The Man on the Hill

There once was a young man who was traveling the land and came upon a hill surrounded by huge wonderful trees fed from a clear flowing spring. There were fish in the water, birds singing in the trees and deer running and grazing in the field. On top of the hill sat a house and around it the most beautiful wild flowers the man had seen in all his travels. He was marveling at the sight when an old man stepped out from the house, saw the young man, and a large frown started forming in his face.

The young man quickly smiled and said “Beautiful place you have” meaning every word of it. “Beautiful?” The old man practically shouted back: “Beautiful? What’s so beautiful about it? The damn things just grow wild around here!” Knowing he wasn’t welcome, the young man took his leave with a last look around. The older man noticed and started beating at the flowers and throwing rocks into the stream, and all the time cursing and cussing in ever louder tones. The young man could only shake his head as he walked away. He thought “I hope to be back here again someday. Such beauty.” With a deep sigh he walked on.

Years passed and the young man, now much older, did find his way back to the place but he wouldn’t have guessed it from what he saw. He barely recognized the place. The stream had dried up. Some of the trees had been cut and were now just stumps in the ground while others stood bare with their branches pleading to the heavens. There were no birds or deer. The fields were parched and warm winds blew dust into the air. The house was still there, rotting and decrepit. The shrubs were now just thorns. The place was dead.

The young man remembered how it once looked and standing on the hill could, again, only shake his head. “Why?” He wondered. How could the old man be wrapped in all that beauty and not care? “All that beauty and he couldn’t see it.” 

On his way down the hill, the man was eaten by a lion.

Standard

Traffic on my Mind

The Philippine Daily Inquirer came out with a stunning headline that read something like the Secretary of the Department of Transportation said that traffic is “just a state of mind.” For the millions of Filipinos that see themselves stuck in traffic on a daily basis, it came as a bad joke.

To be fair, the Department has denied that the Secretary said anything like that. It appears that what he was actually saying was that we, Filipinos, should stop making traffic an excuse for being late for anything IF there isn’t any heavy traffic at all. That’s a very big “if”. The problem is, of course, when exactly isn’t there heavy traffic? I mean, at the times that matter, say going to and from office, heavy traffic is a given. Isn’t that why some people are asking Congress to give the president emergency powers to deal with the traffic situation? I am sure they are well aware of the situation. Unfortunately, the good secretary’s statement, however well intentioned, just fell among the other face-palm worthy government commentaries on traffic, the most painful one coming from former president Noynoy Aquino himself when he said, twice if I’m not mistaken, that heavy traffic was a sign of progress. There is a grain of truth somewhere in there but for those who suffer through hours and hours of traffic on end, it’s no comfort at all.

A friend of mine saw her daily commute that used to take forty-five minutes stretch to two hours. Try passing by Cubao in Quezon City around 4:30 in the morning and you run into traffic. Yes, that’s 4:30 AM! Wisdom dictates that if you want to beat traffic you have to leave earlier but if there’s traffic at the most ungodly hours, what time do you actually have to leave to make it to your office or school?! There was a time I could leave my house along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City before 6 AM to make it to my office in Makati around 7:30 AM. That’s still one-and-a-half hours. Try that today and you will get there at 9 AM. The culprits are Cubao, of course, and Ortigas. Commonwealth Avenue itself, even with six to eight lanes can get pretty congested early in the morning. It’s more manageable compared to later on the day but even with such a wide avenue traffic is a problem.

And the solution itself is a problem. When you try to leave the house too early, or try to leave the office too late, just to skip traffic, and do the same thing all over again every day of the workweek then you begin to question whether or not this is all worth it. Leaving too early and too late just leaves you less time for anything else in your life. Life can’t be just about living on the road going to or from the house or office. We already slog through eight hours of work, do we really have to go through four to six hours of traffic?

You see, when we say it’s traffic. It really is. We are not just making excuses for being late. It really is just traffic. It is a reality. Something we want to change. We want a better life. One that isn’t so preoccupied with, or dominated by so much traffic. Government should just get on the business of fixing traffic. There is already so much that is needed to be done and talk, as they say, is cheap. Maybe then we don’t have to suffer through traffic, be it real or imagined.

Standard

A Bombing in Davao

It’s just one among many — there have been many bombings in the Philippines — but this one has been the root of more trouble than any one before. It could have been set off anywhere but it had to be Davao, the city that the current president of the Philippines used to be the mayor of. If the perpetrators wanted to send a message, then they can be pretty sure the president heard it but the message, whatever that may be, appears to have been lost in the chaos after the bomb went off.

