(One of my new year's resolutions is to try to write a short reflection after every mass I attend for 2009.)
[Mary the Queen; 8 p.m. (anticipated)]
On the First Reading: Numbers 6:22-27 It's sad and ironic to hear the Israelites mentioned in the first reading, given the on-going turmoil in the middle east. Being more exposed to American media and analysis in the past, I've always been more than willing to give the Israeli government the benefit of the doubt. Yet... it's hard to see how the current offensive can be justified (as opposed to understood): Barack Obama has compared it as answering rocket attacks to his home, but I don't see how one is justified in retaliating to this by a missile that kills the innocent along with the guilty (if he's lucky).
On the Second Reading: Psalms 67:2-3, 5, 6, 8 Wasn't quite sure what "Abba" meant so I did a little research. it apparently means "father" in Hebrew. In that case, I don't understand what "Abba Father" means...
On the Gospel: Luke 2:16-21 Not to argue against Catholic tradition and feminist inclinations, but it's always bothered me somewhat that St. Joseph gets such short shrift in the Gospels. Mary is Mother of God because of her relation to Jesus... Surely that makes St. Joseph Father of God in the same way? Is this just not recognized because somehow it would dilute or confuse the doctrine that God was the Father of Jesus? Yet is God not both Father and Mother to Jesus? I sort of envisioned Jesus being created solely by God, not using Mary's DNA or chromosomes but simply making a body for Jesus, with Mary bearing him in her womb. That of course makes Mary's involvement with the child - like all mother's - more intimate than St. Joseph's, but surely not enough to warrant such a disparity in their veneration?
On the Homily: The priest mentioned the current situation in Gaza (thankfully), and linked that sad state of affairs with the fact that January 1 is World Peace Day. The rest of the sermon was a little vague and scattershot, but he spoke clearly and exhuded the simple, gentle faith that is so magnetic in a priest, so it was alright.
Other Notes: I find it ironic that the final song was "Seasons of Love" from the musical Rent. I sincerely hope that people who sung it/heard it took the time to think long and hard about the message of tolerance and acceptance in that play, and contrast it with the party-line of the Church on homosexuality.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
20 November 2008
Today I:
- Worked like a dog yet felt like a slacker
- Let my wife assault me with a nose strip
Monday, November 17, 2008
17 November 2008
Today I:
- Watched a Senate President get deposed;
- Discovered that the way to find my penguin was to find the fluffy tummy. (When I was a kid, I had books that taught me words and numbers, not sounds, smells and textures @_@)
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Pros and Cons of Transparency
Newsbreak is reporting that the JBC has decided against an open voting process, in which the public would gain access to information as to who voted yes or no for each nominee.
While my knee-jerk reaction to this news was to bemoan - as the article seems to - another loss in the campaign for a more transparent and accountable government. However, as with any argument over substantive issues, it is more prudent to give proper attention to the other side of the argument.
The problem cited with open voting by the dissenters stems from the theory that allowing others to see who voted what for whom would increase the pressure on members of the JBC. I interpret this to mean an adherence to the principle that secret voting makes it easier to vote with one's conscience as opposed to voting according to what would be acceptable to one's friends or social circle etc.
Secret voting does have its benefits - however, it should be noted that the entire thrust of secret voting is to assure that otherwise hesitant people would vote their conscience; this means, it seems to me, that it would be a system best adopted in a body where there was a substantial danger that people would NOT vote as their consciences dictated. Whether or not that is the case with the JBC I am in no position to know, but I would assume not.
Another problem with secret voting is that while it ups the chances that people will vote their conscience, it prevents anyone from knwoing if they actually DID, since only the JBC (or its individual members) would know who voted yes or no to a particular nominee.
With regard to the pressure that could be exerted if the JBC adapted open voting, three points could be made. First, unsavory elements who want to influence the proceedings will apply pressure anyway, regardless of whether the voting is open or closed; second, should a JBC member feel particularly pressured, or believes that a vote he casts might be seen as suspect, he should be allowed to inhibit himself from proceedings, similar to judges in the court - a group of people not strangers to the weighing of transparency and external pressure; third, if allegations of bias or external pressure do arise, and the truth was that the member voted against that supposed interest, open voting would allow him to show this through the record of the voting.
So, in the end, I think the JBC decision here was not ideal; which was, of course, my first reaction in the first place - but its always good when I can arrive at the same conclusion via rational argument. (Because retractions are embarrassing as hell...)
While my knee-jerk reaction to this news was to bemoan - as the article seems to - another loss in the campaign for a more transparent and accountable government. However, as with any argument over substantive issues, it is more prudent to give proper attention to the other side of the argument.
The problem cited with open voting by the dissenters stems from the theory that allowing others to see who voted what for whom would increase the pressure on members of the JBC. I interpret this to mean an adherence to the principle that secret voting makes it easier to vote with one's conscience as opposed to voting according to what would be acceptable to one's friends or social circle etc.
Secret voting does have its benefits - however, it should be noted that the entire thrust of secret voting is to assure that otherwise hesitant people would vote their conscience; this means, it seems to me, that it would be a system best adopted in a body where there was a substantial danger that people would NOT vote as their consciences dictated. Whether or not that is the case with the JBC I am in no position to know, but I would assume not.
Another problem with secret voting is that while it ups the chances that people will vote their conscience, it prevents anyone from knwoing if they actually DID, since only the JBC (or its individual members) would know who voted yes or no to a particular nominee.
With regard to the pressure that could be exerted if the JBC adapted open voting, three points could be made. First, unsavory elements who want to influence the proceedings will apply pressure anyway, regardless of whether the voting is open or closed; second, should a JBC member feel particularly pressured, or believes that a vote he casts might be seen as suspect, he should be allowed to inhibit himself from proceedings, similar to judges in the court - a group of people not strangers to the weighing of transparency and external pressure; third, if allegations of bias or external pressure do arise, and the truth was that the member voted against that supposed interest, open voting would allow him to show this through the record of the voting.
So, in the end, I think the JBC decision here was not ideal; which was, of course, my first reaction in the first place - but its always good when I can arrive at the same conclusion via rational argument. (Because retractions are embarrassing as hell...)
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Plenary Twittering
(Paraphrased) Quote of the day (well, of last Tuesday anyway): "I had prepared individual amendments for the bill, but I am afraid that the distinguished sponsor will accept these amendments and I will look unreasonable if I vote against the bill afterwards. So I won't propose any amendments and just vote no."
