Three Years Running

"And all my days are trances,
And all my nightly dreams
Are where thy dark eye glances,
And where thy footstep gleams..."
-- E.A. Poe, excerpt from "To One in Paradise"

Thank you for the last three years, Dear. Every minute was enchanted, every second a delight.
Thank you for the last three years, Dear. Looking forward to the rest of our lives.

Pot Calling the Kettle Black

According to the Inquirer, Erap composed a jingle to lambast his three former allies who are now in Arroyo's camp. Entitled the "ASO Jingle", ASO is supposed to stand for Angara-Sotto-Oreta. The jingle, to the tune of "How Much is That Doggie in the Window?", goes like this:

-----------
ASO Jingle

How much is that doggie in the window?
At anong klaseng aso ba ito?
Ewan ko, sila ang tanungin niyo
Bakit sila naging aso.

Magkano ba ang aso sa Senado?
Iboboto niyo ba mga ito?
Sayang lang ang inyong mga boto
Kung mapupunta lang sa aso.

Bawal ang aso sa Senado
Ibang klaseng aso kasi ito
Hindi tumatahol o nanghahabol
Naghihintay lang ng suhol.

Balimbing ang ’ngalan ng aming aso
Hindi siya kumakain ng buto
Balimbing ang kanyang paborito
Kaya siya’y balimbing na aso.
-----------

Now, Angara, Sotto, and Oreta are indeed turncoats, but what gall Erap has to lambast them with a jingle when his Genuine Opposition (GO) is similarly riddled with opportunists and turncoats. You have there Manny "Mr. Impeachment" Villar along with Noynoy Aquino and Sonia Roco who both marched to get Erap out of power in 2001. Then you have Kiko "Noted" Pangilinan who's neither in nor out of the opposition slate. And lest we forget, there's Loren "Crying Lady" Legarda who cried during Erap's impeachment trial just to scoot over to FPJ's side when Noli became GMA's running mate in 2004.

Fact is, practically all of these politicians, whether GO or TEAM Unity, are turncoats and opportunists. Their only loyalty is to themselves. They'll be too willing to turn their backs on their current parties when political tides change.

But that's expected of our crop of politicians. What I really despise is the gall of the opposition to cloak themselves with righteousness when they are just as sleazy as the admnistration. They are so intent on grabbing power so that it can be their turn again to plunder the country, which was cut short in 2001. There's nothing genuine-- which means free of hypocrisy or pretense-- about the GO, unless GO stands for "Genuine Opportunism".

Shame! Shame! Shame!

(My apologies for quickly reverting to serious threads, but this just rankled my nerves. Warning: this is a rant.)

A second American soldier has been convicted for the now infamous rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the murder of her family (parents and 5-year-old sister) in Mahmoudiya, Iraq. In case you weren't aware of the details, the rape victim, Abeer Qasim Hamza, was made aware that her parents and sister have been mudrered while she was being raped. And after being raped, her head was bashed in with a concrete block and her body set ablaze.

This soldier, Sgt. Paul Cortez from the 101st Airborne, gets 100 years for the heinous crime, but is eligible for parole in just 10 years. So he can get a measly 10 years in jail for his dastardly crime if his parole is granted, which is likely if he stays a good boy in jail (no little girls to rape there, after all). And 10 years from now the Iraq War and all its atrocities would be distant history, unless of course it's still raging.

Shame on American justice for giving this soldier an easy escape. It's fine to spare him from the death penalty for his cooperation, but allowing him a chance for parole in 10 years? If this were a white girl and her family, American media would be saturated with coverage and this soldier would be dead by now. Or at the minimum have a 100-year sentence without the chance for parole. But this sentence for the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and her family is just so light. The US justice system has denied eligibility for parole for much lighter offenses, so why not now? In this case, justice has been denied from the most innocent of victims.

It'll be justice if he and his four co-rapists/murderers serve those first 10 years in an Iraqi prison. Hopefully they'll be spending most of their time sitting on broomsticks, and not like fairy-tale witches.

---

Now, don't give me that crap that 99.99% of American soldiers in Iraq are doing their jobs honourably. This is not a case of how many good vs. how many bad; the Defense Department's (and American public's) attitude must be one atrocity is one too many. Besides, Mahmoudiya is not an isolated incident. BBC has a list of American atrocities in Iraq, and these are just the ones that made headlines in Western media. And if Robert Koehler is to be believed, the racism against Arabs is deep-seated in the US Armed Forces.