The old joke goes that in every crime committed in the Philippines, there are only three possible motives: away sa pera (disagreement about money); agawan ng lupa (land disputes); or love triangle. In this case, the first suspects were the Abu Sayyaf Group because the government had recently launched an offensive to destroy the ASG in Sulu. The ASG has denied any involvement in the bombing and instead pointed to another group that is supposed to be sympathetic to them. Regardless, the police appears to have another suspect: disgruntled vendors. It appears that the local government had recently awarded stalls in the market and those who didn’t get one supposedly set off the bomb in the market in retaliation. (If you’re wondering where this would fall in the three motives above, then it would be a variation of number two.) All kidding aside, however, whether it is any one of these groups or not, this bomb set off something more in the Philippines.

It is no secret that the current president won the last elections by mere plurality and not a majority. The majority voted for someone else. Unfortunately, they voted for different candidates and, in the end, out of the five who ran for president, Rodrigo Duterte got the most votes. The former mayor of Davao prided himself with making the city, the nation’s largest, safe. How he did it is wrapped in controversy. As the story goes, death squads have allegedly been set loose killing drug pushers and other suspected criminals. He is a populist leader whose campaign promise to be tough on crime within the first six (6) months of his term he carried out with singleminded ruthlessness. In just two (2) months in office, there have been around 2,000 deaths reported. These deaths were attributed to police operations where the victim allegedly resisted arrest, hitmen allegedly paid by the police following a kill list, and vigilantes allegedly emboldened by the pronouncements of the president to go and shoot drug pushers and users. To be fair, the police have denied any involvement with hitmen and so-called extra-judicial killings. Still, his war on drugs and his declarations against the observance of human rights has caused many, both here and abroad, to criticize him and his war. He couldn’t care less. His critics despise him and his tactics, while his followers are quick to defend him and occasionally troll his critics. Then the bomb went off.

In an already divided land, this bombing has turned rifts into chasms with the anti-Duterte group gleefully pointing out the failure of the government to prevent the bombing and its terrible consequences. Some even said that the president or his government deserved it. That is just wrong. While this government may not be the ideal we want it to be, we also cannot indirectly support such criminal acts with unfair criticisms of the president and his government. Like I said, this bombing could have been done anywhere in the Philippines. Had it gone off in Cebu, Ilocos or “Imperial” Manila, what then? Would our attitudes change? The hardest critics perhaps wouldn’t because it would still be a picture of this government’s failure to protect its people. Still, the death of innocents, whether caused by terrorists, plain criminals or the government itself deserves but one reaction: condemnation and a resolve to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Unfortunately, the government isn’t helping the situation and appears to have overreacted. The president decided to declare a state of lawlessness, which is less than a declaration of martial law. Still, the Constitution appears to require more than just one bombing to authorize the president as Commander-in-Chief to call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion (Article VII, Section 18). By grouping lawless violence with invasion and rebellion, it appears that a major emergency should be on hand before the army can be called out. Think of riots where properties are burned and people injured that is quickly spreading or becomes prolonged. While the results of this single bombing was certainly terrible, it was no different from any other single bombing the Philippines have gone through before. Had it been a series of bombings over a wider area, then I could have understood the response better. What happened was a crime, and undoubtedly violent, but I don’t think it’s enough to call out the armed forces. Proclamation No. 55 of the president declaring a state of emergency in view of lawless violence appears to admit this point and instead views this incident as the latest in a long line of lawless acts committed by various groups or individuals over the years in Mindanao. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a stretch if I ever saw one.

It is that overreaction that has people criticizing the government all over again. With suspicions against it already high because of his war on drugs, the declaration is suspected of being used to condition Filipinos to the presence of the armed forces in the streets. It should be noted that the war on drugs has policemen knocking on doors and searching houses even without warrants. Such practices, while cloaked under a police operation, may be legal but it should not violate the rights of the homeowners. If they refuse entry to  the police, then that should not be taken against them. If the police has probable cause to believe the homeowner is involved in a crime, then it should get a warrant to search the house. Without it, they cannot force their way in or arrest the homeowner. The police is banking on the idea that people will accept the intrusion because, well, if they have nothing to hide, then all will be well but that is not how the law works. They should not even be there in the first place unless that have probable cause or a valid warrant to make a search or arrest. In a way, people are getting bullied into submission. Martial law by acquiescence. That’s something people should really seriously worry about.

