Slap on the Wrists?

(1) One year in prison with hard labor.

(2) A three-rank demotion.

(3) Forfeiture of two-thirds' salary.

These were meted out by a military tribunal to the 184 enlisted personnel involved in the Oakwood mutiny in July, 2003. The 184 pleaded guilty to Articles of War 63 (disrespect to the President) and 64 (disrespect to the AFP Chief of Staff and other military officials)-- but not Articles of War 67 (mutiny or sedition)-- as part of their plea bargain.

(Because the 184 had already been detained for over a year, they will no longer need to serve the prison term.)

Despite their owning up to what they did, I really think these guys are getting off lightly for their actions.

There's no doubt that the soldiers involved had legitimate grievances. I also don't question the courage of their convictions. I admire them for having the balls to do something they believed in, even if it was against the law. I may not agree with them, but I respect them.

Still, there are other issues involved here. Should a soldier who has broken his oath to follow his/her Commander-in-Chief (the President) and respect cilivan authority over the military be allowed back into the service? Shouldn't the punishment meted by the military tribunal be such that it will discourage further attempts at military adventurism?

These are the real issues involved here, not the legitimacy of their grievances. They think their pay is inadequate? Heck, all government employees (the honest ones, at least) suffer the same fate. They say they have to go into battle with insufficient gear? Public school teachers have to deal with that sad fact (e.g., the shortage of textbooks) every time they enter a classroom.

In short, all of us have problems with how things are run in this country. But there there are means by which you can get your message across without taking a hotel and its guests hostage, and, in effect, hurting our (already fragile) economy.

I know these men have risked their lives for our country. Which is why I wouldn't want them kicked out of the service for what they did. But, come on. Forfeiture of their salary for three months is not enough payment for their crimes.

While Riding a Cab One Day

Cab drivers, I've discovered, are a hidden human resource we have yet to tap. Behind every wheel is a philosopher, economist, political scientist, and sociologist waiting to be discovered.

Here are snippets of their wisdom:

• "Dapat ibaba ang presyo ng gasolina. Pag umakyat 'yan, tumataas din ang presyo ng mga bilihin, at naghihirap ang mga tao." (The prices of gasoline should be lowered. When these increase, so do the prices of basic goods, and the people suffer.)
• "Ang problema sa gobyerno, puro sila dada. Wala naman silang ginagawa. Puro pulitika." (The problem with government is they're all talk. But they're not doing anything. It's all politics.)
• "Alam mo, dapat mag-invest ang gobyerno sa edukasyon. Ang kabataan ang pag-asa ng bayan, pero hindi nila ginagastusan." (You know, government should invest in education. The youth is the hope of our nation, but they're not investing in them.)

And my favorite:

• "Ang mga pulitikong yan, puro mga kurakot ang mga putang inang 'yan! Kaya 'di tayo umaasenso!! Sa pitaka ng pulitiko napupunta ang pera natin!!!" (Those politicians, they're all corrupt, those sons of whores! That's why there's no progress!! Our money is going into the wallets of these politicians!!!)

Sometimes I think our country would be better off if it were run by these people.

Or not.

Kidding aside, I think anyone with half a brain knows what's basically wrong with the Philippines. I also believe that anyone who's had a decent education can come up with solutions to these problems.

Unfortunately, the reality is this: a large gulf divides great ideas and their implementation. A smart person can think of ways to combat, say, tax evasion. But it takes more than intelligence to do that. It takes courage, political will, resourcefulness, good PR, an understanding of how government works, etc. To go after tax evaders, one has to be able to manage the bureaucracy necessary to catch, convict, and punish these people. Obviously, bright ideas aren't enough.

Crash and Burn

Yesterday, I sat on my living room couch eagerly expecting a no-holds barred, battle to the death between the Dallas Mavericks and the Houston Rockets. After six games, it all came down to one last game. Here, the NBA’s slogan for the playoffs—win or go home—would literally apply. I was expecting amazing performances. I was expecting a game that would go down the wire. In short, I expected a classic.

