Eighty-One

Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers scored 81 points against the Toronto Raptors the other day. That feat puts him only behind Wilt Chamberlain for most points in a single NBA game. In 1962, Chamberlain, then a member of the Philadelphia Warriors (now the Golden State Warriors, not the Philadelphia 76ers), scored a hundred points against the New York Knicks and established one of sports' most enduring, seemingly unbreakable records.

Kobe Bryant's unbelievable performance against the Raptors changes all that. Used to be that the notion of anyone breaking Wilt's record was unthinkable. Now, however, Kobe has everyone who has ever played or watched a basketball game think again.

The Game (as we shall now call it) begs the following questions:

Was Kobe's feat really that big a deal?

Yes. Says Vince Carter: "Eighty-one is 81, I don't care if you're playing summer league, pickup, Playstation - it's a lot." I play a lot of NBA Live. 81 is hard to get, even on an imaginary court. So Kobe's 81 point-game is a big deal, and is worth all the hype.

Was Toronto's defense really that bad?

Yep. Watch the highlights. The Raptors' opponents average 102.7 points a game on 48.9% shooting. Only the Seattle Supersonics play worse D. According to the Detroit Pistons' Chauncey Billups, the Raptors didn't even double-team Kobe, despite Raptors' coach Sam Mitchell's claim that Toronto "threw everything" at Kobe. Well, Bryant scored 81. Guess you know who gave the more objective assessment.

Is Kobe really that good?

Kobe leads the NBA in scoring, and has carried an untalented LA Lakers team on his shoulders all season long. The result is a 22-19 record. If the playoffs were held today, the Lakers would qualify. So yes, he really is that good.

Is this Kobe guy better than Michael Jordan?

Maybe Kobe is a better scorer, but that's debatable. Actually, you can look at all the different aspects of their game (ball-handling, passing, clutch shooting) and have a debate on your hands. Defense, however, is one department that Jordan beats Bryant hands-down. Kobe plays great off-the-ball defense, gets in the passing lanes, and is good for 1.33 steals a game. Jordan did this, plus, he shut people down. People forget that Jordan is the only player to win both MVP and Defensive Player of the Year in the same season (1988).

There are also the intangibles. Jordan was in his sixth year in the NBA when the Bulls won their first championship, and he already exhibited great leadership and the ability to make his teammates better. Kobe has yet to prove he can lead a team (glaring at teammates when they make bonehead decisions doesn't count) or make his supporting cast better (Lamar Odom ain't no Scottie Pippen, but that guy has skills), so until then, the answer is NO.

How does Kobe's performance compare to Wilt's? Or to the other great scoring performances?

There are those who say Kobe's performance was better than Wilt's because the latter was a freak-a giant at a time when most NBA players reached his shoulders. There are those that say that the fact that Kobe scored on jumpers and a host of other acrobatic moves makes his feat more impressive than Wilt's. I don't buy that. A hundred is still a hundred. Besides, Wilt didn't have the three-point shot, or free throws to help.

As for the other 70+ scorers-Elgin Baylor (LA Lakers), David Robinson (San Antonio Spurs), and David Thompson (Denver Nuggets)-all these were done during the regular season. Both Davids scored 70+ in the last games of the season, to jack up their scoring averages to win the scoring title, so these games had little meaning.

Jordan's highest-scoring regular-season game was 69-against the Cleveland Cavaliers. But this was hardly his most impressive scoring game. Jordan holds the record for most points in a playoff game. He scored 63 points against a Boston Celtics team that featured Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Larry Bird, Danny Ainge, and Dennis Johnson-all future Hall of Famers. What's even more amazing is that Jordan did this in the Boston Garden, against a team which had lost only one game at home in the regular season (an NBA record), a team that would go on to become NBA Champions.

Kobe has yet to reach the playoffs without Shaq. He may break the record for most points in a playoff game, but for him to really make an impression, he'd have to do that against a great NBA defensive team like the San Antonio Spurs.

Can Kobe score over a hundred points in a single game? Will he?

Yes, he can. One of the consequences of expansion is the watering down of talent in the NBA. There are so many mediocre teams with players that couldn't defend their own shadows if they wanted to (i.e., the Atlanta Hawks, the New York Knicks). There also teams that are an injury or two away from mediocrity; take away the stars on some teams (i.e., the Houston Rockets, the Philadelphia 76ers), and what you get are terrible teams that could be whipped by a good NCAA team. So it's just a matter of time.

The US Embassy On Driving In The Philippines

I am often amused by the howls of protest coming from politicians whenever negative travel advisories are issued by foreign governments.

First, governments have a right to do what they think is necessary to protect its citizens, and that includes telling them when their safety is at risk when they visit a certain country.

