Thursday, April 28, 2005

Foot in Mouth Disease

Why is Mike Arroyo always linked to corruption?” asks an article in the April 28, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.


In response to allegations that First Gentleman Mike Arroyo is involved in jueteng (an illegal numbers game popular among Filipinos,) his spokesperson had this to say:


"Mr. Arroyo is not involved and has never been involved in jueteng and totally supports all moves of the government to eradicate jueteng," lawyer Jess Santos, spokesperson of the First Gentleman, said.

The lawyer said the First Gentleman abhorred jueteng and "does not even know how to play that game."

The latest attempt to link the First Gentleman to jueteng payoffs was nothing but "dirty politics," said Santos.

In a statement issued by Arroyo's office, Santos warned that Arroyo would file charges against anyone who would allude to him and his son as recipients of jueteng money without presenting any evidence.

Santos said, "Only cowards and gays destroy people's reputations with lies and intrigues." (emphasis mine)


One of the primary responsibilities of a spokesperson is damage control. For example, if his or her principal says or does something that offends people, the spokesperson steps in and uses his gift for gab to smooth things over with the offended parties.


Ideally, one’s spokesperson should be a smart, articulate, charming, and tactful.


Nothing smart about that last statement. Atty. Santos should stick to filing legal briefs, instead of shooting off his mouth.
Santos’ statement was totally uncalled for. It was irrelevant, inaccurate, and downright stupid.


Something tells me Atty. Santos will be spending the rest of the week pulling his foot out of his mouth.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Land of the Free?

From the April 21, 2005 Online Edition of the New York Times:

RICHMOND, Va. — Nealie Pitts was shopping for a house for her son three years ago when she spotted a for-sale sign in front of a modest brick bungalow here. When she stopped to ask the owner about it, at first she thought she misheard his answer.

"This house is going to be sold to whites only," said the owner, Rufus Matthews, according to court papers filed by Ms. Pitts, who is African-American. "It's not for colored."

Mr. Matthews later testified before the Virginia Fair Housing Board that he believed a clause in his deed prohibited him from selling to a black buyer. A 1944 deed on his property restricts owners from selling to "any person not of the Caucasian race."

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.

America is a country full of contradictions. Their national anthem may loudly declare the US the "land of the free," but until the middle of the 19th century, African-Americans were kept as slaves. Until the sixties, African-Americans were considered second-class citizens. (Some will argue that this holds true today.)

Racism also rears its ugly head in the negative attitudes of some Americans vis-a-vis the influx of immigrants from Mexico or Asian countries like the Philippines. This is quite ironic, considering many of them can trace their ancestry to Irish or Italian immigrants who arrived in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

I feel that despite having one of the most socially and culturally diverse populations on the planet, some white Americans-- deep, deep down-- would prefer to live in a society where everyone had white skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. These people should study their history. If any one people were to have a legitimate claim to the land they call the United States of America, it would have to be native American Indians (whom they wiped off ), not them.

NBA Playoff Predictions

First Round

Miami v. New Jersey

Miami in five. Jason Kidd and Vince Carter are bound to break out at least once during the series. For one night-- and one night only-- it will be enough to beat Shaq, Wade, and Co.

Detroit v. Philedelphia

Detroit in five. Expect Allen Iverson to have one god-like game where he will be unstoppable. That will be Philly's only win.

Boston v. Indiana

Boston in seven. A depleted and (comparitively) old lineup has a chance of winning against a young, talented squad like the Celtics in a five-game series. In seven? Unlikely. By the sixth and seventh game, the Pacers will be too worn and too tired to run with Boston's young guns.

Chicago v. Washington

Chicago in six. Chicago relies on a system predicated on tough defense and a system all its players have bought into. Washington relies on its Big Three-- Gilbert Arenas, Larry Hughes, and Antawn Jamison. As shown in Game 1, you can shut people down, but you can't beat a great system.

Phoenix v. Memphis

Phoenix in four. No contest. The Suns will run and shoot the Grizzlies off the court.

San Antonio v. Denver

San Antonio in six. Game one was a fluke. Popovich is too good a coach--and Duncan is too great a player-- to repeat the mistakes they made in the opener.

Seattle v. Sacramento

Seattle in six. Seattle shoots and defends better, on a regular basis, than Sacramento.

Dallas v. Houston

Houston in five. It took a whole season, but the Rockets have finally found a way to make the best post Shaq-and-Kobe duo work. After his last, forgettable year in Orlando, T-Mac is playing like someone who wants to prove he's a winner. He will, at the expense of Avery Johnson's Mavericks.

CONFERENCE SEMIFINALS

Miami v. Chicago

Miami in six. The Bulls will not be intimidated. Expect a war. Expect Nocioni to get under Shaq's skin. And expect Dwayne Wade to carry this team into the conference finals.

Detroit v. Boston

Detroit in six. Reminiscent of the Celtics-Pistons battles of the late 80s, with the tables turned. This time, it will be the defending champs who will school Boston's newest Celtics.

Phoenix v. Houston

Houston in six. If there's a team that can exploit the Suns lack of size at the center position, the Rockets are it. Both Yao Ming and Dikembe Mutombo will give Stoudemire fits. The Rockets also play excellent D and rebound the ball well-- which will limit the effectiveness of the Suns' running game.

