About a week ago, I saw my son, Daniel, in his computer viewing a 10-minute video that had been emailed to him by a classmate who had videotaped her friends for a class project. He was in the video, Litany of Love, reciting a rap poem that he had composed and committed to memory.
I watched it with him and was impressed with what I saw. I asked my son to email the video to me and when he did, I proudly posted it on my Facebook page. Friends who watched it eagerly asked me for a copy of his poem. When I asked Daniel, he said he didn’t have it in writing but it was in his head and he would type it out. On Christmas Day, I got my wish.
When I read his poem, I was impressed by my 21-year old son’s deep insight into life and love. It isn’t often that today’s young kids talk about love, certainly not in the same romantic way that my generation did. At least that’s what I thought until I read his poem.
One generational difference I noticed is that older generations often talked romantically of finding “the right partner” or what my son refers to in the poem as “the catch”. While Paul Newman once said that it is more important to be the right partner, Daniel tells us that there is no such thing as a perfect "match" for us -“we are all catches…because we are all patches for each other’s imperfections.”
May 2010 keep us all safe from typhoons flooding, volcanoes erupting, ferries sinking, journalists killing, terrorists bombing and elections cheating. Ok, I’m not a poet but my son surely is.
Love is the next truth
By Daniel Rodis
Prone to a lonely outlook
My seeking fingers would lose hope
In the cold of uncertainty
And that’s partially because I’d lost hold of a certain she
And it burned deep.
But luckily, tucked deep in the fold of what was hurting me
I found gold and it’s working, see
The unconscious chatter of society
Although marred by an overhyped notoriety
Is making the real, real quietly.
And though truly it might lie to me
The rising word is these five to be:
Love is the next truth.
And I am calm.
Faith in the inevitable beauty of the future is a place,
And I love through you.
True, she was a catch,
But the real catch is
That we are all catches
So it doesn’t matter who matches,
Because we are all patches
For each other’s imperfections.
And through our personal affections, and gravity
We’ll align and happily
We’ll combine for this simplest of lines…
Love is the next truth.
And let it be
Let it be meaning, submitting to our dreaming
And start being the living word.
Giving birth to word is born
And giving earth to a new world dawn
In a circle
And in our cycle, sometimes you gotta lose your first to get a real tooth
As if sadness must crack the embryonic youth
To open up
For universal love:
The next truth.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Telltale Signs: SC ASKED TO EXTEND VOTER REGISTRATION TO OVERSEAS PINOYS
Responding to a plea to extend the time to register to vote in the May 2010 elections, the Philippine Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on December 8, 2009 extending the voter registration period to January 9, 2010. Because the decision only covers voters in the Philippines, a petition to the Court to extend its ruling to cover overseas Filipinos will be filed this week.
Filipinos in the Philippines had until October 31, 2009 to register to vote in the May 8, 2010 elections while those outside the country were given only until August 31, 2009 to do so. The period of voter registration for the former lasted eleven (11) months starting on December 1, 2008 while those for the latter lasted only seven (7) months starting on February 1, 2009.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Palatino v. Comelec directed the Philippine Commission on Elections (Comelec) “to proceed with dispatch in reopening the registration of voters and hold the same until January 9, 2010.”
Citing Section 8 of the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996, the Court held that Congress determined that the period of 120 days before a regular election was enough time for Comelec to make all the necessary preparations with respect to the coming elections. According to petitioner Raymond Palatino, Comelec had “usurped the power of Congress to legislate” by deciding that it needed 69 days more than what Congress had determined.
The Supreme Court decision did not cover all voters because the Palatino petition only involved the registration of Philippine voters which is covered by one Republic Act, RA 8189 (The Voter Registration Act of 1996) while that of Filipinos abroad is governed by another, RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003).
Why did the Comelec set different expiration dates for the registration of voters in the Philippines and those abroad?
According to the Comelec, they were complying with Section 6 of RA 9189 which provides “that all applications for the May, 2004 elections shall be filed with the Commission not later than two hundred eighty (280) calendar days before the day of elections.” August 31, 2009 is exactly 280 calendar days before the May 2010 elections.
But the very next line of that sentence in Section 6 stated: “For succeeding elections, the Commission shall provide for the period within which applications to register must be filed.” The reference to the 280 calendar days only applied to the May 2004 elections and not to “succeeding elections”. The Comelec was not barred by RA 9189 from setting a different deadline.
In fact, Comelec had the power to allow for a shorter preparation period as the 120 day timeline mandated by Congress only applied to RA 8189, voters in the Philippines. More Comelec resources are required to register voters in the Philippines while minimal Comelec resources are needed to register overseas voters as that function has been handled by Philippine consular officials.
A local consul disclosed that the Comelec’s role in registering overseas voters was simply to provide the consulates with voters’ registration machines, which are all still in the consulates and have not been shipped back to the Comelec. It will not take much to get the machines back into operation, the consul said.
The Comelec had set a goal of registering one million new overseas voters but fell far short of it, as only 225,000 new voters registered.
The Comelec’s failure to meet its stated goal may be due in part to the limited registration period. Instead of beginning registration on December 1, 2008 as it did with Philippine voters, it delayed overseas registration to February 11, 2009.
The Comelec also did not allocate funds and resources to publicize the registration of overseas voters (like placing ads in Balitang America), leaving that responsibility entirely to local consuls to do what they could with their own limited resources.
A review of Comelec press releases showed one that related to overseas voters: on July 13, 2009, the Comelec declared its intention to “tap the Iglesia ni Cristo, the Jesus is Lord Church and the overseas Filipino workers’ (OFW) group Migrante International to help them in its campaign to increase the turn-out of overseas absentee voter (OAV) registrants.” That was it.
Why did the Comelec wait so long to do so little?
One clue to the answer is the identity of the “Comelec Commissioner-in-Charge for Overseas Absentee Voting (OAV)”. It is none other than Nicodemo Ferrer, the same Comelec commissioner who rejected the lesbian gay party-list group, Ang Ladlad, from party-list accreditation on “moral grounds” even quoting from an internet Christian website that described homosexuality as "unseemly" or "transgressive" to support his position.
When challenged about his religious views, Ferrer moved away from his “moral grounds” rationale to his unsupported claim that there there were already too many gays in Congress so there was no need to accredit a gay party-list group.
Nicodemo Ferrer is also the same Comelec commissioner who issued rulings to unseat three incumbent provincial governors – all members of the Liberal Party - Isabela Gov. Grace Padaca, Pampanga Gov. Ed Panlilio and Bulacan Gov. Joselito Mendoza - in favor of administration party challengers.
When the registration period for overseas Filipinos ended on August 31, Sen. Noynoy Aquino had not yet announced his candidacy as the Liberal Party presidential standard-bearer and many overseas Filipinos did not yet have a presidential candidate to support.
This week, lawyers for the newly-formed US Pinoys for Noynoy-Mar (noymar2010.com) will file a petition with the Comelec to extend the Palatino ruling to overseas Filipinos. Given Comelec Commissioner Nicodemo Ferrer’s track record, he will likely reject the petition, which will then be appealed to the Supreme Court.
