Woman on Top: Liaena Hernández Martínez

Liaena Hernández Martínez

Member of Parliament
Republic of Cuba

• Born in 1990 in Manuel Tames, Cuba, in the country's Guantamo Province.
• Volunteered for active military service under the Servicio Militar Voluntario Femenino.
• Served for seven months in the Brigada de la Frontera, an all-female brigade guarding the border with America's Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
• Elected to the Cuban Parliament in March 2008 to represent her home town of Manuel Tames, making her the youngest member of parliament.
• Touted as the future of Cuba's communist revolution, representing women and youth empowerment. ¡A las armas, valientes, corred!
• Read more about her here (BBC), here, and here.
  

Manila, T minus 6 hours

Leaving for SFO in a few hours.  Taking NW this time, instead of my preferred airline CX.  I'm not particularly looking forward to NW's bad food and unpleasant stew... flight attendants.  But this year, for MNL-SFO-MNL tickets, NW is $162 cheaper than CX so I figured the savings was greater than the monetised value of better service.  I hope I won't regret this choice the next time I have to ask for water.

This is a time of great flux for me, so this trip is especially significant.  

---

I'll miss you so much, Dear.  Take care and be safe.  사랑해.

Remembering the Battle of Manila

Just watched Remembering the Battle of Manila, a two-hour documentary on the 1945 battle produced by Japanese television network NHK and aired on the History Channel.

The documentary had a very objective tone-- no sentimentality or emotion.  There was a good amount of discussion on objectives and tactics but hardly any mention of politics or motives.  The overarching message, though, was that most of the 100,000 Filipino civilian casualties and the almost total destruction of Manila was a result of American bombardment.  Which is quite accurate-- most of the deaths and destruction in Manila in 1945 were indeed caused by the American forces' indiscriminate use of force.  There are a lot of interviews with people-- Filipino civilians, American and Japanese soldiers-- who witnessed the battle and one can get a good picture of the suffering it caused.  One stark image is the destruction of the Philippine General Hospital by American bombers, who attacked the building and its thousands of patients and refugees "despite red crosses painted on the roof".

However, what troubles me about this documentary is what it does not say.  While it makes an indictment of American conduct during the battle, Japanese actions are mostly portrayed as defensive maneouvres.  While it does mention Japanese "outrages" committed against civilians in the name of "anti-guerilla offensives", it makes no adequate description of the gravity or the cruelty of these atrocities.  At one point it mentions the "Japanese anti-guerilla offensive" and "Filipinos fighting Filipinos" (i.e., revenge attacks against the makapili) as reasons, apart from indiscriminate American bombing, for Filipino civilian deaths, without any mention of scale or context as if the two reasons carried equal weight.  

While I didn't expect this documentary-- or any historical documentary-- to be totally objective, I did expect factual proportion.  In terms of scale, American bombs indeed killed more Filipinos and demolished more buildings, but the Japanese are at least equally to blame for the carnage.  The Americans were indiscriminate and reckless in their use of force, but the Japanese were rabid and sadistic in their retaliation, ordering their troops to fight to the last man and "annihilate all guerillas", guerilla being understood by the interviewed Japanese soldiers to mean any Filipino man, woman, or child.  While there were many graphic pictures of the victims of American bombs (women and children in particular) and even video of Filipinos mobbing a makapili, the only pictures of Japanese atrocities were Filipino men executed with their hands tied behind their backs.

Most troubling about this documentary is that it's primarily meant for a Japanese audience, being translated into English after it was made.  If PBS made this documentary for an American audience it would be a soul-searching second look at America's actions in Manila deserving of a commendation.  But it's not.  The documentary was made by NHK for a Japanese audience, making it an exercise in washing their hands of guilt.  Far from just "remembering the battle of Manila", this looks and feels more like a jab at self-vindication, as if saying, "Hey, the Americans killed more Filipinos than we did; we were just defending ourselves."  To lay the blame for the destruction of Manila and the death of 100,000 civilians at the foot of the Americans with only passing mention of Japanese atrocities is, to say the least, dishonest.

That NHK gave an unbalanced account under the veneer of fact and objectivity makes this documentary unethical.  That Japan, unlike Germany, has not truly reconciled itself with its wartime conduct makes this documentary offensive.  That militarist and revisionist elements are gaining clout in Japan makes this documentary dangerous.

I was wrong

I thought America will fail the world yet again.  I was wrong.

I thought negative campaigns and insinuations will form most opinions.  I was wrong.

I thought refreshing high-road politics will be drowned out by the old, dirty tricks.  I was wrong.

I thought the Republican political machine will delay the results with lawsuits and technicalities.  I was wrong.

I thought fear and ignorance will drown out reason and nuanced thinking in the electoral debate.  I was wrong.

I thought hundreds of years of hate and racism will prevail over hope and change.  I was wrong.

I thought America would not, could not, elect Barack Obama.  I was wrong.

I've never been so glad to be wrong.

Poll Dancing

My $1 tip on the ups, downs, spins, and gyrations of slippery polls. 

If you've been following the US presidential elections (you really should even if you're not American, because the US president affects you so much as your own president) you'd be constantly bombarded with opinion polls, most of them saying that Obama has a lead over McCain.  Some will say that Obama has a "commanding" or "clear" lead, while others will insist that McCain is in a tie with his opponent.  So what is it, really?

Without going into technical detail, let us interpret for ourselves what the polls mean without the spin.  Take this table from Real Clear Politics (as of 29 October 2008, 2300H Pacific Time), which convenietly summarises the major US election polls (click for a clearer image):

First of all, see that top line with the RCP Average?  Forget it exists.  It means absolutely nothing.  It makes no sense to get the average of different surveys taken on different dates with different questionnaires and different samples and different methodologies.  And to show how sensless it is they even highlighted it in yellow.

The first thing you should look for in any survey is the margin of error (MoE in the table), which, assuming the survey is methodologically sound, depends solely on the sample size.  Say the Rasmussen Reports, with a sample size of 3,000 likely voters and MoE = 2.0 (it should really be 1.79), finds that 50% of their sample supports Obama.  The MoE imples that overall support for Obama in the population (i.e., all American voters) is probably somewhere between 48% and 52%.  Likewise, McCain's 47% support in the survey implies that support in the population is probably somewhere between 45% and 49%.

