Hotel Rwanda

History has shown us that there are no limits to the cruelty of men.

Should we forget, movies like Hotel Rwanda come along to remind us that even in the information age, large-scale crimes like genocide still occur, and they do so while the world's so-called superpowers watch and quibble about the need to intervene.

The movie is set in the African nation of Rwanda, where between the months of April and June 1994, almost a million Rwandans were killed in the space of a hundred days. A country populated by two major ethnic groups-- the Hutus and the Tutsis-- the slaughter was perpetrated by Hutus in response to the assassination of Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana (a Hutu) whose plane was shot down in April 1994. The Hutus-- led by the militia group Interahamwe-- retaliated by killing Tutsis, whom they blamed for Habyarimana's death. In the slaughter that ensued, no one was spared-- men, women, and children were cut down using machetes just for being Tutsi.

Caught in the middle is Paul Rusesabagina (ably played by Don Cheadle, who received an Oscar nomination for his role in the film), a Hutu married to a Tutsi who minds his own business and steers clear of politics whenever able. Paul is shocked out of his apathy by the wanton slaughter of his wife's people and protects them from bloodthirsty Hutus by housing the Tutsis in the four-star hotel he manages.

The movie is not so much entertaining as it is enlightening. How Paul needlessly risks his life to saves the lives of Tutsis is a perfect counterpoint to the inaction of the United Nations and the West. Paul didn't have to help-- he is Hutu. All he had was his network of connections, access to some cash, and an empty hotel-- and he used everything, and then some, to save people he didn't even know. When journalist Jack Daglish (played by Joaquin Phoenix) says "I am so ashamed," just as he steps on the bus that will whisk foreign nationals away from the chaos in Rwanda, he might as well have spoken for the West's leaders.

Must-viewing for heads-of-state, UN officials, and the general public.

Flights of Fancy

For those gifted with height, athleticism, and the burning desire to become the next Michael Jordan, the National Basketball Association (NBA) is where dreams come true.

For those of us who want to be the next Michael Jordan, but have neither the height nor the athleticism to bridge the gulf between dream and reality, there is NBA Live 2005.

NBA Live 2005 is a video game, one where the fantasies of every Jordan wannabe come to life. It allows mere mortals to take control of their favorite NBA teams and players. Everything is realistic, from the skills ratings of the players to the color commentary provided by the same people who cover the real NBA games. Over the years, improvements in the game have made it so real that it's difficult to do the same thing over and over against your opponent-- whether it's the computer or another person. Thus, every game is a totally different experience-- making it extremely challenging, and, of course, addictive.

(How addictive? According to an article in the New York Times, some kids even prefer the video game to watching the real thing.)

One feature of NBA Live that allows virtual athletes to do everything they can't do on a real basketball court is the ability to create a player from scratch-- with all the attributes and skills necessary to go up against the NBA's superstars.

The image here is a perfect example. Here, a version of me has just blown by Tracy McGrady of the Houston Rockets for a reverse slam. Though my virtual counterpart is taller than McGrady (six-ten versus McGrady's six-eight), he can run faster and jump higher. Cyber Jed is also a better dribbler, shooter, passer, and defender.

In a world where the harsh realities of genetics make it impossible to fulfill one's basketball fantasies, video games are a healthier and more productive alternative to daydreaming. I may not have been born like Mike, but I'm glad that the wonders of technology make it possible for me to watch myself play like him.

Laughing Matter... or Not

Trust Filipinos to find something funny in the midst of Gloriagate, the scandal involving the wiretapped conversations between someone who sounds like the President and someone who, according to some COMELEC people, is COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano.

Since the scandal broke, anti-GMA text jokes and the "Hello Garci" ringtone have made the rounds of the Texting Capital of the World. (The "Hello Garci" ringtone is so popular that the site that offered it-- txtpower.org-- crashed because of the thousands of people who wanted to download it.) Among the best-selling CDs now being peddled on the streets of Manila is a copy of the alleged GMA-Garci tapes on CD.