This would not be the first time US Pinoys would go to the Supreme Court. In 2004, the Comelec issued a ruling that dual citizens were not eligible to vote in Philippine elections because they did not satisfy the residency requirement. Loida Nicolas Lewis, Greg Macanbenta, Alex Esclamado and other Filipino American leaders filed a petition with the Philippine Supreme Court to nullify the Comelec ruling.
On August 4, 2006, in the case Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec, the Supreme Court overturned the Comelec and allowed dual citizens the right to vote in Philippine elections stating that the essence of the dual citizenship law is to “enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos.”
In filing the petition with the Supreme Court to extend its Palatino ruling to overseas Filipinos, the Court will be reminded of its decision in Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec and in the principle that the right of suffrage which is a fundamental right in a democracy must be treated as a higher right than the power of the Comelec to regulate the conduct of elections.
Filipinos in the Philippines had until October 31, 2009 to register to vote in the May 8, 2010 elections while those outside the country were given only until August 31, 2009 to do so. The period of voter registration for the former lasted eleven (11) months starting on December 1, 2008 while those for the latter lasted only seven (7) months starting on February 1, 2009.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Palatino v. Comelec directed the Philippine Commission on Elections (Comelec) “to proceed with dispatch in reopening the registration of voters and hold the same until January 9, 2010.”
Citing Section 8 of the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996, the Court held that Congress determined that the period of 120 days before a regular election was enough time for Comelec to make all the necessary preparations with respect to the coming elections. According to petitioner Raymond Palatino, Comelec had “usurped the power of Congress to legislate” by deciding that it needed 69 days more than what Congress had determined.
The Supreme Court decision did not cover all voters because the Palatino petition only involved the registration of Philippine voters which is covered by one Republic Act, RA 8189 (The Voter Registration Act of 1996) while that of Filipinos abroad is governed by another, RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003).
Why did the Comelec set different expiration dates for the registration of voters in the Philippines and those abroad?
According to the Comelec, they were complying with Section 6 of RA 9189 which provides “that all applications for the May, 2004 elections shall be filed with the Commission not later than two hundred eighty (280) calendar days before the day of elections.” August 31, 2009 is exactly 280 calendar days before the May 2010 elections.
But the very next line of that sentence in Section 6 stated: “For succeeding elections, the Commission shall provide for the period within which applications to register must be filed.” The reference to the 280 calendar days only applied to the May 2004 elections and not to “succeeding elections”. The Comelec was not barred by RA 9189 from setting a different deadline.
In fact, Comelec had the power to allow for a shorter preparation period as the 120 day timeline mandated by Congress only applied to RA 8189, voters in the Philippines. More Comelec resources are required to register voters in the Philippines while minimal Comelec resources are needed to register overseas voters as that function has been handled by Philippine consular officials.
A local consul disclosed that the Comelec’s role in registering overseas voters was simply to provide the consulates with voters’ registration machines, which are all still in the consulates and have not been shipped back to the Comelec. It will not take much to get the machines back into operation, the consul said.
The Comelec had set a goal of registering one million new overseas voters but fell far short of it, as only 225,000 new voters registered.
The Comelec’s failure to meet its stated goal may be due in part to the limited registration period. Instead of beginning registration on December 1, 2008 as it did with Philippine voters, it delayed overseas registration to February 11, 2009.
The Comelec also did not allocate funds and resources to publicize the registration of overseas voters (like placing ads in Balitang America), leaving that responsibility entirely to local consuls to do what they could with their own limited resources.
A review of Comelec press releases showed one that related to overseas voters: on July 13, 2009, the Comelec declared its intention to “tap the Iglesia ni Cristo, the Jesus is Lord Church and the overseas Filipino workers’ (OFW) group Migrante International to help them in its campaign to increase the turn-out of overseas absentee voter (OAV) registrants.” That was it.
Why did the Comelec wait so long to do so little?
One clue to the answer is the identity of the “Comelec Commissioner-in-Charge for Overseas Absentee Voting (OAV)”. It is none other than Nicodemo Ferrer, the same Comelec commissioner who rejected the lesbian gay party-list group, Ang Ladlad, from party-list accreditation on “moral grounds” even quoting from an internet Christian website that described homosexuality as "unseemly" or "transgressive" to support his position.
When challenged about his religious views, Ferrer moved away from his “moral grounds” rationale to his unsupported claim that there there were already too many gays in Congress so there was no need to accredit a gay party-list group.
Nicodemo Ferrer is also the same Comelec commissioner who issued rulings to unseat three incumbent provincial governors – all members of the Liberal Party - Isabela Gov. Grace Padaca, Pampanga Gov. Ed Panlilio and Bulacan Gov. Joselito Mendoza - in favor of administration party challengers.
When the registration period for overseas Filipinos ended on August 31, Sen. Noynoy Aquino had not yet announced his candidacy as the Liberal Party presidential standard-bearer and many overseas Filipinos did not yet have a presidential candidate to support.
This week, lawyers for the newly-formed US Pinoys for Noynoy-Mar (noymar2010.com) will file a petition with the Comelec to extend the Palatino ruling to overseas Filipinos. Given Comelec Commissioner Nicodemo Ferrer’s track record, he will likely reject the petition, which will then be appealed to the Supreme Court.
This would not be the first time US Pinoys would go to the Supreme Court. In 2004, the Comelec issued a ruling that dual citizens were not eligible to vote in Philippine elections because they did not satisfy the residency requirement. Loida Nicolas Lewis, Greg Macanbenta, Alex Esclamado and other Filipino American leaders filed a petition with the Philippine Supreme Court to nullify the Comelec ruling.
On August 4, 2006, in the case Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec, the Supreme Court overturned the Comelec and allowed dual citizens the right to vote in Philippine elections stating that the essence of the dual citizenship law is to “enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos.”
In filing the petition with the Supreme Court to extend its Palatino ruling to overseas Filipinos, the Court will be reminded of its decision in Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec and in the principle that the right of suffrage which is a fundamental right in a democracy must be treated as a higher right than the power of the Comelec to regulate the conduct of elections.
Telltale Signs/ THE PRESIDENT’S AGUINALDO
Just exactly why did Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo file her Certificate of Candidacy to run for a congressional seat in her home province of Pampanga?
Her political opponents and press pundits speculate that she did so as a first step to seek and win the post of Speaker of the next Congress, a position from which she can then move to change the constitution to a parliamentary form where she can then become Prime Minister. Others argue that stepping down to a congressional seat was simply a clever means for her to avoid future prosecution by securing parliamentary immunity.
The first claim never did make much sense. If Pres. Arroyo couldn’t secure a change to a parliamentary form of government (with con-ass and cha-cha) when she had all the vast powers of the presidency at her command and all the funding means at her disposal (pork barrel allocations, fertilizer funds), I just do not see how she can get it done as just one of 250 members of the House.
But the second contention may actually have merit. Those who dismiss it argue that being a member of Congress did not save Rep. Romeo Jalosjos from imprisonment and it won’t save Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Jalosjos was elected to the Philippine Congress in May of 1995 to represent the First District of Zamboanga Del Norte. Jalosjos, previously married to the late movie actress Nida Blanca, was a family man with a dark secret: he was a pedophile. His secret was exposed in 1996 when 11-year old Rosilyn Delantar accused him of repeatedly raping her.