So, is Obama's 3-percentage-point lead "clear", or "dead even"?  As a rule of thumb (i.e., without having to use a calculator), a difference can be reported as significant if it is greater than or equal to (MoE x 2) + 1.  Using this formula, for MoE = 2 the difference should be at least 5 percentage points for us to say that Obama has a significant lead over McCain (i.e., beyond the margins); thus, Obama's 3-point lead in the Rasmussen Reports is actually a statistical tie.

Looking at the table, then, we can see that the only surveys where Obama has a significant lead over McCain are Gallup (Expanded), ABC News/Wash Post, and Pew Research.  All the other surveys have Obama and McCain in a statistical tie.  That said, all the polls put Obama in a marginal, if not significant, lead.  Either Obama leads by a small amount or he leads by a sizeable margin.  So, going by the polls, I'd have to say that Obama is the frontrunner in this election.  Overall, assuming the surveys were conducted scientifically, the elections are still Obama's to lose and McCain has an uphill battle ahead.

However, this being America and Obama being not white, I actually think McCain is still the candidate to beat.  Obama has to run a perfect campaign 100% of the time, while McCain only needs one innuendo that sticks to grab the election.  Whether he relishes it or not, McCain has hundreds of years of racism, prejudice, and cynicism on his side.  Never underestimate the power of hate, fear, and ignorance in America.

I sure hope I'll be proven wrong next week.

McCain fighting for America!

Finally, McCain is taking it to Obama, and taking it hard.  First the terrorism link and now calling Obama a socialist for wanting to "spread the wealth around" (Obama's words).  Yeah, who the $#%@ wants that?  Who the $#%@ cares about the poor during an economic crisis?  McCain's plan is so much better-- don't give the poor tax breaks so the rich won't have to be taxed more.  Trickle-down economics has been working so well anyway.

So McCain slipped up by saying Obama is a decent family man, but we now have the McCain-Palin we've always wanted-- name calling and fear mongering.

Obama is just so wrong for America.  Obama, that madrassah-studying, terrorist-palling, income-redistributing, Jeremiah-Wright-following, smooth-talking closet Muslim/Arab poser for the US presidency.  It's true, I heard it on Fox News.  Only fair and balanced facts from Sean Hannity.

I'm so glad McCain is taking it to Obama.  Really nothing like hate, fear, and ignorance to get him back up in the polls.

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:

Botifarra

A Catalan sausage made of raw pork and spices, related to the Portuguese linguiça and Spanish longaniza.  Read about it here (Google English translation here).

Also a Catalan card game.

And the winner is...

... Paul Krugman, "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity".

See the scientific background here.  And I quote:

"It was Paul Krugman who most clearly and forcefully articulated the revolutionary nature of this new approach for the theory of international trade. His short paper in the Journal of International Economics, entitled 'Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition and International Trade' (1979a), is twofold. It contains not only a new trade theory that allows us to explain observed patterns of intra-industry trade, but also the seeds of a new economic geography where the location of production factors and economic activity can be stringently analyzed within the framework of a general-equilibrium model. Remarkably, the paper achieves all of this in only ten pages, and in a very simple and transparent fashion." [emphasis mine]

Wow, a Nobel Prize-winning paper in only ten pages.  Dang.

Reality TV: Financial Catastrofuck

The US Congress and Dow Jones don't usually make exciting TV, but last night was different.  Watching BBC and CNN at 1:30 to 4:00 in the morning was more nail-biting and nerve-wracking than that overhyped, inconsequential Ateneo-La Salle game.  By the time it was over, the Dow Jones lost 778 points, its biggest one-day loss ever.  The World Trade Center being demolished by two planes in the middle of Manhattan did not have that much impact on the Dow.

The day started ominously enough with multiple bank failures and bailouts-- in the US, UK, Belgium, Germany, even Iceland-- and that was on top of all the bank failures and bailouts of the past two weeks. Then congressmen started debating whether or not they will approve the $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilisation Act, which is essentially a transfusion of captial into markets that have stopped running.  It was a very unpopular bill as Main Street complained that their tax dollars are being used to help Wall Street fatcats while ordinary taxpayers are left with foreclosures and bankruptcies.  But after three days of intense negotiations and with the solid backing of the White House and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties, the bill's passage was almost a foregone conclusion.

Then the voting started.  The Yeas started with a margin of 30 votes, all the way to 110 Yeas and 80 Nays.  Then the margin was whittled down to 25.  20.  15.  10.  Then it was dead even with only a few minutes left for voting.  Then the Nays were leading and the lead stood.  Voting ended with 228 Nays and 205 Yeas.  The bill failed.

As voting took place CNN was showing a live feed from Dow Jones showing real-time reaction to the vote.  When voting started the Dow was down around 200 points.  Then it was down 300.  400.  500. 600.  Hala Gorani, the CNN anchor who used to be a finance news reporter, could not believe the numbers she was seeing.  By the time the 15-minute voting window ran out the Dow lost 700 points.  The index was erratic for the next few hours while the House Democrats and Republicans were blaming each other, but by the end of the trading day the Dow suffered its worst single-day loss ever, worse than 9/11, the DotCom Bust, and the Asian Crisis.  And after a few hours, as I write this, the Asian markets are crashing as well; European markets haven't opened yet.

As Jon Stewart would say, this is a financial catastrofuck.  On live TV.

Woman on Top: Lisa Randall

Lisa Randall

Professor of Physics

Department of Physics, Harvard University

• Born on 18 June 1962.
• Obtained her BA in Physics from Harvard University in June 1983 and immediately proceeded to the PhD programme.
• First taught classes at the Harvard University Physics Department as a Teaching Assistant in 1984.
• Obtained her PhD in Physics from Harvard University in June 1987, specialising in particle physics.
• Named Associate Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1995, being the first tenured female theoretical physicist in MIT. 
• Transferred to Princeton University in 1998 as Professor of Physics, becoming the first tenured woman in the university's Physics Department.
• Returned to Harvard University in 2001 as Professor of Physics, making her the first tenured female theoretical phycisist in Harvard.
• Received the Premio Caterina Tomassoni e Felice Pietro Chisesi Award from the University of Rome, La Sapienza in 2003. 
• Published Warped Passages: Unraveling The Mysteries Of The Universe's Hidden Dimensions in 2005, which was cited by the New York Times as one of the 100 most notable books in 2005.
• Won the Julius Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society in 2007 for her work in particle physics.
• Named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2007.
• Her image dispersion has been known to cause the momentary collapse of heartwave functions.