I believe that the government can conduct police and military operations it deems necessary to keep the country safe. It should be noted that the army has been out there fighting the New People’s Army  as well as Muslim separatists who have been conducting rebellions for decades. During all that time, the Supreme Court has been able to guide the executive on the conduct of such operations in ways that would respect the rights of the citizens. If this government can restrain itself and operate within the parameters set by the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, then everything should be fine.

But there lies the problem: can we actually trust the government to respect the law and the rights of individuals? I wonder. I really do. The collective pronouncements and actions of the president appears to show a propensity toward disregarding it. His chief of police is no better in his statements. In one speech, he actually told the audience to go out and kill the pushers and burn their houses. This is the chief of police calling on people to commit the crimes of murder, homicide and arson. One can presume that these people have the best intentions for the Philippines. However, their lack of filters when they speak publicly gives people cause to doubt their methods.

We Filipinos must criticize the president if and when necessary but we should do so in a manner that respects the office even if he himself cares little for such niceties. Critics must also reach out to his die-hard supporters and bridge the gap between them to let them see that we all mean the best for our country and the president. The critics must realize that for good or bad, he is the president and must act accordingly. The supporters must themselves correct the government when proper. The government listens to them. They should use that power to good use. We really cannot afford to continue to divide ourselves into factions; otherwise, we will cause more harm than what a single bomb can sending shockwaves through the generations. We have to learn to live us one, and with one voice proudly cry “Mabuhay ang Pilipinas” (Long live the Philippines)! When we are able to do that, we will be invincible.

Standard

One Man’s Dictator is Another Man’s Hero

Today’s controversy revolves around the question of whether or not the former President of the Republic of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, should be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes’ Cemetery). Does it matter where the former president should be interred? Yes, it matters. It matters to those who opposed his martial rule over the Philippines, and it matters to those who supported his presidency. The Libingan is viewed as a place of honor. Is Marcos entitled to a hero’s burial?

Before you get to the point where you have to answer that question, however, it pays to look back on how the country got to this point. 

It all began in 1965 when Marcos was elected the tenth president of the Republic. In 1972, he declared martial law and began his one-man rule over the country. He replaced or displaced oligarchs, long the mainstay of the country’s political and the economic life, with his cronies. He arrested, killed and “disappeared” those that questioned, threatened or opposed his rule. Near the end of his rule, the economy was in tatters with the country asking its creditors for a moratorium on its debt payments. Then that singular event happened: Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr., one of Marcos’ staunchest adversaries, came home to the Philippines, walked down to the tarmac of the airport that would later bear his name, and was shot dead by members of the security detail tasked with securing his person. The date, August 21, 1983. Thereafter, the people began to openly break away from the Marcos regime so much so that the strongman had to prove he was still in control of the country and called for a “snap” election: him versus anyone the opposition would like to throw at him. On 7 February 1986, Marcos ran against Ninoy’s widow, Corazon “Cory” Aquino, and lost. The Marcoses tried to make it appear that he won and held on to power for a few more days but by then he was so weak that two of his trusted allies, Police Chief, and later, President Fidel Ramos, and then Defense Secretary, later, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, broke away and tried to conduct a coup. When they were discovered, they holed up in their camps along Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA) and the Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Sin, called on the people to surround and protect them and their men. The people came out in droves, stopped armored personnel carriers with their hands, showered soldiers with flowers and prayers, and won the day. The Marcoses and some of their cronies fled the country and the reigns of power handed to Cory. The triumph of the EDSA Revolution!

It’s a great story but it is not the whole story. Even as people celebrated the defeat of the Marcoses, one has to realize that in all his years in power, many have benefited, some illegally but, certainly, some rightfully, from Marcos’ reign. We cannot discount the fact that he was able to help others while others suffered under his dictatorial rule. They were able to give land and money for medicines and other needs, and enacted laws still in use today. To those they were able to help in one form or another, I am sure that they will have a more forgiving image of the late dictator. To them, he would be a hero.

It does not end there. If the last vice presidential elections showed us anything, then it is that a lot of people still root for the Marcoses regardless of how the rest of the country feels about them. It is for that very reason, I think, that there is still this question now before us. 