Second, these are merely "advisories," which their citizens may or may not follow; they're not banning their citizens from traveling to our country outright.

Third, most of the time, these advisories aren't entirely untrue. If you've lived in the Philippines your whole life, then you know that if some terrorist wanted to bomb every single mall in Manila, he or she could do that.

But this isn't about anything remotely as serious as that.

Last weekend I started the New Year on the right foot-that is, with a big laugh-when I read about the US Embassy's newest advisory about the Philippines.

From the Manila Standard:


US issues 'driving advisory' on RP
By Joyce Pangco Pañares

VISITING American diplomats have been warned - not about terrorist attacks or other security threats but about the dangers posed by Manila drivers.

"For most Americans, the most frustrating aspect of traffic is the uniquely Filipino style of driving, which is often erratic and unpredictable," says a recent post report sent by the US embassy in Manila to Washington. "Those with orderly driving habits may find it difficult to adjust to the chaos of Manila's streets... In Manila, caution is the golden rule."

Manila traffic, the embassy says, can only be appreciated by experiencing firsthand the unique environment combined with Filipino's driving skills.

"Lane markings and crosswalks are mere suggestions, and stop signs might as well be in Braille. (Emphasis mine. Ha ha ha ha!) Of the few working stoplights, they are too long when obeyed and too dangerous when not. Buses stop in the middle of the streets, allowing passengers to exit into oncoming traffic," the report continues.

The embassy also described Filipino drivers' predilection for changing lanes without warning as a game of "chicken" - where the first to give way to an overtaking vehicle or a pedestrian trying to cross the street loses.

"Drivers also turn into oncoming traffic when the proper lane is too congested, while pedestrians and cars play a dangerous game of 'chicken' to see who will get to the intersection first."

The report doesn't vilify Filipino drivers, however, giving them credit for being "remarkably polite and less prone to road rage than their American counterparts."

Hilarious.

About the only thing I dispute here is the part where the report says that Filipino drivers are "remarkably polite and less prone to road rage than their American counterparts," a statement that is either (A) the result of glaring typographical errors (they neglected to put "im" before polite, and typed "less" when it should be "more") or (B) a lame at attempt at trying to be diplomatic.

I wonder if any politician will have the audacity to challenge this advisory.

What Some People Fight For

Cinderella Man

It is 1934, and in the locker room of New York's Madison Square Garden-- just minutes before his first bout in ages-- boxer James Braddock's stomach is turning.

Braddock isn't nervous. The rumbling of his stomach is not so much the result of frayed nerves, as it is the product of a day gone by without a bite to eat.

A victim of America's Great Depression, Braddock is-- literally-- a hungry fighter.

What follows next is one of the poignant-- if somewhat amusing-- scenes from Russel Crowe's latest movie, Cinderella Man (CM). After learning that his fighter is about to enter the ring on an empty stomach, manager Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti) quickly produces a bowl of beef hash that Braddock (Crowe) is unable to eat (both of Braddock's hands are taped and Gould forgot to get his ward any utensils). Unable to wait, Braddock buries his face in the bowl, and eats out of it-- an image that sums up the desperation of a man who must beg to pay his utility bills (another heart-tugging scene in the movie), and fight for a paltry sum, albeit years of not having trained.

There are feel-good movies, and there are outstanding feel-good movies. No split decision here. CM is one of the latter, a movie that combines a talented cast (Crowe and Giamatti are joined by Renée Zelweger, who plays Mae Braddock, James' wife) and good storytelling to produce a movie that is as entertaining as it is inspirational.

To compliment CM at this point would be redundant-- there a million reviews out there, all praising the movie. Which is ironic (but not surprising), since the movie hasn't done so well at the box office.

Fighting For What?

I'm sure many who've watched the movie can draw parallelisms between James Braddock and our hero-of-the-moment, Manny Pacquiao. Braddock gave the American people hope at a time devoid of it. Pacquiao gives us good news at a time there's a dearth of it.

Both are considered heroes for doing something they did primarily for themselves and their families. Let's not romanticize that aspect of their being prizefighters. One of the scenes in CM has a reporter asking Braddock something like, "why do you fight?" Braddock simply replies, "milk."

Pacquiao gets into the ring for far more than that, but it's basically the same thing. Boxing is the best way-- perhaps the only way-- he can put food on his family's table. That he carries the Philippine flag into the ring and manages to restore our pride in being Filipino-- these are bonuses.

I like that Pacquiao has given Filipinos something to smile about. I've just about had it with newspapers and news broadcasts-- all I see is bad news. You'd think that after the Gloria-Garci debacle, things couldn't get worse, but they have. Pacquiao's exploits give us something to cheer about. And for that, we should be grateful.