I've been wracking my brains about this and honestly, I can't think of a single reason why this needed to be said. Maybe someone needs to introduce Twittering to the Senators, so that they can have other venues for documenting their though processes...
I've been wracking my brains about this and honestly, I can't think of a single reason why this needed to be said. Maybe someone needs to introduce Twittering to the Senators, so that they can have other venues for documenting their though processes...
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
That Same Old Revolution
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) recently issued a statement entitled: "Corruption: A Social and Moral Cancer"which, as you might expect from the title, is a denunciation of corruption in the government in light of recent studies showing that the Philippines has almost cracked the top 10 of the world's most corrupt countries, while remaining on top of our game, so to speak, in regards to poverty and hunger.
As a concerned Filipino Catholic, I read the statement - and then I remembered why I rarely read such statements. I thought about it, and rather than just comment here on the blog, I thought I'd attempt to engage my church's hierarchy in a bit of dialogue. Let's see if anything comes out of it.
I think I got my main issue about the statement off my chest, but here are a few minor points I'd still like to raise (though I didn't do so in the comment, since I didn't want to distract from my main point):
First, this bothers me. A lot:
Now, I am a fan of nuanced responses and shades of gray, but there are some issues wherein you simply cannot take a position on the fence. If someone asks you, as an influential religious leader, whether or not something you yourself wrote means that you are asking people to "organize a move to oust" a sitting President, I don't think you should be allowed to wash your hands and basically say "bahala sila."
Second, why did they subtitle the piece "Quotes from Prophets of Hope"? The people they cited do, I think, qualify as performing a prophetic function, speaking truth to power and all that - but, er, none of the quotations used seemed particularly hopeful. I don't think I'd call a doctor who diagnosed me with cancer as a "prophet of hope."
As a concerned Filipino Catholic, I read the statement - and then I remembered why I rarely read such statements. I thought about it, and rather than just comment here on the blog, I thought I'd attempt to engage my church's hierarchy in a bit of dialogue. Let's see if anything comes out of it.
I think I got my main issue about the statement off my chest, but here are a few minor points I'd still like to raise (though I didn't do so in the comment, since I didn't want to distract from my main point):
First, this bothers me. A lot:
Asked whether the statement is a call for the public to organize a move to oust President Arroyo, Lagdameo said it is up to the public to decide on what course of action they want to use.
“Kailangan ang taong bayan ay magsama-sama kung paano sila mag-response together dun sa sulat namin na sinabi naming communal discernment and communal action," he explained.
Now, I am a fan of nuanced responses and shades of gray, but there are some issues wherein you simply cannot take a position on the fence. If someone asks you, as an influential religious leader, whether or not something you yourself wrote means that you are asking people to "organize a move to oust" a sitting President, I don't think you should be allowed to wash your hands and basically say "bahala sila."
Second, why did they subtitle the piece "Quotes from Prophets of Hope"? The people they cited do, I think, qualify as performing a prophetic function, speaking truth to power and all that - but, er, none of the quotations used seemed particularly hopeful. I don't think I'd call a doctor who diagnosed me with cancer as a "prophet of hope."
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Life Changing Books
Read an interesting excerpt of an article over at the PGS Blog (via Village Idiot Savant) and I thought I'd make a post out of my somewhat truncated comment at Kyu's.
While the gist of the excerpt was that most if not all of the books we've read that changed our lives were books we read when we were children, I think I might be strange in the sense that there have been several books I've read since coming of age (so to speak) that have changed the way I view life - or at least, have tinted the way I view it. That's probably because my reading habits expanded beyond genre fiction as I grew older, and a lot of non-fiction out there can really expand your horizons. Here are a few:
* The Canon by Natalie Angier
* What Jesus Meant by Gary Wills
* The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion
This isn't to say that genre fiction hasn't exerted a pull on me as well, but usually it's a particular scene or even a particular line in the book that will color my viewpoint from then on. The most recent one I can recall takes place in "The Curse of Chalion" by Lois McMaster Bujold, when the protagonist is explaining divine grace using a metaphor of an upturned cup.
I have to admit though that, by sheer dint of having been read during my formative years, many of the early books which influenced me, had a profound influence, mainly in terms of giving me a certain outlook on ethics and faith. The early God-Tales books by Nil Guillemette allowed me to form a kinder, gentler relationship with God than one reinforced by the threat of eternal damnation (They are a series of short 'parable' type stories, quite a few of which take on elements of sci-fi/fantasy). The book that moved me the most however, was "A Plague of Angels" by Sherri S. Tepper:
Hm... I'm sure I'm missing a few (a lot of the philosophical books I read in college, especially in Eddieboy Calasanz's class), but these are the ones that stand out the most at the moment. It's strange looking at that list now and seeing how the aspect of my life most often impacted by books was my relation to God and the church - but then, that's one aspect of life for which I found it hard to go to my traditional sources of guidance in my youth. (Jesuits may be amongst the most open-minded priests I know, but I somehow didn't feel that they could be entirely objective with me should I choose to discuss the logical fallacies I perceived in the concept of Hell. Same goes for my Mom.)
While the gist of the excerpt was that most if not all of the books we've read that changed our lives were books we read when we were children, I think I might be strange in the sense that there have been several books I've read since coming of age (so to speak) that have changed the way I view life - or at least, have tinted the way I view it. That's probably because my reading habits expanded beyond genre fiction as I grew older, and a lot of non-fiction out there can really expand your horizons. Here are a few:
* The Canon by Natalie Angier
If science had been taught to me with this much verve and enthusiasm, wonder and playfulness, I might have been very tempted to walk down the path of a scientist rather than a lawyer. The book does a masterful job of allowing the reader to wrap his head around the beauty, interconnectedness and sheer scale of science. (It's genius that one of the first chapters discusses calibration and scale, so that the reader begins to have an idea of, for instance, just how small a gene really is.) When you realize that a good 90+% of any object we see is actually, well, emptiness, it's hard to look at anything in quite the same way again.
* What Jesus Meant by Gary Wills
Being Filipino and having basically reared by the Jesuits, I've been a part of the Catholic Church practically all my life. As I grew older though, that self-same Jesuit education that gave me my Catholic foundation early on, was the same education that allowed me to scrutinize, question, and eventually disagree with certain structures, teachings and traditions of my church. Mr. Wills was the first author I read who could articulate these discomforts, these cognitive dissonances if you will, and still remain a Catholic. I don't think I quite agree with certain consequences Mr. Wills reads into his interpretation of the Gospel, but he's certainly given me the theological grounding on which to source my own disagreements with the One, Holy and Apostolic.