San Antonio v. Seattle

San Antonio in five. The Sonics will be lucky to grab one game in this series.


CONFERENCE FINALS

Miami v. Detroit

Detroit in seven. Tough call. Miami can win it if Damon and Eddie Jones hit their shots consistently. Detroit, however, is more than capable of keeping up with the Joneses. The result? A return to the Finals.

San Antonio v. Houston

San Antonio in six. San Antonio's guards-- Parker and Manu-- will be a tough matchup for Houston's older guards. Unless T-Mac can play four perfect games-- unlikely given San Antonio's excellent D-- this is where the Rockets' foray into the postseason ends.

FINALS

San Antonio v. Detroit

Detroit in seven. Clash of the Titans. From coach, to star players, to the bench, everyone in both teams knows their roles. Expect the two teams to play, as Larry Brown says, the "right way." This means great defense, great teamwork, and, as a consequence, low game scores. All things being equal, in the end, it will boil down to who has more offensive options. Here, Detroit has the slight edge. This, coupled with a less-than-100% Tim Duncan, will mean a second straight title for the Detroit Pistons.


Wednesday, April 13, 2005

All In A Day's Work

I've always believed in the dignity of labor. I'd like to think that the nobility of one's work––any kind of work––isn't defined so much by one's particular occupation, but by the manner one practices one's profession, and the happiness one derives from one's job.

It is comforting to know that there are some who subscribe to this philosophy. It surprises many that the Supreme Court's most outstanding employee isn't a lawyer, but a clerk. Not that his lacking a law degree prevented the awards' judges (composed of the Senior Associate Justice of the SC and the Presiding Justices of the other appellate courts) from recognizing excellence when they saw it––proof that intelligent people know that an individual's worth isn't reflected by one's title, rank, or salary.

Unfortunately, title, rank, and salary matter much to the majority of the Philippine population. Many hold the members of the following professions in high esteem: medicine, law, engineering, accountancy, or architecture. Corollary to that, they think less of those who aren’t in the abovementioned professions, such as those in theater (no money), music (a hobby), visual arts (a pastime), or government service (financially unrewarding).

Something that happened recently is a perfect example of this mentality. A lawyer friend of mine told her officemate that if she had a choice, she would have pursued a career in theater rather than go to law school. Her officemate, a law graduate––but, take note, not yet a lawyer––replied, "Theater lang?" I find it strange that many Filipinos consider theater (or other performing arts, for that matter) a second-rate profession, as this is one particular field in which many extremely talented Filipinos have made their mark on the world stage (e.g. Lea Salonga, Monique Wilson, the Filipino-American Idols, et. al.).

My next example is taken from my rather distant past. Just before handing in my application to U.P., I learned that the quickest way to give a parent a heart attack––or to trigger his hypertension––is to answer "fine arts'' to the question ''what are you taking up in college?" I can still remember the incredulity on my father's face (as well as many others) when I––according to them––''wasted" my (supposed) brains by choosing to take up Visual Communication in college, rather than pre-med, pre-law, or preparation-for-a-high-paying-job-that-will-bore-me-to-death.

Such disdain for artists and those belonging to supposedly less prestigious professions is almost universal in Philippine culture, even among the more educated. One time, a doctor asked me what I did for a living. ''I'm into graphic design, and I write," I replied. "Okay," he said, "but what is it you do?"

I wonder how the good doctor would react to the story of a friend who left U.P. Law in her third year so she could pursue her lifelong affair with the written word. He would have probably said, ''what a waste," and he wouldn't be alone. Most of you who read this would likely echo the same sentiment.

But define ''waste?" Had my friend finished law and passed the Bar, she would be making lots of money doing something she didn't like for the rest of her life. Instead, she is now being paid to write––something that she would do for free, something she does well and truly loves.

My friend was lucky to have parents (both of whom––surprisingly––are lawyers) who respected her wishes. Most, however, are not as fortunate. Far more common are parents who push their children to take college courses they (the kids) don't like so they can pursue careers they won't love.

Most will say, however, that parents such as these cannot be faulted for looking after their children's best interests. "Interests" being their progeny's (and perhaps, their own) financial security, not the things they're actually interested in. It isn't surprising that Philippine society accepts this kind of cram-it-down-your-throat career guidance counseling––the kind that puts more value on how much money one can earn, rather than the individual’s desire in pursuing a particular career.

This phenomena is just another manifestation of the materialism inherent in our culture––the materialism that fuels the bias that will ensure that the potential of talented artists will never be realized; that there will always be a short supply of NGO workers; and that government will continue to lose the best and the brightest of our youth to the private sector.

Money can't be our only raison d’ĂȘtre. What motivates you? What really moves you? Love of country? Art? Numbers? The high gained from making a stage and your body form a living, breathing canvas? Solving the mysteries of our tax code? Or the satisfaction you derive from knowing that your job––no matter how low-paying––helps people?

In campuses and cubicles everywhere, there are unhappy souls who have sacrificed their hopes and their dreams to live out the hopes and dreams of others. The sooner we realize that there are things infinitely more valuable than money, rank, and privilege, the better it will be for those of us whose only real motivation for waking up each morning are our paychecks.

(Originally featured in the April 30, 2005 edition of the Philippine Daily Inquirer's Youngblood column.)