Here’s Linda Greenhouse, the former NYT Supreme Court reporter, interviewed about themes very important here at F1@1F:

JD: In an article you wrote for The New York Times, you say that “the court lives in constant dialogue with other institutions, formal and informal, and that when it strays too far outside the existing political or social consensus, the result is a palpable tension both inside and outside the court.” In what instances have you observed the court straying too far from present social or political consensus?

There was a series of Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s that overturned acts of Congress on the ground that Congress didn’t have the constitutional authority to have passed those laws in the first place. I made a big deal about it because I just thought it was really fascinating. There was a pushback against that. Congress pushed back, and the political system pushed back. The court stopped doing it. They tended to be very technical decisions, but subgroups of the population were very interested. That maybe was an instance of the court overreaching, that you could call a Federalist revolution. Then, a lot of people cite Roe v. Wade as the court overreaching. That’s not my view in that instance. There was a huge debate going on about abortion at the time, and the court actually had plausible reasons to think that it was following public opinion in Roe.

JD: What was the difference in the political environment surrounding Roe v. Wade and that surrounding a case like Brown. v. Board of Education? What made people think that the court could have been overreaching in Roe, but not in Brown?

Well, of course there can be many reasons. One reason could be that equal protection, which is what Brown is based on, is hard wired into the Constitution, and it’s just a question of, did equal protection mean “separate but equal”? One could have disagreed with Brown, and of course many areas in the South took decades to come around to it, but you couldn’t appropriately argue that it wasn’t the business of the Supreme Court to decide the issue of the rights of black citizens. Of course, the Constitution doesn’t contain the word abortion. So, there’s always the argument that the court was out of line in doing anything about abortion, yay or nay. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about giving the court the right to step into that area. That’s not my personal view, but it certainly distinguishes the Roe controversy from Brown v. Board. [...]

JD: To what extent do you believe that the court has become politicized? How much does public opinion affect the way judges vote?

Well, Barry Friedman wrote a book that’s 682 pages on the subject, called The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. But Barry Friedman’s thesis, which I agree with, is not that the court wakes up in the morning, puts its finger in the wind and says, you know, “what’s blowing today?” but that over time, the court tends to situate itself in the mainstream of public opinion and it reflects public opinion, which makes sense, because the justices get on the court through the political process of the president nominating them and the Senate confirming them. And as a part of the government, the court is really limited to its power to persuade, its power to command the respect of the public, which it has succeeded in doing to a remarkable degree over the years. In social science polling, the court is always the most respected arm of government. The court really has been pretty successful in reflecting not necessarily the opinion of the moment, but the tenor of the time, and I think that’s not surprising.

JD: Do you agree with people who say that sometimes the court’s decisions are influenced by liberal media bias?

Well, no, the whole “Greenhouse Effect?” Properly understood, they are referring to me not as an individual but as sort of an embodiment of Eastern liberal media, namely The New York Times. No, I don’t think that’s the case, but it’s certainly true that over time, the court certainly cannot be completely at odds with the American public. I mean, that’s what happened in the Roosevelt court-packing crisis. I hear people speculate that if we were ever to pass a health care bill with a mandate that the court would declare it unconstitutional, but I would be completely shocked if that ever happened, because that would really be a return to the 1930s, where the court was standing in the way of major social legislation that the public had called for. So, I would be extremely surprised if that ever happened again. [F1@1F NOTE: My thoughts exactly.]

JD: In writing of the Supreme Court’s relationship with society, you say, the Supreme Court is often a follower: it ratifies or consolidates change, rather than propelling it, although in the midst of a heated debate about a big case, it can appear otherwise. What do you mean by this?

Well, I think I probably had Roe v. Wade in mind. Abortion reform had been going on for 15 years by the time the court decided Roe, so when people say that historically, the court started it, no, they didn’t. The court doesn’t start much. It can’t, really. Cases reach the court after years of debate. Just look at Proposition 8. It’s coming up ten years after Lawrence v. Texas and five years after the start of same sex marriages in San Francisco City Hall. So, things get to the court only because they have been working their way up through the rest of society, and it’s worth keeping that in mind.

It’s MIDTERMS week!

I got this from Olay’s blog:

*(Sing it to the tune of Manny Villar’s latest political ad/jingle)

LAWSKUL HYMN

Nakakuha ka na ba
Ng grado na basura?
Nagsunog ka na ba
Ng kilay hanggang umaga?

Yan ang tanong namin
75 nga ba ang passing?

Naisip mo na ba
Bakit nag-aaral ka pa?
Todo effort tayo,
Ba’t walang nagbabago?
At mas mabuti pa kung natutulog tayo!

Sa LAWSCHOOL ay tunay na MAHIRAP
Sa LAWSCHOOL ay tunay na PURO PASAKIT

LAWSCHOOL lang may kakayahang makalimutan sariling pangalan! LAWSCHOOL lamang ang magtatapos ng ating kasiyahan!

BAKASYON lamang ang magtatanggol sa ating kahirapan!

Funny, but it’s relatively true. Hehe.
Thanks for the stress-reliever! LOL. =)

Thanks, Olay!

____________________________________________________________

*Political comments for Manny Villar’s political ads/jingles and other presidentiables will be discussed next time.  Hehe.

My name is Mike Sacks.  I am a third-year law student at Georgetown interested in legal journalism and the intersection of law and politics.  This semester, I have no morning classes.  As such, I will be taking advantage of living only minutes from the Supreme Court to pursue a rather unorthodox extracurricular activity: reporting from the Court as the first one in line at One First Street.

For every politically salient case from January through April, I will attempt to be at the head of the general admission line.  This is no mean feat: for the September rehearing of Citizens United v. FEC–also Justice Sotomayor’s first appearance on the Bench–much of the line started forming around 4am.  How do I know this?  Because I claimed my first ever “First One @ One First” ticket by spreading my blanket on the sidewalk at 11pm the previous night.

As a Duke University graduate, I should have ample camping-out experience.  But in my four years as an undergraduate, I actively sought to–and succeeded in–securing my admission into the Duke-UNC games without once suffering through wintry nights in a flimsy tent perched on the soggy soil of Krzyzewskiville.  Indeed, as a former “Nina Totintern,” I once enjoyed a similar evasion of the elements at the Supreme Court.  But those halcyon days of press-passed entrances are over.  Now I must rough it.

Camping out at the Court in winter’s nadir will not be easy.  Tents are forbidden.  The concrete sidewalk makes for an unforgiving bed.  Sprinklers spring up in the still of the night.  Challenging climate be damned, however; when the next person arrives, excited to be first, he or she will find me, with my cracked lips and frozen fingers, sardonically asking how it feels to be second and seriously inquiring why he or she is crazy enough to get in line so early.

And that question–”why are you here?”–is what I set out to explore.  Every Supreme Court reporter tells us what goes on inside the Court at argument and in its opinions.  Every Supreme Court reporter gets insight and analysis from expert academics and practitioners.  Sometimes Supreme Court reporters even interview a party in the case to expose the human element often lost in the rarefied air of high court’s legal abstraction.  But no Supreme Court reporters ever ask the Courtroom’s spectators why they have congregated inside the Temple of our Civil Religion.

Our citizenry who have come to witness the Court first-hand surely have something to say, whether when waiting in line before the Court opens or spilling out onto the steps after the Chief Justice’s gavel bangs closed the day’s session.  Perhaps no one ever asks them because our judiciary is supposed to function independent of public passions.  But only the most dogmatic adherents to the mythology of an insulated Court will maintain that our Third Branch is apolitical.  Look to the anti-abortion protesters who spend every day standing silent in front of the Court or the grandstanding Senators asking stonewalling judicial nominees for their views on the day’s hot-button political issues.  Look at the Court’s history in matters of race, sex, Presidential power,economic policy, law enforcement, sexual orientation, to name only a handful, to find the Court inexorably intertwined with the era’s political climate.  Look even at the Court itself: justices are labeled for their fidelity to liberalism or conservatism, however epochally defined.

The Court is responsive to politics.  Consequentially, the vox populi should matter for those interested in the Court.  What does the person in line at 5am hope to see in this case?  Why is the family that shows up at 9am hoping to get in?  How many of those waiting for the doors to open are lawyers invested in the litigation or legal issues at play or professionals or citizens who will be impacted by how the Court may rule?  How many people exiting the Court even understood what they just saw and heard?  Do they care or were they just there to be there?  All of these people represent the American public.  How they vote is impacted by how they perceive our country’s system of governance.  Their experience with the Court–whether from the position of knowledge or ignorance, veneration or cynicism, all of the above, or somewhere in between–helps shape our political dialogue that informs who we elect to represent us in the Executive and Legislative Branches.  These branches, in turn, shape the judiciary through nominations and confirmations; and the judiciary, thus shaped, passes judgment on the political choices made by earlier–and sometimes contemporary–Presidents and Congresses.

Accordingly, my other aim for this project is to test my hypothesis that the Roberts Court has been quite responsive to its surrounding, and shifting, political climate.  I have a forthcoming piece detailing my thoughts, but I will preview my evidence:

• During the 2006-07 term, the first full term in which both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito served together, Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress.  Meanwhile, the Roberts Court aggressively pushed rightward on abortion, student speech, school desegregation, gender discrimination, and campaign finance.
• The Court’s 2007-08 term proceeded alongside a divided government with a Republican President and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.  The Court reflected the division: President Bush, seeking a legacy, saw a conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment win out in Heller; the Democratic Congress, elected in a wave of anti-war sentiment, found its hostility to Bush’s war on terror policies reflected in the Court’s granting habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees in Boumediene.
• Last term, which straddled the Bush and Obama presidencies, found the Court taking a blockbuster case in in September 2008 that threatened to invalidate a key civil rights provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but pulled back with an 8-1 decision in June 2009 upholding the provision.
• This term, the first one fully operating alongside a Democratic Presidency and Congress, is progressing in an almost post-partisan fashion, as if the conservative Court has taken to heart President Obama’s overtures to the Right unwelcome among Congressional Republicans.  The Court is reckoning with one case that pits liberal values against liberal values, another in which two conservative values clash; further, McDonald v. City of Chicago may result in a grand bargain in which the conservative Heller majority can extend its interpretation of the Second Amendment to the states by breathing new life into a clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that could strengthen constitutional protection for liberal causes.  In fact, the only case that threatens a drastic shift to the right in a politically salient issue is Citizens United, the campaing finance case I camped out for in September.  And not only is that case officially part of last term, but also the fact that no opinion has come down yet has led some to speculate that it may not be the cut-and-dry 5-4 conservative opinion most expect.  But more on that case, and how it fits into my hypothesis, when the decision actually comes down.

Finally, I will use this site to post other thoughts on the Court that I haven’t yet read anywhere else.  Given that the legal and political blogs tend to express every possible sentiment existing in this world and parallel universes, these entries will likely be rare and in the shape of wild conjecture.  When another site says something I’m thinking, almost always much better than I can express it myself, I will post it here.  Further, when another site says something exceedingly compelling that I have not yet thought or I could have never come up with by myself, I will post it here.  And if another site says something exceedingly objectionable and I have something to contribute to it, I will post it here.

Thank you for reading.  If this introduction has gained your interest–and if you’re this far, I hope it has–please subscribe and share!

Rock.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery’s The Little Prince – I love it! Who doesn’t succumb to the Little Prince’s charm and that of his friends? ‘Words are the source of misunderstandings.’  ‘It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.’ ‘All men have stars, but they are not the same things for different people. For some, who are travelers, the stars are guides. For others they are no more than little lights in the sky. For others, who are scholars, they are problems. For my businessman they are wealth. But all these stars are silent. You – you alone – will have the stars as no one else has them – […] In one of the stars I shall be living. In one of them I shall be laughing. And so it will be as if all the stars are laughing, when you look at the sky at night … You – only you – will have stars that can laugh!’ These are simple truths eloquently put down on paper.