* The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion
The death of a loved one is not something I bear thinking about - but reading this book was, for a newly wed like me, urgent and necessary. I don't think there is any more effective way to enable yourself to truly savor each moment you have with the one you love, than by allowing yourself to be be drowned in the memories and emotions, the grief and loneliness, of one for whom those moments will never come again.
This isn't to say that genre fiction hasn't exerted a pull on me as well, but usually it's a particular scene or even a particular line in the book that will color my viewpoint from then on. The most recent one I can recall takes place in "The Curse of Chalion" by Lois McMaster Bujold, when the protagonist is explaining divine grace using a metaphor of an upturned cup.
I have to admit though that, by sheer dint of having been read during my formative years, many of the early books which influenced me, had a profound influence, mainly in terms of giving me a certain outlook on ethics and faith. The early God-Tales books by Nil Guillemette allowed me to form a kinder, gentler relationship with God than one reinforced by the threat of eternal damnation (They are a series of short 'parable' type stories, quite a few of which take on elements of sci-fi/fantasy). The book that moved me the most however, was "A Plague of Angels" by Sherri S. Tepper:
Even as a child, I could not quite reconcile how an All-Loving, All-Powerful, All-Knowing God would need to make his Son a sacrifice (as I understood it then) in order to forgive the sins of men. While I can't say that this book had the answer to that question (and yes this is a genre book, not an outwardly religious one), the beautiful ending - and the questions asked therein - continues to this day to color what I understand by the term 'Sacrifice'. Plague of Angels remains to be the only book that ever made me weep - not cry mind you. Weep.
Hm... I'm sure I'm missing a few (a lot of the philosophical books I read in college, especially in Eddieboy Calasanz's class), but these are the ones that stand out the most at the moment. It's strange looking at that list now and seeing how the aspect of my life most often impacted by books was my relation to God and the church - but then, that's one aspect of life for which I found it hard to go to my traditional sources of guidance in my youth. (Jesuits may be amongst the most open-minded priests I know, but I somehow didn't feel that they could be entirely objective with me should I choose to discuss the logical fallacies I perceived in the concept of Hell. Same goes for my Mom.)
Sunday, October 19, 2008
That's Some Contingency
So... a retired PNP officer and his wife were prevented from leaving Moscow on October 11 because Russian airport authorities discovered he was about to carry out more than €10,000 currency limit - a small sum of €120,000, or about P7.7 million actually.
In defending the officer, Chief Superintendent Nicanor Bartolome stated that the money was merely a "contingency fund."
Three questions then:
1) Were they somehow unaware of Philippine and foreign laws requiring the declaration of such large sums of money?
2) Were they aware of the obscure modern conveniences called "credit cards" "ATM cards" and "banks"?
3) By contingency, do they mean the sudden inexplicable urge to, say, buy a house? It was a 3 day conference! With free meals.
In defending the officer, Chief Superintendent Nicanor Bartolome stated that the money was merely a "contingency fund."
Three questions then:
1) Were they somehow unaware of Philippine and foreign laws requiring the declaration of such large sums of money?
2) Were they aware of the obscure modern conveniences called "credit cards" "ATM cards" and "banks"?
3) By contingency, do they mean the sudden inexplicable urge to, say, buy a house? It was a 3 day conference! With free meals.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
I Can Imagine the Filing Fees...
Oh Norby... you say the most adorable things...
And by adorable, I mean absolutely-deplorable.
For once, as tasteless and ill-handled as it may have been, the administration has the law on their side on this one. Of course, the law itself will say that even if you have the legal right to do something, this doesn't mean you can abuse that right without consequences...
Still, it comforts me to know that even when the administration does something that is, not strictly speaking illegal, I can always count on ol' Norby Gonzales to say something that will make me feel completely justified in hating their guts.
Enough with the Vilma-Pallin comparisons (and not just because these are eminently unfair to Vilma): it's the eerie Norby-Cheney similarities that should be making the news.
UPDATE: (9 Oct 08) Norby, Norby, Norby... if you simply must engage in inappropriate verbal abuse at least use the right word: the only way you could say the Hultmans are hypocrites would be if they facilitated the pardon of someone who murdered your child in perhaps the most unsympathetic and abrasive way possible, then told you to alternatively complain to Jesus or jump in a lake - and then had the gall to call you to task when you did the exact same thing.
And by adorable, I mean absolutely-deplorable.
For once, as tasteless and ill-handled as it may have been, the administration has the law on their side on this one. Of course, the law itself will say that even if you have the legal right to do something, this doesn't mean you can abuse that right without consequences...
Still, it comforts me to know that even when the administration does something that is, not strictly speaking illegal, I can always count on ol' Norby Gonzales to say something that will make me feel completely justified in hating their guts.
Enough with the Vilma-Pallin comparisons (and not just because these are eminently unfair to Vilma): it's the eerie Norby-Cheney similarities that should be making the news.
UPDATE: (9 Oct 08) Norby, Norby, Norby... if you simply must engage in inappropriate verbal abuse at least use the right word: the only way you could say the Hultmans are hypocrites would be if they facilitated the pardon of someone who murdered your child in perhaps the most unsympathetic and abrasive way possible, then told you to alternatively complain to Jesus or jump in a lake - and then had the gall to call you to task when you did the exact same thing.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Stories and Genres
Apparently there's been a bit of a discussion going on (the Philippine Genre Stories blog contains links and a roundup to the pertinent posts), and while I find the back and forth of ideas (or, as is more common in the internet, the near simultaneous barrage of ideas, coiling and colliding in a kind of babble-ferment) interesting, I am nowhere near to being enticed to contribute.
I've always had a bit of a problem with being critical and analytical when it comes to literature - it was probably why I didn't last long as a member of Heights, and why I find it difficult to criticize the substance (as opposed to the form - grammar, tense, etc.) of another fiction writer's works. I just can't really get beyond the story, and I know a lot of my taste in stories is subjective. It's sort of like my taste in food: I'm sure that shark's fin soup is a delicacy (moral-environmental issues aside of course) but I still prefer a can of vienna sausages, I have to admit. That doesn't mean I think a can of Libby's counts as high cuisine, but it also means I can't very well give an accurate answer if someone asked me if it was better or worse food than, say, duck l'orange. I can say whether or not I liked a story, but not whether it is or isn't better than another because of so-and-so literary mechanism or genre trope.