As if we needed any more convincing...

... that RP media is going to the dogs, we see this article:

Oil price rollbacks ‘big argument’ vs deregulation -- Palace

By Joel Guinto
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 18:26:00 09/12/2008

MANILA, Philippines—The rollback in oil prices by P2 to P3 on Friday is a "big argument" against calls by leftwing militants to deregulate the petroleum industry, Malacañang said Friday. 

xxx

This is terribly sloppy-- not only on Mr. Guinto's part but also on the part of his section editor and anyone else who approved this article before publication.  Typos and grammatical mistakes are understandable (albeit regrettable for a broadsheet), but this is way beyond that.  This article defies logic.  In case they haven't noticed, the petroleum industry is already deregulated, that's why oil companies could raise (and lower) prices at will (RA 8479, anyone?).  And why would the lowering of prices-- a perceived benefit of deregulation-- be an argument against it?  Also, the last thing the Left will call for is the deregulation of anything; in case they haven't heard, the "leftwing militants" are actually calling for the reregulation of the oil industry.

At best this is just sloppy work-- maybe they meant reregulation when they wrote deregulation, or maybe they meant for when they wrote vs-- extremely sloppy that it is incompetent.  And this sloppiness is systemic, from the beat writer to the section editor to the copy editor.  

At worst they don't know what the hell deregulation means and the issues surrounding it.  And they're the ones who are supposed to tell us what the news is.

Woman on Top

Sarah Louise Palin
Governor of the State of Alaska
United States of America

• Born Sarah Louise Heath on 11 February 1964 in Sandpoint, Idaho; moved to Alaska soon after.
• Studied high school in Wasilla, Alaska, where she earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" for her basketball prowess.
• Was crowned Miss Wasilla in 1984 and won second place in the Miss Alaska pageant the same year.
• Majored in Journalism and minored in Politics at the University of Idaho.
• Married Todd Palin, a commercial fisherman, in 1988; they have five children.
• Served on the Wasilla City Council from 1992 to 1996.
• Appointed Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2002.
• Elected governor of Alaska in 2006; the first woman and, at 42, the youngest person elected to the post.
• Selected by John McCain to be the Republican vice-presidential candidate for the 2008 US presidential elections, making her the second woman to be nominated to the position.
• Is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association.

Give them bloody hell

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Singapore Places and People

View the pics here.

Notes from Singapore

1. I have two words to describe Singapore: homogenised and sterilised. The Singapore we know is all about enviously efficient urban planning and housing development buildings (HDBs); unfortunately, it is also about cold social engineering and control. Even the urban artwork has the feel of being State-sanctioned, like a committee decides on what is acceptable at any given moment, down to the something@thisplace label for everything. I finally understand what dr.sbdink has been saying all along, that Singapore has a "Disneyfied" artificial feel to it. I never really got what he was driving at until I saw it myself. It's like using pasteurised milk to make cheese-- it can give you a good variety of taste and texture, but it has that unnatural and flat feel to it.

2. Which brings us to Geylang, the seedy underbelly of Singapore (or at least as seedy as Singapore can get). It is grimy and rowdy, the city-state's designated redlight district. It is the only place in Singapore where I frequently saw flies and cockroaches. It still felt relatively safe walking around Geylang past midnight though, the eminent threat being an overly aggressive "working girl". But of all the places in Singapore I visited, Geylang was the one where it did not feel homogenised and sterilised, the part of the city-state that seems to have been overlooked by the social planners. It has a genuine feel to it, like how Singapore was before HDBs, social engineering, and State-sanctioned cultural events. You feel it in the colourful (almost chaotic) architecture, the non-uniform businesses, and the relaxed pace of the people. Walk past the brothels and bars and you'll see mom-and-pop stores, mosques, and real communities. It's a good contrast to the Disneyfied city centre, where even daily life can feel touristy.

3. As a food heaven, Singapore definitely does not disappoint. I'll have a separate entry for food because it deserves special attention. What did disappoint me is my stomach-- seems it can only take too much chili and spice. My tastebuds are willing but my stomach is weak.

4. The Singapore transit system is the most efficient, convenient, and comfortable I have ever experienced. It was actually a pleasure to use public transportation and was very safe even late at night. It also helps that Singapore is a very walkable city and the streets are clean and dust-free. Goes to show that some things are really meant to be centrally planned.

5. Using my very scientific travel host-based rating scale, I'd say Singapore is mostly touristy along the lines of Sandra Brown and Janet Hsieh. If you're more like the Ian Wright or Anthony Bourdain traveller, then Geylang is definitely worth a visit. Food-wise, Singapore is a veritable destination for Maeve O'Meara and Andrew Zimmern and everyone in between.

Singapore, T minus 2 hours

I'm posting this at one of those free internet access places in Terminal 1 of Changi Airport. It says I only have 8+ mins remaining.

Had a great time in Singapore the past few days, even though it seems my stomach has had enough of chili and spice. Many many thanks to my official host and tour guide, dr.sbdink. Yes, Mabel, I've left Singapore. I had a real sulit time-- lots of wonderful sights, delicious dishes, great food. Always a delight seeing my old friends Mico ("I hated it; you'll love it!"), Ana (formerly known as Carmen), and Ina (who avoided any marriage-related questions). And by old I mean we've known each other for some time, not that other meaning.

Til next time.

Singapore, Day 4

Been in Singapore a few days now. My daily activities have mostly been: eat, walk around, eat, take the MRT, eat, walk around, eat, walk around, eat, take the bus, eat, walk around, eat.... I think I walk around 10 kilometres in a day, which is good to keep my net calorie intake to an acceptable level.

Singapore must be the safest city in the world; definitely the safest city I've visited. It also has a very efficient mass transit system, not to mention spotlessly clean. Singapore's MRT puts to shame London's Tube and San Francisco's BART.

I'm gonna be in Singapore for a couple more days. Now back to more eating and walking around.

Don't bring your laptops to the US

Or any electronic storage device, for that matter. Read the whole story here (c/o the Daily Mail). Chek out the lead of the story:

Travellers to the U.S. could have their laptops and other electronic devices seized at the airport under new anti-terror measures.

Federal agents have been granted powers to take such devices and hold them as long as they like.