Had all these Marcos supporters disappeared in a blink of an eye after the EDSA Revolution, then I think there would have been no question as to what should be done about the body of Marcos now. But, no, a crony was given a passport to return to the country. His widow and children have returned, ran for public office, won, and are again very much entrenched in their bailiwicks, and the Government has mixed results in its efforts to prosecute the Marcoses and regain their ill-gotten wealth. All that has allowed them to come and stay as if nothing happened before. Again, you have to realize that not everyone was pro-Cory after the revolution. Political butterflies hop to whatever flower is sweetest at the moment and move on when it loses its sweetness. It remains true even today.

The Libingan is intended for Filipinos who have served their country as part of its military services. That means that anyone from the Commander-in-Chief, the presidents, Secretaries of the Department of National Defense, Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces and down the chain of command to the soldiers for as long as they were not dishonorably discharged from service or convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude can be buried at the Libingan. This now also includes statesmen who have served with distinction. National Arists and Scientists were also added to the list. 

The argument goes that since Marcos was a soldier and a president, facts that no one can deny, Marcos is therefore entitled to be buried in the Libingan. Could it be that simple? I wish. The list of people entitled to be buried there is qualified. They should not have been dishonorably discharged or convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Admittedly, Marcos, again, was neither dishonorably discharged nor convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. So, it’s a go then? Not yet. The counter-argument goes that this cemetery is not just a cemetery. It is the cemetery for heroes. Marcos, they say, is no hero.

The problem with Marcos is that while he was in fact a president and a soldier, he was also a dictator. As former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay noted, the Philippine legislature had enacted a law that recognizes the rights of the victims of the Marcoses. Moreover, foreign courts have concluded that much of the wealth of the Marcoses were ill-gotten and should be given to their victims. Even the Philippine Supreme Court has said as much. The issue at hand, therefore, is whether or not it matters what kind of soldier or president Marcos was. Will that disqualify him from burial at the Libingan? If a soldier who has been dishonorably discharged or convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude can be disqualified from burial at the Libingan, then would such findings against Marcos be the equivalent of being dishonorably discharged from the presidency? One must note that he never did finish his presidency. Not in the way he would have liked, I’m sure. Does that matter? Does it matter that the reason why he didn’t finish it was that he was ousted from it?

If that is not enough, then one should also note that the Philippines has marked certain events in its calendar: August 21, the anniversary of the death of Ninoy; and February 25, the victory of the EDSA Revolution. Would those have to be revised as well?

The current president wants to bury Marcos at the Libingan. The followers of Marcos too. For them, his burial would bring an end to a sad chapter in Philippine history and allow its people to move on. On the other hand, the people opposed to it — especially the victims of the regime and their families — say that the Philippines has, in fact, moved on. It is the Marcos followers who have not. The burial, however, of one so hated by some in a place reserved for men of valor and those worthy of emulation would be a slap on the face of the countless victims of the old regime. It will, in fact, open old wounds and awaken old hatreds. Better for him to be interred in the land where he is still highly regarded: in the north where he was born, and, if things said are to be believed, also where he wished to be laid to rest.

The question has been raised before the Supreme Court, which is composed mostly of justices appointed by the Arroyo administration that is seen to be supportive of the current administration. That does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the burial but it does show that it is a slippery road ahead for those who oppose said burial. Beyond the emotions behind the parties’ motivations, it would be interesting to hear the legal arguments for and against the burial.

Personally, I think this situation is one of those “just because you can, it doesn’t mean you should” situations. Can they bury Marcos in the Libingan? Yes, they can. Should they? Ah, that, for me, would be a no. As Ex-SolGen Hilbay noted, Filipinos live by symbols and the burial of Marcos in such hallowed ground wouldn’t go unnoticed. We would truly be a miserable lot if we allow the body of a man whose presidency has meant nothing more than pain and suffering to many Filipinos be buried in the Libingan. Yes, we have allowed his family and cronies back. Yes, we’ve allowed them to reintegrate into our society but it does not mean, and it shouldn’t mean, that they are free to do anything they want. No, you can’t bury him in the Libingan. That would be too much already…

Standard

The Philippines’ De Facto Martial Law

Once upon a time, there were things we valued like “due process” and the Rule of Law. It was most revered and celebrated right after the Philippines rose from the darkness that was the Marcos era. Former President Marcos had imposed martial law over the country after a sham assassination attempt against the then Defense Secretary, Juan Ponce Enrile. Under martial rule, due process and the Rule of Law were disregarded and people deemed radicals, and the population in general, suffered for it. When the so-called Marcos Regime was finally defeated, a new Constitution was introduced and the Rules of Court revised to protect and preserve the right of the people to due process of law.