Promotion of Philippine Spec Fic as a genre is fine with me as long as it spurs more good stories - and I think any new emerging market for stories will do that (I still await with bated breath the Philippine baby zoo animal slash fiction genre). Could such a label be abused for marketing purposes? Sure it could - but the discerning reader won't be fooled, and the non-discerning reader will be happy either way, so I don't really see the harm.
I've always had a bit of a problem with being critical and analytical when it comes to literature - it was probably why I didn't last long as a member of Heights, and why I find it difficult to criticize the substance (as opposed to the form - grammar, tense, etc.) of another fiction writer's works. I just can't really get beyond the story, and I know a lot of my taste in stories is subjective. It's sort of like my taste in food: I'm sure that shark's fin soup is a delicacy (moral-environmental issues aside of course) but I still prefer a can of vienna sausages, I have to admit. That doesn't mean I think a can of Libby's counts as high cuisine, but it also means I can't very well give an accurate answer if someone asked me if it was better or worse food than, say, duck l'orange. I can say whether or not I liked a story, but not whether it is or isn't better than another because of so-and-so literary mechanism or genre trope.
Promotion of Philippine Spec Fic as a genre is fine with me as long as it spurs more good stories - and I think any new emerging market for stories will do that (I still await with bated breath the Philippine baby zoo animal slash fiction genre). Could such a label be abused for marketing purposes? Sure it could - but the discerning reader won't be fooled, and the non-discerning reader will be happy either way, so I don't really see the harm.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Godly Love
Ah, Jesuit masses... how I miss you...
This afternoon I heard my first significant homily in what seems like ages. The priest (freshly ordained last April apparently) mentioned the tragic suicides that took place recently involving the Ateneo or Ateneans. He related an incident where, during one of the wakes being held for one of the deceased, he was approached by a woman who admitted that she was surprised that masses were being held, as she had been of the impression that the Catholic church does not hold mass for people who commit suicide.
The young priest told her that this policy had already been changed, but more importantly he then gave her what he saw as the reason for this: God is perfect love after all. Who are we to limit the depth and breadth of this love? To make sweeping statements as to whom it does and does not apply?
I agree with the sentiment completely. It is a sad irony then, that more often than not, it is the church hierarchy which places God behind man made borders, failing to understand this elemental fact: The source of love is not found in the worthiness of the loved, but in the the virtue of the lover.
This afternoon I heard my first significant homily in what seems like ages. The priest (freshly ordained last April apparently) mentioned the tragic suicides that took place recently involving the Ateneo or Ateneans. He related an incident where, during one of the wakes being held for one of the deceased, he was approached by a woman who admitted that she was surprised that masses were being held, as she had been of the impression that the Catholic church does not hold mass for people who commit suicide.
The young priest told her that this policy had already been changed, but more importantly he then gave her what he saw as the reason for this: God is perfect love after all. Who are we to limit the depth and breadth of this love? To make sweeping statements as to whom it does and does not apply?
I agree with the sentiment completely. It is a sad irony then, that more often than not, it is the church hierarchy which places God behind man made borders, failing to understand this elemental fact: The source of love is not found in the worthiness of the loved, but in the the virtue of the lover.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Of Voltaire and Corruption
Well, lest I re-read my previous entry at some later point and think that my Senate experience wasn't good for anything but hair pulling, let me record a pair of truly amusing moments.
The first was when Senate President Pro-Tem Jinggoy Estrada paraphrased Voltaire during the session. Now, I know that contrary to what many may think, Jinggoy is a smart cookie, but I just found the sight of him actually breaking out of his neutral stance (as is proper for a Speaker) to quote a Philosopher (though not one beloved in my alma mater) distinctly amusing.
The second instance was during one of Senator Lacson's many speeches, which I shall paraphrase below with my (mental) comments:
Senator Lacson: "This is one fight I will not run away from. Just as I have not run away from any other fight."
Mental Me: (If you've never run from any fight before, what's the point in singling out this one?)
Senator Lacson: "I fought corruption even as the head of the PNP..."
Mental Me: (Yeah? And how did that go?)
The first was when Senate President Pro-Tem Jinggoy Estrada paraphrased Voltaire during the session. Now, I know that contrary to what many may think, Jinggoy is a smart cookie, but I just found the sight of him actually breaking out of his neutral stance (as is proper for a Speaker) to quote a Philosopher (though not one beloved in my alma mater) distinctly amusing.
The second instance was during one of Senator Lacson's many speeches, which I shall paraphrase below with my (mental) comments:
Senator Lacson: "This is one fight I will not run away from. Just as I have not run away from any other fight."
Mental Me: (If you've never run from any fight before, what's the point in singling out this one?)
Senator Lacson: "I fought corruption even as the head of the PNP..."
Mental Me: (Yeah? And how did that go?)
Streamlining the Senate
I've had the rather dubious pleasure of having a ringside seat to quite a few of the Senate sessions dealing with the "double entry" issue raised by Senator Lacson a few weeks back. While I don't find that my proximity to the senators made me any more enlightened about the current controversy, the experience did serve to enlighten me as to how the Senate actually operates... and, well...
As I told my friends afterwards: the best argument for unicameralism is to watch the Senate at work.
While I admit I'm hardly an old hand at observing the "upper house," in my humble commoner mind, there are a few things I'd suggest to perhaps give taxpayers more bang for the bucks that finance our esteemed Senators:
(1) Do away with the singing/performance at the start of the session: I only witnessed this once, but I was told it was a common thing to invite, say, student choral groups, and have them do a rendition of the national anthem and perhaps one more song. While I'm all for culture in general, most of the Senators don't even listen - save the poor songbirds from the patronizing applause and shave a few minutes off the amount of time it takes to start the sessions by doing away with this please.
(2) Do away with the first reading: Yes this would probably require a constitutional amendment, but I really couldn't see the point. All that happens is that the title is read and the bill is referred to a committee which had already been decided on beforehand - its a purely ministerial task that shouldn't take up half an hour of the session. Send the bills straight to the committees then just bring them to the floor for the committee reports and interpellations.