Instead, Houston lost by forty points, the biggest margin of victory EVER for a seventh game. Losing, by itself, wouldn’t have been so bad. What made my stomach turn (and the stomachs of Houston fans as well) was how the Rockets lost. They were outplayed, outhustled, and outcoached. Despite being the team with more veterans, the Rockets lost their composure. It wasn’t enough that they played poorly. Compounding matters was their inability to remain focused in the wake of questionable calls during the game.

In the end, the Rockets were pathetic. By the fourth quarter, Van Gundy threw in the towel, opting to keep Tracy McGrady on the bench instead of making one last push. This prompted former Chicago Bulls coach and TV analyst Doug Collins to draw comparisons between T-Mac and Michael Jordan, who, Collins pointed out, would’ve stayed in the game and done everything in his power to come back and win. For him (Jordan), Collins commented, no lead was insurmountable.

Maybe that’s something McGrady can ponder on while he watches the rest of the playoffs from his home.

Shattered Glass

When you can sit through and stay awake through a "talkies" movie after having lunch, the movie must be good.

"Shattered Glass" is no exception.

There are no explosions, no gratuitous sex scenes, no cuddly moments-- just a darn good yarn made even more interesting by the fact that it actually happened.

Revenge of the Sith's Hayden Christensen doesn't have a lightsaber in this movie, but more than makes up with it with something REAL-- good acting. Here Christensen plays Stephen Glass, an up-and-coming (read:hotshot) writer for The New Republic (TNR), dubbed "the in-flight magazine of Airforce One." The magazine doesn't have the circulation or name recall of TIME or NEWSWEEK; heck, it doesn't even have pictures. But what it lacks in popularity it makes up for it by being Washington D.C.'s most credible newsmagazine, THE publication Washington policymakers and insiders read.

So you can just imagine what happens when that credibility is attacked when one of Glass' entertaining pieces (this one on the hackers) is questioned by an online magazine. Turns out Glass, one of TNR's more charismactic storytellers, is just that-- a storyteller. As his editor (Chuck Lane, played by Kinsey's Peter Sarsgaard) digs deeper into Glass' questionable reporting, he discovers that Glass' has a talent greater than finding great stories: it's making stories up.

By itself, that doesn't sound like compelling drama, which is where the interplay between the cast (which also includes Godzilla's Hank Azaria) comes in. The acting is superb. Christensen, in particular, deserves praise for playing Glass, the likable, talented, pathological liar who spins his way into the hearts and minds of everyone in TNR.

Christensen, like the movie, is surprisingly engaging. Kudos to Ayala Cinemas, the only chain of cinemas showing the movie here.

Bar-ring the Undeserving

A little over 31% of those who took the Bar Exams in September 2004 passed-- quite a high percentage compared to previous exams.

That is not to take away from those who passed the exam-- I'm sure many of those who hurdled the tests deserve to be lawyers. Still, the results can be mystifying. On one hand you have obviously intelligent, studious law graduates (those who went to UP Law and studied well for the Bar come to mind) failing to make the grade; on the other, you have people who can't write a single coherent paragraph-- or worse, can't remember the definition of something as basic as police power-- going to the PICC to take their oaths as lawyers.

I don't doubt the integrity of the exams or those who administered them. As I discussed in a previous blog (see Sidebar), the Bar is pretty much cheat-proof.

Still, there are tons of suggestions on how to make the Bar a better gauge by which to admit people into the law profession. They range from the ludicrous (Sen. Miriam Santiago has suggested that the Bar Exams be abolished) to the logical (more multiple-choice objective questions). The SC has already adopted a lot of the reforms suggested by a committee formed sometime back. In Bar Matter No. 1161 Re: Proposed Reforms in the Bar Examinations, the SC adopted reforms such as the appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an SC Justice as Chairperson (as opposed to naming a new batch of examiners every year), "the formulation of essay test questions and 'model answers' as part of the calibration of test papers", and (as mentioned earlier) the addition of multiple-choice objective questions.

These reforms should be implemented within the next five years. I only hope that these manage to ferret out those unfit to practice law, so we can be spared from the undeserving idiots who insist we address them as "attorney."

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.