However, the people in Malacañang don't find this funny. The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports:

Malacañang is taking seriously all anti-Arroyo text rumors, text jokes, the peddling of CD copies of the Gloria-Garci audio tape, the wildly popular "Hello Garci" ring tone, and the Internet Web journals or blogs that have become the medium for political dissent by tech-savvy Filipinos.

xxx xxx xxx

"While these text messages are sometimes illogical, these are being done to create doubt or confusion in the minds of the people," Bunye said, asking texters, bloggers and CD pirates to "stop all the intrigues."

Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye adds that all these text messages and "other modes of disinformation" reach Malacañang, and they're "not taking them lightly."

I guess sometime in the last week Bunye lost his sense of humor. I don't blame him. The prospect of unemployment can do that to you.

Anyway, my word of advice to Bunye, et al.? Lighten up, and just do your friggin' jobs.

Just because a lot of people are getting a kick out of the whole GMA-Garci episode doesn't mean they want to kick you out. As for his plea for texters, bloggers, and CD pirates to "stop all the intrigues," here's what I think.

One, I hardly think forwarding a text joke-- even one political in nature-- qualifies as sowing intrigue. People find the jokes funny. And with all the crap we have to deal with, a good laugh-- at the expense of the President, or not-- is a welcome reprieve from the dreariness that is Life in the Philippines.

Two, I disagree that the discussion of any political issue on the internet-- this one, in particular-- contributes to political instability. Sure, the internet can be a source of innuendo and unintelligent opinion-- but so are our national dailies. You want intelligent, objective commentary? You read blogs, not the columns of these so-called opinion makers in our broadsheets-- who pass opinion for fact, don't even cite their sources properly, and sometimes twist the truth to suit their politics and personal agendas.

Three, I don't think those selling copies of GMA's wiretapped conversations contribute to creating "doubt and confusion in the minds of the people." The Administration is doing a great job at this on their own. Some of the President's men say that it's her on the tape, but it's been spliced. Others claim that it's not her, but some impersonator. Ano ba talaga? (What is it, really?)

If they want people to stop poking fun at GMA and this Administration, then they better get their act together, stop fooling around, and focus on ways to improve the lives of our people.

Because that is not a laughing matter.

For more news, reviews, and whatnot, log on to http://jedeva.multiply.com/

Martial Law?

Originally posted on 06.17.2005 at http://jedeva.multiply.com/

The latest product of the Philippine rumor mill has President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declaring martial law to put an end to the crap that's been flying since her husband and panganay (eldest born) were accused of accepting payoffs from jueteng operators.

Juetenggate (as this scandal was subsequently named, in reference to Watergate, the scandal that forced then US President Richard Nixon to resign) was quickly followed by Gloriagate, the scandal involving wiretapped conversations between (depending on whom you believe) someone who sounds like the president, and (again, depending on whom you believe) Commission on Elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. The conversations supposedly prove that GMA cheated in the last presidential election.

Today, newspapers reported that guns supposedly meant to help destabilization efforts were intercepted by customs agents. Now the Administration is saying that all these events are evidence of a last-ditch effort by the opposition to oust GMA.

GMA has repeatedly said that as the democratically-elected president of this screwed republic, there is no way she will step down. In light of the unrelenting attacks against her person, it isn't surprising that there are rumors that the president is considering declaring martial law to put an end to this crisis of sorts.

Section 18, Article VII of the Philippine Constitution states:

The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. (emphasis mine)

The only way GMA can justify declaring martial law given the conditions outlined above is to simply say that "the public safety requires it."

So does it?

Let's see.

Allegations of corruption are nothing new to the First Family. So are accusations of massive cheating in the last election. The difference between these new scandals and the ones that came before it is the (supposed) existence of proof. In Jueteggate, witnesses under oath swore that First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and Congressman Mikey Arroyo accepted payoffs from jueteng operators. In Gloriagate, taped conversations reportedly prove beyond doubt that GMA cheated FPJ. It is the weight of the evidence, plus the relentlessness of the opposition in exploiting these scandals, that have made many people-- businessmen, in particular-- nervous.