I don't see the point of debating on whether Pacquiao's a hero or not. We all have different standards, and I'm not about to impose mine on everyone else. (By my standards, anyone who leaves his or her family to earn dollars abroad is a hero. OFWs have helped keep our economy afloat, and without them our economy would be a hell of a lot worse off than it already is.) Many consider him one, and I won't dispute that. We Filipinos love our fighters, win or lose, because when they're out there slugging it out for their paychecks, we like to think they're out there fighting for us. Pacquiao has endeared himself to Filipinos, because unlike our so-called leaders-- who are too busy fighting each other-- the Pacman fights for his family, the flag, and for us.

If only our leaders would do the same.

My Inbox is Empty

Originally posted on jedeva.multiply.com on July 13, 2005

As I write this, thousands of people have gathered in Makati for (according to the opposition) the "mother of all rallies."

I watched footage of the rally this afternoon. It looked impressive-- I haven't seen a rally that large in the heart of Makati in quite a while. Still, just from looking at the rally I could tell the numbers there still pale in comparison with those of EDSA II in 2001, and EDSA I in 1986. This despite the fact that this mobilization was organized by the parties that comprise the United Opposition, the Left, and a number of organizations that have joined the call for President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's resignation.

Why?

My cell phone may offer an explanation.

Since the opposition announced that they would hold a rally today, I've been waiting for a text message-- one exhorting me to go to Makati to help my country rid itself of the person who supposedly stole the presidency and is responsible for the rut our nation is in: GMA.

I'm still waiting for that text message.

In 2001, it was a different story. Text messages from all sorts of people-- my relatives, friends, brods, former comrades in the movement-- flooded my phone's inbox, all of them urging me to drag my ass to the EDSA Shrine so we could all tell Erap to drag his ass out of Malacañang.

I did that, went to the EDSA Shrine, and texted other people to do so. I did this, even though at that time I worked for the Central East Asia Growth Circle Program, an office under the Office of the President. I knew I would probably lose my job if Erap resigned, but I didn't care. A wrong was done, and at that time I felt the only thing that could right that wrong would be for me to do my share to convince Erap to step down.

But I digress.

My point is that I haven't gotten any text messages. Neither have my officemates. Neither have most of the people I know. The spontaneity that sparked EDSA II is absent in this crusade to oust GMA. Despite being in the heart of the Makati Central Business District and in the midst of thousands of workers, today's rally has-- as of this writing-- failed to draw the crowds similar to that of EDSA II.

Alex Magno, a political science professor from UP Diliman, doubts that GMA will be removed (or moved) by people power-like mobilizations calling for her resignation.

Will another people power uprising in the Philippines topple beleaguered President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo? No. The political configuration just isn't right. There is anger but no infectious outrage. There is serious disappointment but no viable alternative leader. There is a lot of political heat but not enough to bring things to a boil. (Emphasis mine. Read the full article in Time Asia Magazine online.)

Many will probably attribute the dismal numbers of today's rally to people power fatigue. I think I may have a better explanation.

Erap was impeached, and many followed his trial intently, wondering if it would be possible for the law to catch someone supposedly beyond its reach. Many-- myself included-- already felt he was guilty, and the trial provided an opportunity to confirm what many of us already suspected: that Erap was a corrupt leader undeserving of his office. When the administration-controlled senate voted to seal an envelope that may have helped build the case against Erap, people were outraged because they saw a cover-up of epic proportions. So a response of epic proportions was what Erap got.

That isn't happening here. A lot of people believe GMA probably cheated in the last election, but there hasn't been an opportunity to confirm these suspicions, aside from the Gloriagate tapes. At this point, her impeachment-- or an independent, exhaustive inquiry into the facts of the case-- would be a more effective means to unseat GMA (that is, if the facts show that she is guilty of the crimes she allegedly committed). If the facts prove her guilt but she isn't impeached, I think you'll see a hell of a lot more people (myself included) troop to Makati.

Yes, a lot of competent people resigned from the cabinet last Friday. Yes, the Gloriagate tapes are suspicious. Yes, 4 out of 5 Filipinos (out of 300 individuals surveyed) believe GMA cheated in the 2004 elections. But these facts don't prove GMA's guilt. As Solita Monsod says in her column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Get Real, "Erap was treated better than this-- he was at least impeached so he had the chance to defend himself."

Find the facts that prove GMA's guilt, try her, then impeach her. If that doesn't work, then let the text messages fly.