But this apparent, superficial simplicity might also be their inbuilt failure as shown by the use of a quote from the book by Moshe Feiglin in his op-ed contribution in today’s Jerusalem Post: IDF Insubordination can save Israel to underline his point that disobedience and insubordination are really a duty of a good citizen. Cut from the context and standing for itself the dialogue of the king and the Little Prince it seems just fine.

Of course Saint-Exupery let’s the king say that the ruler can only order what can be fulfilled by the subjects as rule has to be based on reason. And the fact itself can’t be argued. Heart and brain have to come together in those who rule a country to secure it and propel it ahead. Yet, the king who speaks is a caricature, a king without subjects who is blown around by the one subject that shows up like a blade of grass in a hurricane. It shows that it has nothing to do with reason or good ruling to turn around in one’s decisions as a government with every ailing of every subject at every time.

I’ve been born and raised in East Berlin and I’ve seen a peaceful revolution by means of disobedience, obstinacy and simple misunderstandings or lack of communication. I grew up in a country were in it most recent history the most evil things happened because people just followed their orders and later used this as an excuse. Hence, I can follow Mr. Feigling’s remarks that some laws just need to be disobeyed and some orders rejected as they completely violate any rule of moral, humanity or reason.

Yet, as long as Israel regards itself as a democracy and hasn’t yet turned in a monarchy or even dictatorship, anarchy is not the right thing to promote. The individual has his/her chance to participate in the decision making process in many ways. The individual can vote or be voted for, can involve in parties, challenge laws in courts, express his/her opinion on the street in peaceful demonstrations, participate in the system of checks and balances and use the media for his/her ends… It’s not perfect but it is from all the bad choices around the best we have.

I already have my problems with a direct democracy a la Switzerland where the people can express their nebulous fears of a raise of Islam in their country in a vote about minarets. I could write a whole article alone about the psychology behind the phallus symbolism of minarets and church towers and what a fear of minarets obstructing the sight of church towers could say about the libido of the common Swiss. Yet I leave it at the remark that a less fear driven approach by a smaller, pre-elected group of rulers with more insight and more foresightedness might have come to less striking and reputation-damaging solutions (restrictions in building regulations anyone?) with better prospect of success with the actual problem of a creeping Islamization of Europe. A per se permission to disobey rules and laws set up by a government voted into office with the majority of votes because they don’t fit the own ends and deeds is out of question for me.

And to finish this off – an army is an army and not a political party or movement. You get drafted and you serve because it is the duty of each citizen as long as the country needs protection. It is a limited time in which the soldier enters a special relationship status with the state where s/he is charge and guard of the state at the same time with special rights (payment, safeguarding etc.) but especially a special duty to loyalty. Because as the word ‘to serve’ implies already the soldier or the army made up of soldiers is not the ruler but the servant. As hard as it would be on me as well to obey someone just because s/he has more stripes (and here we are at the phallus symbols again) it’s the only way the army can fulfill the only reason it is around – protection of the state. Hence, disobedience in an army, though there might be cases where it is asked for, will never save someone but rather endanger the whole people.

At the end of the asylum process in the UK a decision is reached; you become a refugee and enjoy legal rights akin to those of a UK citizen OR you are deported. It’s all very black and white, no? No.

Many asylum seekers fall outside the refugee definition simply because of the way the law on the subject is written (here we enter the realms of lengthy academic debate, I can recommend several books on the subject but this isn’t the purpose of this post!)

Often the countries they come from are just as dangerous and rife with human rights violations as those which are covered by the refugee definition.

These people cannot be sent home (they often have no home to be sent to.) This would be a breach of their fundamental human rights. However they cannot be granted legal rights as such; they are not refugees. At this point a person becomes one of the UK’s failed asylum seekers and is categorised with the chancers and illegal immigrants certain tabloids like to write about .

A failed asylum seeker cannot work and cannot claim regular state benefits like a refugee, so they have no way of supporting themselves, independently or otherwise.

The government has a strategy in place to help failed asylum seekers, until it is safe for them to leave the country, under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

I will discuss the actual measures below, it is important, firstly to look at the criteria a failed asylum has to fulfil to qualify for support.

This may seem a fairly straight forward immigration-policy-driven test, however the way in which evidence is collected makes it exceedingly difficult to prove any of these criteria. In establishing which if any of these criteria the applicant fulfils, no regard is given to human rights or that individual’s personal circumstances.

The support itself also raises questions about the government’s agenda in relation to the human rights of individuals whose own country can offer them none. It is given in the form of accommodation and food vouchers provided by the accommodation providers. These businesses, charged with duty of protecting these vulnerable individuals are often largely concerned with overheads and revenue received from the government rather than the wellbeing of those they accomodate.

Recent findings by the Refugee Council have also shown that the vouchers have proven an inadequate means of obtaining food and other essential item with  people supported under the scheme experiencing extreme hunger.

Vouchers are only accepted in supermarkets, which can be expensive and therefore can have an impact on the quality of a persons diet. Also supermarkets rarely stock halal meat to cater for the many Muslim people supported under the scheme.

The report found asked refugee agencies to give details of their clients experiences of the scheme. The numbers reply to agencies and not to individuals. Here are some of the more worrying figures:

1. 1. 1. 1. 70% felt the vouchers scheme was ineffective
         2. 68% s reported that clients were unable to buy sufficient food
         3. 73% reported clients experiencing hunger
         4. 70%s reported that clients were unable to buy other essential items such as nappies and toiletries
         5. 75% reported that clients were not able to keep in touch with their legal representatives
         6. 82% reported that clients were unable to be in touch with people in the country to which they are expected to return
         7. 81% reported that clients were unable to maintain good health
         8. 81% reported that clients experienced anxiety/mental health issues as a result of being on vouchers
         9. 52% reported poor treatment of asylum seekers in the shops accepting vouchers
         10. 44%per cent of respondents reported asylum seekers experiencing hostility from other shoppers
         11. 73% reported having incurred additional costs to support clients on vouchers
         12. 63% reported clients experiencing delays in receiving, or not receiving, the vouchers to which they are entitled

The report is available at:

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy/position/2008/section4vouchers.htm

Thank you for honoring me with your presence and presenting me with a wink of your time. Time is so precious and wears away so fast. Years trickle off, live lines develop – yet do you still know exactly what you did during the last, let’s say, three/ three and a half years? 

Did you enjoy every moment, every wink? In E.T.A. Hoffmann’s story ‘The Sandman’ the eyes of the life-size doll Olimpia and her glances, from his perspective always tracing the student Nathanael, make him first meet insanity then death. Yet, even though constant surveillance is torture, eyes and their glances are mirrors of the soul and of life. Hence, they fascinate me and are a never ending source of inspiration. 

So, it is no wonder that I got hooked by two other books in which eyes play a major role – Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy and J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. Admit it, you never thought you would ever hear these two works mentioned under the same breath. Yet Dante’s paradise, for him a divine or heavenly place that is fortified on all sides against the invasion of evil or unhappiness, is with its 9 spheres quite similar to Rowling’s 9 story, medieval castle with its thick walls, high watchtowers, which is known as a ‘stronghold of ancient magic’, which can only be seen by those few with the ability to wield magic and which would never have come into existence without the same talent. 

And what is all this talk about eyes then? While Dante travels to paradise while looking into the eyes of his first and deepest love Beatrix, a love he was never to live, Harry is recognized by his eyes that are so similar to that of his mother, who died because she loved him dearly. These eyes accompany us on our travel to and through paradise searching for the gold in the world and in us. 

And still, the eye in the first picture of my ‘Hogwarts and Dante’s 9 Spheres of Paradise’ series shines rather like a black sun. It reminds us that Paradise is fragile and nobody living there is a one-dimensional, all-good, all-saint creature. This is a message repeated on every sphere of Dante, every level of Hogwarts, every picture of the series. 

If already paradise up to the Fixed Stars and the Empyrean Heaven is not perfect why should our world beneath it, that vibrates around us, be split in good people and Death Eaters, even though I admit such an approach would make the judgment and solution of complex conflicts and the opinion finding process much easier? Yet, we need to keep aware that gold is buried in mud. We all and everything have light and have a Shadow that escorts us like an uninvited guest who came to stay. 

Furthermore, everyone has a story, a past, strengths and weaknesses, has a parentage and background and talents. It’s not without reason that it is said: Whoever rescues a single life rescues a whole universe. The largest universe for us to discover, the only corner of the world we can change is us. 

I sallied forth, have the freedom, am a permanent student of myself. After I’ve read a lot – next to other books I’ve read ‘Who am I? And if yes, how many?’, a question I, the pumpkin and it’s seeds, can clearly answer with “21” – it was time to write my own story. ‘One King’s Children’, even though it was not planned like that as it is designed to be a political thriller, became another try to get a better understanding of myself and to embrace a cactus. 

No fear, your eyes on me have not yet driven me crazy so that I started to stutter nonsense. One calls a Jew born in the country “Sabre”, prickly pear. Therefore, the place s/he has grown from must be a cactus. Israel, the land my grandparents did their share to build up, the place my mother was born and the dream living in my heart, has the beauty of a succulent with thorns one has to deal with. While looking into the stingy subjects as well as while arguing any other subject the world can bring up I allow myself the wealth of an opinion of myself and of taking my own path. And as you can see I make them tangible and audible at occasions like these. 

Remembering, attention gaining, turning the limelight onto an injustice that needs to be eliminated as fast as possible as it already lasts for way too long is in the end my primary concern here and on this day. So, let me repeat my question from the very beginning – so you still know what you did during the last three, three and a half years, since June 25, 2006? 

No? One young man called Gilad Shalit knows to name exactly the one thing he did since he did only one thing. After at age 19 being kidnapped by Palestinian militants in a cross border raid from the Gaza Strip at June 25, 2006 he sat in captivity ever since. 1215 days, more than three years without any contact to the world he loved – what an unbelievable long period in an already tight measured life time! Much more than just a wink. It is a time span in that a seed grows to a seedling resembling already the tree it once will become. It is a time span in that the tree of life has developed and changed so much. 

Since very recently, since a video message was published, that the Israeli government bought at the high price of the release of 20 convicted criminals before their time, we know that Gilad Shalit has kept hold of the tree of life during all these years. But now in the very latest it is high time to give him as well the opportunity to search for the gold in the world and in himself, to discover himself, to allow him the wealth of an opinion of himself and to enjoy every wink. It is time to rescue another universe. Freedom for Gilad Shalit!

Just when I thought that everything’s over with the Mar-Korina hype, then here comes another controversy that may seem to be petty but has ascended to a matter of importance. A few days ago, I browsed my blog roll and I chanced upon a blog entry of Atty. Marichu Lambino that highlighted the scoop of the controversial Facebook War between Korina Sanchez and RG Cruz. I wasn’t able to follow the story, but I got a copy of the alleged letter that Korina made for RG.

You decide. (Read between the lines):

A LETTER TO MANAGEMENT AND TO ALL THOSE WHO HAVE TOLD ME OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE FACEBOOK ATTACKS OF RG CRUZ AGAINST KORINA SANCHEZ

From: Korina Sanchez

I thought, not too long but hard, about writing this letter about someone who I supposedly work with but hardly know — someone who, should I see along our company corridors, I probably wouldn’t even recognize.

While some characters would sit back, relax and ignore the nuances and irritants of daily living, some characters such as mine are the types who would see and know, by experience if I may add, that evil prospers when good men do nothing.  While there is wisdom in silence, there is nobility to be found in response and courage — as foolish as some might think these to be, given specific circumstances.

Such was my thought process when I decided to write this letter.  As inconsequential to my universe as someone, whose opinion I do not care about at all, is — there is something to be said here and something to consider.  It is for the greater good among us who, fortunately or unfortunately, have to work with each other in ABS-CBN for, precisely, the greater good.