They do not even need grounds to suspect wrongdoing.

Now, I understand the need to secure the borders and ensure the safety of the public, but this is just crazy. It's one thing to check your bags for explosives or contraband, but to rummage through your email and personal files? Without even having to show probable cause? By comparing a laptop to a suitcase, they are practically saying that certain thoughts, ideas, and knowledge are considered contraband and, thus, actionable.

Guantanamo. Waterboarding. Extraordinary rendition. Warrantless electronic surveillance. Now this. After one terrorist attack these Americans are so ready to give up their rights and forget everything their founding fathers stood for. Not even Israel at the height of the Palestinian intifada, or Britain at the height of the IRA threat, or Spain at the height of the Basque separatist movement, resorted to such draconian measures.

I was in America when 9/11 happened, and I do understand where they are coming from. But this is just wrong. Very wrong.

As Benjamin Franklin so famously wrote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Repeal VAT now!!!

Seems there is a serious battle over VAT these days. Even our bishops have joined the fray-- these days they seem to know what's best not only regarding reproductive health but also for the economy. That fuchsia cap must really have some power, being able to transform DDs into MDs and PhDs. But I digress.

Economically, removing VAT is like getting genital warts after a one-night stand: a quick relief you'll end up paying for for a very long time. So maybe we'll save P6/litre on gasoline overnight. Then Israel attacks Iran and the Strait of Hormuz is mined. Then Nigerian pipelines are blown up. Then another Katrina hits the Gulf of Mexico. Then China and India grow another 10%. And we're back to where we began, but this time with less revenues, a limping financial market, and a noncredible fiscal environment. Actually, those who stand to gain the most from this measure would be the dollar earners (i.e., exporters, expats, consultants, and OFWs) and those with substantial non-peso assets (i.e., those who diversified their portfolio away from the peso, probably expecting stupid shit to happen in this country again). So go ahead, make some people richer.

Strategically, though, calling for VAT's removal is brilliant. It's grandmaster-level chess. In game theoretic language, it strictly dominates alternative strategies. People like Roxas and Escudero must be thanking the high heavens that they have been given the opportunity to try this move. If they don't succeed, they'll still come out as pro-poor, compassionate, and, therefore, popular. If they do succeed and everything turns out rosy, they can claim all of the credit. If they do succeed and the economy goes to the dogs, they can always blame the President. You just can't lose with this move.

It's great to be a senator. All this power but responsible for next to nothing. Think about it-- they have no real constituency so they can't be blamed for anything, but they have national coverage so they can claim credit for everything they lay their hands on. Must be the best job out there. But I digress.

Therefore, since I don't want to lose, I say repeal VAT now! Then vote for me for senator. And do more one-night stands, but don't use condoms because they're evil as the bishops say. Yeah, a prescription for success.

Manila, T minus 9 days

I'm going to Singapore next week to attend the National Day Parade, which commemorates the city-state's separation from Malaysia on 9 August 1965. There is nothing better than to stand proud with other Singaporeans on this auspicious day, singing Majulah Singapura and giving my thanks to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's effective leadership.

It just so happens that Singapore is where my very good friends dr.sbdink and mixmendoza are currently staying, as well as a few other high school friends who I've barely seen since graduation. It just so happens that Singapore is the epicentre of Nyonya cuisine and a gourmet's heaven for Chinese, Indian, and Malay cuisines. It just so happens that Singapore is the home (conceptual or corporate) of some of my favourite food franchises: Kopi Roti (which is an all-Filipino company), Bread Talk, Roti Mum, and Old Chang Kee (and its illegitimate Filipino child, Old Yang Kee). And it just so happens that Singapore is where I'll be spending my birthday this year.

But, really, it's National Day all the way.

Boom De Ah Dah!

I Love the Whole World...



... and its longer, live version too...



... boom de ah dah, boom de ah dah!

Sex, Schism, and Excommunication

Seems religions are exceptionally prominent in the news these days. The Pope in Australia, the Anglican Church in the brink of a schism, Islamophobia in America and Europe.

Today was expecially abuzz with these news. Here are three articles on sex, schism and excommunication that range from the disturbing to the absurd:

Abortion: don't even think about it.

Gay bishop: to beat it or not to beat it?

Outside the white shirt and black necktie there is no salvation.

Frat Violence... Again

Seems frat violence reared its ugly head-- again-- at UP, this time along AS Walk on a Tuesday morning. I don't really care if these frat guys kill each other, so long as they don't hurt (or even inconvenience) non-participants when they do so. It would really be better for everyone if they just do their mutual killing away from school grounds (and away from any kind of civilisation, for that matter).

That said, I have to say I'm getting sick and tired of the predictable statements and rallies of outrage coming from UP student leaders, the latest from the ironically-named UP-SAWA. Really, is that the best the UP community can do? Make statements or hold rallies?

The law and the SDT have their hands tied when it comes to punishing these people-- the Mendez and Dungo cases are testaments to that. Add to that the fact that these frat guys usually have rich and powerful brods, who ensure they have only the best lawyers defending them. Waiting for the law and the SDT to punish these people is like waiting for pigs to evolve wings.

So if they cannot be punished legally, why not punish them socially? Ostracise them. Make them pariahs. Turn them into untouchables. If a frat is invioled in a rumble, kick out all their members from organisations, committes, and councils. Bar their members from attending any university or college activity. Extricate them from university life. Tell them that their brod's actions-- and their defence or tolerance of them-- are unacceptable. Tell them that there will be no forgiveness or reconciliation until they hang their erring brods out to dry, or they resign from their frat (which some brave men did after the Mendez case).

UP-SAWA's statement calls on everyone to "to take small but significant steps within their personal circles to continuously and emphatically condemn any and all forms of fraternity-related violence". Are they now ready to sever their academic and personal ties from members of the frats they so "continuously and emphatically condemn"? Are they ready to put their money where their statement is?

All for one and one for all implies the acceptance of collective punishment, so give it to them. Since the law doesn't seem to be any disincentive against frat violence, maybe social ostracisation will send the message home. Kung wala silang hiya, hiyain nalang sila.

Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.

Q. HORATI FLACCI CARMINVM LIBER PRIMVS

XI

Tu ne quaesieris (scire nefas) quem mihi, quem tibi
finem di dederint, Leuconoe, nec Babylonios
temptaris numeros. Vt melius quicquid erit pati!
Seu pluris hiemes seu tribuit Iuppiter ultimam,
quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicibus mare
Tyrrhenum, sapias, uina liques et spatio breui
spem longam reseces. Dum loquimur, fugerit inuida
aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.