(3) Do away with the privilege speeches: Not completely - just don't use up the sessions time on matters of "personal and collective privilege." Let's put aside for a moment the fact that some senators have a rather inflated sense of privilege, which results in them feeling "compelled" to speak about some thing or other at every available opportunity. The real source of the uselessness of privilege speeches made on the floor is that the target audience are not the senators (even in accusatory speeches like Lacson's) - it's the media, and the general public. In the first place, many senators don't even attend the speeches, and in the second place, they are unlikely to be swayed by whatever they hear. The real 'swaying' happens when the session is in recess, and the senators huddle together in little circles and do their private negotiations. Since the speeches are aimed at the media anyway, senators with something to say should just go directly to the media, and not waste the taxpayer money funding legislative sessions. 3/4s of the sessions I attended failed to address any substantial legislative business because of these speeches, and that's just unacceptable.
(4) Do away with insipid interpellations: One positive side effect of taking the privilege speeches out of the sessions would be the elimination of the incessant and frequently useless interpellations made by the other senators. While incisive questioning in the vein of a cross-examination does occur, these seem rare when compared to the number of times a Senator will stand up and spend twenty minutes praising the senator who made the speech and expressing his complete agreement with the latter. No wonder applauding is prohibited in the galleries - the Senators would get no praise from the audience that they don't already give to themselves.
(5) Do away with multi-tasking: I get that Senators are busy people, concerned with many urgent matters. yet their main job, their primary job, is LEGISLATION, and they really should not be allowed to treat sessions like high school students treat the classes of their favorite (i.e. most lenient) professor. For most of the session, even while someone is speaking, Senators are walking in and out of the hall, talking on their cell phones, joking around with the guests i the gallery or clowning around in their little cliques. I saw only two Senators consistently paying attention to what was going on (when they were there at least)... given that there are 24 Senators (well, with one being excused on account of, er, jail time) that is a pretty dismal average.
---
I don't know if any of my suggestions are feasible, or even if they would be as effective as I'd hope. As I said, I'm no veteran Senate watcher.
One thing I do know for sure however, is this: we need to demand more from our leaders. To paraphrase a pasty faced terrorist... We deserve a better class.
As I told my friends afterwards: the best argument for unicameralism is to watch the Senate at work.
While I admit I'm hardly an old hand at observing the "upper house," in my humble commoner mind, there are a few things I'd suggest to perhaps give taxpayers more bang for the bucks that finance our esteemed Senators:
(1) Do away with the singing/performance at the start of the session: I only witnessed this once, but I was told it was a common thing to invite, say, student choral groups, and have them do a rendition of the national anthem and perhaps one more song. While I'm all for culture in general, most of the Senators don't even listen - save the poor songbirds from the patronizing applause and shave a few minutes off the amount of time it takes to start the sessions by doing away with this please.
(2) Do away with the first reading: Yes this would probably require a constitutional amendment, but I really couldn't see the point. All that happens is that the title is read and the bill is referred to a committee which had already been decided on beforehand - its a purely ministerial task that shouldn't take up half an hour of the session. Send the bills straight to the committees then just bring them to the floor for the committee reports and interpellations.
(3) Do away with the privilege speeches: Not completely - just don't use up the sessions time on matters of "personal and collective privilege." Let's put aside for a moment the fact that some senators have a rather inflated sense of privilege, which results in them feeling "compelled" to speak about some thing or other at every available opportunity. The real source of the uselessness of privilege speeches made on the floor is that the target audience are not the senators (even in accusatory speeches like Lacson's) - it's the media, and the general public. In the first place, many senators don't even attend the speeches, and in the second place, they are unlikely to be swayed by whatever they hear. The real 'swaying' happens when the session is in recess, and the senators huddle together in little circles and do their private negotiations. Since the speeches are aimed at the media anyway, senators with something to say should just go directly to the media, and not waste the taxpayer money funding legislative sessions. 3/4s of the sessions I attended failed to address any substantial legislative business because of these speeches, and that's just unacceptable.
(4) Do away with insipid interpellations: One positive side effect of taking the privilege speeches out of the sessions would be the elimination of the incessant and frequently useless interpellations made by the other senators. While incisive questioning in the vein of a cross-examination does occur, these seem rare when compared to the number of times a Senator will stand up and spend twenty minutes praising the senator who made the speech and expressing his complete agreement with the latter. No wonder applauding is prohibited in the galleries - the Senators would get no praise from the audience that they don't already give to themselves.
(5) Do away with multi-tasking: I get that Senators are busy people, concerned with many urgent matters. yet their main job, their primary job, is LEGISLATION, and they really should not be allowed to treat sessions like high school students treat the classes of their favorite (i.e. most lenient) professor. For most of the session, even while someone is speaking, Senators are walking in and out of the hall, talking on their cell phones, joking around with the guests i the gallery or clowning around in their little cliques. I saw only two Senators consistently paying attention to what was going on (when they were there at least)... given that there are 24 Senators (well, with one being excused on account of, er, jail time) that is a pretty dismal average.
---
I don't know if any of my suggestions are feasible, or even if they would be as effective as I'd hope. As I said, I'm no veteran Senate watcher.
One thing I do know for sure however, is this: we need to demand more from our leaders. To paraphrase a pasty faced terrorist... We deserve a better class.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Little Big World
"Small world" is more than a ride in Disneyland nowadays - it's a fact of life. With the advent of cellular phones, the internet, and reasonable airfares, the distance between people is shrinking fast.
I wonder if we can handle it.
As small as the world may become, for most of us, our World - the part of the planet and it's people we actually have a true emotional, personal investment in - has always been small. It has to be, as a survival mechanism. Everyday, somewhere out there in the world-at-large - an injustice is occurring, a tragedy transpiring. While knowledge of such fact, gleaned from the news or word of mouth, may pull at our heartstrings, compel a few tears - it is only that which occurs within our World that truly moves us to action.
Our family, loved ones, close friends, maybe even those directly in front of our eyes (if we are raised right) - around these we draw the line, the boundary. That which transpires outside it may inspire sympathy - but should that line be transgressed, we will act - quickly, decisively.
When the injustices of the world-at-large are brought so easily within our knowledge, so tantalizingly within our reach - how will we deal with it? Will our World constrict all the more... or will it embrace all that it can within its boundaries...
And when that happens, when even distant acts of cruelty and indignity are felt to be personal... How long must we wait before we take arms against it?
I wonder if we can handle it.
