From the Likas logbook # 3 (Macky)

Classic Macky.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

"you've got to
live a little
laugh a little
little two little
three little indians
that's the story of,
that's the glory of
ten little indian boys!"
(ang labo nito, ah!)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

From the Likas logbook # 2 (guess the writer)

The entry below is dated December 6, 1996.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dear Stelle,

          While I'm writing this, Rico Peña is staring (and probably admiring) [at] my back!  Yup, he's right here in our tambayan sa Colayco - making pa-cute.  Hindi, joke lang, hindi siya nagpapa-cute sa akin.  Pero pa-cute pa rin siya.  Siguro kaya siya nandito kasi hinahanap ka niya...

          Hmmm.  Ano kaya kung mabasa niya itong sinusulat ko?  Patay, Stelle, buking ka na ...  Oops, I mean, buking na siya.

Cheers!

**********

P.S.

O, anong ginagawa ni Jon Chua rito?  (Hindi joke lang) =)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Clues:

1.  Has a very short nickname.

2.  Crush ng Kaingin

From the Likas logbook # 1 (guess the writer)

The entry below is circa December 1996. 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I'm Obsessed!

Obsessed!

I tell you!  It's like dandruff - I can't get it out of my head!  it's like a nightmare but I can't wake up!

Aaargh!!

Any moment now you'll see me running around campus stark naked!

It looms over me day and night!  Anywhere I look it is staring me right in the face!

It's driving me crazy!

I'm obsessed and I love it.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Clues:

1.  Female (?)

2.  Non-conformist

3.  Trying hard to be ambidextrous.

Random Discovery # 4

         
          I just discovered that my phone's stylus is missing.

          *%&$@#*

Concession and Statesmanship

          Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal claims to have shed tears when he watched John McCain's concession speech when Barack Obama's victory became definite.  He said, "It's not because I pity him, but because I pity our country, asking myself when we could have men like McCain who could accept the will of the people and put the nation's interest paramount to their own political interest."  This is a sentiment shared by most of those who watched the progress of the US elections (but perhaps in less-emotional terms).

          It maybe because of our collective experience in having atrocious elections in this country that we are easily awed and touched by displays of grace in the face of defeat, which are common in any country that has reached a high degree of political maturity.  Somebody loses an election in a manner that does not leave any room to doubt, subsequently concedes to his opponent as he is supposed to do, and we think it is a display of virtue which is nothing short of exceptional.

          Think about it, Obama not only breached but demolished the 270-vote mark en route to a victory.  (For those of us who were tracking the progress of the elections, this happened literally within a matter of seconds as poll projections from a number of states began to pour in.)  What else was McCain going to do?  Conceding the elections was the only option, and delaying such a concession would have only worked against him.

          If we are looking for a much better model for statesmanship, then we should be looking at Al Gore.  This man should have been President instead of the unlamented George W. Bush, but was cheated of victory due to machinations of the latter's political strategists.  But rather than expose his country to a divisive electoral protest, he chose to finally concede even though he was actually leading his opponent in the popular vote.  To add insult to injury, he presided over the official tallying of his "defeat", and repeatedly rejected protests against his opponent's "victory".

          If we follow the McCain model of statesmanship, then unscrupulous politicians can always justify that only landslide losses are worthy of concession.  On the other hand, close contests are fair game for protests and allegations of cheating.  In short, the Philippine status quo.  In even shorter terms, "nothing changes".

          Now, I'm not going to fully advocate the Gore model either, for the simple reason that I still think the person who gets more votes, no matter how small the lead, should win an election.  But our politicians can probably emulate Gore on the manner by which he put the well-being of the country above his own political ambitions despite being so near to his goal.

          Many politicians in this country believe that "almost there" entitles them to be "there".  Hence, the tendency to make full use their resources to undertake legal, extralegal, and sometimes illegal means to  prevent a winner from being proclaimed once they lose an election.   This is done partly in frustration, and partly due to a malicious intent to subvert the electoral system in order to perpetuate themselves in power (in the case of reelectionists) or to take power from those who are lawfully entitled to it.

          We are hoping, therefore. that Al Gore's statesmanship is emulated by those politicians who are in an "almost there" situation (which accounts for a large number of losing candidates in this country) but whose factual bases for claiming victory are tenuous.

photo credit:

Al Gore: http://blackliberal.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/al-gore.jpg
John McCain: http://thepoliticaltipster.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/040416_mccain_vmed_1p_widec.jpg

That's it! No more text promos for me! (Grrrrr....)

          No matter how much I think I've advanced from the common man's compulsion to make a quick buck, I still find myself lured every now and then by promos that have a billion to one chance of winning but which offer attractive prize packages.

          This false (and rather elitist) sense of self-worth has so far enabled me to prevent myself from lining up shoulder-to-shoulder with blue-collar types whenever the Lotto pot hits the P100 million mark.  Text promos, however, are harder to avoid in as much as we all are more inclined to do things against our own convictions in the privacy of our own homes.

          Yesterday, I was watching my favorite kapamilya TV show "Game Ka Na Ba".  Part of the game rules is that if any contestant answers 5 consecutive questions correctly, s/he will win the money pot.  This pot increases in amount each day that no wins it the day previously.  So it came to a point where the money pot was already P750,000 and a female contestant won.  The thing was, there is an additional rule that says the text home partner will get the same amount whenever the pot is won.