Decades later, a new Philippine president who counts the Marcoses as his friends is intent in bringing back the dark days when due process and the Rule of Law were considered nuisances rather than something to be respected and observed.

This president, a former prosecutor at that, has twice publicized the names of people allegedly involved in the illegal drug trade. The first list was composed of former and current police officers. The second, longer, list, contains the names of politicians, judges and others. The president claims that the list was verified and re-verified before he made it public. Interestingly, one of the judges he named appears to have passed away eight (8) years ago. How someone dead figures in the illegal drug trade has yet to be established but it does make you wonder what kind of verification and re-verification was undertaken by those who prepared it.

What’s more interesting though is that he ordered those he named and shamed to report to him (as far as the politicians, mostly mayors, are concerend) and the Supreme Court for the judges to clear their names.

Now, people might say “See, they are being given due process because they can try to prove their innocence! Doesn’t that prove that the president is adhering to the Rule of Law?” Well, no. Hell no!

He claims that he is duty-bound to the people who elected him president to tell the people “what is happening.” It might do well to remind the president that when he took his oath as president of the Republic of the Philippines, he swore to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. The Constitution he swore to uphold contains the Bill of Rights where the right to due process, among others, is enshrined. The president is also duty-bound to observe due process and the Rule of Law. When he declares that he is not bound to give anyone due process because he is not a court, he betrays a lack of understanding of one of the most fundamental principles of law. We shudder at the thought.

You see, it all begins with something called presumption of innocence. That means someone is innocent until he is proven guilty. To start an investigation, say a violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, a charge has to be made against a person that the accused will then answer. The charge will have to be specific enough for the accused to be able to refute. If the accusation progresses into a criminal complaint, then the matter is brought before a court for trial. There, both the prosecution and the defense present evidence to prove the guilt and innocence, respectively, of the accused. The judge then decides the case based on the law and the evidence presented. If found guilty, then the accused can appeal his case all the way to the Supreme Court. That is what we call due process of law and adherence to the Rule of Law.

What the president has done is do away with the presumption of innocence. Those he named are, to him, involved in the illegal drug trade. They do not have the presumption of innocence in their favor. Instead, like in China, they have to prove their innocence. The people he named and shamed does not even have anything specific to admit or deny. They are simply people involved in the illegal activity. How will they even begin to defend themselves? What exactly are they being accused of? What evidence is there that allegedly shows their participation in the crime? If the Government has something against each and every one of those named by the president, then the evidence should have been taken before a fiscal/prosecutor to determine whether or not there is probable cause to bring a criminal charge against that person. You do not subvert the Rule of Law by doing away with due process by making him answer a general accusation. In all likelihood, those accused would probably incriminate themselves or just plead guilty to get out of it.

It gets worse, whether these people are innocent or guilty, these people will forever have their names connected to the illegal drug trade but it doesn’t end with them. The same fate is now shared by their families. It will be harshest on the children. Those innocent will find it hard to shake off the stigma that will forever stain their lives. To that, the president only says he is responsible. Little comfort to the innocent. That’s where the president’s former position of prosecutor really stings: he should know better. We in the legal profession expect so much more from him because of it, and yet here we are. As the Good Book says, to whom much is given, much is expected. Two months into his administration, he is woefully found wanting. Should we even be surprised considering his record as former mayor of Davao where death squads abound giving us a foreshadowing of things to come? Yes, because, maybe foolishly, we thought he would change his ways and be more presidential when he won the post. With each passing day, he continues to prove us wrong.

Make no mistake, illegal drugs that kill and ruin the lives of thousands if not hundreds of thousands, should be addressed. No one is questioning or challenging that. What is being questioned and challenged is how it is being addressed. A War on Drugs has failed in Mexico, Colombia and the U.S. For all the firepower that has been employed to strike at those involved, the illegal drug trade is still going strong. Instead of a War, other states have opted to treat the problem as a health issue. The solution is controversial but in the countries that have taken such a step, the illegal drug trade isn’t as big a problem, if at all.

By his actions, this president has brought the Philippines back to the days of martial law when no one was presumed innocent; you had no rights; and everything was what the Government, and the president in particular, said it was. That’s exactly where we are right now. His Government sees human rights as something that can destroy the country. He is outraged at the statements of the Human Rights Commission, a body created under the Constitution to protect and uphold human rights. Most of his sorties are to police and military installations where he promises them higher salaries and full support purportedly in the War on Drugs. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to fear the worst.