Nang Dahil sa Chismis (Because of Gossip)

Orignally posted on http://jedeva.multiply.com on July 11, 2005

I read somewhere that former Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima suspected that Malacañang had a hand in the Supreme Court's decision to issue a temporary restraining order on the implementation on the Expanded Value-Added Tax (E-VAT). Senator Franklin Drilon also said something to this effect the other day, adding that his decision to call for GMA's resignation (a week or so after he expressed his support for GMA in a rally in Iloilo) was prompted by GMA's alleged involvement in the issuance of the TRO.

It's funny what people will say to justify their actions, especially when they want to hide the ugly truth.

Let's tackle the problems with their conspiracy theory.

First of all, why would GMA want a TRO on the E-VAT after doing cartwheels to get the damn thing passed?

The conspiracy theorists claim that GMA wanted to delay the implementation of the E-VAT as its implementation might piss off a public already disenchanted with her administration, what with the jueteng and Gloriagate scandals that have rocked her administration.

That doesn't make sense. The passage of the E-VAT was one of the few things GMA could rely on to keep her in the good graces of Big Business, foreign investors, and the international community. With the passage of the E-VAT, the president had a ready answer for those that criticized her administration: yes, we have problems, but that's all because of politics-- insofar as the economy is concerned, my administration has addressed its immediate concerns; we have made progress in cutting our fiscal deficit, and with the passage of the E-VAT and improved tax collection, we now have additional sources of revenue.

The E-VAT was, from the administration's standpoint, one of its few bright spots. Why they would do anything to delay its implementation is beyond me.

Ah, but the conspiracy theorists argue that the president wanted to avoid anything that would make her more unpopular, something that would have happened with the price increases (e.g., gasoline) that would have followed the implementation of the E-VAT. Ergo, she must have had a hand in the TRO.

That's crazy.

The president's already taken a lot of flak for aggressively lobbying for the passage of the E-VAT. Anybody who hates her for supporting the E-VAT won't hate her any less if it's delayed.

In short, the president wouldn't have gained much from delaying the implementation of the E-VAT. The issuance of the TRO was as damaging as any scandal-- another example of the administration's failure to get its act together. It's highly unlikely the administration would have viewed it any other way.

Politicians are expected to say anything to protect their reputations. But they should draw the line at dragging down the reputations of other people to protect their own. Drilon has no business questioning the integrity of the members of the Supreme Court, especially since the basis for his statements and actions was a mere rumor. I mean, who in his right mind would question the character of thirteen men and women with excellent track records in government on the basis of chismis (gossip)?

Well, they do say that ambition can blind a man. Looks like it can dull one's brain as well.

The Different Colors of Dissent, Part 2

Originally posted on http://jedeva.multiply.com on July 11, 2005.

Last Friday was supposed to be, according to some quarters, the last day of the Arroyo presidency.

After several members of her cabinet, composed primarily of her economic team, resigned and publicly called on GMA to step down, Sen. Franklin Drilon held his own press conference to announce that the Liberal Party (LP) had decided to urge the president to resign. A few hours later, former President Cory Aquino went on air to announce that she, too, would support calls for GMA's resignation. The Makati Business Club (MBC) and Financial Executives of the Philippines, Incorporated (FINEX) also called on GMA to step down. That afternoon, a mass of people converged at the Ninoy Aquino monument, where opposition leaders led by Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay led chants of "GMA BABA" (GMA step down).

It seemed that GMA's end was near.

What more could she say? What more could she do?

It turns out, it it wasn't so much what she said that day-- or what she did-- that turned the tide.

Several things worked in her favor last Friday.

First, former President Fidel V. Ramos reiterated his support for the beleaguered president. Bolstered by their Chairman Emeritus' show of support, the rest of LAKAS fell in line, assuring the president of at least one large, united political base steadfastly behind her. FVR's statement neutralized Cory's, and LAKAS' united front stood in stark contrast to the Liberal Party's. (After Drilon announced that the LP was joining calls for GMA's resignation, other elements in the LP came out to question his statements. LP Party Chairman and Manila Mayor Lito Atienza-- a staunch supporter of GMA, and a party stalwart-- immediately denied that the LP's members had come up with a consolidated position regarding the matter.)

Second, other business groups-- particularly the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Employers' Confederation of the Philippines-- released statements contrary to that of the MBC and FINEX.

Third, the Catholic Bishops Congress of the Philippines (CBCP) failed to come up with a consolidated position on GMA. (The CBCP came out with a position yesterday, and-- to the dismay of the opposition-- rejected calls for GMA's resignation.) The opposition was counting on the CBCP to help gather more support from the predominantly Catholic middle-class which was instrumental in toppling former President Joseph Estrada four years before.