Jalosjos was arrested, charged with two counts of statutory rape, and convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Bilibid National Penitentiary. While his case was on appeal and while serving his sentence on a non-bailable offense, Jalosjos ran for reelection in 1998 and was resoundingly reelected.
Jalosjos then filed a motion for release with the Philippine Supreme Court asking the Court to allow him to “fully discharge the duties of a Congressman”.
The case presented the Supreme Court with the “first impression” issue of whether membership in Congress would “exempt an accused from statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons in general”.
Jalosjos argued that his reelection to his congressional seat was an “expression of popular will… which should not be rendered inutile by the police powers of the state” and that depriving his constituents of their elected representative would amount to “taxation without representation”.
The Supreme Court weighed the competing principles of election as the “expression of the sovereign power of the people” with the “incontestable proposition that all top officials of Government… are subject to the majesty of law.”
In the end, the Supreme Court unanimously denied the petition of Jalosjos but on the narrow “equal protection” ground that other “validly incarcerated persons” who are not elected officials would be treated differently and that would not be fair.
When GMA is elected to Congress in May of 2010 (she has no significant opponent) and corruption charges are filed against her, there may be moves to remove her from office while those charges are pending. (Given the slow snail pace of the legal process in the Philippines, it will take years before there would be a resolution of the charges against her.) Under the Jalosjos decision, unless and until GMA is actually incarcerated, she can not be removed from office.
But there is another ominous unanimous Supreme Court decision that GMA may rely on for the legal proposition that she cannot be removed from office for any acts she did as president prior to being elected to Congress. This is the Aguinaldo decision.
Along with Col. Rolando Abadilla, Col. Rodolfo Aguinaldo was among the worst violators of human rights during the Marcos dictatorship. But of course Aguinaldo was never charged for the murder and torture of his many countless victims. After the fall of Marcos, Aguinaldo joined the RAM renegade forces of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Gringo Honasan and attempted to topple the government of Pres. Cory Aquino in 1989 (after six previous failed attempts).
Prio to his involvement in the coup attempt, Aguinaldo ran for governor of Cagayan province in January of 1988. In a New York Times article about his candidacy that was published just before the elections (“Renegade Officer Seeks Philippine Governorship” January 18, 1988), Aguinaldo told the Times reporter what he would do to anyone who tries to disarm his 1,400 renegade troops:
''They just start trying to disarm my men and I hit their houses and I wipe them out. At a given signal, we chop off the heads of anybody who is foolish. We will send them straight to hell, from the grandfather to the grandson.''
Needless to say, no one disarmed Aguinaldo’s men and he was easily elected to a 4-year term as governor.
Because of his active involvement in the December 1989 coup attempt, Aquino’s brave Secretary of Local Government Luis Santos issued an order removing Aguinaldo from his post as Cagayan governor. Aguinaldo appealed the ruling and while the appeal was pending, he ran for reelection in May of 1992 and easily won again. He then filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him on the basis of his reelection.
In August of 1992, in the case of Aguinaldo v. Santos, the Philippine Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Aguinaldo stating that:
“The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When a people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with the knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the Court, by reason of such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people.”
Her political opponents and press pundits speculate that she did so as a first step to seek and win the post of Speaker of the next Congress, a position from which she can then move to change the constitution to a parliamentary form where she can then become Prime Minister. Others argue that stepping down to a congressional seat was simply a clever means for her to avoid future prosecution by securing parliamentary immunity.
The first claim never did make much sense. If Pres. Arroyo couldn’t secure a change to a parliamentary form of government (with con-ass and cha-cha) when she had all the vast powers of the presidency at her command and all the funding means at her disposal (pork barrel allocations, fertilizer funds), I just do not see how she can get it done as just one of 250 members of the House.
But the second contention may actually have merit. Those who dismiss it argue that being a member of Congress did not save Rep. Romeo Jalosjos from imprisonment and it won’t save Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Jalosjos was elected to the Philippine Congress in May of 1995 to represent the First District of Zamboanga Del Norte. Jalosjos, previously married to the late movie actress Nida Blanca, was a family man with a dark secret: he was a pedophile. His secret was exposed in 1996 when 11-year old Rosilyn Delantar accused him of repeatedly raping her.
Jalosjos was arrested, charged with two counts of statutory rape, and convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Bilibid National Penitentiary. While his case was on appeal and while serving his sentence on a non-bailable offense, Jalosjos ran for reelection in 1998 and was resoundingly reelected.
Jalosjos then filed a motion for release with the Philippine Supreme Court asking the Court to allow him to “fully discharge the duties of a Congressman”.
The case presented the Supreme Court with the “first impression” issue of whether membership in Congress would “exempt an accused from statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons in general”.
Jalosjos argued that his reelection to his congressional seat was an “expression of popular will… which should not be rendered inutile by the police powers of the state” and that depriving his constituents of their elected representative would amount to “taxation without representation”.
The Supreme Court weighed the competing principles of election as the “expression of the sovereign power of the people” with the “incontestable proposition that all top officials of Government… are subject to the majesty of law.”
In the end, the Supreme Court unanimously denied the petition of Jalosjos but on the narrow “equal protection” ground that other “validly incarcerated persons” who are not elected officials would be treated differently and that would not be fair.
When GMA is elected to Congress in May of 2010 (she has no significant opponent) and corruption charges are filed against her, there may be moves to remove her from office while those charges are pending. (Given the slow snail pace of the legal process in the Philippines, it will take years before there would be a resolution of the charges against her.) Under the Jalosjos decision, unless and until GMA is actually incarcerated, she can not be removed from office.
But there is another ominous unanimous Supreme Court decision that GMA may rely on for the legal proposition that she cannot be removed from office for any acts she did as president prior to being elected to Congress. This is the Aguinaldo decision.
Along with Col. Rolando Abadilla, Col. Rodolfo Aguinaldo was among the worst violators of human rights during the Marcos dictatorship. But of course Aguinaldo was never charged for the murder and torture of his many countless victims. After the fall of Marcos, Aguinaldo joined the RAM renegade forces of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Gringo Honasan and attempted to topple the government of Pres. Cory Aquino in 1989 (after six previous failed attempts).
Prio to his involvement in the coup attempt, Aguinaldo ran for governor of Cagayan province in January of 1988. In a New York Times article about his candidacy that was published just before the elections (“Renegade Officer Seeks Philippine Governorship” January 18, 1988), Aguinaldo told the Times reporter what he would do to anyone who tries to disarm his 1,400 renegade troops:
''They just start trying to disarm my men and I hit their houses and I wipe them out. At a given signal, we chop off the heads of anybody who is foolish. We will send them straight to hell, from the grandfather to the grandson.''
Needless to say, no one disarmed Aguinaldo’s men and he was easily elected to a 4-year term as governor.
Because of his active involvement in the December 1989 coup attempt, Aquino’s brave Secretary of Local Government Luis Santos issued an order removing Aguinaldo from his post as Cagayan governor. Aguinaldo appealed the ruling and while the appeal was pending, he ran for reelection in May of 1992 and easily won again. He then filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him on the basis of his reelection.