          I listened carefully to Edu Manzano's instructions on how to send a text entry.  What he said was that a person should just send a message which says "GKNB <correct answer>" and then send it to 2366.  Since I did not know if there was a limit to the number of entries I could send, I sent out 5 messages with 1 - 2 minutes space in between each of them.  Here's what happened afterwards:

          Throughout the afternoon, I got 5 separate messages which were marked as "Ringing tone", but which said upon opening "This message type is not supported".  That was the first hint that I got duped.  But I gave them the benefit of the doubt and rationalized that maybe sending an entry involves requesting a ringtone at the same time.  And besides, there were some words in fine print when I was watching the show on TV.  That might have explained why.  My mistake, but that's fine.

          Later in the evening, I got another batch of 5 messages, but this time they were all saying, "Tnx 4 dloading! P15/ dload. Sori no valid entry for ds download, reply w/ <letter of answer> Ex. B. Reply is free. Up2 3 entries ang pde mkuha 2day. My featurd 3 monotones 4d day. Watch GKNB 2know d correct answer. Cut-off 4earning entries: 11am-11:59pm. 1 unique dload=1entry. Promo fr 7/28/08-1/9/09. C flyrs & TVplugs 4details. DTI-NCR#3752S2008. Call (02) 4158766 for help." 

          I subsequently checked my load balance, and true enough, I was deducted a total of P75.  So my only mistake was in texting the actual answer instead of just the letter of the correct answer.  What irks was that even though the format was invalid, they still took my money, and it took them 8 hours to inform me of that fact.

          To put it in everyday terms, imagine yourself in a McDonalds restaurant.  You see the latest Disney toy freebie advertised in their display rack.  You decide that you want to buy a Kiddie meal just for the purpose of getting the freebie.  You then place your order with the cashier, who promptly punches it in and gives you a number (because your kiddie meal needs at least 5 minutes to prepare.)  When your order finally arrives, it doesn't contain the freebie.  When you ask for it, they then tell you that it is not available.  And when you ask for your money back, they tell you that what has been punched in and paid for can no longer be refunded.

          I did call the help number, but I was told that my P75 can no longer be refunded - even when I pointed out that show host never mentioned anything about needing to download ringtones just to send an entry, and that the words on the TV screen that might have elucidated on the rules were flashed very briefly.

          So that's it.  No more text promos for me.









P.S.  Does anyone know what the Lotto jackpot amount is these days?

My take on the separation of Church and State

          I've shared my views on this issue so many times in various online fora that I have almost memorized my replies on every post that I make.  And so, in order to have a place where I can just copy [from] and paste [somewhere else] should the need to share my views again arise, I can just access it here.

= = = = = = = = = =

          The thing about people who advocate the "separation of Church and State" is that many of them (bluntly speaking) do not know what they are talking about.  More concretely, they don't know the constitutional basis for such a separation, and most take the principle for granted just so they would have something to throw against the Church.

          The principle of the separation of church and state had its roots during the Enlightenment, but it's application in the Philippines is the direct result of the influence of American constitutional law.  There are two aspects to the principle: (1) the Church (or any religion) is not permitted to interfere in the government's exercise of its duties; and (2) the State is not allowed to institute an official religion.

          The test therefore is whether any of these two aspects of the principle is violated whenever Church officials speak out against certain or proposed governmental policies that they are against.

          (From this point onwards, the term "Church" will refer to the Roman Catholic Church, which is the usual suspect when discussing this principle in this country.)

          Let's take, for example, the Church's opposition against contraceptives and artificial family planning methods and see whether they pass the two-fold test.

          First, is the Church interfering in the government's exercise of its duties?  To answer this question, we first have to establish what qualifies as "interference".  Whenever Church officials make pronouncements or mobilize people to rally against contraceptives/artificial family planning methods, do they prevent the government from doing its job?  No.  Ultimately, the decision to formulate and execute policy rests solely in the government's hands, and this is beyond the control of the Church.  Unless somebody can prove that Church officials have usurped governmental authority, then there is no basis to conclude that the Church is guilty of interference.

          What many people fail to understand is that the Church, as an institution, has the same rights as individuals with regard to the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression.  Telling the Church to stop speaking out because we disagree with it has exactly the same effect as telling a friend that he has no right to disagree with you - clearly an absurd and indefensible position.

          Second, is the State favoring the Church to the point that the latter has become an official religion?  This test is actually more applicable to the government rather than the Church because it measures how much the government has done in establishing the Church as the State's official religion.  The easiest way to do this is to check whether part of the national budget goes directly to the coffers of Church.  Another is on whether any law has been passed wherein the Church has been placed at an unfair advantage over other religions. 

          As far as I know, there is no such law, and that no government funds are allotted for the benefit of the Church.  There are of course, other ways to measure this.  But in the absence of a clear law that favors the Church, any other action of the government that somehow coincides with what the Church thinks is not sufficient proof of an establishment of an official religion.

          The second test rather underscores the fact that as far as the principle of the separation of Church and State goes, it takes two to tango.  The State, as much as any religion, can be equally guilty of violating it.  Furthermore, Church interference is only possible if the government allows such interference to take place.  So in this regard, those who accuse the Church of violating the principle are barking up half the wrong tree.  For example, if the current population bill sponsored by Edcel Lagman does not pass into law - whether due to being vetoed by the President, or not gaining enough votes in Congress - we can rightly say that the Church's oppostion had a part in the bill's demise.  But see, it's not the Church that would vote on it, and neither does the Church have any veto power over acts of congress.  The only thing they could do is lobby against it - which is perfectly legal.

          In any case, even the previous example does not really qualify as interference.  Church officials will always (and have every right to) speak their mind on matters which they believe are within the realm of their brethren's spirituality and faith.

          So taking everything into consideration, is the Church in the practice of violating the principle of the separation of Church and State?  The answer is clearly, "No".