I received the calls and texts to me from longtime co-workers and colleagues at the station recently.  They say, “Ma’am, do you know what RG Cruz has been posting on his Facebook against you? Why is the company allowing this?  How could he say such things? Do you have some war going on with him?” the person at the other end of the line sounded so urgent.  This is the 3rd person to tell me of the Facebook entries by an RG Cruz within a few days about a  “First Lady wannabe …who would eventually be a bad  spouse…a queen in her head without a crown… ” and some.  We have copies of all of the RG Cruz entries on his Facebook. Suffice it to say that the tirades against who Cruz eventually admitted was Korina Sanchez were as creative as creativity can many times be borne of spite and utter, utter hatred.  It reminds me of the creativity of serial killers from history.  Jack the Ripper for instance — who kept the English police guessing and following and analyzing each way the pattern was kept alive with each of  his dead, mangled victims.

I thought hard, “RG Cruz? RG Cruz…Oh…RG Cruz, oh that RG Cruz”.  He always wears a long coat much like Keanu Reeves in the movie  Matrix.  I once thought it to be cute and fantasized my fiancé Mar in one of those wondering, “Hmmm, maybe this outfit would do it for him and give an extra 5 percentage points in the surveys”.  Alas, we always have the same reaction to every idea — it is ability, track record, integrity, honesty, diligence, intelligence, compassion and vision that should  bring an aspirant to his rightful place in history —  stupid.  Not long coats!

Back to RG Cruz.  Yes, I remember now.  RG is the cute little young guy who I actually kind of like.  I thought from his outfit and from watching one anchoring job he did in ANC that this guy has character.  We would often walk by each other going different directions in company corridors late at night when I anchor Bandila.  Many of those times I try to catch his glimpse to smile but, for some reason, he always has his head down or he would look some other direction.  Half of that time maybe it was I looking down and at other directions.  In short, and as astonishing as it apparently is, I don’t really know nor have interacted or worked, nor do I ever remember having had conversation with Mr. RG Cruz. And I do not know where his   concentrated anger targeted towards me is coming from.

Skin off my nose. He doesn’t count.

But here is where we learn some things, yes, even in instances that should seem not matter.

Sad as it is, it is not surprising that, in my experience of more than 20 years of work in the company, there may always be someone  like RG Cruz who will just be the way they are without rhyme  or reason.  There have been many batches before RG that I have seen, suffered and survived.  I guess he represents his batch.  My advice is, ignore.   And then, when you feel it has become too much, report to our superiors.  If the regulations and the law warrants, push for management action, even a sanction, even a lawsuit.

Logic dictates that, just as we are all bound by regulations and ethics regarding how we relate and treat each other within the company, these parameters encompass treatment of each other that is public, evident,  attestable.  Facebook, designed as it may be for “friends”, is essentially public.  Slanderous comments are, arguably, considered published.  “Blind item” lawsuits have been won in Philippine courts as well. As long as more than a certain number of people can identify, without a doubt, the unnamed victim of slander and  character assassination,  the offense is actionable.

I, by the way, do not understand why Mr. Cruz would bother to not mention my cherished name in his attacks against me when he outright named another company talent,

Mr. Willie Revillame, and attacked him as well.

In the interest of sound policy covering such misdemeanors to protect its employees and talents and maintain the civility required of us all to achieve company goals — as  painlessly as humanly possibly — I have inquired with  management and have urged them to take a closer look at the  cyberworld as public domain and which is a potent instrument  for destruction and unwarranted personal aggravation of its  victims, especially in the hands of co-employees.

Lastly, but most importantly.

It has been almost 6 days since Sen. Mar Roxas’ abdication of position of standard bearer of the Liberal Party of the Philippines  to endorse Sen. Noynoy Aquino as party candidate for the  Presidency of the Republic.  I’ve seen it and felt it for myself: it is the easiest thing to have an ambition, calculate and run for office.   It is the most difficult to want to serve, calculate, invest and then give way. Until you see and be, it would be a task for any jaded journalist to imagine.

The overwhelming outpour of love, grief, disagreement with the decision, admiration and emulation which followed Sen. Roxas’ example has carved a niche for his good name in

Philippine history books this early in his life in public service and governance.  I would like to thank many of you who have called to say how they’ve admired Mar’s sacrifice. To those who challenge the  integrity of Mar’s sacrifice and may dismiss it as  expediency I invite you to a chat as I might enlighten you  on things you might not be fully informed about or aware  of.   I give special thanks to Ted  Failon, Julius and Tintin Babao, the people of DZMM News,  Joelet Reyes, the other staff of Bandila,  Ging Reyes and Charie Villa, Ms. Cory Vidanes and our  President Charo S. Concio for their kind and generous  words.

Many of us in the news business have often thought, felt that we are as big or powerful as those we cover.  Our indifference and sarcasm say so.  And too many times I have, myself, dismissed acts of greatness and sacrifice as just “one of those things”. Having taken  this long a leave of absence from my years of work in  broadcast for the first time and finding myself participant  in something so important to this country, its people and  its future I now see even more clearly how small and  insignificant each of us is in the much bigger picture affecting 90 million lives. That is, until we think, act, speak and, most of all, do something to become the difference, make a difference for the good and become …bigger. Or do something or nothing to make us even smaller, more insignificant. We might as well just  disappear.

So to you,  RG Cruz, I say, I hope that — as your Facebook entry  narrated — as you were “eating chocolate” and  indulging your gastronomical cravings while events at Club  Filipino on  the 2nd  of  September 2009 were unfolding and all  you could think of and delight in, as written in your  Facebook, are your cruel attacks, pettiness, inanities and  insensitivities to the sacrifice of others and, horror of  horrors, make these public — you will, henceforth, attempt  to save yourself from the very real prospect of  disappearing, leaving this world without a trace, no better  and even worse than when you found it.

By the way, did you know that Jack the Ripper loved chocolates, too?  Look it up.

KORINA

P.S.  I have attached an interesting article written by Ms. Solita Monsod – which I highly recommend for your reading.  I encourage you to pass this letter to anyone at the office or outside who may had read RG Cruz’ attacks against me and my name as a matter of defense of my character and reputation. Thank you very much.

I don’t know both of them personally. However, I believe that just like any other social networking sites (i.e. Friendster, Multiply, etc.) all things have become very accessible and publicized therefore responsibility must always be present at the same time. I have heard many stories of break-ups and ruptures in relationships because of such sites. Most of them blame those social networking sites. And only a few realize their own mistakes and try to correct it.

Just like in the case of Korina and RG, I think both lapsed in expressing their thoughts and feelings.

I think RG should realize the following:

Source: Google Images

• Our constitutional rights are not without limits. Yes, we live in a democratic country but it doesn’t mean that we can already say all the things we want to say without taking into consideration the impact it could have. Freedom of expression/freedom of speech is both a privilege and a right at the same time. It is a right safeguarded by our constitution. But at the same time, it is a privilege we owe to our fellowmen. Think about responsible journalism not just in your profession but in your lifestyle as well.
• I know that Facebook equals fun. Nothing should be taken as serious unless the account confirms it with all caps and exclamation points. So the next time you post your status/shout-out, make sure you end with a “he-he” or “bwahaha” or “LOL” and a smiley if you want them to treat it casually.
• Check your network. Maybe you have accepted friends that are not really friends but are spies or worst, professional detractors. It’s okay to ignore, they won’t know it anyway.
• Facebook is Facebook. Twitter is Twitter. News is news. Blog is blog. Know the difference so that you can put the right ideas at the right venue.
• It pays to be sympathetic, nice and polite. As a journalist, words can be your best friend or your worst enemy. A wide vocabulary helps, but a strategic writing style/ technique will never fail you.

I think Korina should also take note of the following:

Source: Google Images

• Blame Spiderman for this cliché, “with great power comes great responsibility”. You’re already at the peak of your career, but your position doesn’t excuse you of becoming more kind, responsible and conscientious of your words and actions.
• If those allegations and criticisms are not true, then why bother defending yourself? The truth can stand alone. It doesn’t need anything to support it. Though evidence can prove your point, but it cannot strengthen or diminish the standpoint of truth. The truth shall prevail. The truth will always set you free. With all of that, what’s the point of being defensive?
• You said it correctly. Silence is wisdom. But why did you choose the other way around? I think you shouldn’t bother releasing a statement or letter just to prove your point or your status. You don’t stoop down if you’ve descended to a lower level than where you were before.
• We’ve heard so many things from you already. Prove your intentions by actions this time. Some say, with age comes wisdom.  It’s easy to grow old, but it’s never easy to grow up.
• Power-play/power-tripping is never an option for a well-seasoned, well-esteem and highly- valued professional.  Fight fairly (and privately). Consider diplomacy. Don’t publicize personal matters to gain respect and sympathy. Avoid trial by publicity. There are no winners in a publicized war, only casualties with stigmas.

I am not perfect. I am not a journalist.

But I think it doesn’t take one to know the responsibilities of a moral and civilized individual.

See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.

P.S.:

This reminded me of the famous tagline of the radio/TV show,”Hoy Gising!”: Ang pikon ay laging TALO.

______________________________________________________

* From Atty. Marichu Lambino’s blogsite: The authenticity of this letter has been verified by blog admin and the parties have been given more than 24 hours notice. It will be published here in full,  not anymore in installment, since the space would allow it, and because we have information that a well-known publication would run it in full either today or tomorrow.

Interesting article from the Mail & Guardian on the state of judicial independence in South Africa. Citing comments from the Western Cape Premier, Hellen Zille, it suggests the judiciary is becoming a tool of internal party machinations. A way to keep Zuma inline and to quickly remove him should the political winds change.

The relationship between legal institutions and politics is something I plan to look at as part of my DPhil research, and South Africa could potentially be one of my case studies.  Still, it’s (very) early days.

I don’t think anyone reads this blog, but, should they, I’d appreciate any suggestions for further reading on South African legal politics specifically as well as law and politics more generally…

After eight years, what have we learned from such tragedy?

Source: Google Images

The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by Al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade CenterNew York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside of Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania, after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights. in

In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died in the attacks. The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 90 countries. In addition, the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to dust from the World Trade Center’s collapse. The United States responded to the attacks by launching a “War on Terrorism”, invading AfghanistanTaliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists, and enacting the USA PATRIOT Act. Many other countries also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Some American stock exchanges stayed closed for the rest of the week following the attack, and posted enormous losses upon reopening, especially in the airline and insurance industries. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of office space caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan. to depose the

The damage to the Pentagon was cleared and repaired within a year, and the Pentagon Memorial was built on the site. The rebuilding process has started on the World Trade Center site. In 2006 a new office tower was completed on the site of 7 World Trade Center. The 1 World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2011, will become one of the tallest buildings in North America. Three more towers were originally expected to be built between 2007 and 2012 on the site.

(Source: Wikipedia)

Or have we learned something from it?

I’m not an American citizen nor have I been to America. But I believe that the 9/11 tragedy echoed its effects beyond Uncle Sam’s boundaries. One of the things that I learned from such incident is that we cannot place our security on things of this world. We may have everything that we want to have—-money, fame, success, love, etc. but at the end of the day, the reality is, nothing is permanent. Even our lives can be considered temporary. We cannot depend on someone or on anything else, not even to ourselves. We should always be reminded that God is in control of everything. Our lives are in His hands.

The 9/11 taught us that no amount of power and influence that can hinder God from executing His plans in our lives. Not even USA can claim that it has powers that can control everything. Our security should only be couched to God.

God is supreme.

God is permanent.

God is powerful.

God is good.

We may have seen one of the greatest tragedies in human history, but it should not stop us from living our lives and pursuing a full and abundant life. Amidst everything, the truth stands firm that God’s masterplan shall prevail over man’s intervention.