In August of 1992, in the case of Aguinaldo v. Santos, the Philippine Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Aguinaldo stating that:
“The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When a people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with the knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the Court, by reason of such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people.”
Telltale Signs/THE PHILIPPINE CULTURE OF IMPUNITY
In the weeks following the Ampatuan Massacre, I scoured through hundreds of news articles and opinion columns about the barbaric slaughter of 61 innocent people, including 31 working journalists. I also saw posted on the Internet gruesome close-up photos of the mangled, brutalized bodies of the victims, images which still haunt me.
One columnist, Jose Ma. Montelibano, wrote that he was “crushed by the Maguinadano massacre and the congressional run of a sitting president". I emailed him and asked him how he could possibly compare the two events and place them both on the same scale. I told him it diminished and trivialized the most brazen, barbaric act in recent memory to include it in the same sentence with the latest political ploy of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) to remain in power.
In response, Montelibano wrote that he agreed “the barbarism of the Maguindanao massacre is a class of its own in the history of brutality in the Philippines.” But, he insisted, “the barbarism happened because the barbarians were encouraged by their unholy alliance with Gloria that anything goes for as long as they do their part in keeping Gloria in power. The arms that have been discovered so far around the barbarians' complex also came from the AFP and DND as well as from other sources. The unholy alliance gave not only a signal of encouragement but arms to affirm support beyond the law.”
“The lust for power is the cause for barbarism with impunity and official power,” he wrote. “Such brazenness would not have been possible without presidential support, even presidential initiatives asking the barbarians to do everything possible to ensure political victory and control.”
I understood his point but I also expressed my view that the issue went beyond GMA and that even if Fernando Poe. Jr. had been president in November of 2009, the Ampatuans would still have been the warlords of Maguindanao and the ARRM and this same massacre would have likely still occurred. The cancer of feudal warlordism is more deep-seated and existed before GMA became president and will continue no matter who is elected president in May 2010.
I would also add that it is not only the “lust for power” that causes barbarians to act with impunity, it is also the fact that in the history of the Philippines, people in power and even those out of power enjoy de facto immunity from prosecution. Unlike South Korea, Taiwan and Peru where former presidents were arrested, charged, imprisoned and convicted for corruption, that has not been the case in the Philippines.
The closest we ever came to such justice was when Erap Estrada was charged and convicted of plunder. But before he could even spend a day in the Bilibid prison, he was quickly pardoned by his successor GMA. It is understandable that GMA did not want to create a bad precedent for former presidents.
In May of 1970, a young warlord from Vigan, Ilocos Sur by the name of Vincent “Bingbong” Crisologo, the son of Gov. Carmeling Crisologo and Rep. Floro Crisologo, brought his private army to descend on two hapless towns whose people did not vote for his mother. The Bantay, Ilocos Sur towns of Ora Centro and Ora Este were razed to the ground and many villagers slaughtered to teach the people of Ilocos Sur a lesson similar to the lesson that another young warlord, Andal Ampatuan Jr., wanted the people of Maguindanao to learn. Don’t mess with the Crisologos then, don’t mess with the Ampatuans now.
Bingbong was arrested and charged with the pillaging of the towns and the murders of innocent civilians. He was convicted and sentenced to two life terms. While he was serving his sentence, however, Bingbong became a “born again Christian” and was pardoned. He is now in the Batasan serving as a congressman for Quezon City.
Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos committed countless crimes during their 20 years in power, including 14 years as conjugal dictators, ordering the tortures and executions (“salvaging”) of their political opponents and the theft of billions of dollars of the people’s treasury. But they never spent a single day in jail for their crimes.
Imelda even got the Philippine Supreme Court recently to order the return to her of the $650-M in jewelry that she stole fair and square. Imelda is now running for the Ilocos Norte congressional seat being vacated by her son, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr., who is running for the Philippine Senate under the presidential banner of Erap Estrada.
During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, hundreds of thousands of Filipinos were tortured and killed by the Japanese imperial forces aided and abetted by their Filipino collaborators led by Jose B. Laurel, president of the puppet republic. Laurel’s sons even went to Japan to study and they ate the finest food in Malacanang while the people suffered. When the American forces returned to reclaim the Philippines as an American commonwealth, the Japanese command flew Laurel and his family to Japan fearing American retribution against them for their collaboration.
Laurel was arrested by US authorities in Japan and extradited to the Philippines to stand trial for treason. But Laurel was never tried. Manuel Roxas, who was himself a member of Laurel’s puppet government, was elected president in 1946 and he immediately proclaimed an amnesty for all political prisoners including Laurel.
I believe Imelda Marcos ordered the assasination of Ninoy Aquino and Erap “Bigote” Estrada similarly ordered the executions of Bubby Dacer and Edgardo Bentain. But they will never be charged with those capital offenses because nobody ever really pays for their crimes in the Philippines.
That is the nature of our damaged culture that allows warlords and ambitious ruthless politicians to commit crimes against the people with impunity fully confident that if they're ever caught, they can always be pardoned.
The murderous jackal, Andal Ampatuan Jr., may take comfort in this sorry history of impunity. After all is said and done, like Bingbong and Bongbong, he may yet serve as a future congressman.
One columnist, Jose Ma. Montelibano, wrote that he was “crushed by the Maguinadano massacre and the congressional run of a sitting president". I emailed him and asked him how he could possibly compare the two events and place them both on the same scale. I told him it diminished and trivialized the most brazen, barbaric act in recent memory to include it in the same sentence with the latest political ploy of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) to remain in power.
In response, Montelibano wrote that he agreed “the barbarism of the Maguindanao massacre is a class of its own in the history of brutality in the Philippines.” But, he insisted, “the barbarism happened because the barbarians were encouraged by their unholy alliance with Gloria that anything goes for as long as they do their part in keeping Gloria in power. The arms that have been discovered so far around the barbarians' complex also came from the AFP and DND as well as from other sources. The unholy alliance gave not only a signal of encouragement but arms to affirm support beyond the law.”
“The lust for power is the cause for barbarism with impunity and official power,” he wrote. “Such brazenness would not have been possible without presidential support, even presidential initiatives asking the barbarians to do everything possible to ensure political victory and control.”
I understood his point but I also expressed my view that the issue went beyond GMA and that even if Fernando Poe. Jr. had been president in November of 2009, the Ampatuans would still have been the warlords of Maguindanao and the ARRM and this same massacre would have likely still occurred. The cancer of feudal warlordism is more deep-seated and existed before GMA became president and will continue no matter who is elected president in May 2010.
I would also add that it is not only the “lust for power” that causes barbarians to act with impunity, it is also the fact that in the history of the Philippines, people in power and even those out of power enjoy de facto immunity from prosecution. Unlike South Korea, Taiwan and Peru where former presidents were arrested, charged, imprisoned and convicted for corruption, that has not been the case in the Philippines.
The closest we ever came to such justice was when Erap Estrada was charged and convicted of plunder. But before he could even spend a day in the Bilibid prison, he was quickly pardoned by his successor GMA. It is understandable that GMA did not want to create a bad precedent for former presidents.
