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.

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 19^th 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.

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’être. 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.)

I Love New York

Some good news to start the week:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The New York Times, one of America's most influential newspapers, on Sunday endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry as a potentially "great chief executive."

"We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better," the New York Times said its an editorial.

The New York Times is one of-- if not the most-- influential newspapers in the US. I just hope that Americans have the good sense to consider the points the daily cites in its endorsement.

Most polls have Bush and Kerry going neck-to-neck. In situtations like these, the incumbent usually has the edge. Most undecideds-- when pressed to choose-- favor the status quo. Bush's campaign-- at least, where Iraq and fighting terrorism is concerned-- basically goes "why change horses in the middle of the race." In the middle of a crisis brought about by, ironically, Bush's own shoddy decision-making, the conventional wisdom is to stick with someone who knows the ropes.

The NY Times editorial, I hope, will at least make voters take a closer look at the Bush presidency, and make them vote accordingly.

Never Mind the Paint

In line with the Philippine government’s call for the implementation of austerity measures, I have a proposal: let’s not waste taxpayers’ money to purchase road paint.

(Hey, road paint is expensive. They’re supposed to be luminescent, visible even at night. Trouble is, they’re usually not. Luminescent, that is. Contractors mix a lot of water in them, to cut costs and increase their profits.)

Painting our roads is a waste of paint. Take pedestrian lanes, for instance. No one bothers to come to a full stop before them, as is intended. Filipino drivers ignore them and, as a result, end up blocking the path of pedestrians, who are forced to weave themselves in between cars to get from one side of the street to another.

The same thing goes for the demarcation lines between lanes, and marking them so that drivers know which lane to occupy when one wishes to turn left (or right). It’s hopeless. Main avenues like Ortigas or EDSA are chaotic, with vehicles incessantly going in and out of their lanes to get ahead of the other guy. As for the lanes supposedly reserved for those making a turn at given intersections, forget about it. You have people on the leftmost lane delaying people on that lane because they want to go straight, and you have people in the middle lanes stalling traffic for everyone on that lane because they want to turn left. It’s insane.

I say the hell with it. If Manila’s drivers are going to drive like idiots, let them be. If they want a free-for-all, so be it.

Sidebar

The silence is almost absolute, broken only by the constant humming of centralized air-conditioning units. Every now and then, someone muffles a cough, or clears his throat. I have a slight cold, and my incessant sniffling has made me self-conscious. This is a place where noise is the most unwelcome of guests, and the slightest sound is greeted by disapproving glances.

Around me, many are praying. This, however, is not a church; and though it is a Sunday, I am not in the middle of mass. This is a classroom in De La Salle University, but today, its seats are not occupied by college coeds. In their place are forty-five graduates from various law schools who are taking the final step before becoming (they hope) members of the Philippine Bar.

I am not one of them, and though I envy the fact that they are nearing the end of a journey (the first step of which I am yet to take) that may make them members of the noblest of professions, I do not envy the looks of desperation I see on their faces as they search for answers to the questions that will determine whether their four (or more) years in law school and months of reviewing will be rewarded with the much-coveted prefix of “Attorney.”

My small role in this drama they call the Bar exams is to make sure that the examinees do not look for extralegal forms of inspiration––i.e., their seatmates’ notebooks––when answering the questions that will decide if they are fit to practice law. Helping me out are four other pairs of eyes––three other watchers, and our head-watcher. This may sound like overkill, but it is a hell of a deterrent. (Examinees who get caught cheating are forever barred from taking the tests again. Somehow this makes flunking the Bar more attractive than forever throwing away one’s chances of being a lawyer on the off-chance that your seatmate might have the answers to a question you can’t figure out.)

The Supreme Court’s preparations and procedures for the Bar may strike people as bordering on paranoid. (For example, in this age of computers, the examiners tasked to prepare the questions for the Bar are required to do so manually.) With so much at stake, however, you can’t be too cautious, as there can be no greater injustice than to allow the undeserving to pass and let loose inept lawyers upon unsuspecting individuals. After all, property, liberty, and life are on the line. The competence of representation can spell the difference between land ownership and the loss thereof; freedom and an undeserved prison sentence; life and death.

No surprise, then, that before, during, and after the Bar, everything is done to make sure that the only factor that determines an individual’s capacity to be a lawyer is his or her knowledge of the law. Barristers are told to make sure that test booklets do not have any markings aside from their answers; examinees and watchers are rotated every Sunday; after the morning exam, the examinees are rearranged in the afternoon; potential conflicts of interest are avoided at all costs. (e.g., an associate justice of the Supreme Court whose staff is taking the Bar is not allowed to take the position of Bar Chairman; SC personnel serving in the Bar are required to inform the Office of the Bar Confidant if they have relatives taking the Bar.)

Then there are the exams themselves. The Bar is considered so tough that passing is considered a feat in itself. The exams are composed of essay-type questions that leave very little room for guesswork. An examinee isn’t only asked to answer several legal questions, but to explain his answers and argue accordingly. One exam has twenty questions, but the volume of information necessary for law students to memorize and process means that it’s more than possible to study well, but fail to remember the specific provisions necessary to answer particular questions. Little wonder that only 20% to 30% of those who take the Bar are expected to pass. This means that of the forty-five examinees in my room, approximately fourteen––at the most––will be taking their oaths as lawyers next year. (This explains why even the most brilliant and accomplished of law grads remark that before the first exam, you entertain notions of topping the Bar; after the last, you just wish you passed the damn thing.)

Despite the odds, however, over four thousand law graduates try their luck every year. Their backgrounds vary. There are those who look like they went straight to law school out of college. There are those, like my co-workers at the Court, who worked themselves through law school to get to this point. There are those who look like they’re old enough to be my father. It is this group I admire most, for these people give a new meaning to the word persistence. Despite their graying hair, they have not given up their dreams of becoming a compañero. Better late, I suppose, than never.

I’ve met very few people who claim to have enjoyed law school, and have met no one who says he or she relished the experience of taking the Bar. Why, then, do they do it? Are they driven by some noble purpose––a desire to right the wrongs of society, fight for the rights of the downtrodden, and uphold the rule of law? Or are they in it for material gain––the lure of thousands of pesos in bonuses, billable hours, and higher salary grades?

Whatever it is, this does not take away the respect I have for those who have come from as far away as Mindanao to fulfill their dreams of becoming an officer of the court. Notwithstanding the trials they have had to face––hours in the library; balancing work, family, and law school; little sleep and a nonexistent social life––they have persevered, carrying with them their hopes and that of their families, making the necessary sacrifices so that they can become lawyers and improve their chances for better lives.

In a country where, as a general rule, one’s prosperity is determined by one’s ability to kiss ass, rather than hard work––and your success is influenced by who you know rather than what you know––it is comforting to know that there are still some things that you can get only through patience and hard work. While other factors play a role in one’s passing the Bar (e.g. education, luck, good handwriting), at least I am secure in the knowledge that the Bar is an exclusive club that does not accept individuals on the basis of their family names, good looks, or bank accounts.

Not all of those who suffered for the past four Sundays will be able to join the ranks of the legal profession next year. But something tells me that those who do not will be back again next September in the same silent, air-conditioned rooms in La Salle. Most will still have the same looks of desperation on their faces. Perhaps, having gone through the exercise this year, they will be more confident, better prepared. One thing is for sure: they will continue to recite the same silent prayers. I only hope that their prayers are answered then, and even if they’re not, that they continue to nurture the dreams that have gotten them that far.

(This is the unedited version of what appeared in the Youngblood section on page 13 of the Philippine Daily Inquirer on Tuesday, October 26, 2004)