Psalm 91

¹ He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.

² I will say of the LORD, “He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust.”

³ Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare
and from the deadly pestilence.

⁴ He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

⁵ You will not fear the terror of night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,

⁶ nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
nor the plague that destroys at midday.

⁷ A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.

⁸ You will only observe with your eyes
and see the punishment of the wicked.

⁹ If you make the Most High your dwelling—
even the LORD, who is my refuge-

¹⁰ then no harm will befall you,
no disaster will come near your tent.

¹¹ For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;

¹² they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

¹³ You will tread upon the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

¹⁴ “Because he loves me,” says the LORD, “I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.

¹⁵ He will call upon me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.

¹⁶ With long life will I satisfy him
and show him my salvation.”

The 9/11 tragedy reminds me of the story of The Tower of Babylon.

Source: Google Images

Different towers.

Different times.

Same God.

_________________________________________________________________

*Humility. Obedience. Faith. God bless us all!

Source: Google Images

“It is a show of affirmation not for the dead, but for the living. There are no set penalties for not showing up, because none are necessary. In the cheap loneliness that is the overriding fact of every outlaw’s life, a funeral is a bleak reminder that the tribe is smaller by one. The circle is one link shorter, the enemy jacks up the odds just a bit more and defenders of the faith need something to take of the chill. A funeral is a time for counting the loyal, of seeing how many are left. There is no question about skipping work, going without sleep, or riding for hours in a cold wind to be there on time. “

–Hunter Thompson, Hell’s Angels

B. Netanyahu called German chancellor A. Merkel today a “real friend of Israel” though she repeated her commitment to a 2 state solution as this is in her opinion the only path to a peaceful solution, though she demanded a complete stop of all settlement construction as she sees it as a decisive requirement for peace in the region. But the two heads of states argued for sharper actions and tighter sanctions on Iran. And since yesterday the signs thicken that Germany mediates in the talks about freeing captured soldier Gilad Shalit.

That’s deserving of thanks. Anything making the fate of Gilat Shalit easier and lessens the number of days he still has to spend in this dreadful captivity is highly welcomed. Yet, I wonder why information on the mediation leaked just in this moment. Was it just the upcoming visit of Netanyahu turning the focus onto the German Israeli relations?

Honi soit qui mal y pense. Germany has a general election for the Bundestag upcoming in September. After just another legislative period under the lead of a great coalition of SPD and CDU/CSU current chancellor Merkel can’t score in any domestic question anymore. The involvement of Bundeswehr in Afghanistan is seen very critical since what started as a happy boys scout trip has made more soldiers return in coffins than the ordinary, politics-dispirited German, who asks what dealings Germans have at the Hindu Kush, can stand. And though Germany is still in the ban of Obama-mania, the pivotal hero isn’t inclined to pose for nice photos and nice words. Hence, another success in some unsolved question praised internationally would come in handy.

That Germans involved precisely in talks with the Hamas is somewhat telling. Although Merkel joined Netanyahu in calling for tighter sanctions on Iran now, one shouldn’t forget that Germany is one of the best trading partners of the Mullah regime that is as well the backer of the Hamas. As they mediate and do something good for Gilad Shalit and Israel they talk with the terrorist organization. Though this might seem a simple statement the reasons behind it or the consequences of talks becoming public are not. This is just another small step to a possible normalization of relations with Hamas as is more frequently demanded in Europe lately.

But while I’m always for talks with enemies to further peace as one does not negotiate peace agreements with friends I would think it necessary to work things the other way around. Mediate if you are in a position to help but do it in secret without the desire to take advantage of the result for your own position domestically or internationally. Ask the terror organization publically for a renunciation of all terror (legal-wise there is no use in asking them to recognize Israel as Jewish state or state of the Jews as states exist once they consist of the three elements state territory, state authority, body politic and the Jewish element has to be anchored in a possible constitution; yet politic-wise it would be a nice add on). And only once they did so and meant it, consider publically to talk to them officially.

Yet, this wouldn’t help Merkel in the upcoming election anymore as it would take too much time and patience. And it is probably not in the interest of Germany’s good trading partner…

“RT @Jew4palestine: @IsraeliSoldier do you wait until u see the tears in their eyes before you shoot. or wait until they cry mommy then snipe” 

I read this dialog this afternoon on twitter. And it reminded me immediately of Tucholsky’s ‘All soldiers are murderers’ remark. 

Tucholsky? Kurt Tucholsky (January 9, 1890 – December 21, 1935) was a German journalist and writer. He was one of the most famous publicists of the Weimar Republic, a social critic, democrat, participant of WWI and afterwards adept pacifist. His remark ‘All soldiers are murderers’ originally derives from the gloss ‘The Guarded War Arena’, published under the alias Ignaz Wrobel in the mag ‘Die Weltbuehne’ in 1931. There he wrote: 

“There had been four years long many square miles of land where murders were obligatory, while half an hour away from that place it was strictly forbidden to do just that. Did I say: murder? Certainly, murder! All soldiers are murderers.” 

Tucholsky, who was co-founder of the Friedensbund der Kriegsteilnehmer (Coalition for Peace of Participants of the War), criticized with his remark national governments that force young men in recruiting age to kill for national interests and deduced that a war is an ordered, collective murder. 

From then on up to today the remark has occupied many German courts including the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Supreme Constitutional Court) and has become a catch phrase of the German pacifistic community. 

Yet, what do you think? Where would we be without people brave enough to risk their lives for our freedom and integrity? 

Sure, you could say that if all people laid down their guns and embraced a peaceful life we wouldn’t need any army anymore – swords into ploughshares, peace and prosperity for all! But with humankind as it is, always dreading the different in the other, always thinking the own kind superior, and always begrudging the other of the things s/he has earned or gained this is just utopia. 

As long as the prisoner’s dilemma enchains our minds we need armies to enforce our values – our laws, democracy, freedom and sheer our lives – and defend them against those attacking us. Certainly, armies need rules too and have to keep up to moral standards. Their conduct needs to be checked and checked again, as weapons mean power and power might fog the brains and wits. And any misconduct needs to be punished severely.   

But in the end, imho no soldier in the army of a democratic state is automatically a murderer. And to blame one of cold-blooded behavior in a moment of death or life is plainly defamation and over-simplifying a very difficult situation.

It’s almost September. This is not just of interest to me since it means my much longed for vacation is just around the corner. But it also means we are about to read the Goldstone Commissions report on their findings about the Gaza War, eagerly expected by many though not less eagerly criticized since the establishment of the commission.

As the discussion of the commission, its fact finding mission and its report passes through yet another warming up phase (as if the subject wouldn’t be heated up enough already) I want to take a look at where the criticism mainly voiced by Israel derives from. 

Relevant articles like Irwin Cotler’s Op-Ed contribution to the Jerusalem Post “The Goldstone Mission – Tainted to the Core” here and here  mainly name three problems which they unfortunately deal with promiscuously: the organization that runs the investigation, (the composition of the Commission) and the task issued to the Commission in context of the resolution it is based on. I don’t like mulligan as I prefer an organized arrangement on my plate. The same goes for my thoughts. Therefore, I will discuss the two of the problems one by one starting with the last, but in my opinion most important problem. 

Resolution S-9/1 by the United Nations Human Rights Council, adopted on January 12, 2009 and the thereupon based mandate of the international independent Fact Finding Mission established on April 3, 2009-08-23 

On 3 April 2009, the President of the Human Rights Council established an international independent Fact Finding Mission with the mandate 

“to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”  

This is already a revised version of the mandate. The original version called on the Commission to focus only on Israeli actions. Yet, though the wording of the mandate has been changed on demand of commission head Richard Goldstone so that he may be able to look into Hamas actions as well the appointment of the mission followed the adoption of resolution S-9/1 by the United Nations Human Rights Council at the end of its 9th Special Session on 12 January 2009 and is based on it. 

Resolution S-9/1 is headlined: The grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip. Concerning the Fact Finding Mission it states: 

14.        Decides to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission; 

While the headline of the resolution concludes already what the commission is suppose to investigate, the wording of the paragraph, defaming Israel as an occupying power, is at least biased. However, most important phrase of the paragraph in my opinion is “current aggression”, especially in the light of the general renunciation of force laid down in the UN Charter and specified in the GA resolutions 2625 and 3314. 

Aggression, as a standing term in international law implies that Israel was wrong to use any force in Gaza during its operation, whether or not the actions taken were in accordance with all rules of ius in bello and irrespective of any findings of the Fact Finding Commission. If taken as a fact Israel deemed an aggressor would be deemed culpable of an offense under international law and would be liable for all damages, even for damages originated by actions lawful according to the standards of ius in bello. 

A violation of the renunciation of force under international law implies an international element and the use of military force. The international element is problematic when we deal with the Palestinian Territories. Even though Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Palestine is still a state created by invitro-fertilization and stuck in retort. But I focused on that question in an earlier article on the Goldstone Commission . The use of force by Israel can’t be argued. 

On the other hand, even the use of military force can be justified under Art. 51 UN Charter that explicitly acknowledges a nature-given right to self-defense. Allowed is the force necessary to ward off an attack. The attack in question has to be immanent, armed, attributable to the other state and has to excess a certain threshold of intensity. As much as one wants to allow the IDF to go into Gaza anytime just so to free captured and kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit his ongoing captivity can’t be subsumed to be an immanent, armed attack. 

But how about the decade worth of rocket-fire from Gaza targeting Israeli civilians, escalating in the three years after Israel’s complete withdrawal from the Strip? How many rockets are enough per month, per week, per day to speak of an immanent, armed attack that exceeds the threshold of intensity? Are 13 residents dead, hundredth wounded, damage worth in the millions and the traumatisation of nearly every inhabitant of Sderot e.g. enough? How about the non-extension of the truce with Israel announced by Hamas in December 2008? 

I would definitely say so. And if we come to the conclusion that Israel responded to an armed attack by Hamas from the Gaza Strip Israel’s military response could have been justified under Art. 51 UN Charter and therefore not nameable an aggression as she had a right to self defense – if the force used did not exceed the level necessary to ward off the attack. At this point I will need to owe you an answer as I lack the military expertise. 

However, this won’t affect the result of my reflection as we still need to look at the general framework in that a renunciation of force works only. The negative assessment of the phenomenon of military force that had led to the development of a clause calling for the total renunciation of force in the UN Charter bases on the experience of the insufferable horror caused by the wars of the last century. This human rights based reasoning has not lost any of its validation. 

Yet, a measure taken because of humanitarian reasons mustn’t lead itself to the violation of human rights through the backdoor. Meaning: The renunciation of force is ultimately only acceptable if the enforcement of rights and interests is possible in another way. It requires that in a framework of collective security the community of states takes effective actions against any and all law-breakers and comes to the defense of the victims. 

The UN should be the one to provide the framework. But put into work in praxis it proves to work unfortunately only imperfectly to say the least. The Security Council knocks itself off on a regular base due to the veto power of its permanent members. And the UN Human Rights Council is too busy condemning Israel it hasn’t even once addressed the question of rockets fired by Hamas in a decade or the problem of a kidnapped soldier in more than three years of captivity. But the UN Human Rights Council’s story is sad enough to get a chapter of its own. 

The Organization that runs the investigation: the UN Human Rights Council 

“I believe in the indefeasibility and the dignity of every human being. I believe that God gave all people the same right to freedom. I pledge to offer resistance to any offense against freedom and to resist tyranny wherever it may occur.” 

I am a front-line city girl. Grown up in the daily antagonism of the East-German education system vs. West-German media, permanently exposed to propaganda of both sides until my 14^th birthday, my parents took care I wouldn’t grow any walls in my head or in my heart though I experienced a real one on a daily base. What was planted in my head instead was the belief in the opening statement that echoed every Sunday at noon over the air via RIAS Berlin, Radio in the American Sector. 