In May of 1970, a young warlord from Vigan, Ilocos Sur by the name of Vincent “Bingbong” Crisologo, the son of Gov. Carmeling Crisologo and Rep. Floro Crisologo, brought his private army to descend on two hapless towns whose people did not vote for his mother. The Bantay, Ilocos Sur towns of Ora Centro and Ora Este were razed to the ground and many villagers slaughtered to teach the people of Ilocos Sur a lesson similar to the lesson that another young warlord, Andal Ampatuan Jr., wanted the people of Maguindanao to learn. Don’t mess with the Crisologos then, don’t mess with the Ampatuans now.
Bingbong was arrested and charged with the pillaging of the towns and the murders of innocent civilians. He was convicted and sentenced to two life terms. While he was serving his sentence, however, Bingbong became a “born again Christian” and was pardoned. He is now in the Batasan serving as a congressman for Quezon City.
Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos committed countless crimes during their 20 years in power, including 14 years as conjugal dictators, ordering the tortures and executions (“salvaging”) of their political opponents and the theft of billions of dollars of the people’s treasury. But they never spent a single day in jail for their crimes.
Imelda even got the Philippine Supreme Court recently to order the return to her of the $650-M in jewelry that she stole fair and square. Imelda is now running for the Ilocos Norte congressional seat being vacated by her son, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr., who is running for the Philippine Senate under the presidential banner of Erap Estrada.
During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, hundreds of thousands of Filipinos were tortured and killed by the Japanese imperial forces aided and abetted by their Filipino collaborators led by Jose B. Laurel, president of the puppet republic. Laurel’s sons even went to Japan to study and they ate the finest food in Malacanang while the people suffered. When the American forces returned to reclaim the Philippines as an American commonwealth, the Japanese command flew Laurel and his family to Japan fearing American retribution against them for their collaboration.
Laurel was arrested by US authorities in Japan and extradited to the Philippines to stand trial for treason. But Laurel was never tried. Manuel Roxas, who was himself a member of Laurel’s puppet government, was elected president in 1946 and he immediately proclaimed an amnesty for all political prisoners including Laurel.
I believe Imelda Marcos ordered the assasination of Ninoy Aquino and Erap “Bigote” Estrada similarly ordered the executions of Bubby Dacer and Edgardo Bentain. But they will never be charged with those capital offenses because nobody ever really pays for their crimes in the Philippines.
That is the nature of our damaged culture that allows warlords and ambitious ruthless politicians to commit crimes against the people with impunity fully confident that if they're ever caught, they can always be pardoned.
The murderous jackal, Andal Ampatuan Jr., may take comfort in this sorry history of impunity. After all is said and done, like Bingbong and Bongbong, he may yet serve as a future congressman.
Telltale Signs/ HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERS IN COURT RULING
For millions of Americans, including many tens of thousands of Filipino-Americans, who are struggling mightily to pay their bank mortgages and stay “above water” to avoid bank foreclosures, a recent decision by a New York judge may offer much-needed relief.
On November 19, 2009, New York Judge Jeffrey Arlen Spinner issued a decision canceling the $527,437 mortgage of a Long Island couple whose bank refused to negotiate a modification of their mortgage loan that would have allowed them to keep their home. In his decision, the judge criticized the bank’s "unconscionable" lack of good will in refusing to help the couple avoid foreclosure.
The couple, Diana Yano-Horoski and Greg Horoski, originally secured a $292,500 loan in 2004 with an adjustable-rate mortgage at 5 percent that ballooned to anywhere from 10 percent to 13 percent in the four years that followed. They had originally obtained their mortgage loan from Deutsche Bank which was serviced by IndyMac, until it collapsed with the mortgage crisis and was bought by a group of billionaire investors who renamed the California bank as OneWest Bank.
When the Horoskis fell behind in their mortgage payments, OneWest Bank immediately filed a complaint to foreclose on the property. A judgment of foreclosure and sale was granted on January 12, 2009.
In accordance with New York law, if the loan is deemed to be “sub-prime” or “high cost” in nature, the defendant homeowners can request the court to convene a settlement conference, which the Horoskis asked for. Their plea was granted and a settlement conference was set for February 24, 2009. Because the bank refused to attend the settlement conference, it was postponed on five separate occasions.
As a result of the bank’s “intransigence in its continuing failure and refusal to cooperate, both with the Court and with the Defendants’ multiple and reasonable requests,” the judge ordered the bank to produce an officer of the bank to attend the sixth scheduled settlement conference on September 22, 2009.
OneWest Bank assigned its loss mitigation manager, Karen Dickinson, to attend the hearing but, at the hearing, she refused to even consider the offer by the Horoskis’ daughter, who lived with them, to buy back the home at fair market value or to help finance a modification with income from her job.
At the hearing, according to the judge, Dickinson made it “celeritously” clear that the bank "had no good faith intention whatsoever of resolving this matter in any manner other than a complete and forcible devolution of title from the Defendants”. In other words, it was the bank’s way or the highway.
The judge found the bank’s attitude “deeply troubling” especially since the county’s courts had been successful in securing loan modifications from banks which had issued sub-prime loans in cases where the lenders relied on “the income of non-obligors who reside in the premises under foreclosure”.
At a final hearing on November 18, 2009, the judge asked the plaintiff for the amount it claimed as the principal balance. Ms. Dickinson informed the court that as of September 22, 2009, it was $527,437.73. But the Horoskis produced two letters from the bank stating that the principal balance they owed as of February 9, 2009 was $285,381.70 and $283,992.48 as of August 10, 2009.
After the hearing, the judge reviewed the documents and issued a ruling the following day declaring that it is the court’s obligation to determine issues regarding credibility. Citing the Latin principle “Falsus in uno, falsus in omni” (“false in one, false in all”), the judge wrote that “the Court has been unable to find even so much as a scintilla of good faith on the part of the Plaintiff.”
“Plaintiff comes before this Court with unclean hands yet has the temerity to demand equitable relief against the Defendant.”
The judge noted “as a relevant aside” the “greater social problem…of housing those persons whose homes are foreclosed and are thereafter dispossessed. It is certainly no secret that Suffolk County is in the yawning abyss of a deep mortgage and housing crisis with foreclosure filings at a record high rate and a corresponding paucity of emergency housing.”
If the bank would only be reasonable and work with the Horoskis on a reasonable settlement, then, according to the judge, the Horoskis would “continue to maintain the property’s physical plant, pay taxes thereon, and the property would retain or perhaps increase its market value….(the bank) would receive a regular income stream…without sustaining a loss of several hundred thousand dollars. In addition, no neighborhood blight would occur from the boarding of the property after foreclosure which would, in turn, avert problems of litter, dumping, vagrancy and vandalism as well as a corresponding decline in the property values in the immediate area.”
It could have been a “win-win” for all the parties, the judge opined.
After “careful consideration”, the judge then ruled that the indebtedness of the Horoskis to plaintiff OneWest Bank shall be “canceled, voided and set aside…to decree anything less than the foregoing would be for the Court to be wholly derelict in the performance of its obligations.”
"I was just actually surprised and elated that a judge finally came down on the banks who have been extremely uncooperative in negotiating equitable settlements with borrowers," said lawyer Anthony Michael Camisa about the ruling.