And don't give me crap about 3,000+ American soldiers dying in Iraq and the stress they face there (that's the excuse of the five Mahmoudiya soldeirs, btw-- an IED just killed a few of their mates so they wanted revenge). They have guns, for crying out loud. They are legitimate targets in a war. They can defend themselves from attackers. It's not an excuse or even an explanation for killing civilians. The Brits and Aussies are also in Iraq; so far they haven't done anything that approaches American atrocities.

Shame on Cheney-head Bush for starting this war. Shame on the American justice system for treating war criminals with kid-gloves. Shame on the American public for not demanding justice for Iraqi victims.

Woman on Top

According to my (few) avid readers, my past few posts have been rather serious. So, in honour of Women's Month in March, I'm starting a new column: Woman on Top. It will feature profiles of various women in positions of power, mostly from the world of politics, economics, or foreign affairs.

Maria Consuelo Araujo
Former Foreign Relations Minister
Republic of Colombia

• Has been in the government of President Alvaro Uribe since 2002.
• First served as Culture Minister from 2002-2006, then as Foreign Relations Minister from 2006-2007.
• Studied Finance and International Relations at Externado University of Colombia
• Specialised in Government, Management and Public Affairs at Columbia University in New York and in International Relations at the University of Milan.
• Resigned from the Uribe government on 19 February 2007 after her brother, Senator Alvaro Araujo, was arrested over allegations that he is involved with Colombian paramilitary groups.
• Described on BBC News as "the glamourous Maria Consuelo Araujo". Infinitely hotter than Henry Kissinger, in my opinion.

The Redcoats are leaving!

Prime Minister Tony Blair announced on Wedensday that 1,600 British troops will be pulled out of Iraq over the next few months. The official reason is that security in Basra in southern Iraq-- a relatively peaceful Shiite-dominated area-- can now be taken over by Iraqi troops. "We'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up," so to speak. Likewise, all 460 Danish will be withdrawn in the coming months presumably for the same reason. All this is happening as the US is sending an additional 21,000 troops to the volatile and very violent Baghdad and the Sunni triangle.

The US is putting a happy face in all this-- they (the Brits and Danes) can leave since it's peaceful where they are deployed, and it probably is. But that is not the point. If America's allies in the Iraq war are so committed to the cause, why not send those 1,600 British and 460 Danish troops to Baghdad instead of bringing them home? Obviously, there is a need to reallocate troop strength from southern Iraq to the central Sunni triangle; how come the Allies aren't willing to give their American partners a hand? Is it because they don't want to put their troops into harm's way? Or do they think that the Bush policy of escalation is the wrong way to go? Either way, America is being left high and dry in Iraq. "Go it alone" is just too real now.

From sea to shining sea, America's allies in Iraq are deserting them. I just wonder how many bells will have to crack before Bush hears them toll.

Terrorism and Armed Resistance

The Philippine Congress just passed the "Human Security Act of 2007", otherwise known as the anti-terrorism bill. According to the Inquirer, it defines terrorism as "those crimes committed with the purpose of sowing and creating widespread and extraordinary fear and panic in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand". Moreover, the report says, the list of crimes includes "piracy in general, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, coup d’etat, murder, kidnapping, destruction of property through arson, highway robbery, hijacking, and illegal possession of firearms and explosives".

I will not tackle here the government's propensity to use the law to stifle legitimate opposition-- that issue has been adequately argued by many groups. My problem with this law is that it does not distinguish between legitimate acts of war (or insurgency) and terrorism. It does not distinguish between attacks on military or police installations and attacks on civilians.

Now, I'm not advocating the use of arms against the State (I'll tackle that in another post), but I don't agree that all forms of armed resistance should be clumped as terrorism. Under the above definition, the Katipunan was a terrorist group and the Storming of Bastille was a terrorist act.

Here is how I define terrorism: The use of violence on civilian populations or installations for political ends. By civilian, I mean those not directly involved with the State's apparatus for the use of force; i.e., miltary, police, intelligence operatives, defense departments, and top government officials. Thus, Hezbollah offensives on IDF camps are not acts of terrorism, but Katyusha rocket attacks into Haifa are. Israel's boming of Hezbollah camps is not terrorism, but its carpet bombing of Tyre is. NPA attacks on AFP detachments are not terrorist acts, but those on cell sites and passenger buses are. The AFP's shelling of rebel camps is not terrorism, but hamletting of villages is.

Armed resistance, under certain conditions, can be justified; terrorist acts, under any condition, can not.