This statement represents my first approach to Human Rights. Back when I first heard it nobody would have believed that one day I would argue with my International Law professor in the oral part of my final law exam about the binding character of the UN UDHR. Not with the same consequences (I passed the exam in spit of the debate) but nevertheless never less passionate Human Rights are discussed at many stages. They are one of the few things even the Generation Crisis, otherwise completely self-centered and opinion-less, would join a Facebook group to take a stance against their violation.  

Yet though the phrase ‘human rights’ is used easily, do we all really speak about the same thing? I don’t want to start the same debate about the question of penetration of the Human Rights Declaration into binding international law that I had with the professor some years ago (btw: the leading opinion still is that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights had been a resolution of the UN General Assembly without any binding power and it has still not become part of international customary law as the understanding of human rights is too diverse in different legal systems).  

I just mean with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all the other more or less highly funded NGOs working for the universal observation of Human Rights around, with the principle of universal jurisdiction anchored in many criminal law codes around the world to some degree, with the Human Rights Council installing inquiry teams and investigating violations what are the basic principles of human rights we all agree? Aren’t these the norms a rational human being, seeking to survive and prosper, would act upon and expect others to act according to because what s/he fears most is violent death by the hand of others? Isn’t it what is expressed in the opening statement of this chapter? Aren’t these the norms you would expect the UN Human Rights Council to safeguard for all nations? 

The UN Human Rights Council was established by the UN General Assembly in 2006 as a subsidiary body. It is the successor to the UN Commission on Human Rights that had to be replaced because of the Commissions inefficiency due to the presence of human rights violators and the politicization of the body. But just as the US had already stated when voting against the resolution establishing the UN Human Rights Council, it has no adequate provisions to keep states which abused human rights from Council membership. And it also lacks the precautions to avoid falling victim to the whims of political interests. 

With Darfur, China, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, even the US’ CIA excesses at Guantanamo around and happening, 80% of the UN HRC’s resolutions target just one state, Israel. And as the language of the one resolution (S-9/1) mentioned exemplifies, the dealing with Israel is highly biased. Israel, just as any other nation, is far from perfect. But in the UN HRC she falls victim to prejudgment and can’t expect any help from this side. I dare to predict that even in case the Goldstone report of the Fact Finding Mission will stress violations from Hamas as well as from Israel, Israel will be condemned in the following resolution with the Palestinians not even mentioned in a footnote. 

The UN Human Rights Commission at least isn’t part of a framework of collective security Israel can trust in. 

Final Remarks 

Still, though the Goldstone Commission’s mandate and the organization behind can be criticized and the final report and any follow up resolutions have to be eyed carefully and in the context of the information given above, the deduction cannot be – Israel or any other nation is forth on allowed to use any military force it thinks suitable for her cause. From a moral and a humanitarian point of view any war or military action is hard to justify. From a political point of view it can be deadly and isolating. And so it should always stay the last, the ultimate choice after all other options have been explored unsuccessfully because the enemy thinks human rights, the right to live in peace and freedom, are meant for everyone else but not for Israelis.

Sana naman maintindihan na “nila”.

Source: google images

There’s The Rub

MAY ARAW DIN KAYO

By Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted: 01:04:00 08/17/2009

Tatagalugin ko na nang makuha n’yo. Kahit na lingwaheng kanto lang ang alam kong Tagalog.

Tutal Buwan ng Wika naman ang Agosto. Baka sakali ’yung paboritong wika ni Balagtas ay makatulong sa pag-unawa n’yo dahil mukhang ’yung paboritong wika ni Shakespeare ay lampas sa IQ n’yo. Kung sa bagay, ang pinakamahirap gisingin ay ’yung nagtutulug-tulugan. Ang pinakamahirap padinggin ay ’yung nagbibingi-bingihan . Ang pinakamahirap paintindihin ay ’yung nagmamaangmaangan. Bueno, mahirap din paintindihin ’yung likas na tanga. Pero bahala na.

Sabi mo, Cerge Remonde, alangan naman pakanin ng hotdog ang amo mo. Bakit alangan? Hindi naman vegetarian ’yon. At public service nga ’yon, makakatulong dagdagan ng cholesterol at salitre ang dugong dumadaloy papuntang puso n’ya. Kung meron man s’yang dugo, kung meron man s’yang puso.

Bakit alangan? Malamang di ka nagbabasa ng balita, o di lang talaga nagbabasa, kung hindi ay nalaman mo ’yung ginawa ni Barack Obama at Joe Biden nitong nakaraang Mayo. Galing silang White House patungong Virginia nang magtakam sila pareho ng hamburger. Pina detour nila ang motorcade at tumuloy sa unang hamburgerang nakita nila. Ito ang Ray’s Hell Burger, isang maliit at independienteng hamburger joint.

Tumungo ang dalawa sa counter at sila mismo ang nag-order, hindi mga aides. Nagbayad sila ng cash na galing sa sariling bulsa at kagaya ng ibang customers ay pumila para sa turno nila.

Ito ay presidente at bise presidente ng pinakamakapangyarih ang bansa sa buong mundo. Kung sa bagay, ’yung amo n’yo ay hindi naman talaga presidente. Di lang makita ang pagkakaiba ni Garci kay God kaya nasabing “God put me here.” Pekeng presidente, pekeng asal presidente.

Sabi mo, Anthony Golez, maliit lang ang P1 million dinner kumpara sa bilyon-bilyong pisong dinala ng amo mo sa bansa.

Ay kayo lang naman ang nagsasabing may inambag ang amo n’yo na bilyong-bilyong piso sa kaban ng bayan. Ni anino noon wala kaming nakita. Ang nakita lang namin ay yung bilyon-bilyong piso—o borjer, ayon nga sa inyong dating kakosa na si Benjamin Abalos—na inaswang ng amo n’yo sa kaban ng bayan. Executive privilege daw ang hindi n’ya sagutin ito. Kailan pa naging pribilehiyo ng isang opisyal ang di managot sa taumbayan? Kailan pa naging pribilehiyo ng isang opisyal ang magnakaw?

Maliit lang pala ang P1 million, ay bakit hindi n’yo na lang ibigay sa nagugutom? O doon sa mga sundalo sa Mindanao? Tama si Archbishop Oscar Cruz. Isipin n’yo kung gaano karaming botas man lang ang mabibili ng P1 million at karagdagang P750,000 na nilamon ng amo n’yo at mga taga bitbit ng kanyang maleta sa isa pang restawran sa New York.

Maliit lang pala ang P1 million (at P750,000), bakit hindi n’yo na lang ibigay doon sa pamilya ng mga sundalong namatay sa Mindanao? Magkano ’yung gusto n’yong ibigay sa bawat isa? P20,000? Sa halagang iyan 50 sundalo na ang maaabuluyan n’yo sa $20,000. Pasalu-saludo pa ’yang amo n’yo sa mga namatay na kala mo ay talagang may malasakit. Bumenta na ’yang dramang ’yan. At pasabi-sabi pa ng “Annihilate the Abus!” Di ba noon pa n’ya ’yan pinangako? Mahilig lang talagang mangako ’yang amo n’yo.

Bukod pa d’yan, saan ba nanggaling ’yung limpak-limpak na salapi ng mga kongresista na pinansisindi nila ng tabako? Di ba sa amin din? Tanong n’yo muna kung ayos lang na i-blowout namin ng wine at caviar ang amo n’yo habang kami ay nagdidildil ng asin—’yung magaspang na klase ha, ’di yung iodized. Ang tindi n’yo, mga p’re.

At ikaw naman, Romulo Macalintal, tapang ng apog mo. Maiisip mo tuloy na sundin na lang ang mungkahi ni Dick the Butcher sa “Henry VI” ni Shakespeare: “First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Pa ethics-ethics ka pa, pasalamat ka di nasunog ang bibig mo sa pagbigkas ng katagang ’yon.

Marami mang sugapa rin sa aming mga taga media, di naman kasing sugapa n’yo. At di naman kami sineswelduhan ng taumbayan. Wala naman kaming problemang sumakay sa PAL at kailangan pang bumili ng P1.2 billion jet. Anong sabi n’yo, kailangan ng amo n’yo sa pabyahe-byahe? E sino naman ang may sabing magbabyahe s’ya? Ngayon pang paalis na s’ya—malinaw na ayaw n’yang umalis. Bakit hindi na lang s’ya bumili ng Matchbox na eroplano? Kasya naman s’ya ro’n.

Lalo kayong nagpupumiglas, lalo lang kayong lumulubog sa kumunoy. Di n’yo malulusutan ang bulilyasong ginawa n’yo. Para n’yo na ring inagaw ang isinusubong kanin ng isang batang nagugutom. Tama si Obama at Biden: Sa panahon ng recession, kung saan nakalugmok ang mga Amerikano sa hirap, dapat makiramay ang mga pinuno sa taumbayan, di nagpapakapariwara. Sa panahon ng kagutuman, na matagal nang kalagayan ng Pinoy, at lalo pang tumindi sa paghagupit ng Typhoon Gloria, dapat siguro uminom na lang kayo ng insecticide. Gawin n’yo ’yan at mapapawi kaagad ang kagutuman ng bayan.

Sa bandang huli, buti na rin lang at ginawa n’yo ’yung magpasasa sa P1 million dinner habang lupaypay ang bayan sa kagutuman—di lang sa kawalan ng pagkain kundi sa iba pang bagay—at pagdadalamhati sa yumaong Ina ng Bayan. Binigyan n’yo ng mukha ang katakawan. Katakawang walang kabusugan. Mukhang di nakita ng masa sa usaping NBN, mukhang di nakikita ng masa sa usaping SAL. Mukhang nakita lang ng masa dito sa ginawa n’yong ito. Sa pagpapabondat sa New York habang naghihinagpis ang bayan.

At buti na rin lang mayroon tayong sariling wika. Di sapat ang Inggles para iparamdam sa inyo ang suklam na nararamdaman namin sa inyo. Di sapat ang Inggles para ipakita sa inyo ang pagkamuhi na nararamdaman namin sa inyo. Di maarok ng Inggles ang lalim ng poot na nararamdaman namin sa inyo.

Isinusuka na kayo ng taumbayan, mahirap man sumuka ang gutom.

May araw din kayo.

_________________________________________________________

* I got this article from an email sent to me by my law school classmate.  May God bless them when that “day” comes.

Who wouldn’t want to have a wife and First Lady like her?

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama (born January 17, 1964) is the wife of the forty-fourth President of the United States, Barack Obama, and is the first African-American First Lady of the United States.

Michelle Robinson was born and grew up on the South Side of Chicago and graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School. After completing her formal education, she returned to Chicago and accepted a position with the law firm Sidley Austin, where she met her future husband. Subsequently, she worked as part of the staff of Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley, and for the University of Chicago Medical Center. Throughout 2007 and 2008, she helped campaign for her husband’s presidential bid and delivered a keynote address at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. She is the mother of two daughters, Malia and Sasha, and is the sister of Craig Robinson, men’s basketball coach at Oregon State University.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama)

…and a supermodel?!

One could say that she’s been campaigning as hard for this as her husband did for the presidency, but Michelle Obama did it with a lot more ease. After nearly two years of wowing the fashion world, the first lady has earned an honor she so rightly deserves — landing on 2009 Vanity Fair’s International Best Dressed list. (Source: http://www.bvonstyle.com/2009/08/06/michelle-obama-tops-vanity-fairs-best-dressed-list-naturally/)

… and a trendsetter?

(Source:http://chuvaness.livejournal.com/661608.html)

(Source: http://chuvaness.livejournal.com/661608.html)

… and eventually the next President?! (Click here.)

Hehehe..