In a written statement, the bank said it would appeal. “We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented ruling. The law does not authorize a judge to cancel a borrower's loan obligation because he did not like the way loan modification discussions were handled."
The appeal process may likely take years. But until it is reversed, homeowners in situations similar to that of the Horoskis may take a similar course of action and just hope that they find a similarly thoughtful judge.
(Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800
On November 19, 2009, New York Judge Jeffrey Arlen Spinner issued a decision canceling the $527,437 mortgage of a Long Island couple whose bank refused to negotiate a modification of their mortgage loan that would have allowed them to keep their home. In his decision, the judge criticized the bank’s "unconscionable" lack of good will in refusing to help the couple avoid foreclosure.
The couple, Diana Yano-Horoski and Greg Horoski, originally secured a $292,500 loan in 2004 with an adjustable-rate mortgage at 5 percent that ballooned to anywhere from 10 percent to 13 percent in the four years that followed. They had originally obtained their mortgage loan from Deutsche Bank which was serviced by IndyMac, until it collapsed with the mortgage crisis and was bought by a group of billionaire investors who renamed the California bank as OneWest Bank.
When the Horoskis fell behind in their mortgage payments, OneWest Bank immediately filed a complaint to foreclose on the property. A judgment of foreclosure and sale was granted on January 12, 2009.
In accordance with New York law, if the loan is deemed to be “sub-prime” or “high cost” in nature, the defendant homeowners can request the court to convene a settlement conference, which the Horoskis asked for. Their plea was granted and a settlement conference was set for February 24, 2009. Because the bank refused to attend the settlement conference, it was postponed on five separate occasions.
As a result of the bank’s “intransigence in its continuing failure and refusal to cooperate, both with the Court and with the Defendants’ multiple and reasonable requests,” the judge ordered the bank to produce an officer of the bank to attend the sixth scheduled settlement conference on September 22, 2009.
OneWest Bank assigned its loss mitigation manager, Karen Dickinson, to attend the hearing but, at the hearing, she refused to even consider the offer by the Horoskis’ daughter, who lived with them, to buy back the home at fair market value or to help finance a modification with income from her job.
At the hearing, according to the judge, Dickinson made it “celeritously” clear that the bank "had no good faith intention whatsoever of resolving this matter in any manner other than a complete and forcible devolution of title from the Defendants”. In other words, it was the bank’s way or the highway.
The judge found the bank’s attitude “deeply troubling” especially since the county’s courts had been successful in securing loan modifications from banks which had issued sub-prime loans in cases where the lenders relied on “the income of non-obligors who reside in the premises under foreclosure”.
At a final hearing on November 18, 2009, the judge asked the plaintiff for the amount it claimed as the principal balance. Ms. Dickinson informed the court that as of September 22, 2009, it was $527,437.73. But the Horoskis produced two letters from the bank stating that the principal balance they owed as of February 9, 2009 was $285,381.70 and $283,992.48 as of August 10, 2009.
After the hearing, the judge reviewed the documents and issued a ruling the following day declaring that it is the court’s obligation to determine issues regarding credibility. Citing the Latin principle “Falsus in uno, falsus in omni” (“false in one, false in all”), the judge wrote that “the Court has been unable to find even so much as a scintilla of good faith on the part of the Plaintiff.”
“Plaintiff comes before this Court with unclean hands yet has the temerity to demand equitable relief against the Defendant.”
The judge noted “as a relevant aside” the “greater social problem…of housing those persons whose homes are foreclosed and are thereafter dispossessed. It is certainly no secret that Suffolk County is in the yawning abyss of a deep mortgage and housing crisis with foreclosure filings at a record high rate and a corresponding paucity of emergency housing.”
If the bank would only be reasonable and work with the Horoskis on a reasonable settlement, then, according to the judge, the Horoskis would “continue to maintain the property’s physical plant, pay taxes thereon, and the property would retain or perhaps increase its market value….(the bank) would receive a regular income stream…without sustaining a loss of several hundred thousand dollars. In addition, no neighborhood blight would occur from the boarding of the property after foreclosure which would, in turn, avert problems of litter, dumping, vagrancy and vandalism as well as a corresponding decline in the property values in the immediate area.”
It could have been a “win-win” for all the parties, the judge opined.
After “careful consideration”, the judge then ruled that the indebtedness of the Horoskis to plaintiff OneWest Bank shall be “canceled, voided and set aside…to decree anything less than the foregoing would be for the Court to be wholly derelict in the performance of its obligations.”
"I was just actually surprised and elated that a judge finally came down on the banks who have been extremely uncooperative in negotiating equitable settlements with borrowers," said lawyer Anthony Michael Camisa about the ruling.
In a written statement, the bank said it would appeal. “We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented ruling. The law does not authorize a judge to cancel a borrower's loan obligation because he did not like the way loan modification discussions were handled."
The appeal process may likely take years. But until it is reversed, homeowners in situations similar to that of the Horoskis may take a similar course of action and just hope that they find a similarly thoughtful judge.
(Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Pacman Cometh
In his prize-winning play, The Iceman Cometh, Eugene O’Neill presents a drama about the human need for hope and illusion as a response to the conditions of despair. If ever the Filipino people needed a distraction from the wearying conditions of despair that surround them, now is the time and Manny “the Pacman” Pacquiao is the man to provide the hope and illusion. He is our Iceman.
With his spectacular victory over Miguel Cotto on November 14, Pacquiao has won an unprecedented 7titles in 7 weight class divisions. No one is ever likely to challenge that historic accomplishment - to go from a 112 pound flyweight prince to a 145 pound welterweight king in 10 years. Remarkably, it would have been 8 titles if he had won the light flyweight championship at 106 pounds when he started his fighting career.
With an electrifying performance which made believers out of even the most cynical of doubters, Pacquiao has cemented his claim as the best pound-for-pound boxer of our time. Whether or not his fight with Floyd Mayweather, Jr. materializes is immaterial to the claim because Mayweather has made a habit of avoiding the best boxers while they were at their prime (Margarito, Cotto, Mosley, to name a few). But not Pacquiao “the Mexecutioner”.
Pacquiao has also achieved the unimaginable for a Filipino. He is now up there in that rarefied territory of elite athletes who made history, achieved global fame, and transcended their respective sports. Think Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, David Beckham, and Michael Phelps. His promoter, Bob Arum, though often given to hyperbole, was really not exaggerating when he said Pacquiao is the best boxer of all time, better than Mohammad Ali.
Even before the Cotto fight, commercial interests were already voting with their dollars and lining up behind Arum’s post-fight statement. Nike’s famous swoosh was ubiquitous with special Pacquiao shoes selling briskly for $135 on retail and $500 on EBay. Even reputable publications like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times featured articles about the Pacman. Time kicked it up a notch and put him on the cover of Time Asia.
But Pacquiao achieved something else very noteworthy: He has made his very ethnic, very indio-like, brown Filipino face – with no trace of any Mestizo-ness whatsoever – seem “cool” and attractive to Filipinos. Consider all the TV and movie stars of the Philippines today, virtually all of whom showcase light European features. But now they all bow to the brown king Pacman.