---
English translation here.

My ref magnets...

...make me happy. They remind me of where I've been, what I've experienced, who I've met.

Ref magnets are my souvenir of choice; unfortunately, my collection is way incomplete. But I do have a few magnets from places I haven't been to yet-- those on the lower left-- given to me by family and friends. Any addition is more than welcome. :)

I hope to someday ride the Mongol steppes, eat paella in Valencia, get my feet wet in Lake Victoria. I like to experience the everyday side of the places I visit-- not the Disneyfied touristy stuff-- and local food, of course, is a destination in its own right. In Discovery Channel terms, Sandra Brown is too touristy while Bear Grylls is too tough. The set bounded by Ian Wright and Andrew Zimmern is just right for me, with Anthony Bourdain being my optimal travel style. Oh to have a job like Tony's.

Speaking of travel shows, that show hosted by Tim Tayag over at Living Asia Channel just irritates me. Ok he's a comedian and he has this humour style, but that doesn't mean the show has to be so inane. I recall an episode featuring MRT stations-- Tim was interviewing DOTC Sec. Leandro Mendoza, asking him these nonsensical questions. I swear, the ex-PNP Chief had this look that said, "If only I could shoot him now." They already spent a lot to get the host, producers, crew, etc. to those various places; why not put in the effort for better scripts and segments? Really, the show is like a very bad hangover. With traveller's diarrhoea and lost luggage.

Yeah, I'm envious. Very envious. I should be paid to travel. A lot. To places with weird-sounding names. The more alien the better. Then I go home and stick another magnet to my ref.

Acta de la proclamacion de independencia del pueblo Filipino

Today is Independence Day. Today should be the holiday for our country instead of the sectarian holidays we religiously observe; instead, it's a regular working day, the holiday moved to last Monday for the sake of holiday economics.

Practically every American child has seen a copy of the US Declaration of Independence, usually framed prominently in their school or public library. Rare is the Filipino adult who has seen, much less read, the Philippine Declaration of Independence. I, for one, was 19 when I first saw a facsimile of the Declaration.

So, in honour of Independence Day, here it is.

Downloaded from here. Read the English translation here.

Crime and the withdrawal of human rights

By now you've probably heard about the horrendous crime that happened in Laguna. We hear about violent crime everyday and mostly we are desensitised to them, taking refuge in abstraction, anonymity, and distance. But the events in Laguna really jar the psyche-- the magnitude of violence, the cold calculation of the murderers, the everydayness of the victims.

My condolences to the families of the victims-- their cries for vengeance are understandable and, I say, justified. As for the perpetrators, they should be punished in the most painful and protracted way possible.

That said, let me discuss human rights, which I'm sure the perpetrators will seek refuge in if they are caught and found guilty. Of course the accused, who are presumed innocent, should be accorded due process and all the protection under the law. But what do we do with those who are guilty of the most violent and heinous of crimes? What basis is there to say that the death penalty should be off the table? Generally, what rights of criminals, who despite their actions remain biologically human, may or may not be withdrawn?

Human rights are the set of rights and freedoms that everyone is endowed with by virtue of being born human. No one is born without human rights, and no action is required to acquire these rights. Everyone is entitled to the protection of their human rights, and no one may deny others these rights. However, one can do actions (i.e., criminal activity) that result in the State's (as the representative of society) legitimate and just withdrawal of some of these rights. For example, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declares that "everyone has the right to freedom of movement". But incarceration-- a withdrawal of this right-- is a universally accepted penalty for criminal activity. So if Article 13 of the UDHR can be withdrawn as a consequence of certain crimes, why not, say, Article 3 (right to life) or Article 5 (protection from torture or cruel punishment)?

One argument is that some human rights are inalienable (e.g., right to life) and others are not (e.g., right to free movement). Alston (2005), who famously visited our country last year, puts it softer as the prioritisation of human rights, that some rights are more important than others and should thus be pursued more rigourously. Accepting that such a dichotomy of human rights exists, how do we detrmine which ones are inalienable (or more important) and thus cannot be withdrawn as a consequence of criminal activity?

Answers based on the Divine, religion, or some "self-evident" truths are flimsy because they cease to persuade once the underlying assertions and dogmas are disputed-- they are only persuasive for the converted. Natural law, social contract, Kantian morality, and evolutionary game theoretic arguments provide sound bases for the universal existence and protection of human rights, but give no objective limits on the punishment for those who violate them.

The strongest argument against the withdrawal of some human rights is the imperfection of the judicial system-- errors can occur and the innocent may be convicted. In this case, certain rights should not be withdrawn if there is a nonzero probability that the convict is actually innocent, especially if the withdrawal of such rights cannot be reversed. Indeed, it is better to err on the side of protecting human rights than withdrawing them. [I use a similar line of argument in my stand on abortion.] However, this is a practical argument that has no bearing on the merits of what punishments should or should not be allowed. After all, this argument falters if there is absolute certainty that the convicted criminal is guilty (say, there is untampered video of him shooting the victims).

The way I see it, the set of human rights that can be withdrawn as a consequence of criminal activity is a matter of social choice. There is no objective reason why some punishments should be allowed and others should be prohibited-- it all depends on the preferences of society. Thus, if society decides that violent criminals like the Laguna robbers should receive capital punishment (i.e., their right to life should be withdrawn), there is no objective reason to say that this should not be done; the only real constraint is society's sensibilities and public opinion.

Violent crimes like the Laguna robberies strain the rationale behind the limits on their punishment. If we subscribe to the social contract theory of human rights, a criminal should be deemed to have surrendered all his human rights if he decides to use violence on his victim. Perpetrators of heinous and violent crimes, if we are absolutely certain of their guilt, should be punished harshly, severely, and mercilessly.

If you disagree with me, do leave a reply and set me right.

An Old Notebook

Much of recorded history is culled from mundane items that were somehow preserved-- an accounting record, a sales contract, a prescription. Same is true for our personal histories. I was rummaging through my car looking for a rag when I stumbled upon an old notebook, stuck in the recesses of the boot. Based on the stuff I wrote there, I used it between 2002 and 2004-- a period that saw huge personal changes and a period that is also very different from my current circumstances. Interesting to look back and see what changed, and what remained the same.