At least Marcos had the decency to declare martial law. This president just rolled us in it.

Standard

Olympic Season

“You know Russian women!” 

That’s a joke my siblings and I started throwing around after seeing Russian athletes compete in the 1976 Olympics and noting how much more brawny the female Russian athletes seemed to be. Then the 1980 Olympics came around and sorta confirmed those once silly thoughts. Their depiction in movies did not help either.

Olympic season is once again upon us and Russia faces its greatest athletic crisis. It has just been exposed as a cheat. Not just a couple of its athletes but the entire nation. It turns out that the Russian Government has been running a doping program for years. As a result, its entire track and field team has been banned from participating in the Olympics. The International Olympic Committee, however, stopped short of banning the entire Russian Team. They left it to the various sports federations to determine whether or not to allow Russian athletes to compete in particular events. Some feel the IOC failed to do its mandate while the IOC itself feels it has done its part. Certainly, Russian athletes who insist they are innocent want to compete, and, generally, that’s what the IOC is thinking. The innocent should be able to compete.

On the other hand, when a national government knowingly undertakes a doping program in order to ensure victory, or at least increase the chances of its athletes to do so, then there must be some consequence…that should hurt really really bad. Doping cheats all the other athletes from all over the world of the Olympic experience. It’s just wrong and those who do so should be punished. Granted that some Russian athletes may not be involved but we are not punishing individual athletes here — that happens when they are found positive for drugs after testing — but the country itself. Punishing the country consequently means that none of its athletes should be allowed to participate in sporting events. That’s the punishment for the country.

The IOC says such a “nuclear” solution will only cause death and destruction, presumably to the innocent Russian athletes deemed as collateral damage, which is not, according to them, what the Olympics stand for. Really? I’m sure when they wanted to go higher, stronger and faster, they weren’t thinking that it should be drug induced. Again, the focus I think is on who is being punished here and it shouldn’t be the athletes but the country.

What my siblings and I thought of was just a joke but what the IOC decided to do seems to me the bigger joke. If the IOC wanted to make a statement, then it failed, unless it really wanted to make us laugh instead, in which case, I guess they succeeded.

Standard

Reality Check

Not to douse water on what is, in truth and in fact, a historic win for the Philippines but one cannot take the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration dismissing the claims of China over much of the West Philippine Sea/South China Sea through the use of their magical nine-dash line and separate it from the realities of navigating those waters. The truth is that any Philippine vessel in the area from fishing boats to navy ships gets chased off by big bad China.

Again, not taking anything away from the legal team that gave the Philippines this victory, one must understand that the ruling was practically a shoo-in when China refused to participate in the process other than to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Once the tribunal said that it had jurisdiction, that was it. It is tempting to describe the battle as David versus Goliath but, truth be told, this is really a paper victory because unlike the Philistines who turned and ran when Goliath was felled by David’s stone, China is not going anywhere anytime soon. The Philippines will be hard put to enforce the arbitral award. No one, not one nation, not even the US for all its talk, will risk war with China. In the end, the Philippines will be forced to enter into bilateral talks with China in order to be able to exploit the resources found in that part of world. Bilateral talks which China has been proposing all along, and something which China can dominate in. So, really, this is a win for the Philippines but once the dust settles, I fear the Philippines will be going to China to appease the beast and get something going. In the end, China wins.

Whatever else we may believe, we also have to face reality. We have to find creative ways to use the ruling in our favor against China. That’s no easy feat. To do so needs a credible use of force, or the threat of it. We cannot do that without a respectable navy with ships capable of exerting force.

So, what do we have? We have the ruling. We also have friends. Friends with guns. Now, some of those friends like playing by their own rules much like China. So if we are really going to be smart about this, we have to play by our own rules. What do we have? A president that doesn’t play by the rules and a ruling earned by playing by the rules. That ladies and gentlemen is a lethal cocktail. If our Government doesn’t just roll over and play dead for China, then we have the makings of a very interesting diplomatic situation. Time I think for us to make our own reality.

Standard

America’s Love Affair with Guns

The US does not have a gun problem. It has an ego problem.