Pacquiao’s appeal has crossed over to mainstream America. His easy smile with eyes that light up, the religiosity in his pre-fight motions, the charming grace under pressure, the humility in his words, have made Americans who have seen him on TV overlook his heavily accented and grammatically- challenged English. By all indications, the American public has been smitten with him as his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live showed.
In the process, Pacquiao has instilled national pride among Filipinos who, at the same time, are also finding out on their own that with talent and tenacity, success is possible even with an ethnic face and an accented English. This pride is evident in shirts and jackets and accessories all proudly sporting Pacquiao’s image and Team Pacquiao logos. It is evident in water-cooler conversations all across America – with Filipinos talking of their sense of affinity and similarities of provenance with The Filipino People’s Champ.
How did this poor boy from the poverty-stricken streets of General Santos City in the island of Mindanao get to this point? For sure, he could not have done it in sports like golf or tennis for, although they too are individual sports, the monetary costs of achieving competence in those fields are prohibitive. He certainly could not have achieved it in the sport he loves, basketball, where height is a major factor in success.
Truth be told, savage and primitive though it may appear to some, boxing is probably the most democratic and most meritocratic of all sports. It is “cheap”: poor kids dabbling in it just borrow gloves from each other and practice on their own without the need for any real expense. It is also capable of instant feedback: you get your butt kicked if you can’t hack it, and if you’re not willing to give it your all, you’re better off dabbling in something else before you get into real physical trouble.
For all the good things Pacquiao brings to the country, there is a dark side. In a country of 90-million plus, an overwhelming percentage of which is comprised of poor impressionable kids all dreaming of becoming the next Pacquiao, makeshift boxing gyms and unregulated boxing matches supposedly feeding into the hopes of these poor boys are on the rise all over the land. Most of the Pacquiao wannabes will discover, soon enough, that studying real science subjects in school is a lot easier than learning the “sweet science” of boxing.
In The Iceman Cometh, broken men with hopeful dreams await the arrival of the big-spending Iceman, Theodore Hickman. When he arrives, he encourages his cronies to pursue their ambitions, believing that only failure will make them face reality. “To hell with the truth! As the history of the world proves, the truth has no bearing on anything…The lie of a pipe dream is what gives life to the whole misbegotten mad lot of us, drunk or sober,” he says.
Let's ride this pipe dream as long as we can. All hail King Pacman!
With his spectacular victory over Miguel Cotto on November 14, Pacquiao has won an unprecedented 7titles in 7 weight class divisions. No one is ever likely to challenge that historic accomplishment - to go from a 112 pound flyweight prince to a 145 pound welterweight king in 10 years. Remarkably, it would have been 8 titles if he had won the light flyweight championship at 106 pounds when he started his fighting career.
With an electrifying performance which made believers out of even the most cynical of doubters, Pacquiao has cemented his claim as the best pound-for-pound boxer of our time. Whether or not his fight with Floyd Mayweather, Jr. materializes is immaterial to the claim because Mayweather has made a habit of avoiding the best boxers while they were at their prime (Margarito, Cotto, Mosley, to name a few). But not Pacquiao “the Mexecutioner”.
Pacquiao has also achieved the unimaginable for a Filipino. He is now up there in that rarefied territory of elite athletes who made history, achieved global fame, and transcended their respective sports. Think Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, David Beckham, and Michael Phelps. His promoter, Bob Arum, though often given to hyperbole, was really not exaggerating when he said Pacquiao is the best boxer of all time, better than Mohammad Ali.
Even before the Cotto fight, commercial interests were already voting with their dollars and lining up behind Arum’s post-fight statement. Nike’s famous swoosh was ubiquitous with special Pacquiao shoes selling briskly for $135 on retail and $500 on EBay. Even reputable publications like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times featured articles about the Pacman. Time kicked it up a notch and put him on the cover of Time Asia.
But Pacquiao achieved something else very noteworthy: He has made his very ethnic, very indio-like, brown Filipino face – with no trace of any Mestizo-ness whatsoever – seem “cool” and attractive to Filipinos. Consider all the TV and movie stars of the Philippines today, virtually all of whom showcase light European features. But now they all bow to the brown king Pacman.
Pacquiao’s appeal has crossed over to mainstream America. His easy smile with eyes that light up, the religiosity in his pre-fight motions, the charming grace under pressure, the humility in his words, have made Americans who have seen him on TV overlook his heavily accented and grammatically- challenged English. By all indications, the American public has been smitten with him as his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live showed.
In the process, Pacquiao has instilled national pride among Filipinos who, at the same time, are also finding out on their own that with talent and tenacity, success is possible even with an ethnic face and an accented English. This pride is evident in shirts and jackets and accessories all proudly sporting Pacquiao’s image and Team Pacquiao logos. It is evident in water-cooler conversations all across America – with Filipinos talking of their sense of affinity and similarities of provenance with The Filipino People’s Champ.
How did this poor boy from the poverty-stricken streets of General Santos City in the island of Mindanao get to this point? For sure, he could not have done it in sports like golf or tennis for, although they too are individual sports, the monetary costs of achieving competence in those fields are prohibitive. He certainly could not have achieved it in the sport he loves, basketball, where height is a major factor in success.
Truth be told, savage and primitive though it may appear to some, boxing is probably the most democratic and most meritocratic of all sports. It is “cheap”: poor kids dabbling in it just borrow gloves from each other and practice on their own without the need for any real expense. It is also capable of instant feedback: you get your butt kicked if you can’t hack it, and if you’re not willing to give it your all, you’re better off dabbling in something else before you get into real physical trouble.
For all the good things Pacquiao brings to the country, there is a dark side. In a country of 90-million plus, an overwhelming percentage of which is comprised of poor impressionable kids all dreaming of becoming the next Pacquiao, makeshift boxing gyms and unregulated boxing matches supposedly feeding into the hopes of these poor boys are on the rise all over the land. Most of the Pacquiao wannabes will discover, soon enough, that studying real science subjects in school is a lot easier than learning the “sweet science” of boxing.
In The Iceman Cometh, broken men with hopeful dreams await the arrival of the big-spending Iceman, Theodore Hickman. When he arrives, he encourages his cronies to pursue their ambitions, believing that only failure will make them face reality. “To hell with the truth! As the history of the world proves, the truth has no bearing on anything…The lie of a pipe dream is what gives life to the whole misbegotten mad lot of us, drunk or sober,” he says.
Let's ride this pipe dream as long as we can. All hail King Pacman!
Fil-Am History Month
If you google "Chinese American History Month" or "Japanese American History Month", the search engines will all direct you to "Asian Pacific American Heritage Month" which, you will be informed, was enacted on October 28, 1992 to honor the achievements of Asian/Pacific Americans and to recognize their contributions to the United States.
All 30 or so Asian ethnic groups in the US were lumped together as “Asian Pacific Americans†and given one month – May – to celebrate our collective and individual cultures, histories and heritage in the United States. May was selected because the first Japanese immigrants arrived in the United States on May 7, 1843 and the transcontinental railroad, which employed hundreds of Chinese immigrant laborers, was completed on May 10, 1869.
The month actually started stated out as “Asian Pacific American Heritage Week†when Pres. Jimmy Carter signed the Joint Resolution on October 2, 1978. It became a month-long celebration in 1992 when Pres. George H.W. Bush signed the law permanently designating May of each year as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.