]]> http://avivavictoriabrueckner.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/allow-birthday-cakes-and-ballons-into-gaza-for-gilad-shalit/ Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:56:49 +0000 Aviva Victoria Brueckner http://avivavictoriabrueckner.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/allow-birthday-cakes-and-ballons-into-gaza-for-gilad-shalit/

Captive - Gilad Shalit, acrylic color on paper

In view of the fate of this young man, Gilad Shalit – kidnapped in a cross border raid by Hamas more than three years ago and ever since held captive in isolation – one wants to scream at the illegality and wrong. One wishes one was more influential like Bill Clinton who simply flew to North Korea for a talk with Kim Yong Ill and afterwards loaded the two journalist held hostage by the North Korean system into his airplane to fly them home. One wishes one was more powerful so that one would be able to enter Gaza oneself and get the man back.

However, one is limited to the few possibilities one is given: one’s voice as we aren’t born to keep silent, one’s network of friends and other birds of a feather and in my case my art. And in the end after such a long time and an unbearable horse trading – one life for one thousand lives, including freedom for convicted murderers – frustration comes up. Another birthday of Gilad Shalit approaches fast and still a solution or only the relaxation of his conditions of captivity is not yet at the horizon.

Frustration fast turns into hate, one of the deep and basic human feelings that speaks to our animal, werewolfish side and that knocks off the higher human brain.

This might be the reason why in the run-up to Gilad’s birthday I read calls on the internet, spread via Twitter, to interconnect the fate of this one young man with the fate of the population of Gaza. No humanitarian help for the Palestinians as long as Gilad is not free?

Would such a move really bring him one day closer to freedom and a return into the lap of his family? Would it help any in the future?

I doubt it. Even worse – it would even more damage Israel’s reputation in the world. And as Hamas conducts a policy of terror to one side and social engagement towards the other, a complete shut down of all humanitarian help would only drive the population into Hamas’ outstretched arms. Their help doesn’t come for free – they trade food, medicine, shelter and education for head scarves and complete body cover, support, votes and ultimately the lives and heads of the families’ children. It would help to shape just another generation of willing suicide bombers and kidnappers. Not to speak about the simple fact that a complete embargo would also worsen the food supply situation for the one man we try to save as he is in Gaza too…

In the light of this I would like to ask everyone to refrain to call for excessive measures as frustrating as the situation might be. We should use our combined strength to make sure Gilad Shalit is remembered every day, but especially on his birthday. It can be done by twittering a #GiladShalit hashtag as promoted by JIDF. But there are other ways up to the point where you write your government and demanding to get active.

And perhaps for one day it should be allowed to bring birthday cakes and balloons into Gaza written a big Happy Birthday, Gilad! all over them, so he might learn he is not forgotten and in the thoughts and prayers of so many all around the world!

Maria Corazon “Cory” Sumulong Cojuangco Aquino

(January 25, 1933 – August 1, 2009)

courtesy: google images

I spent most of my early childhood years in our small house at EDSA. I was born on February 26, 1985. One year before our country experienced a great transition not only in the political arena but also a nation. It was the same month when a woman of great courage vowed to help in the restoration of democracy in our country and accepted a special role to be our nation’s mother. I never had the chance to know our former President Corazon C. Aquino personally. My parents are Marcos’s loyalists then. My mother even worked closely with Bong-bong Marcos. So, the name of Mrs. Corazon Aquino was never a household name for us. I just had knowledge about her from reading history books, watching in black-and-white television and some political news feeds. Most of my memories about her were about how noisy and chaotic our streets were during the coup attempts. My mom never allowed us to play outside because of the perilous condition of the streets of EDSA. So, all along I thought she was weak and coward as a president. I never heard anything good about her governance because I was so young then and cared less about politics and all I understood was that she made us to temporarily move from our house in EDSA to a place somewhere in Lagro. Then after a few months, we went back to a more peaceful EDSA. Little did I know that those days were the last days of her administration.

Then, during my grade school days, I was introduced to her through more history books. I came to know that she’s the wife of the hailed hero and late Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, and the mother of then teeny-bopper Kris Aquino, who loves to wear clothes with so many heart designs that time. I also learned that she was the one responsible for the reign of freedom and democracy in our country. I never thought that someone as so simple and fragile-looking person like her could tumble down someone so cunningly wise and powerful like former President Ferdinand Marcos. Where did she get the courage and audacity to fight and go against the system that time? I don’t know. But only one thing I noticed about her. She loves to pray. And definitely, she loves God so much.

After more than two decades, I learned so many things about her. I’ve seen how she remained strong and resilient despite the trials she underwent. I was so touched how she extended her loving and comforting arms every time Kris gets into controversial issues. I never had the chance to meet her personally but as I can strongly conclude that she was a great mother to her children and a faithful wife to her husband. When I heard that she was diagnosed with cancer, I never worried not because of anything else, but because I know that if she won various great battles then she could also fight cancer easily. However, last Saturday, August 1, 2009 at 3:18 am, I was so shocked upon learning that she had succumbed to the sting of death.  I was about post an entry in my blog about her, but words were so few to express an overwhelming emotion that I felt that morning. So, I decided to let the day pass by without writing about her.

Not until today, where she would be placed to her last resting place. I decided to write not to share anything I experienced with her, but to appreciate how she has changed our country and touched the lives of many. I don’t know what to write but I allowed myself to really listen to the stories and testimonies of how she influenced the lives of different people regardless of their stature in life. I found myself typing words and sentences which are far from how I knew her since I was a child. I felt the sentiments of various individuals especially those who had close encounters with her. I may not state the right words or something close and significant to add to her badge of honor. But I’d like to believe that she had also influenced me in some ways I can’t imagine. And I thank her for that. I believe all of us have a little Tita-Cory-story to tell. Mine is never noteworthy. However, I still took the courage to share how my perceptions about her have been changed. For me, she’s not a saint. I know that she’s not perfect like all of us. Yet, what distinguishes her from all of us is the heritage of good values that she imparted to all of us that it even transcended from life to death. She made a good impact to every Filipino. She made us, Filipinos, to be proud and thankful that God made us Filipinos. Not much about politics or anything else, but what she taught us was about character. That life is not about having fame, power and wealth. But it’s about how you have glorified God with the way you lived.

I may not have the right words to express the things I’ve learned from her. But I thank God for giving all of us an inspiration that it’s possible to live a life that is very meaningful although it may not be perfect. She’s correct when she said that she lived a full life. I pray that I could have the opportunity to say that statement when the right time comes. It’s a humbling experience to watch her as her family, friends, colleagues and fellow countrymen bid their farewell to a person of great importance.

Like Kris, our country may have gone through and will still be going through various tumultuous upheavals and controversies. But there’s nothing to worry, thank God for someone like Tita Cory, who will selflessly give herself to help and serve and will always be there to act as our second mom.  Everybody may not know her personally, but she left a enduring legacy which will last for the generations to come. She’s a part of our history that everyone wants repeat. She has been and will always be a part of every Filipino family. No wonder everybody calls her “Tita Cory”.

Thank you, Tita Cory.

To God be the glory!

While almost everyone is busy praying for the former President Cory Aquino, I found out something good to alleviate the worries about her condition and ponder on something inspirational. One of my contacts in Facebook posted the poem made by former Sen. Ninoy Aquino that filled the gloomy air with some amorous and inspiring feel. The title of the poem is “I Have Fallen In Love (With The Same Woman Three Times)”. It was set to music by Jose Mari Chan. So let me share it:

courtesy: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Universal-Records-Philippines/214540185413?ref=nf

Wow! That was so romantic of Sen. Ninoy Aquino. Though, I was not that surprised that Sen. Ninoy Aquino can do something great like that poem. As far as I know, he was an illustrious journalist before he flourished in his political career. He’s really a gifted individual. I never thought that someone like him can be so ‘cheesy’ in expressing his emotions for his wife, Tita Cory. I wonder how Tita Cory reacted upon receiving and reading the said poem by Sen. Ninoy. Hehe. I hope I can write one too in the future. Hehe.

I think one important lesson that we can learn from Tita Cory’s situation right now is that no matter how rich or famous or powerful or influential we are in this life, God still has the last say in everything. At the end of the day, it’s not our reputation, our accomplishments, not even our money that can save us and extend our life. It’s all in the mighty hands of God. All we need to do is to trust Him and that He knows the best thing for us.

(Psalm 39:4-5), “Show me, O LORD, my life’s end and the number of my days; let me know how fleeting is my life. You have made my days a mere handbreadth; the span of my years is as nothing before you. Each man’s life is but a breath.

Let’s all pray for God’s will to prevail in her situation. God is good!

(Ecclesiastes 3:1), “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven.”

He knows what is right and good for all of us.

God bless!

______________________________________________________________

*After reading the poem/song, I remembered something that I’ve written in the past. Only that the woman I wrote the poem for… whatever! Hehe.. Peace.

Let’s go to the lighter side of 2009 SONA. More than the controversial speech, the 2009 SONA is packed with glamorous and fascinating government officials and their spouses. I think that the fashion theme of this year’s SONA is more like practical, laid-back and recycled. Obviously, some fashion experts and enthusiasts look forward to see the latest fashion statements of PGMA and the members of Congress.

Anyway, special thanks to Philippine Star Reporter Christina Mendez for supplying the earliest photos of Senators and the Congressmen as well. It’s hard to find some of the photos of certain personalities so I just googled them and also the description of their clothes because I’m not that familiar with them and to properly give the credit to their designers.

Moreover, the picture below I think is one of her best pictures. She showed authentic smile and evoked a happy and good disposition in life. She looks good in her black swimsuit. I just wish I can have that chance to surf with her. Hehe.

courtesy: www.surfsebay.allhyper.com/amenities.html

THE UGLY

PGMA has been very consistent in projecting an image that is closely related with her principle of a strong republic. Every time SONA comes, people are so excited of what dress or gown will she be wearing. I’ve heard the names of JC Buendia and Inno Sotto most of the time. But regardless of who ever made it, most of the time, her contentious speech overshadows the elegance and beauty of her dress. It only goes to show that no amount of cosmetics or adornment can hide or compensate for a poor and flawed performance or a terrible and appalling speech.

courtesy: google images

Nevertheless, PGMA chose to wear a simple fuchsia gown designed by Inno Sotto.  I just don’t know what is the inspiration of the design and color of her gown. I think her speech and her gown gave her a feisty and piquant aura that day. However, she should’ve cut her hair shorter just like her early years as president.

Furthermore, I’ll be giving my list of my Top 5 best dressed personalities/politicians and my Top 5 worst dressed personalities/politicians. WARNING: This is just based on my opinion. I’m not a fashion enthusiast or an expert. I just wanted to appreciate their efforts in making themselves presentable and dignified, at least, physically. (But morally speaking? That’s debatable.) The descriptions are taken from this site.

TOP FIVE WORST DRESSED PERSONALITIES/POLITICIANS

(No offense meant. Peace. Hehe.)

TOP 5: Gabriela Representative Liza Maza

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

She wore an off-white terno made of katsa (cheesecloth). While the bodice and butterfly sleeves were sprinkled with glass and bamboo beads, the skirt was hand-painted by social realist Boy Dominguez. It showed a smiling Arroyo sewing gold thread that twists around the throats of poor people. (I don’t get it. I think “rally” stuffs should be left on the streets and not on VIP events.)

TOP 4: Audrey Tan-Zubiri, wife of Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

She donned a sleeveless ecru gown she had worn in the previous SONAs of 2003 and 2006. She updated what seems to be her favorite outfit with a vintage panuelo. (Wear your age. She’s trapped in her grandmother’s time.)

TOP 3: Socialite Baby Arenas, mother of Representative Rachel Arenas

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

She was wearing a stunning white gown masterpiece of Manuel Cabral. (I think it’s too predictable. Anyway, she’s rich and timeless.)