It simply amazes me that the US, as a whole, has done nothing of significance to curb gun violence despite the numerous mass killings that have tragically included children, and regular incidents it encounters on a daily basis. To an outsider, it appears that the US is collectively blind to the fact that there are too many guns out there. Guns that easily find themselves into the hands of terrorists (for that is what they are: people who sow terror in others by killing large numbers of individuals in a single event regardless of what their religious or political beliefs are). There are articles (just google them) that cite the fact that there are at least two shootings per month involving children, that is children shooting another person. Children, happily, cannot own guns but if the incident occurs that frequently, then you really do have a problem. Worse, there are articles that say there are at least two incidents per year where animals shoot people! It is said you shouldn’t do a movie with kids or animals. They should also say don’t leave guns around them. Children and animals can accidently cause a gun to discharge. Some children think it’s a toy. Carelessness kills and, yes, I’m looking at you, the gun owner.

Nobody is saying Americans should not be allowed to own guns. It’s in the Second Amendment of their Constitution but no right enshrined in the Constitution, least of all an amendment to it, can ever be absolute. Even a person’s right to life, liberty and property is not absolute. How can the right to own a gun be? You look at articles comparing the US with other developed countries and gun deaths in the US is clearly disproportionate. There are mass killings in other countries too but not in the frequency that occurs in the US. The difference between the US and everybody else is in the way they regulate gun ownership: while everyone else have strict rules on how to apply for, buy, and keep a gun, it’s practically non-existent in the US. Other countries see gun ownership as a privilege, not a right. The US, through the benefit of the Second Amendment, claims it as a right and the most rabid claims that said right is absolute. It’s insane. No one is saying get rid of the Second Amendment (although that wouldn’t be bad either), just have better gun controls.

Gun advocates provide numerous justifications but, seriously, none of them can ever be enough to justify doing nothing on gun control. The first argument goes “good people (with guns) stop bad people”. There are articles that show that there have been occasions when people who are licensed to carry firearms were able to stop someone who just shot someone. It is not clear in some of those situations whether or not the perpetrators were out on a rampage (that they would have continued killing after killing their initial victim) but it should be conceded that this is a good thing. Again, people who are licensed to carry their firearms should be able to use them in defense of self or others. It should be noted that in one incident, a gun owner whipped out his gun when he witnessed a violent crime transpiring and opened fire missing the perpetrator and hitting an innocent man instead. He is now on the run from the law. In most of the cases, the licensed gun owner didn’t need to fire his weapon.

The problem here, however, is in the fact that the bad guy had a gun to begin with, and, in another study, most mass killings were not stopped by a good guy with a gun but a good guy who tackled the bad guy and pinned him down long enough until the police arrived. In other cases, of course, the bad guys just shot themselves. The fact is that these incidents just supports my point above: licensed gun owners intervened; and there are too many guns that bad guys can get them too, legally or otherwise. To argue that since bad guys have guns I should have them as well merely feeds the beast that is the gun manufacturing industry. Chillingly, there is always a surge in gun sales immediately after a mass shooting in the US. It’s a knee-jerk reaction that only worsens the situation.

The other problem is that not all gun owners, licensed or otherwise, are responsible. They buy a gun, lose it, then buy another. Some buy guns, lose interest and sell them to whoever, or, God forbid, throw them away. It merely adds to the proliferation of guns. In other countries, you need to qualify to own and keep a gun. They give you tests before you are able to acquire one, and they keep testing you to check whether or not you should keep your gun. The result, there aren’t too many deaths from gunfire whether crime-related or accidental. In some US States, it seems all you need is an ID to prove you’re over 18 years of age and, voila, you can get one.

One other problem with the “good guy” argument is that today’s good guy can be tomorrow’s bad guy. All you need is one bad day and things get ugly pretty quick. Police officers train regularly to handle their weapons and they still get it wrong sometimes. How much more for weekend gun owners?

The other focus should be on the type of weapons that should be available for civilians. Handguns I understand. Shotguns even but assault rifles? Why on earth would you ever need one? These are weapons intended for the military because they need to be able to deliver a lot of fire in a given situation. What situation in civilian life could ever justify letting loose with an assault rifle? None, except if you’re a terrorist intent on doing harm to others. Think about it: even if a bad guy gets his hands on a semiautomatic handgun, the death he can cause is less than that by one armed with an assault rifle.

The other argument says guns don’t kill, people do. True, a gun needs a human agent to function but a gun, by itself, is an instrument of destruction. You can use a car to kill another human being but the car is basically a mode of transportation. A gun, whether it is a hunting rifle, a shotgun or a handgun, was created for a human being to use to kill for food or protection. It is said that the .45 handgun was invented to stop the jurementados of Muslim Mindanao when the then current weapons of the US military proved unable to do so for lack of stopping power. Soldiers would hit the berserker but he won’t go down. They needed a weapon that would stop the man on his tracks.