As small as the world may become, for most of us, our World - the part of the planet and it's people we actually have a true emotional, personal investment in - has always been small. It has to be, as a survival mechanism. Everyday, somewhere out there in the world-at-large - an injustice is occurring, a tragedy transpiring. While knowledge of such fact, gleaned from the news or word of mouth, may pull at our heartstrings, compel a few tears - it is only that which occurs within our World that truly moves us to action.
Our family, loved ones, close friends, maybe even those directly in front of our eyes (if we are raised right) - around these we draw the line, the boundary. That which transpires outside it may inspire sympathy - but should that line be transgressed, we will act - quickly, decisively.
When the injustices of the world-at-large are brought so easily within our knowledge, so tantalizingly within our reach - how will we deal with it? Will our World constrict all the more... or will it embrace all that it can within its boundaries...
And when that happens, when even distant acts of cruelty and indignity are felt to be personal... How long must we wait before we take arms against it?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Soldiers and the Media
Read an article on the GMA news website, and it got me to thinking about a couple of things.
First, the headline: "Military washes hands off civilian fatalities in air assault" - spelling/grammar weirdness aside, it seems to me that they could have gone with a more neutral/equitable headline. Off-hand, I cannot think of a single non-hygiene related instance where "washing your hands" of something is considered a good thing. (See: Pontius Pilate, Lady Macbeth)
That being said, and I realize that they aren't trained for this, but the military brass might need some lessons in how NOT to appear like you're engaging in the aforementioned washing of hands. Whether or not the military made a mistake, there are better, more palatable ways of defending your actions than:
* Blaming someone else: "He started it!" is just not the most sympathetic of defenses.
* Pre-judging your own investigation: Here's a tip - if you say: “We are not seeing any lapse but I do not want to pre-empt any investigation." - then uhm, you're giving quite a good impression of pre-empting the investigation.
And finally, for the moment of zen: "The military leadership has directed field commanders to limit use of artillery assets and air strikes in deference to Ramadan. Such firepower, however, could be used in case of overwhelming enemy force."
If this is about limiting possible civilian injuries/deaths then this should be the Rule and not some sort of Ramadan 'bonus'. And if this isn't about civilian injuries/deaths, then I don't really see the point, unless it somehow matters during Ramdan whether you die directly by a bolo to the head or indirectly by a shrapnel to the heart.
First, the headline: "Military washes hands off civilian fatalities in air assault" - spelling/grammar weirdness aside, it seems to me that they could have gone with a more neutral/equitable headline. Off-hand, I cannot think of a single non-hygiene related instance where "washing your hands" of something is considered a good thing. (See: Pontius Pilate, Lady Macbeth)
That being said, and I realize that they aren't trained for this, but the military brass might need some lessons in how NOT to appear like you're engaging in the aforementioned washing of hands. Whether or not the military made a mistake, there are better, more palatable ways of defending your actions than:
* Blaming someone else: "He started it!" is just not the most sympathetic of defenses.
* Pre-judging your own investigation: Here's a tip - if you say: “We are not seeing any lapse but I do not want to pre-empt any investigation." - then uhm, you're giving quite a good impression of pre-empting the investigation.
And finally, for the moment of zen: "The military leadership has directed field commanders to limit use of artillery assets and air strikes in deference to Ramadan. Such firepower, however, could be used in case of overwhelming enemy force."
If this is about limiting possible civilian injuries/deaths then this should be the Rule and not some sort of Ramadan 'bonus'. And if this isn't about civilian injuries/deaths, then I don't really see the point, unless it somehow matters during Ramdan whether you die directly by a bolo to the head or indirectly by a shrapnel to the heart.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Once More, With Feeling
...
Well.
Obviously this isn't going to work out so well with me doing long posts.
Let's try this again...
Well.
Obviously this isn't going to work out so well with me doing long posts.
Let's try this again...
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Hyperinflation and Hyperbole
I suppose that most anyone, if 5,000 people showed up at a mass in support of him/her, would get quite a bit of an ego boost, especially if the mass was attended by political bigshots such as Cory Aquino, Frank Drillon, Alfredo Lim and JDV. Yet, understandable as it is, I do wish Mr. Lozada would keep a tighter reign on his metaphors and hyperbole.
Make no mistake - assuming that Mr. Lozada is telling the truth, and assuming that he is indeed telling the truth for the sake of the country, this is a very brave and laudable act, for which he must be duly applauded. Yet if he truly has the good of the country in mind, I respectfully submit that the last thing he should be doing is lionizing himself, or making himself out to be a savior of the nation - and it's hard to interpret "I didn't know I was saving the soul of the nation" as anything but that, whether he intended this or not.
Why so?
First, because it assumes too much. For all the fuss and bother at the Senate, nothing concrete has yet to come from his testimony. What that testimony did was to give more evidence to a belief held by a lot of our countrymen that, surprise surprise, the government is corrupt. The particular individuals accused of impropriety remain fairly well entrenched in power. Even should they be removed, the structural problems that allow for that corruption still remain. Make no mistake the testimony is helpful - but primarily only insofar as diagnosing the problem is concerned... as far as creating a solution... not so much.
Second, because it gives him too much credit. Again, consistent with the assumptions above, Mr. Lozada has done a good, brave thing. Yet even should a solution come about, it would be improper for him to claim even a majority of the credit. Should he play Chavit Singson to GMA's Erap, he would have been instrumental in her downfall, but would hardly be considered its singular cause. And again, even a change of administration will do nothing if the underlying causes are not addressed.
Third, because it plays straight into the hands of the administration for Mr. Lozada to set himself up as a hero. The administration has adopted the strategy of making the ZTE issue seem to be about Mr. Lozada's virtue and character... something even Mr. Lozada has admitted to be far from spotless. Statements like those he gave at the mass only serve to galvanize the administration, and aid in their attempts to divert attention from the truth or falsity of the allegations. Mr. Lozada's greatest gift to the country is, if truthful, his testimony. Any attempt to use public sympathy for his plight to heighten his personal stature only serves to divert attention from that testimony, in favor of an idol with feet of clay.
Again, I should repeat, that given the usual caveat as to truthfulness, Mr. Lozada does deserve support and affirmation. But the moment he gives in to the urge to make this about him, and not about his testimony, the moment he engages in the hyperbole and rhetoric of a 'hero' - at that point, he ceases to do service to the nation.