The notebook is a 152mm x216mm, 50-leaf Blue Feather notebook, the standard notebook issued by one of my former employers. Among the contents:

Notes on how to interpret crosstabs. These were the days when the simple two-way table was a technical challenge and error margins were a total mystery. Back then, logit, probit, and tobit were as good as forgetit.

Floor plan of my condo. I drew this a few weeks before moving in, pen and tape measure in hand. I eventually made a better sketch with straight lines and correct proportions (1 inch : 1 metre), allowing me to know which piece of furniture fits where. Been here five years now.

Advice on toning down my language. I sometimes still get this advice, actually. It's good when writing a press release, but not good when writing a report, especially for a politician. No one wants to be told to his face that he has no chance of winning a Senate seat, even if that's exactly what the data say (and what eventually happened).

Model of optimal research effort. Really poor attempt at modelling now that I'm looking at it. I wrote this just before I began graduate school in 2003, probably convincing myself that I was ready for it. I wasn't. But somehow I survived.

Outline of an employee manual. I was supposed to help my admin boss draft a revised manual for our employer. Got repeatedly bumped off of the agenda and we never got down to writing it. I resigned in mid-2004.

Crappy poetry. One of the few times I wrote poetry using a pen, since I preferred to use my typewriter when I wrote anything literary, the noise and vibrations offering some kind of a conversation. I haven't written anything remotely literary lately, Stata and MathType being more frequent companions than my old typewriter. Sigh.

Snack list. Salmon sashimi and fruit salad, which I still like today.

Game theoretic trade model. This is the last thing I wrote in the notebook. I was already more than a year into grad school by then, and I used this model as a basis for three class papers. A long way from those crosstab days.

Now to look for an even older notebook.

On Atty. Punzi's Reflections on the 2007 Bar Exams

Atty. Punzi got one thing right-- his reflections on the 2007 Bar Exams did stir a hornet's nest, especially among those who passed the 2007 Bar Exams. He eventually pulled down his post (without retracting his statements, mind you), but thanks to Google's cache you can read it here. Basically, he is complaining about the Supreme Court's decision to lower the passing grade from 75% to 70%, saying the standards were set too low and that this move tarnished the Bar Exams. "And lowering the passing grade is too much of a compromise and would not fair to those who took previous bar exams and got 74.9% to 70%," he adds.

Atty. Punzi's argument suffers a fatal flaw: he implicitly assumes that the information contained in the 75% passing grade is comparable across years, as if the Bar Exam questions given in one year are comparable in difficulty with those of another. They aren't. The Bar Exams are not like the Medical Boards or the US Bar Exams where there is a bank of objective questions and examinees' answers are checked by computers. The Bar Exams are all essay questions, checked by examiners who have to wade through 5,000+ booklets in varying states of mood and comfort.

Given the highly subjective nature of the Bar Exams-- from the questions all the way to the checking-- the insistence on keeping 75% as an objective gauge of competence just does not make sense. This is like insisting that all runners finish 400 metres in one minute or less regardless of terrain (uphill, downhill, level). One cannot insist on keeping the bar of competence constant when the terrain keeps on changing year after year. One cannot treat Bar Exam results as an objective test of competence when the yardstick is so subjective. Simply put, someone getting 75% in 2006 cannot be judged to be smarter or more competent than someone getting 70% in 2007 because their exams are in no way comparable.

So, from a purely academic and exam design perspective, the Supreme Court had all the right reasons to adjust the passing grade, basically correcting the grade for changes in the terrain (i.e., "unusually difficult" exams, key word being unusual). I think this is why no one is beating the drums against the Court's decision-- most people understand the reasons for it.

Whether 70% is too high or too low is a matter of opinion, just like all other Supreme Court decisions, but is nevertheless binding and valid. Speculating on the reasons they did it is pure folly since these can never be substantiated. It is useless to say that the same rule should be applied retroactively since no two Bar Exams are comparable. In the end, the true test is the job market's response. So far, my new laywer friends have not been having any trouble getting jobs or promotions; in fact, offers have been pouring left and right.

---

Let's keep comments objective and academic. As Atty. Punzi would surely agree, ad hominem arguments serve no purpose in these discussions.

Stupid Smart (BRO)

Goddammit! I'm sick and tired of this terrible service from Smart BRO (the broadband service of Smart Communications, Inc.). My connection speed right now is an excruciatingly slow 23.2 kbps. I checked my speed ten times tonight-- all of them register less than 50 kbps (dial-up gives me 56 kbps). WHAT THE FUCK?!?

I subscribed to Smart BRO last October, availing myself of Plan 999 where I pay P999/month for broadband service. They say they offer speeds up to 384 kbps, but ever since I signed up I never got any speed faster than 300 kbps. On a good day (which is rare) I can get 250 kbps, but my usual speed would be around 90 to 150 kbps. I've considerably lowered my standards for bandwidth speed, grudgingly being satisfied with acceptable speed instead of fast speed (my broadband speed in San Francisco is 1 Mbps, btw). And by acceptable I mean I can surf the web with relative ease; I still have to wait for YouTube vids to completely load before I watch them. But starting this year the service really deteriorated WAY below decent, starting in January. In February and March it went back to semi-acceptable speed, but today it's the worst.

Now, I've called Smart BRO multiple times to complain about my insanely slow bandwidth speed-- so many times that I already know what the customer service rep will tell me from their list of prefabricated responses, always going through the motions of checking my connection to the base station for whatever problem I tell them. They are trained to "understand" customers' complaints and to give an apology, with all calls eventually ending in a referral to their technical department. Twice they even sent technicians here to check my connection to the base station, BUT THE PROBLEM ISN'T MY CONNECTION BUT MY SPEED!!! I connect to the base station just fine, IT'S YOUR SERVICE THAT IS SO FUCKING SLOW.

And what really irritates me is that it's company policy NOT to let customers talk to the managers (or whoever is responsible for this crap). I've asked for the contact info of Smart BRO managers many times, but they say they can't give it to me. So I'm left with pouring my frustrations at powerless customer service reps who really can't do anything about my problem, while the managers and bosses have no accountability. These Smart BRO managers and bosses choose to be holed up in their offices, oblivious to the fact that THEY ARE FUCKING UP AT THEIR JOBS. If I'm Manny V. Pangilinan, I'll subscribe to Plan 999 to experience Smart BRO's service first hand, then I'll FIRE ALL THEIR ASSES.

