/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.

 

• 
  
  Ex-Speaker relives day when he saved GMA


• 
  
  Amity talks: Reaching out to angry FVR foes


• 
  
  JDV recalls ‘the night of hundred knives’

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.

 

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"][/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.

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 30^th 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!    

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.

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.

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"][/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.

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.”

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.

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.

Why Youthphemism?

No, I did not spell it incorrectly. It is different from youthemism, which means a "story or term invented for the purpose of explaining to a young child a concept or phenomenon that he or she is too young to properly understand." It means to say that the youth are at the receiving end; it is the adult who do the talking, the explaining, and the clarifying. The youth merely listen.

Let’s take a pause and be in touch with the reality even for a moment. Where is it written that the adult should only have the say on current events, on issues that affect everybody? Are the youth incapable of providing explanations to the complex phenomena? Are the youth incapable of making sense out of their surroundings? I don’t think so.

The youth of today are no longer the same as the youth of yesterday. I don’t know what caused this fundamental change but I do know that today’s youth have the capacity to make sense out of their surroundings. They know how to use the means at their disposal to chart their own future. They no longer wait for the adult to explain what is happening as they themselves know what is happening. They no longer wait for the go signal of the adult as they themselves know what to do. They can explain to themselves and to other people as well what is happening, using of course the words they know and understand.

In search therefore of an appropriate word to refer to the talk that is done and understood by the youth themselves, I coined the word "youthphemism." To understand the word, Mr. Zombie, my fourth year English teacher in high school, used to tell us, is to dissect the word. Now, let's dissect the word youthphemism.

Youthphemism comes from the word "youth" and from the Greek word "pheme."

The first word seemed to be self explanatory but a word or two must be said. It is hard to define the word youth because there are many people who considered themselves to be young—at heart. But you know who is young when you see one. More formally, the United Nations General Assembly defined youth as those people falling between the ages of 18 and 24. The word pheme on the other hand means “speech” or “speaking.” Youthphemism therefore means a speech by the youth.

Here at Youthphemism, a space is created where the youth speak.