Word of the Day

Ever have one of those days when a word or a name gets stuck in your head? It's like the dreaded last-song-syndrome but without the melody. Even worse, you can't easily place where and when you heard it, and its meaning momentarily escapes you. Here's mine for today:

Casus Belli

Latin; literally "case of war". Usually refers to an incident or threat that justifies going into war. For example, the invasion of Poland was the casus belli used by the West to go into war with Germany; in contrast, the Holocaust was the ex-post justification for the war.

The Big Three

Foreign ministers of China, India, and Russia met recently in Delhi to discuss matters ranging from border disputes and shared rivers to Iraq and Afghanistan. (As always, read about it here)

The BBC headline names the three countries the "Big Three". There are many reasons why they're big. Their collective population, for one, is nearly half that of the entire world. More importantly, though, China and India are re-emerging economic powers (they were dominant centuries ago), while Russia is being re-assertive after decades of post-Cold War humiliation. Combined, this bloc can be a formidable force in world affairs. All three are nuclear powers, and two have permanent seats in the UN Security Council. China is the world's factory, producing nearly everything sold in the West. The IT industry has effectively been outsourced to India, whose engineers now populate US technical universities. Russia is becoming the main energy source for Europe, and has shown inclination to use its petroleum muscle.

It's about time a bloc challenges US dominance in world affairs. This meeting, although by no means binding or policy-setting, is a signal to the US that the three countries can work together and present a unified foreign policy front. These three can "buy" their way into alliances with smaller countries-- China's forays into Africa is a prime example-- and challenge US influence. The US can suddenly find its options lessened and be forced into compromises with the rest of the world. Moreover, small nations that have been at the short end of US foreign policy, like Palestine and the Philippines, can form (or threaten to form) alliances with the Big Three and forge a better deal for themselves.

America, being the sole superpower, gives it a monopoly over world affairs. Without the threat of being unseated it rules roughshod over smaller states, using a combination of incentives and punishments to impose its interests around the world. The Big Three has the potential to challenge US hegemony and soften its barganing stance. On the other hand, the US can provide the necessary counterweight against possible abuse by the Big Three.

In the marketplace of power, competition among the big benefits the small.

Word of the Day

Ever have one of those days when a word or a name gets stuck in your head? It's like the dreaded last-song-syndrome but without the melody. Even worse, you can't easily place where and when you heard it, and its meaning momentarily escapes you. Here's mine for today:

Panagariya

Arvind Panagariya is the Jagdish Bhagwati Professor of Indian Political Economy & Professor of Economics at Columbia University. In the past, he has been the Chief Economist of the Asian Development Bank and Professor of Economics and Co-director, Center for International Economics, University of Maryland at College Park. He has also worked with the World Bank, IMF, WTO, and UNCTAD in various capacities. He holds a Ph.D. degree in Economics from Princeton University.

(from the Columbia University website)

You got me convinced, Dubya

Last Sunday, three non-senior US defense officials, who remained anonymous, presented evidence that Iran is supplying Shia militias with ammunition and explosives, including Explosively Formed Penetrators that can pierce through the best US tank armour. (Read the BBC's report here) Even worse, they say, the support is coming directly from Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

If I remember correctly, the last time the US presented "evidence" of threat from another country was in February 2003 when then State Sec. Colin Powell argued for the invasion of Iraq before the UN Security Council. Back then, he presented satellite and physical evidence to prove the existence of WMD's in Iraq and justify an all-out war. We now know that the evidence he presented was false and intelligence data was manipulated to the point of fabrication.

The accusers this time are three US defense officials who wish to remain anonymous.

At least Powell had the balls to put his reputation on the line when he made his case against Iraq. These officials, who are making very serious accusations indeed, don't want their names published. They won't even stake their reputations on the veracity of their own evidence. Mind you, this wasn't an unauthorised leak to media; this is fully supported by the Bush administration which reiterated (on Monday) the case made by the defense officials. What a great way to rebuild US credibility-- make accusations through anonymous officials presenting evidence not verified by any third party.

Good job making your case, Dubya. Those three anonymous officials really did the trick. Now I'm convinced you're a Cheney-head.

Nao Obrigada

"Nao Obrigada"-- "No Thank You" in Portuguese-- is the rallying cry of the pro-life movement in Portugal, which has just finished a referendum on abortion. The referendum asked voters whether or not women should be given more leeway in terminating their pregnancy (Portugal has one of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the EU, just a little more lax than that in the Philippines). To cut a long story short, the referendum failed to overturn current policy due to low voter turnout.