Make no mistake - assuming that Mr. Lozada is telling the truth, and assuming that he is indeed telling the truth for the sake of the country, this is a very brave and laudable act, for which he must be duly applauded. Yet if he truly has the good of the country in mind, I respectfully submit that the last thing he should be doing is lionizing himself, or making himself out to be a savior of the nation - and it's hard to interpret "I didn't know I was saving the soul of the nation" as anything but that, whether he intended this or not.
Why so?
First, because it assumes too much. For all the fuss and bother at the Senate, nothing concrete has yet to come from his testimony. What that testimony did was to give more evidence to a belief held by a lot of our countrymen that, surprise surprise, the government is corrupt. The particular individuals accused of impropriety remain fairly well entrenched in power. Even should they be removed, the structural problems that allow for that corruption still remain. Make no mistake the testimony is helpful - but primarily only insofar as diagnosing the problem is concerned... as far as creating a solution... not so much.
Second, because it gives him too much credit. Again, consistent with the assumptions above, Mr. Lozada has done a good, brave thing. Yet even should a solution come about, it would be improper for him to claim even a majority of the credit. Should he play Chavit Singson to GMA's Erap, he would have been instrumental in her downfall, but would hardly be considered its singular cause. And again, even a change of administration will do nothing if the underlying causes are not addressed.
Third, because it plays straight into the hands of the administration for Mr. Lozada to set himself up as a hero. The administration has adopted the strategy of making the ZTE issue seem to be about Mr. Lozada's virtue and character... something even Mr. Lozada has admitted to be far from spotless. Statements like those he gave at the mass only serve to galvanize the administration, and aid in their attempts to divert attention from the truth or falsity of the allegations. Mr. Lozada's greatest gift to the country is, if truthful, his testimony. Any attempt to use public sympathy for his plight to heighten his personal stature only serves to divert attention from that testimony, in favor of an idol with feet of clay.
Again, I should repeat, that given the usual caveat as to truthfulness, Mr. Lozada does deserve support and affirmation. But the moment he gives in to the urge to make this about him, and not about his testimony, the moment he engages in the hyperbole and rhetoric of a 'hero' - at that point, he ceases to do service to the nation.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
My Lenten Readings
Like the vast majority of Filipinos, I was born and raised a Catholic, by a family for whom faith has always been felt, but lived. I was also born and raised in a city, taught by my mentors (many of whom come from my family) the value of reason, logic and critical thinking.
Ah, the olde Faith vs. Reason dichotomy, some of you will say.
Not quite. Think more Religion vs. Reason.
It is the Catholic Church, with its doctrines and hierarchy and ancient traditions, with which my reason struggles. Not because I have a little "Creationist" angel and "Evolutionist" devil perched on my shoulders and shouting imprecations at each other - the mainstream Catholic Church is not quite as literal in its interpretation of the Good Book (anymore) I think.
What I do have trouble with, is reconciling my discerned moral values on issues such as birth control, homosexuality and individual rights with certain positions adopted by my Church, and clothed with the aura of immovable authority. Even more difficult to reconcile is a structure wherein I can be told by members of the hierarchy that my discerned moral values are wrong, without engaging me in any discussion and debate. I've never dealt well with "arguments from authority" - just ask my mother.
One does not however, simply discard one's religion, nor can one shrug off as irrelevant the teachings of a Church that have passed through the hands of some of the most brilliant - and radical, for their time - thinkers the human race has ever produced.
What is a Concerned Catholic to do then? While many will have their own methods, mine has been engraved in my bones from years of Jesuit education: pull up a chair, open a book, read it, and discern.
Fair enough.
Right now as my Lenten commitment (I hardly consider reading a good book to be a 'sacrifice') I will be trying to go through two "textbooks" that have gone unread for too long: "Doubts and Loves" by Richard F. Holloway, retired Bishop of Edinburgh in the Scottish Episcopal Church. The second is "Why I Am a Catholic?" a Pulitzer Prize winning author, and one of the few Catholics I know who writes critical, researched books on the Church while still being in the Church.
I hope to find through Holloway's book a distillation of how far the general Christian religion can be reconciled with modern conceptions of values. I read the book of Wills to see how he answers his question... and whether such an answer will apply to me.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Sergio Apostol and the Seventeen and a Half Toes
I think enough people have vented their ire at Sergio Apostol for his brilliant and insightful [/sarcasm] opinion of how best to deal with the ongoing testimony of Mr. Lozada, such that I need not do more than express my solidarity with the head-shaking and tongue clucking in his general direction.
The use of the derogatory word "intsik" is not my real beef - there are many people who sadly do not even realize that such a word is a slur. (I abashedly admit that I myself as educated on that matter only recently.) In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that apparently the phrase “simpleng probinsiyanong Intsik" was used by Lozada to describe himself... But of course this does not give license to others to use the word - just look at how acceptable it is to use the "N-word" to describe an african american, if you yourself are not of a fashionably Denzel Washington-y skin tone.
The phrase “[b]agay sa‘yo i-deport, magulo ka dito" though.... well. That consists of at least 3.5 feet-in-the-mouth.
The first foot-in-mouth consists of the fact that it is logically wrong, an ad hominem fallacy, to reply to the argument (testimony in this case) of another by simply insulting that other person. As an Atenean (or so I've heard), Apostol should know better.
The second foot-in-mouth consists of the fact that it is legally wrong, since as far as I know Lozada is a Filipino citizen and not subject to deportation. As a lawyer, and as presidential legal counsel, Apostol should know better.
The third-and-a-half foot-in-mouth consists of the fact that saying such a thing in an interview with the media is mentally wrong. Given that you wanted to defend the administration Mr. Apostol, the last thing you should have done was something millions of Filipinos (in every way that counts) would find despicable.
In his apology Apostol claims it was an "emotional outburst." For someone who harps on Lozada's tears, I think Apostol should realize that his own lack of control might have done far more damage to the administration than an ocean of tears.
The use of the derogatory word "intsik" is not my real beef - there are many people who sadly do not even realize that such a word is a slur. (I abashedly admit that I myself as educated on that matter only recently.) In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that apparently the phrase “simpleng probinsiyanong Intsik" was used by Lozada to describe himself... But of course this does not give license to others to use the word - just look at how acceptable it is to use the "N-word" to describe an african american, if you yourself are not of a fashionably Denzel Washington-y skin tone.
The phrase “[b]agay sa‘yo i-deport, magulo ka dito" though.... well. That consists of at least 3.5 feet-in-the-mouth.