For many, GMA included, the possibility of People Power IV is very real, and very scary. Loyalty checks among the military are being made left and right, to ensure that the military and the PNP don't do to GMA what they did to Erap in 2001. Most people-- the military included-- probably think kicking out GMA isn't necessary... yet. Yes, the peso is falling. Yes, the stockmarket is performing poorly. Yes, foreign businessmen are getting turned off. But political bickering is just business as usual in this country.

However, an argument could be made that allowing the attacks against GMA to continue unabated could worsen the socioeconomic climate and lead to a situation that would require the implementation of measures to protect the interests of Filipinos-- i.e., martial law.

Will it ever come to that, given the events of the past few weeks? I don't think so. The president may be wading in shit, but as long as people believe that the Administration is stable enough to survive these scandals (it is, even if they themselves doubt it), things will go back to normal in no time.

Flirting with the idea of declaring martial law is a dangerous business. Declaring martial law would be interpreted as GMA admitting that things are downright shitty. GMA would have to say, "we're in deep trouble, and the only way to address this is through drastic measures like martial law." It won't serve to reassure the public. On the contrary, declaring martial law would only fan the flames of panic, bring back painful memories, and provide the opposition with more ammunition by which to attack the president's already questionable credibility.

Not So Fast Food

We deliver your food in thirty minutes or it's yours, free of charge.

This is a pretty standard guarantee given by fastfood joints to people who have food delivered to their homes or offices. One of the twentieth century's most novel concepts, fastfood delivery is manna from heaven for those putting in extra hours at work or are too tired to whip up something to eat at home. It may be hell on your health, but it's also a hell of a convenience.

In all my years of fastfood delivery experience (always on the receiving end, of course), I've never been able to partake of a free meal resulting from the breach of the delivered-in-thirty-minutes-or-it's-free guarantee.

Until last night.

Last night we ordered food from Shakey's, and as is customary, they asked that we synchronize our time with theirs. According to them, the order was placed at 6:26 p.m., and they promised delivery in thirty minutes or we wouldn't have to pay for it.

Not that we thought there was a chance they wouldn't deliver our dinner in time. The nearest Shakey's-- a newly-opened branch located near the corner of UN Avenue and Orosa St.-- is a short five-minute walk from the Court. It was unlikely they'd be late.

But lo and behold, a little over thirty minutes later (just before 7 p.m.), our chicken, mojos, and pizza were nowhere to be found. Since the others were busy editing our weekend press releases, I was tasked to: (1) find out where our goddamned food was, and (2) remind them that per their guarantee, our dinner would be on them.

I called the Shakey's hotline and told the operator that our dinner wasn't there yet, and that since more than thirty minutes had passed since we placed our order we wouldn't be paying for it. The operator then politely replied that yes, we placed our order at 6:26 p.m., but it was relayed to the designated branch at 6:35 p.m., hence the cut-off time would be 7:05 p.m., not 6:56 p.m.

That was crap, I incredulously replied. First of all, I said, "you guys asked us to synchronize our watches to 6:26 p.m., the understanding being that the thirty-minute guarantee began once the order was taken." Nothing was said about the reference point for the time guarantee being the time the order was relayed to the branch responsible for the delivery. If that was so, I added, then "you should have said so, and then asked the branch in question to call and tell us what time they got our order."

By this time my blood started to boil. As courteous as the Shakey's person on the other end of the line was, I couldn't help thinking that they were trying to bullshit their way into not honoring their guarantee.

As we were discussing this, my officemate informed me that it was past 7:05 p.m. That rendered our previous discussion moot. I told the operator what time it was, and informed her that even if we followed her (flawed) reasoning and based the cut-off on 6:35, they still failed to deliver on time.

At this point the operator probably sensed I wouldn't give in. So she told me that the manager of the Orosa Branch would call to clarify the matter. As if on cue, the delivery guy from Shakey's arrived, and had this worried look on his face when we informed him we wouldn't pay the bill. So we called the branch up and informed the manager that we had no intention of paying them.

Thankfully, she didn't protest, and apologized for the delay. Seems that their branch was full that night, and consequently their delivery service (as my officemate put it) "suffered from their own success."