The conflicting positions of politicians and big business, plus the silence of the Church, did nothing to encourage people to take a stand on the issue of GMA's resignation. In the same vein, the military-- which had already issued a statement reiterating their neutrality in the ongoing conflict-- was given little reason to believe that GMA had lost all authority to govern.

Thank God it's Friday

Another factor working in GMA's favor was that all of the maneuvers being engineered to remove her from Malacañang were done on the last day of the working week-- Friday. Had the opposition succeeded in gathering enough popular support that day, the Administration would have been caught trying to mobilize a response during the weekend, a two-day lull that would have hampered any attempt to organize their forces.

The gamble didn't pay off. Instead of working for the opposition, the weekend has benefited GMA.

It allowed people to re-evaluate the events of the preceding day. Opinion makers and analysts were therefore given a two-day window with which to share their views on the cabinet resignations, the LP's apparent defection, and Cory's statement. It provided an opportunity for the public to look deeper into the motivations of the individuals who had withdrawn their support the previous day.

It allowed passions to cool, and subsequently, for reason to take over.

In the end, it was politics as usual, and it left a bitter taste in the mouths of those who had expected heroes, not heels; principled positions, not political trade-offs; statesmen, not opportunists.

Today, GMA is still president. She still hasn't regained the trust of a people tired of the political muckraking that has dragged down the peso, and the economy down with it. Now, however, she is not alone. Today she is joined by those who seek to oust her, who-- like her-- have lost their credibility.

The Different Colors of Dissent

Originally posted on http://jedeva.multiply.com on July 6, 2005

The calls for GMA's resignation have grown louder over the past week. In the wake of these, three respected institutions-- The UP College of Law, De La Salle University, and Ateneo Law-- have released their own positions on the Gloriagate controversy

This morning, the cabinet's most respected members resigned-- just as the president asked last night. But before leaving, former secretaries Dinky Soliman (DSWD), Cesar Purisima (DTI), Willie Parayno (BIR), Emilia Boncodin (DBM), Florencio Abad (DepEd)-- and a few others-- called on the president to step down.

Maroon, green, and blue

After taking a vote, the Faculty of the UP College of Law came out with a statement that says that the president's "calls to Commissioner Garcillano implies more than a mere 'lapse of judgment' or simple impropriety. We believe that it constitutes an inexplicable and inexcusable failure to adhere to fundamental precepts of the Constitution."

Among the laws that the President swore to preserve, defend, and faithfully execute is Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution, which guarantees the independence of the COMELEC.

Thus, according to the faculty of UP Law, "President Arroyo has lost the capacity to serve the public trust with the utmost responsibility and integrity. She has become morally, and constitutionally, unfit to be President." Therefore, they call for GMA's resignation, "the best apology she can offer the Filipino people."

DLSU's statement, entitled "Restoring Faith in Democracy," says "We firmly believe that moral ascendancy is a critical ingredient in effective governance, and that even if GMA "stays in Office for the next five years, she will be unable to realistically command the respect of the nation."

The La Salle brothers make it clear, however, that they "reject all other extra-constitutional solutions to this present crisis." They want changes in leadership to remain within the framework of the constitution, meaning GMA has to be replaced by her Vice-President, Noli De Castro.

The Ateneo Law statement doesn't echo UP's and La Salle's call for GMA to resign. Instead, they ask her "as the duly proclaimed Chief Executive of our Republic, to determine what is best for the country, and that her decision be made with the best interest of the nation in mind."

As our President, we must rely on Mrs. Arroyo to make the proper decision, and once having made it, to then follow what would be in accordance with the terms provided for in our Constitution.

If the President would so decide in the best interest of the country to resign, then our people and our political leaders should rally behind the succession of our proclaimed Vice-President to the highest office of the land.

The three statements share one thing in common: all recognize the fact that the president faces a crisis, and all are in agreement that how she responds will determine the fate of our nation in the months, maybe years, to come.

All appeal to GMA to do what's in the country's best interests. UP Law and La Salle are unequivocal in what they think this is: she should step down. Ateneo Law, on the other hand, has chosen to trust the president's judgment in this matter.

All the president's men

The resignation of GMA's cabinet didn't come as a surprise. Last night, the president asked them to tender their courtesy resignations to " give the executive a free hand to reorganize itself." What did come as a surprise was their call for GMA to follow them as they proudly join the ranks of the unemployed.

Their parting words are a crushing blow to the president's efforts to salvage her presidency.

First, the country's most respected institutions tell her to step down. Next, the most respected members of her cabinet say the same thing. Her own people, for crying out loud.

Ano pa ang masasabi niya? (What else can she say?) More importantly, what more can she do?