As a publicly elected official in San Francisco for 18 years, I regularly attended the annual kick-off celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in San Francisco’s City Hall since 1992. It would always be awkward for me when Japanese Americans would recount the day in May of 1843 when the first Japanese immigrants arrived in the US and when Chinese Americans would recall the day in May of 1869 when the Chinese-built transcontinental railroad was completed and I couldn't very well reminisce about that day in May of 1898 when Commodore George Dewey destroyed the Spanish Fleet which later resulted in the US invasion and colonization of the Philippines.
For years since its founding in Seattle, Washington in 1982, it was always the goal of the Filipino American National History Society (FANHS) for Filipino Americans to be given our very own month to celebrate our history and culture in the United States.
At its biennial national conference in 1988, FANHS members unanimously passed a resolution to "establish Filipino American History Month to be observed annually and nationally throughout the United States and its Territories during the Month of October commencing in the Year 1992 to mark the 405th Anniversary of the Presence of Filipinos in the Continental United States.â€
The resolution also expressed the belief that such a month long celebration would be “a significant time to study the advancement of Filipino Americans in the history of the United States, as a favorable time of celebration, remembrance, reflection and motivation, and as a relevant time to renew more efforts toward research, examination and promulgation of Filipino American history and culture in order to provide an opportunity for all Americans to learn and appreciate more about Filipino Americans and their historic contributions to our nation, these United States of America.â€
Just as Japanese Americans could celebrate the day the first Japanese immigrants landed in California in May of 1843, Filipino Americans could now also proudly commemorate the day the first Filipinos (“Luzon Indiosâ€) landed in California on October 18, 1587, more than 33 years before the first English Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620.
After the FANHS resolution was publicized, Filipino Americans began celebrating October as Filipino American History Month with celebrations and festivities throughout the US. Various states, aside from California and Hawaii, would routinely pass resolutions as Michigan Governor Jennifer Granhom did when she proclaimed “October 2006, as Filipino American Heritage Month in Michigan, and I encourage all citizens to recognize, applaud and participate in this celebration of the many contributions made by Filipino Americans that enhance the quality of life in Michigan.â€
But the celebration in various states somehow just wasn’t enough. As the Wikipedia entry on this subject noted, “October as Filipino American History Month has not yet attained the prestige of other similar minority celebrations, such as the Black History Month in February, Women's History Month in March, and the Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in May. This is evidenced by the fact that no United States Congress has ever resolved to recognize Filipino American History Month.â€
The Wikipedia entry now needs to be updated.
On November 3, 2009, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Massachusetts) stood up on the House floor to announce that on October 29, 2009, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee had unanimously approved House Resolution (H.R.) 780 celebrating October as Filipino American History Month. It was originally sponsored by Rep. Bob Filner (D-California) with over 50 members of the House signing on as co-sponsors, he said. Rep. Lynch also announced that the US Senate had unanimously passed a similarly worded resolution (S. 298) on October 1, 2009. He asked for the unanimous consent of the House to make the bill into law.
Before the vote could take place, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R- North Carolina) stood up and deplored the lack of substantive resolutions being passed by the House but joined Rep. Lynch in asking for the unanimous consent of the House for HR 780.
When the call was made for the vote, it passed unanimously. October is now Filipino American History Month in the United States! Hurray!
All 30 or so Asian ethnic groups in the US were lumped together as “Asian Pacific Americans†and given one month – May – to celebrate our collective and individual cultures, histories and heritage in the United States. May was selected because the first Japanese immigrants arrived in the United States on May 7, 1843 and the transcontinental railroad, which employed hundreds of Chinese immigrant laborers, was completed on May 10, 1869.
The month actually started stated out as “Asian Pacific American Heritage Week†when Pres. Jimmy Carter signed the Joint Resolution on October 2, 1978. It became a month-long celebration in 1992 when Pres. George H.W. Bush signed the law permanently designating May of each year as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.
As a publicly elected official in San Francisco for 18 years, I regularly attended the annual kick-off celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in San Francisco’s City Hall since 1992. It would always be awkward for me when Japanese Americans would recount the day in May of 1843 when the first Japanese immigrants arrived in the US and when Chinese Americans would recall the day in May of 1869 when the Chinese-built transcontinental railroad was completed and I couldn't very well reminisce about that day in May of 1898 when Commodore George Dewey destroyed the Spanish Fleet which later resulted in the US invasion and colonization of the Philippines.
For years since its founding in Seattle, Washington in 1982, it was always the goal of the Filipino American National History Society (FANHS) for Filipino Americans to be given our very own month to celebrate our history and culture in the United States.
At its biennial national conference in 1988, FANHS members unanimously passed a resolution to "establish Filipino American History Month to be observed annually and nationally throughout the United States and its Territories during the Month of October commencing in the Year 1992 to mark the 405th Anniversary of the Presence of Filipinos in the Continental United States.â€
The resolution also expressed the belief that such a month long celebration would be “a significant time to study the advancement of Filipino Americans in the history of the United States, as a favorable time of celebration, remembrance, reflection and motivation, and as a relevant time to renew more efforts toward research, examination and promulgation of Filipino American history and culture in order to provide an opportunity for all Americans to learn and appreciate more about Filipino Americans and their historic contributions to our nation, these United States of America.â€
Just as Japanese Americans could celebrate the day the first Japanese immigrants landed in California in May of 1843, Filipino Americans could now also proudly commemorate the day the first Filipinos (“Luzon Indiosâ€) landed in California on October 18, 1587, more than 33 years before the first English Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620.
After the FANHS resolution was publicized, Filipino Americans began celebrating October as Filipino American History Month with celebrations and festivities throughout the US. Various states, aside from California and Hawaii, would routinely pass resolutions as Michigan Governor Jennifer Granhom did when she proclaimed “October 2006, as Filipino American Heritage Month in Michigan, and I encourage all citizens to recognize, applaud and participate in this celebration of the many contributions made by Filipino Americans that enhance the quality of life in Michigan.â€
But the celebration in various states somehow just wasn’t enough. As the Wikipedia entry on this subject noted, “October as Filipino American History Month has not yet attained the prestige of other similar minority celebrations, such as the Black History Month in February, Women's History Month in March, and the Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in May. This is evidenced by the fact that no United States Congress has ever resolved to recognize Filipino American History Month.â€
The Wikipedia entry now needs to be updated.
On November 3, 2009, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Massachusetts) stood up on the House floor to announce that on October 29, 2009, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee had unanimously approved House Resolution (H.R.) 780 celebrating October as Filipino American History Month. It was originally sponsored by Rep. Bob Filner (D-California) with over 50 members of the House signing on as co-sponsors, he said. Rep. Lynch also announced that the US Senate had unanimously passed a similarly worded resolution (S. 298) on October 1, 2009. He asked for the unanimous consent of the House to make the bill into law.
Before the vote could take place, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R- North Carolina) stood up and deplored the lack of substantive resolutions being passed by the House but joined Rep. Lynch in asking for the unanimous consent of the House for HR 780.
When the call was made for the vote, it passed unanimously. October is now Filipino American History Month in the United States! Hurray!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