So, the whole episode ended happily ever after (especially for our OIC, who had offered to treat those of us doing OT). To the credit of Shakey's, they did honor their guarantee. Still, I wonder what would have happened had they delivered our dinner after 6:56 p.m. (our cut-off time) and before 7:05 p.m. (their cut-off time). I think they would have still argued their case. I also think they would failed to get a centavo. Attys. Guerra, Angeles, and Erni v. Shakey's Orosa?

No contest.

The National Pastime

For years I've heard people question our country's obsession with basketball. Basketball, according to some, is a dead-end sport for us hobbit-like people. We're not tall enough, fast enough, or athletic enough to compete with caucasians (they're bigger), blacks (they're faster than a speeding bullet and can leap tall buildings in a single bound), and yes, even the Chinese-- who have the luxury of having a billion players to choose from.

But hey, obsessions aren't supposed to make sense. Filipino bodies may have been made for football, but Filipino hearts belong to basketball. Take myself, for example. I may enjoy playing the beautiful game more than shooting hoops, but I'd be lying if I said I'd prefer to watch the finals of the UEFA Cup rather than the NBA Finals.

Why the love affair with hoops? Why the sudden dip in office productivity during the NBA Finals? Why the noticable absence of male students in UP (and, I suppose, other universities) during the start of classes?

Basketball is just more entertaining to watch, period. Football fanatics will say otherwise, but then again these are people who've grown to love the sport, understand the intricacies of the game, and appreciate everything happening on the pitch even if a single goal isn't scored in ninety minutes of play. In short, football is an acquired taste, one that is best acquired when one is young.

Basketball, on the other hand, is exciting to watch, even for the uninitiated. With only ten players on the court, the viewer can be taken close to the action, and see the likes of Lebron James soar for dunks (tell me, who doesn't know Lebron James?). Even when the camera zooms out and shows all the plays unfolding, it's easy to keep track of players darting in and out of the paint.

There is a lot of grace, power, speed, and skill on display in both football and basketball. You just don't see most of it in the former, unless you're really familiar with the game of football (read: you play the sport).

Football may be closer to being the ideal team game, a sport where the individual weaknesses of the players can be overcome by great team play. It's a sport where star-laden football superpowers can be upset by the collective effort of a group of spirited, well-motivated average players. A good example is South Korea's upset win over Italy in the second round of the 2002 World Cup, which would be akin to the Philippines beating the US in a basketball game. (Well, I may be exaggerating a bit here...)

If the greater probability for success dictated the focus of our national sports programs, then football would be the logical sport of choice. Unfortunately, it does not. As with most matters of national policy, popularity reigns supreme, and right now basketball is the most popular sport among us Filipinos, hobbits or not. So unless we can re-orient succeeding generations of Filipinos, we'll have to settle with finishing last in the sport we love watching the most.

Digital Bra

Thank you to Disney for giving me something interesting to write about:

Teen actress Lindsay Lohan's breasts have been digitally reduced for forthcoming Disney film Herbie: Fully Loaded, to avoid offending family audiences.

Test screenings for the new movie, the fourth sequel to the 1968 film The Love Bug about a Volkswagen Beetle car with a mind of its own, indicated that some parents felt Lohan's character Maggie Peyton was too raunchy for a children's film. (emphasis mine)

Disney technicians were forced to plough through numerous scenes - especially those showing the busty actress jumping up and down at a motor racing track, reducing her breasts by two cup sizes and raising revealing necklines on her T-shirts. (read full article here)

When I first read about this (in a sports column, no less), I couldn't believe what I saw. I know Disney is synonymous with wholesome entertainment, but come on!

This is puritanism taken too damn far. Kids watching the movie will be too focused on the digitally-enhanced Herbie to give a hoot about Lohan's breasts. As for kids who'll actually be more interested in Lohan than in Herbie... well, watching the movie won't make them any less innocent than they already are.

Note to all parents: your kids will eventually learn about sex, will eventually fantasize about having sex, and will eventually engage in sex. Limiting their exposure to large breasts will not change that.