The first foot-in-mouth consists of the fact that it is logically wrong, an ad hominem fallacy, to reply to the argument (testimony in this case) of another by simply insulting that other person. As an Atenean (or so I've heard), Apostol should know better.
The second foot-in-mouth consists of the fact that it is legally wrong, since as far as I know Lozada is a Filipino citizen and not subject to deportation. As a lawyer, and as presidential legal counsel, Apostol should know better.
The third-and-a-half foot-in-mouth consists of the fact that saying such a thing in an interview with the media is mentally wrong. Given that you wanted to defend the administration Mr. Apostol, the last thing you should have done was something millions of Filipinos (in every way that counts) would find despicable.
In his apology Apostol claims it was an "emotional outburst." For someone who harps on Lozada's tears, I think Apostol should realize that his own lack of control might have done far more damage to the administration than an ocean of tears.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Everything Old is New
Springing to the defense of one's family is an honorable, laudable thing.
I mean, hey, it's a commandment right? Can't go wrong with them commandments.
Maybe though, just maybe, there are better ways to do it Mr. Arroyo, better ways to phrase it. I mean, I understand that you might find it difficult to keep from criticizing a less-than-totally-blameless witness bringing up allegations of corruption against the administration in a venue other than the courts of law and all...
... but hey, do you perhaps remember the last time a less-than-totally-blameless witness brought up allegations of corruption against the administration in a venue other than the courts of law? Sometime around, oh, 2000-2001 perhaps? Old guy, likes sunglasses, name rhymes with Tingson?
So. Three questions:
1) How can Lozada be faulted for testifying in the Senate instead of the courts, when it was the Senate who ordered him to appear?
2) Shouldn't the question we should be asking at this point be: "Is he telling the truth?" and not "Is he a nice person?"
3) How are Lozada's accusations less deserving of a hearing than Chavit Singson's?
And if you think the answer to number 3 is because the Impeachment was a judicial and not a political proceeding... well, then you probably didn't watch the same parts of the Impeachment that I did.
I mean, hey, it's a commandment right? Can't go wrong with them commandments.
Maybe though, just maybe, there are better ways to do it Mr. Arroyo, better ways to phrase it. I mean, I understand that you might find it difficult to keep from criticizing a less-than-totally-blameless witness bringing up allegations of corruption against the administration in a venue other than the courts of law and all...
... but hey, do you perhaps remember the last time a less-than-totally-blameless witness brought up allegations of corruption against the administration in a venue other than the courts of law? Sometime around, oh, 2000-2001 perhaps? Old guy, likes sunglasses, name rhymes with Tingson?
So. Three questions:
1) How can Lozada be faulted for testifying in the Senate instead of the courts, when it was the Senate who ordered him to appear?
2) Shouldn't the question we should be asking at this point be: "Is he telling the truth?" and not "Is he a nice person?"
3) How are Lozada's accusations less deserving of a hearing than Chavit Singson's?
And if you think the answer to number 3 is because the Impeachment was a judicial and not a political proceeding... well, then you probably didn't watch the same parts of the Impeachment that I did.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Darth Venecia?
Ah yes, the "return from the dark side" - a staple of narratives throughout the years. You have your evil empire and its (by definition) evil leader, then the evil (in a more immediate sense since evil leader seems a bit distant at times) peon who at one point, usually near death, realizes making amends for the rest of his/her life... which usually lasts about five minutes in the movies (not counting the gurgle-gurgle-death-rattle-I'm-sorry-I-love-you-all expiration scene).
A part of you has got to cheer for the reformed peon... but another part of you wants to strangle him/her because of how much easier everything would have been had that change of heart come a mite sooner... and one final part, one little rebellious Sweeney Todd little part, still wants the peon to pay.
I won't know if any of the things JDV will end up saying about the administration are true tales from the sordid underbelly of power, or spiteful retaliatory fabrications. One thing I do know though, is that I have three questions for JDV:
1) How long have you had "first hand and second hand” knowledge of corruption in Malacañang, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Cabinet?
2) Why are you only acting on this now and not when you were in a position to really do something about it? (For an example of what a House Speaker can do to a President he's not all that into anymore, please see Exhibit A: Manny Villar)
3) How do you expect us to view both you and your words now, when in effect you are telling us that you've known these things all along and yet chose to keep silent?
The real tragedy is, IF there is truly corruption in the administration and IF JDV really has intimate knowledge of this, he could really have been a true hero - a surprise revelation from someone presently (as opposed to 'formerly') in the President's confidence would have been worth a hundred "Hello Garci" recordings.
As it stands... the revelations will most likely appear to be just another smear of black in the war between the "alleged" pot and the "supposed" kettle.
A part of you has got to cheer for the reformed peon... but another part of you wants to strangle him/her because of how much easier everything would have been had that change of heart come a mite sooner... and one final part, one little rebellious Sweeney Todd little part, still wants the peon to pay.
I won't know if any of the things JDV will end up saying about the administration are true tales from the sordid underbelly of power, or spiteful retaliatory fabrications. One thing I do know though, is that I have three questions for JDV:
1) How long have you had "first hand and second hand” knowledge of corruption in Malacañang, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Cabinet?
2) Why are you only acting on this now and not when you were in a position to really do something about it? (For an example of what a House Speaker can do to a President he's not all that into anymore, please see Exhibit A: Manny Villar)
3) How do you expect us to view both you and your words now, when in effect you are telling us that you've known these things all along and yet chose to keep silent?
The real tragedy is, IF there is truly corruption in the administration and IF JDV really has intimate knowledge of this, he could really have been a true hero - a surprise revelation from someone presently (as opposed to 'formerly') in the President's confidence would have been worth a hundred "Hello Garci" recordings.
As it stands... the revelations will most likely appear to be just another smear of black in the war between the "alleged" pot and the "supposed" kettle.
I Lit a Candle At Both Ends...
http://www.senate.gov.ph/photo_release/2008/0207_00.asp
(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.
When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing,
so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
~~~
Ah, sweet irony. I don’t begrudge the intent – wouldn’t it be nice if finding out the truth about ZTE was as simple as someone actually coming forward and telling us about it?- but I’m unsure as to why they can’t do their speeches and marching in public, and their praying in private.
And, yes, I do realize there was a lot of public praying during EDSA I. Then again, that would seem to me to be a natural reaction if you’re standing in front of the muzzle of a tank.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