I'm really frustrated at Smart BRO's terrible service. I've called them so many times and nothing has improved. The customer service reps try to be helpful, but there really isn't much they can do. I think Smart BRO just got so many customers that they can't serve then properly-- the old congestion problems. But that isn't any excuse for terrible service. Smart BRO's service has really been a terrible dissapointment for me. I have never been satisfied with their service, and after I lower my standards they actually do even worse. Smart BRO is a sorry excuse for an ISP.

When people sign up with Smart BRO, the contract stipulates that the subscription period is for a minimum of one year. If I can get out of this contract without having to go through a lawsuit, I will.

If you've also suffered from Smart BRO's excruciating service, please do leave a comment. If you work with Smart BRO (and want to defend the firm), you're also welcome to leave a comment.

If you're thinking of subscribing to Smart BRO, don't. For the love of God, don't.

Congratulations, Dear!!!

Congratulations, Dear! I'm so proud of you. I knew you'd make it.

Congratulations, too, to everyone else who passed the 2007 Bar Exams. Celebrate, take your oath, and give lawyers a good name.

Woman on Top (part 2)

Dana Perino has been featured on this blog previously (4 September 2007, to be exact), under the Woman on Top heading. She is the current White House Press Secretary, whose job description includes obfuscating and spinning her way in defending the Bush administration. She might tell you that Iraq is a sunny summer afternoon, but, with a smile like that, how can you stay angry at her?

Here she is on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:



At least the Bush administration got one thing right-- if you have nothing but bad news, at least send a cute messenger. Hmmm, now who should we get to replace Ignacio Bunye?

It's official: poverty has worsened despite economic growth

The rumours have been flying in the economics circles for quite a while, but now it's official-- poverty has worsened between 2003 and 2006 despite "robust" economic growth. The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) just released the results yesterday (read it here) with very little fanfare and very sparse analytical text (probably to discourage the more numerophobic reporters).

This finding is based on the 2006 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES, n = 38,483 households), which is conducted every three years. First, let us define "poor". A family (NSCB's preferred term for household) is considered "poor" in 2006 if it had an annual per capita income of P15,057, or each member was living on P1,254.75/month. For a family of five, this would translate to a monthly income of P6,273.75. In 2003, the poverty threshold was P12,309 per capita, or P1,025.75/month for each family member, or a monthly income of P5,128.75 for a family of five (the difference in thresholds is due to inflation).

The 2006 FIES finds that:

• 26.9% of families were poor in 2006, up from 24.4% in 2003
• 32.9% of Filipinos were poor in 2006, up from 30.0% in 2003
• the number of poor families increased by 700,000 from 4.0 million in 2003 to 4.7 million in 2006
• the number of poor Filipinos increased by 3.8 million from 23.8 million in 2003 to 27.6 million in 2006

Now consider the following economic "achievements":

• real GDP growth was recorded at 4.9% in 2003, 6.4% in 2004, 4.8% in 2005, and 5.4% in 2006
• real GDP grew from P1.154 trillion in 2004 to P1.276 trillion in 2006, or a three-year growth rate of 10.6%

Therefore, during a three-year period that saw a 10.6% economic expansion, the number of poor Filipinos increased by 16.0%. Assuming a 2.36% annual population growth, the population would have grown 7.25% during the three-year period. So, crudely speaking, 7.25% of the 16.0% increase in poverty incidence can be explained by population growth, but 8.75% of it cannot (not-crude analysis to follow, hopefully). In other words, of the 3.8 million Filipinos added to the poverty headcount in 2006, roughly 1.7 million were the offspring of families that were already poor in 2003 and 2.1 million were from families that were not poor in 2003.

The recent "robust" economic growth, we can see, was not beneficial to the poor and, in many instances, detrimental to the borderline poor. Although the Philippine economic pie was enlarged, not a crumb of it went to the poor, instead benefitting... who knows. Worse, not only was there no trickle-down effect from "robust" economic activity, there might actually have been a trickle-up effect that extracted from the poor and borderline poor.

In other words, we have ourselves a pretty fucked-up situation.

EDSA, This Noble Fight

Arise, you citizens from your slumber!
Arise, you victims of plunder!
For the rot of corruption has reached the core
And immoderate is the greed of the whore.
For we have had enough of this pretender
For we have had too much of this impostor.

So comrades, with us come rally!
And this noble fight let us face
On EDSA be part of the tally
Our fists and arms let us brace!

Arise, you citizens from your slumber!
Arise, you victims of plunder!
The time is now to finish corruption's dread
Let us start by cutting off the serpent's head.
The time is now to wage battle in the streets
And kick the serpent's minions from their seats.

So comrades, with us come rally!
And this noble fight let us face
On EDSA be part of the tally
Our fists and arms let us brace!

Arise, you citizens from your slumber!
Arise, you victims of plunder!
Cower not in your offices and farms
Believe not her lies, bribes, and charms.
Betray not the cause of our motherland
Against this government take a strong stand.

So comrades, with us come rally!
And this noble fight let us face
On EDSA be part of the tally
Our fists and arms let us brace!

Arise, you citizens from your slumber!
Arise, you victims of plunder!
Let our groups' loud collective will prevail
Let our liberation be the fruit of our travail.
Let us, on EDSA, dictate the nation's fate
To us the country's gratitude will be great.

So comrades, with us come rally!
And this noble fight let us face
On EDSA be part of the tally
Our fists and arms let us brace!

---

* Adapted from The Internationale.

Four Years

Happy Anniversary, Dear!

Looking forward to celebrating more leap years with you.

사랑해

Pictures

Finally got around to posting some of my travel pictures. You can find them on my multiply site here. So far I have three albums, 64 pictures total.

The End of an Era

Just learned from BBC that Cuban President Fidel Castro will be retiring. As of this posting, the news is not yet reflected in the website of Granma, Cuba's official paper, but I suppose it will be posted soon.

Castro came to power in 1959 after throwing out the corrupt but US-backed Battista government. Dwight Eisenhower was the US president when he came to power; nine US presidents later, Castro is stepping down from office.