First, let me lay down my position: I am against abortion (at least the way pro-choicers want it). I think abortion should only be allowed when the pregnancy poses a medical risk to the mother's life, making abortion a legitimate form of self-defense. Let me explain.

Arguments for or against abortion often boil down to whether or not the fetus is a human being with its own right to life. Pro-life advocates argue that the fetus is a human being at the point of conception. Their reasons for believing this range from "God says so" (a weak argument appealing only to the converted) to pointing out that the embryo is a separate life with human DNA distinct from the mother (therefore, it is not part of the mother's body). Pro-choice advocates, on the other hand, argue that the fetus should still be considered part of the woman's body because it is not viable outside of it (therefore, she should have free rein over what to do with it).

I will not presume to know when human life starts, and neither should the pro-lifers or pro-choicers. The beginning of "human life" is something that cannot be materially proven because it is a metaphysical concept. Science can only tell us when certain aspects of human life are present (e.g., human DNA, beating heart, brainwaves), but it can't tell us when the fetus attains human consciousness (or a soul, for the religiously inclined). Science can't tell us when we should give the fetus the rights equal to ours.

What we can say is that human life starts at some point between fertilisation and birth-- when exactly, we do not know. Therefore, at any point during the pregnancy there is a probability 0 < h < 1 that the fetus is human, and a probability (1 - h) that it is not. So if we abort a fetus there is an h chance what we are killing another human being, and (1 - h) chance that we are not. Given the gravity of the act, this risk (h) is not something that society should take lightly, especially if we claim to value a person's right to life. Better to not kill a fetus and live with the (1 - h) chance that it could have been killed guilt-free, rather than kill it and bear the h chance that a human being was actually killed. Given h > 0, we have to err on the side of life and accord the fetus human rights.

Of course, self-defense is a valid argument for killing another person. If the fetus poses a clear and present danger to the life of the mother, she should be allowed to eliminate the threat. This goes for any person that threatens her life willingly or unwillingly, even those that have been out of the womb for some time.

Lasing-genic

Researchers at Manchester University have derived a formula that explains the phenomenon behind "beer goggles", known in Filipino as "lasing-genic". Read about it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/4468884.stm

Therefore, if you want to get stoned but don't want to have beer goggles, you should only drink in a well-lit, smoking-free bar with your glasses on, and only give your number to people within whispering range (0.5m). Under these conditions, you can have up to 34.0 alcohol units (i.e., 340mL of pure ethanol) and still not find lasing-genic people as "attractive" (i.e., B < 50). That's 850mL of 80-proof spirits (e.g., gin, rhum, whiskey, etc.) that you can "safely" consume under these optimal conditions.

Oh, the wonders of science.

Til Death Do Us Part

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_sc/italy_prehistoric_love_7;_ylt=AmE8vazQsjwImVCiTveqzpkiANEA

"And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side
Of my darling, my darling, my life and my bride..."

-- E.A. Poe, excerpt from "Annabel Lee"

Self-Tests

You Are 48% Capitalist, 52% Socialist

While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate. Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too. You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.

Are You a Socialist or Capitalist?

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 45% Conservative, 55% Liberal

Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

SPQR

Standing for "Senatus Populusque Romanus", SPQR symbolises the high esteem the Roman Republic gave to the Senate. As a counterweight to the Emperor, the Roman Senate kept the republican spirit alive in Ancient Rome. To this day, SPQR is emblazoned on public buildings and property in Italy, and appears on the coat of arms of the city of Rome.

In the Philippine setting, the Senate is a relatively modern institution, a vestige of American-style democracy. While the Roman Senate was a counterweight to the Emperor, the Philippine Senate is supposed to serve as a counterweight to the House of Representatives. The House, being composed of congressmen with local constituencies, can be rightly expected to have populist and parochial leanings, putting local intersts ahead of the national welfare. Therefore, a Senate with a national constituency must be able to counter this leaning and balance local interests with a national agenda. The Senate must be the venue for philosophical debates and grand visions, a bastion of idealism in an increasingly cynical world. It must be the venue where great minds and noble hearts reel in a parochial House and an imperial Executive.

Now, take a look at the current list of senators and their activities during the last few years. Take a look at the senatorial lineup of the administration (Unity Ticket) and the opposition (UNO) for the coming elections.

Caligula's nominee, Incitatus, would not be totally out of place.