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.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