This marks the end of the old Cold War, of red banners and songs of struggle. [In case you're wondering, yes, I consider Joma's CPP-NPA-NDF a relic of the past that has long outlived its relevance.] Despite disagreements with many of the things he stood for, I salute Castro as a revolutionary who never faded. Viva La Revolucion!

Farewell, Brother Felix

Brother Felix Masson, FSC, passed away today, 5 February 2008, at around 3pm in Napa, California (7am on 6 February, Manila time). He was 89.

Brother Felix was a much-loved figure in De La Salle-Zobel, where I spent my grade school and high school years. We best knew him for greeting each one of us on our birthday, giving us a stampita as a birthday gift. Each student. Every year. Without fail. Being called to his office was always a welcome distraction from the humdrum classroom, not to mention everyone knows it's your birthday when you get that call, prompting the whole class to sing "Happy Birthday" as you walk out the door.

And we did not get a routine greeting from Brother Felix-- he really tried to connect with us. I remember when I got my birthday call when I was in 4th grade-- I was a new student in Zobel then. He asked me about my sports and hobbies and, unable to think of anything, I mentioned tennis. He said stuff about the grassy courts of Wimbledon, to which I replied with a blank stare. On my next birthday, in 5th grade, he asked me if I still liked tennis. Funny how forgotten memories can suddenly make a comeback.

Farewell, Brother Felix, and thank you. You will be missed.

Philippines, 1899; Iraq, 2003

One hundred and nine years ago today, on 4 February 1899, Pvt. Robert Grayson of the First Nebraska Volunteers shot a Filipino soldier, whose name has been lost to history, and started the Philippine-American War. Not an insurrection, not an uprising, but a war. A war between a newly industrialised United States, fresh from its defeat of the former superpower that was Spain, and a newly sovereign Philippines, barely seven months after it declared its independence.

A war where America's preferred method of torture-- waterboarding-- was first tried and perfected. A war where America's miltary losses-- in Balangiga and Bud Dajo-- were avenged with the blood of civilians. A war where at least 600,000 Filipinos, mostly civilians, lay dead.

A war which was the fruition of an American president's desire-- his Manifest Destiny-- to spread democracy by the barrel of a gun. A war which America has chosen to forget. A war which America is doing all over again.

Remembering Burma

Gunpowder and teargas, saffron and blood.



Despite the crackdown, brave souls are continuing the fight, albeit covertly. Here's one through a Valentine's Day acrostic.

Political Involvement

Today is the eighth anniversary of the EDSA II popular revolt. I won't detail what happened during those heady days of 2001, but if you need some background you can find it here.

Much has been said about the lack of commemoration of EDSA II, especially since the winners opted to shun the event. Amando Doronilla calls it the "unwanted child of RP history", apparently abandoned by all its progenitors. But whatever is said about the merits of not commemorating the event, the fact remains that many people still remember those days and a lot is still being written about it, in effect commemorating-- i.e., remembering-- it. One of those pieces is the Inquirer's editorial for today. Take the following lines on the inability to muster crowds in the aftermath of the 2005 Hello Garci controversy:

"The reason many people, particularly the youth, have given to justify their failure to act, politically, over the last few years, can be reduced to the singsong phrase, 'same same.' This is a great evil of our times, this 'pare-pareho lang sila' mentality, which justifies tolerating the status quo on the defeatist assumption that all leaders are the same."

It goes on to say:

"... the youth’s turning away from active involvement in the political sphere, even if understandable, isn’t excusable. A society that rationalizes its refusal to exact accountability from its leaders is a society conspiring to excuse itself from the basic responsibilities of citizenship."

Active involvement in the political sphere is not equal to going to the streets in an attempt to extraconstitutionally oust a president. For all the reasons given for not going to the streets every time there is a crisis, I hope it is for this reason-- we have learned that doing another EDSA is a bad thing. If you think about it, EDSA is anathema to the concept of democracy. EDSA is the rule of the people who went to EDSA-- one cannot assume that non-participation in EDSA is tantamout to abdication. More people did not participate in EDSA-- which is a valid political position-- yet the participants' preferences won the day. What's so democratic about that? Are we to say that the people who marched in EDSA are smarter or more patriotic than those who didn't and therefore their wishes should prevail?

On hindsight, I think it was good that EDSA II happened and things turned out the way they did. If GMA turned out to be a good president, we would just have EDSA after EDSA after EDSA whenever there's a crisis. EDSA should be treated like major surgery-- something to be done only under dire circumstances, not every time we feel an itch. It's about time we learned democracy the hard way. Real political involvement is being a good citizen, studying the issues, and making a wise vote. It's not joining political lynch mobs, peaceful or otherwise.

***

Still on political involvement, word is out that the Vatican ordered Cardinal Sin to stand down and not take any partisan action during EDSA II. This explains the sudden withdrawal of the Church from political activity after EDSA II, especially after Cardinal Sin's death. Political rallies are now largely prohibited on the EDSA Shrine, and even at the height of the Hello Garci scandal the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines did not issue any partisan statement even if a few of its members already did so.

Our bishops should re-read Gaudium et Spes, particularly par. 76, which begins with:

"76. It is very important, especially where a pluralistic society prevails, that there be a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and a clear distinction between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and the activities which, in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church.

"The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person."

It is when the Church, or religion in general, gets mixed up with politics that we get the worst results. That's when we get the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Taliban, and George W. Bush.

Auschwitz... Dachau... Mauthausen... Taguig

Seems like the fallout after the idiotic siege of Manila Pen just keeps on coming:

Textbook Godwin's Law. Genius linking "final option" with "final solution", but why stop there? There's final exams, Final Fantasy, the World Cup Finals... the list goes on, you know.

I didn't post about the whole media thing after that idiotic siege, but I did make a comment about it in my Dear's blog. For the record, here's what I said about the whole thing:

I listened to the whole event on radio, and I don't think the police "arrested" media people because they were covering the event. The fog of war (ok, fog of idiotic coup) was present at the time, and I can't blame the police for picking up everyone in the same room as Trillanes and his cabal. The media people claim that they were well aware of the risks involved in staying-- well, being mixed up with the coup plotters is one of those risks. Trillanes used the media people as human shields, and the media people were more than happy to oblige. Well, willing human shields should not complain when they're caught in the crossfire.

The media freedom card should not be used wantonly. Media people should know the difference between an attack on press freedom and an attack on their personal convenience.

And by fallout I mean the pieces that fall after idiots smear their shit on the walls.