TOP 2: Senator Ana Maria Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

She described her outfit as a “modified Maria Clara” which was again designed by Patis Tesoro. She shows off her beige dress jacket with a green flowing skirt. (I think she looked so stressed out and unprepared.)

TOP 1: Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

She was in a beige short-sleeved Filipiniana which she told reporters was actually an old gown. “It’s 10 years old,” she said. (I heard a rumor that she bought it in Divisoria. There’s nothing wrong about wearing something from Divisoria, but she should’ve exerted a little effort to dignify herself. She looks like she had given up on fashion just the way she gave up on becoming the president of our country. Hehe. Anyway, she said, “My dress is cheap, but I’m expensive.” Hehe. Miriam is Miriam.)

TOP FIVE BEST DRESSED PERSONALITIES/POLITICIANS

(They’re smokin’ hot and beautiful. Whew!)

TOP 5: Senator Loren Legarda

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

She wore a year-old fuchsia gown by Paul Cabral, a favorite designer of movie stars. She had taken apart beaded leis she had collected from visits to Mindanao and asked Cabral to embroider the beads, piece by piece, on the gown’s bodice and butterfly sleeves. To complete her Muslim theme, she carried a Celestina clutch made of Mandaya fabric and wore hot pink open-toed heels. She caught many admiring stares because her terno bared her back. (She’s a hot momma! Hehe. The bareback effect reminded me of Ara Mina. Only that Ara Mina had it lower than the normal. I don’t mind having a sexy president, only if she’ll be consistent with this style. Hehe. I hope she will not get pneumonia after this. Hehe.)

TOP 4: Rhodora “Bebet” Nograles, wife of Speaker Prospero Nograles

She wore a white-and-yellow gown made of piña and organza by Larry Espinosa Fabulous diamond earrings glittered just above her deconstructed butterfly sleeves. (I can’t find a picture of her. I’m sorry. But she’s an epitome of aging with grace.)

TOP 3: Gigi Daza, wife of Northern Samar Representative Paul Daza and Tarlac Rep. Nikki Prieto-Teodoro, wife of Defense Secretary and presidential aspirant Gilbert Teodoro

Gigi Daza: She stole the thunder with her low-cut, off-white terno that showed a lot of cleavage. Daza completed her outfit, made of feathery wisps of tulle by Puey Quiñones, with a gold clutch studded with Swarovski crystals and gold sandals. (When I saw her in TEN Evening News, I thought I saw Tyra Banks wearing a terno. Her bangs gave her an edgy look. I wasn’t able to find her picture during the 2009 SONA. Sorry.)

Nikki Prieto-Teodoro: She wore a blue-green gown by Rajo Laurel which featured elegant beadwork. (It was my first time to see her publicly. I just heard many good things about her especially her “modelesque” features. But when I saw her cameo appearance on TV, wow, she’s stunningly beautiful. How in the world did Sec. Gilbert Teodoro get her? She’s beautiful. I admit, after I saw her, I started admiring her beauty. With her photo below, I could say that I have a secret crush on her. Hehe. Peace to Gibo. I’m just asking myself, why did she join politics? Whew! She’s soooo hot!! )

courtesy: google images

TOP 2: Akbayan Representative Riza Hontiveros-Baraquel

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

courtesy: google images

She appeared in a Greek-inspired, backless white pearl-scale gown by local fashion designer Joel Acebuche. She offset her pristine outfit with a red clutch, a red belt with a flower buckle and blood-red nails. The lawmaker embellished it with a red floral accent and a yellow ribbon for Cory. (She looked so simple yet very regal and beautiful. Only that she did not flaunt her gown in the halls of Congress but decided to join the street rallies. If all ladies in street rallies would wear just like her gown, I think the socialites wouldn’t mind being dispersed with pressurized water from fire trucks. Hehe. It’s like having street rallies slash street cocktails. Hehe.)

TOP 1: Senator Pia Cayetano

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

courtesy: http://www.earthlingorgeous.com/2009/07/2009-sona-fashion-showcase.html

She turned heads in her backless, chiffon gown. She was in a modern terno designed by Mia Urquico. She wore a black and white ruffled gown, also revealing a bare back. She also said that the gown she wore express that everything should be in black and white, nothing in the middle. She said her black-and-white “modern terno” was a political statement. “Be black or white. Not gray or in between,” Cayetano said. (She’s the ultimate hot politician/momma! She’s stunningly beautiful. Plus, she’s very intelligent and possesses a strong personality. She should’ve considered modeling as her fall back career. I wouldn’t mind having a wife like her. Hehe. Whew!)

After listing down my top best and worst dressed personalities/politician, I remembered a Bible verse,

(1 Peter 3:3-4), “…your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.”

Most of time, we are lured and deceived by wolves in sheep’s clothing. We are easily attracted with people that looks good without even bothering the importance of having a pleasing and Godly character. We often judge others by how they dress up, speak or act, without getting to know them deeply. As the Bible puts it,

(Luke 6:37), “”Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

Like most men, I admit, I’m prone to be attracted to a woman physically without knowing her in a holistic manner. And I believe that it’s not only an exclusive fault on us, men, but women also commit the same mistake. We should grow up and stop sizing up or criticizing others by their outward appearance. Just like God, we should look at the heart of the person. We should take into consideration the beauty of every personality we encounter. Some may be rude or bad, but it doesn’t mean that they’re totally evil. We should give others a chance to prove themselves and overthrow our immature presumptions.

Likewise, in the coming 2010 elections, let us be wise in exercising our right of suffrage. We should not just take into consideration how a candidate dresses up, speaks, acts or expresses himself. But we must learn how to read between the lines for every word that he utters. We should learn how to distinguish style from scheme. We should learn to interpret non-verbal messages. We should learn how to distinguish fantasy from reality.

Let us always remember that, nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ (Mark 7:15)

God bless!

_______________________________________________________

*Thanks for following the series on 2009 SONA. Until next time. God bless. The statements made above just came from a man’s perspective. Feel free to dispute it. Hehe.

Let me continue reviewing the 2009 SONA of PGMA. This time I’ll be discussing the bad things about her speech. Okay. Let’s not be harsh on her, so I’ll just limit it to some remarkable mistakes she made.

courtesy: www.aklanforum.blogspot.com

THE BAD

I don’t want to sound so critical of PGMA. But I just don’t want some of the things she did in her last SONA (hopefully). Here are some of them:

• BLIND ITEMS. Her last SONA is very controversial as expected. I just don’t get it why she needed to turn her last-chance-to-get-sympathy speech into a cheap showbiz guessing game. Stop these childish things. GMRC taught us not to get even with our enemies. That’s a basic moral rule. I think it’s unethical for her to do it and not just for her but for everyone.  According to Sen. Pia Cayetano, PGMA’s acts can be considered as unbecoming of a president. To think the subjects of her blind items are very obvious. It takes an idiot not to particularly identify them. If these would be the questions in a game show, many could’ve won the jackpot prize. I thought she could’ve shrug off her shoulders about those issues. But she chose to step down from her level as a barbaric fighter and not as a diplomatic peacemaker.  Here are some of them:

  “To those who want to be President, this advice: If you want something done, do it hard, do it well. Don’t pussyfoot. Just do it. Don’t say bad words in public.” (POSSIBLE ANSWER: Sen. Mar Roxas)

  “We can read their frustrations. They had the chance to serve this good country and they blew it by serving themselves. Those who live in glass houses should cast no stones. Those who should be in jail should not threaten it, especially if they have been there.” (POSSIBLE ANSWER: Former President Joseph “Erap” Estrada)

  “The noisiest critics of constitutional reform tirelessly and shamelessly attempted Cha-Cha when they thought they could take advantage of a shift in the form of government. Now that they feel they cannot benefit from it, they oppose it.” (POSSIBLE ANSWERS: Former President Fidel Ramos and/or  Ex-Speaker of the House Rep. Jose de Venecia)

  As the campaign unfolds and the candidates take to the airwaves, I ask them to talk more about how they will build up the nation rather than tear down their opponents. Our candidates must understand the complexities of our government and what it takes to move the country forward. Give the electorate real choices and not just sweet talk. (POSSIBLE ANSWERS Choose among the presidentiables. CLUE: They are all over the media.)

• NAME-DROPPING. Her speech could have been better without name-dropping a few people that’s obviously a part of her controlled specimen. It didn’t work for her the last time she made it, so why repeat it all over again. It’ll be non-sense because many already knew about the scheme. The point here is this: you need not to present evidence if you do not need to overthrow a presumption. It only means that she looked so defensive about her achievements every time she presents a product of it. I believe that her programs should not just be felt by a few, because they are not the only Filipinos in this country. I’d like to throw it back to her: “If you want something done, do it hard, do it well. Don’t pussyfoot. Just do it. Don’t say bad words in public.” (repeat until it sinks in)

• EXAGGERATION. It’s okay to tell her achievements especially the ones that were really achieved by her. But please enough with those exaggerated statements. The deaf/mute/blind sector is just a part of the minority in our country. So, do not expect that the majority will just accept those things that were mentioned. Tell it straight and be humble. Who knows, people might take pity on you and instead of putting you down, they might uplift you (like an underdog). Isn’t that what everybody wants?

• SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES.
  • How many times have I heard the sentence, “Thank you, Congress.”? I don’t get it. Thankful for what?!
  • Another thing, she paused more often than what is permissible. It’s as if she’s waiting for the synchronized applause of the Congress. Then, what does she mean when she said, “I did not become President to be popular.”? Oh come on. Who will win the seat of presidency without being controversial or popular at the very least? With the 2004 Elections anomaly, ZTE-NBN controversy, Fertilizer scam and other issues connected to her and her family, who would’ve thought she didn’t want to become popular?
  • Of course, who would’ve missed her very strong yet vague statement about her political plan. She said, “At the end of this speech I shall step down from this stage, but not from the Presidency. My term does not end until next year.” She could’ve said, “Thank you and goodbye.” —that will give us much security.

• TOO MUCH STATISTICS. She has been very consistent with this. She loves to load her SONA with so many graphs and statistical information. Yes, we all know that she’s an economist. But the question is, are they true and relevant? How can we verify them? More importantly, are they felt by every Filipino or they’re just mere numbers and symbols? Does it translate to the reality or they’re merely academic / theoretical? Literacy rate in our country is still below average. So, she should not expect that an ordinary Juan dela Cruz would understand it. Masses wouldn’t care about it. The numbers should be perceived by all our senses and not just to satisfy the ego. They say those statistical data presented are just mere cover-ups of the disappointing reality behind it. Plus, she even didn’t bother to consider the language to use whether many Filipinos will understand her or not.

• REVENGEFUL STATEMENTS. Actually, if I have kids, I will not allow them to watch the SONA. Why? Because her speech is full of hatred, revenge, anger and bitterness. And it will not teach anything good to the young people. What would I tell them? To follow a leader who acts are unethical and not worth emulating? She even contradicted herself when she said, “…I ask them to talk more about how they will build up the nation rather than tear down their opponents.” But what she did was totally opposite of what she said. If ever, how will I explain it to my kids? That you should not walk the talk and instead talk the walk, much worst, talk and talk?! It would’ve been better if she just shrug off and ignored her critics and remain focused on finding ways for the betterment of our nation.

There are still so many bad things to talk about her speech but there’s nothing else left to do but to accept that it’s over. She had her opportunity to prove her detractors wrong but I think she blew it away by her closing act. I hope she could find a way for her vindication.

Anyway, nobody’s perfect. We should not be expecting her to be perfect, because we all too have our own share of mistakes as individuals and as citizens of this country. I remembered a verse in the Bible,

(John 8:7), “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

We should not just blame PGMA alone for all the mess our country is in right now. We are also part of making and maintaining that mess, one way or another. All we need to do is to be responsible in all our actions and decisions. I believe God has a great plan for our country. The Philippines is not only about PGMA. It’s all about us, Filipinos, individually, how we respond to every trial and opportunity that comes along our way and how we hold on to God and trust in Him.

Come 2010 hopefully, we’ll be given another chance to change the destiny of our country. I believe that God has been so merciful and gracious to us by giving us so many chances to redeem ourselves not only to the whole world but also to the next generations to come.

PGMA is only a part of our history. We are the ones who make it. We may never learn the easy way, yet God will always be there for us to guide and help us as we write our history for His glory.

There is still hope for the Philippines!

____________________________________________________________

*Watch out for the last part of 2009 SONA Review: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (Part Three)

Yesterday, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo gave her valedictory speech. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to watch it because 700 Club Asia had their shooting in our house and I had to avail my help for them. Nonetheless the primetime news and late night news reported about it, so I had the chance to watch it. Also, thanks to YouTube for the uploaded videos. After watching, it left so many stirred up opinions and realizations in me. And that’s my purpose in writing this blog entry.

courtesy: facebook

THE GOOD

There’s not much good to say about this “last” SONA (hopefully) of PGMA. Everyone was just anticipating for PGMA to bid a sweet farewell from her position or at least to her political career. But many were left disappointed up to the last word of her speech. Well, I think the only significant good thing she said was her assurance that there will be elections in 2010. However, there’s no assurance if she will run again as President or as Congresswoman in her town, much worst, to be the first Prime Minister of our country. As she puts it,

“As the process of fundamental political reform begins, let us address the highest exercise of democracy…voting!”

In fairness to PGMA, though it is already expected that she’ll brag her so-called “achievements”, let me give her the credit for that. Here are her badges of honor, according to her:

• “Moody’s has just announced the upgrade of our credit rating, citing the resilience of our economy. The state of our nation is a strong economy. “ (PGMA, 2009) Well, I can’t reconcile the fact why most of the expert economists gave her a failing grade for her economic policies and strategies. Who’s telling the truth then?

• “New tax revenues were put in place to help pay for better healthcare, more roads, a strong education system. Housing policies were designed to lift up our poorest citizens so they can live and raise a family with dignity.” (PGMA, 2009) Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, that’s already given. But what happens if the government sucks the blood of its people and they’re left with no life? Is that fair? The government rapidly grows, while its people slowly die.

• “Ang ating mga puhunan sa agrikultura ay naglalayong kilalanin ang ating mga magsasaka bilang backbone ng ating bansa, at bigyan sila ng mga modernong kagamitan to feed our nation and feed their own family.” (PGMA, 2009) What do you call those barricades and rallies in front of Department of Agrarian Reform? What are they fighting for if they are being prioritized by our government?

• “The Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway is a prime example of building better roads. It creates wealth as the flagship of the Subic-Clark corridor.” (PGMA, 2009) But what happen to the South Luzon Expressway that has become a parking lot for many?

• “We have built airports of international standard, upgraded domestic airports, built seaports and the RORO system. I ask Congress for a Philippine Transport Security Authority Law.” (PGMA, 2009) Thanks to RORO. Boracay escapades can go as cheap as possible.

• “Sa telecommunications naman, inatasan ko ang Telecommunications Commission na kumilos na tungkol sa mga sumbong na dropped calls at mga nawawalang load sa cellphone. We need to amend the Commonwealth-era Public Service Law. And we need to do it now.” (PGMA, 2009) So does this mean goodbye to 2366 or 232 or 239 and the whole gang of unknown numbers? That’s good. I just wish that sending SMS would be free. Hehe.

• “Kung noong nakaraan, lumakas ang electronics, today we are creating wealth by developing the BPO and tourism sectors as additional engines of growth. Electronics and other manufactured exports rise and fall in accordance with the state of the world economy. But BPO remains resilient. With earnings of $6 billion and employment of 600,000, the BPO phenomenon speaks eloquently of our competitiveness and productivity. Let us have a Department of ICT.” (PGMA, 2009) Department of ICT? I wonder who will be the Secretary for that Department. So, may graveyard shift din sila?

• “In the last four years tourism almost doubled. It is now a $5 billion industry.” (PGMA, 2009) Wow! Thanks to Boracay, Bohol, MOA, etc. (MOA?! Hehe.)

• “Cash handouts give the most immediate relief and produce the widest stimulating effect. Nakikinabang ang 700,000 na pinakamahihirap na pamilya sa programang Pantawid Pamilya.” (PGMA, 2009) Ang tanong, may nakatawid nga ba? Baka lahat nahulog?

• “Sa pagpapamahagi ng milyun-milyong ektaryang lupa, 700,000 na katutubo at mahigit isang milyong benepisyaryo ng CARP ay taas-noong may-ari na ng sariling lupa. Hinihiling ko sa Kongreso na ipasa agad ang pagpapalawig ng CARP, at dapat ma-condone ang P42 billion na land reform liabilities dahil 18% lamang ang nabayaran mula 1972. Napapanahon dahil it will unfreeze the rural property market. Ang mahal kong ama ang nag-emancipate ng mga magsasaka. Ii-mancipate naman natin ngayon ang titulo.” (PGMA, 2009) No comment. I just don’t get it. I always get to see farmers rallying in front of DAR. Are they fighting for something or they just leased out the premises of the said Department?

• “Nakinabang ang pitong milyong entrepreneurs sa P165 billion na microfinance. Nakinabang ang 1,000 sa economic resiliency plan. Kasama natin ngayon ang isa sa kanila, si Gigi Gabiola. Dating household service worker sa Dubai, ngayon siya ay nagtatrabaho sa DOLE. Good luck, Gigi.” (PGMA, 2009) Really, good luck to Gigi!

• “Nakinabang ang isang milyong pamilya sa programang pabahay at palupa, mula sa PAG-IBIG, NHA, community mortgage program, certificates of lot awards, at saka yung inyong Loan Condonation and Restructuring Act.” (PGMA, 2009) Bakit ka pa magtitiis na umupa, kung pwedeng naming magkabahay ka? Thanks to Gawad Kalinga and Habitat for Humanity. That I’m sure of.

• “Dahil sa ating mga reporma, nakaya nating ibenta ang bigas NFA sa P18.25 per kilo kahit tumaas ang presyo sa labas mula P17.50 hanggang P30 dahil sa kakulangan ng supply sa mundo. Habang, sa unang pagkakataon, naitaas ang pamimili ng palay sa mga magsasaka, P17 mula sa P11.” (PGMA, 2009) Nothing significant. Still the same sugar-coated excuse.

• “Mula noong 2001, Nanawagan tayo ng mas murang gamot. Nagbebenta na tayo ng mga gamot na kalahating presyo sa libu-libong Botika ng Bayan at Botika ng Barangay sa maraming dako ng bansa. Our efforts prodded the pharmaceutical companies to come up with low-cost generics and brands like RiteMed. I supported the tough version of the House of the Cheaper Medicine Law.” (PGMA, 2009) That’s good. I just hope they’re not expired.

• “Sa health insurance, sakop na ang 86% ng ating populasyon.” (PGMA, 2009) But what happen to RH Bill? How about the population explosion?

• “Sa Rent Control Law ng 2005 hanggang 2008, hanggang sampung porsyento lang maaaring itaas taon-taon ang upa. Iyong kakapirma nating batas naglagay ng isang taong moratorium, tapos pitong porsyento lang ang maaaring itaas.” (PGMA, 2009) I hope this will be implemented without neglecting the rights of the losing party.

• “Noong isang taon, nabiyayaan ng tig-P500 ang mahigit pitong milyong tahanan bilang Katas ng Pantawid Koryente para sa mga small electricity users. Iyong power rates, ang EPIRA natin ang pangmatagalang sagot. EPIRA dismantled monopoly. But minana natin iyong power purchase agreements under preceding administrations, so hindi pa natin makuha iyong buong intended effect. Pero happy na rin tayo, dahil isang taon na lamang iyan. The next generation will benefit from low prices from our EPIRA.” (PGMA, 2009) This is very promising. It has been promised for a long time ago. I hope this will not just remain to be a promise forever.

• “We will work to increase tax effort through improved collections and new sin taxes to further our capacity to reduce poverty and pursue growth. Revenue enhancement must come from the Department of Finance plugging leaks and catching tax and customs cheats. I call on tax-paying citizens and tax-paying businesses: help the BIR and Customs spot those cheats.” (PGMA, 2009) How about spotting the cheaters in government? Possible?

• “Hindi ako nag-aatubiling bisitahin ang ating taong bayan at ang kanilang mga hosts sa buong mundo – mula Hapon…hanggang Brazil, mula Europa at Middle East hanggang sa American Midwest, nakikinig sa kanilang mga problema at pangangailangan, inaalam kung paano matulungan sila n gating pamahalaan—-by working out better policies on migrant labor, or by saving lives and restoring liberty.” (PGMA, 2009) So, why do we still have OFWs then if there’s enough job in our country?

I don’t want to flood you with more of lies este list of achievements of the Arroyo government. Most of them are motherhood statements that I have been hearing for the longest time in the history of Philippine Politics. So, it’ll better not to talk about them. CONGRATULATIONS to PGMA for those achievements! Kudos to the people behind her speech. She delivered it very well. One of the remarkable speeches I’ve ever heard, it’s very feisty. Whew! I almost forgot that I’m watching a SONA, I thought it was just a show of a kid whining. I just hope they can all be felt by everybody not just a chosen few.

Reality-check, that is.

In the end, talaga nga bang “ang saya-saya noh?!“

___________________________________________________________

*Watch out for 2009 SONA Review: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (Part Two)

This is a follow up to my latest article: EU, Israel and the Argument about Taxes on Home Carbonating Systems Produced in Ma’ale Adumim even though the case I am talking about today may on first sight not show any links to the EU tax case one. Yet, in the end the US Court of Appeals in Washington and the German tax court in Hamburg have to decide on the same question before they ever get down to the subject of the arguments pending. 

The Case of the US Court of Appeals:

A boy was born in 2002 in Jerusalem. His parents, an American couple living in Israel, applied for an American passport for their son. They stated as place of birth Jerusalem, Israel. However, in the passport the listing of Israel as state of birth was omitted. The parents filed a case on behalf of their son, demanding to name the state of Israel next to the city of Jerusalem in the passport. 

The decision of the US court of appeals:

On July 10, 2009 the case was dismissed. The court upheld a lower court’s decision that the courts lack jurisdiction in the matter. In a system of separation of powers and of checks and balances questions of foreign policy belong exclusively in the domain of the executive branch and not in a court room. And according the State Department, US passports for those born in Jerusalem do not list a country because doing so would interfere with and pre-judge Israeli – Palestinian negotiations and would therefore interfere with another state’s sovereignty. 

Background:

The status of Jerusalem in any final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is still highly disputed. The question is source of even more argument and emotions on both sides than the question of how to deal with the large Jewish settlements in Samaria and Judea/ the West Bank like Ma’ale Adumim. There it is most likely – and about the only working solution considering the number of people living in the large settlements – that in the framework of a land swap deal these few settlements will become integral part of the Israeli territory. 

Yet, just as the question of Jerusalem, the question of the settlements, all settlements is still a question of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Whether or not Jerusalem or any settlement belong to Israel or a future Palestinian state, will be divided, swapped, shared, internationalized or handled in any other way is a political question and only up to the Israeli government in Jerusalem and the Palestinians. These are questions to be dealt with in any other state by the executive branch and in their foreign policy departments but not in any EU or US American courtroom. 

By the way, I just checked and both my Israeli and my German passport state as my place of birth Berlin, Germany. But technically, this is not the truth as I was born in East-Berlin, capital of the former GDR. Though, the legality of the claim of the East Bloc of East Berlin as capital of East Germany was disputed by the western Allies as the entire city of Berlin was formally considered an occupied territory governed by martial law through the Allied Control Council. Well, some disputes are solved by time.