The Second Amendment allows for an armed militia but under the current global political landscape, with the US probably the only superpower in town, why would you need one? They already have a formidable armed forces and the National Guard. Why allow civilians to carry military-grade weapons? The only reason for it that I can think of is in case there is a Zombie Apocalypse, and what’s the likelihood of that?

And this is where the ego comes in. Americans love the image of the gunslinger. Unfortunately, they were “in” during the the Wild West era. Psychologically perhaps, Americans feel they just grabbed the land of others, the American Indians in particular, or maltreated slaves for so long, that they forever feel they are on the defensive, and to defend themselves against those who would take back what was theirs, Americans need the biggest baddest guns available. Enter the assault rifle. It seems that no matter how developed they’ve become, Americans feel insecure. The insecurity now seems so irrational that it includes their own Government. That insecurity is feeding the gun industry. A lack of leadership is not helping. You look to them after every mass shooting and you see people spouting the same arguments in defense of gun ownership, and poo-pooing arguments for gun control. It’s just disheartening in the face of so many deaths.

Again, no one is saying they can’t own guns. They don’t have to threaten their own Government that it can only take away their weapons “from [their] cold, dead hands”, something I heard Charlton Heston say for the NRA. They have to work with Government to keep guns and gun ownership in a very favorable light. People who oppose such a principled stand are condemning their fellow citizens to more violence. They must themselves be advocates of gun control; otherwise, they will be seen as advocates of the culture of death.

As an outsider looking in, one would want the US to succeed in gun control. One has heard so many great things about America from family and friends that you’d want them to be safe there. I myself have been fortunate to visit earlier this year. I felt safe there but could not also forget how an acquaintance was gunned down in a train some years ago. It bothers me. How much more for those who actually live there?

The US must rationalize gun ownership within its borders. They have to shed the macho image of the gunslinger and be more realistic. It has to define the Second Amendment if not get rid of it entirely. They have to do these, and soon, for them to be able to secure their citizens. Either that, or they spiral down into an ever widening culture of death with so many cold, dead hands…

Standard

Loving Things English

I’ve been to both New York and London and I must say that I love London more. More to see. More history. In fact, one of the interesting trips I made was to the  British Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The former taught me history while the other showed art over time. I enjoyed both but found the British Museum more informative. The Met showed fantastic pieces but it is in connection with the development of art. So, the statutes of Egypt’s first female pharaoh, Hathepsut, is presented as art more than historical pieces. The Greek armor is presented more as sculpture than protection even if somebody lived, fought and maybe even died in it. Again, either way, it was enlightening.

Beyond that, however, I find I like British films more than American movies and much of it is due to the language. I love it when they recreate Jane Austen’s world, Sherlock Holme’s Victorian England not just because of the visuals but, more importantly, it’s language. The script. The stresses. The accents. The spoken word. It is  a universe on its own.

Of course, there were times when I couldn’t understand a word someone was saying because of his accent, which was a bit worrying because he was supposed to be the usher. In New York, the usherette turned out to be Filipino and saved me from embarrassment.

I guess there was just something more grand about my UK experience even if I was there for work while I was vacationing in NY. There is something about the sights, sounds and feel of the UK that was just enchanting.

 

Standard

Gods at War

Marvel and DC, those comicbook giants, have each released a movie with practically the same themes: superheroes at war with each other but, somehow, one gets lambasted and the other praised. What gives?

To be sure, the two movies, DC’s Batman v Sperman: Dawn of Justice and Marvel’s Captain America: Civil War, have common elements: they involve family, especially moms; manipulation by a villain who is just plain human (not a metahuman or  enhanced as DC and Marvel respectively would refer to supers); government intervention (or an attempt at it), and an all out slugfest between the superheroes. Exciting stuff, IF you know how to mix them properly. As it stands, it seems that Marvel succeeded spectacularly and DC failed miserably. Alone, Superman and Batman are two of the most popular characters around but while the Dark Knight Batman trilogy worked well, Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice did not. In fact, for all the spectacle, it left you empty.

On the other side, Marvel has been churning out hit after hit. True, Civil War does not feel like a Captain America movie and more like an Avengers one with Tony Stark/Iron Man getting equal amount of screen time with Steve Rogers/Captain America. The movie needed it because it was because of the conflict between their two beliefs that gave rise to the War, although, compared to the source material, it was a rather small encounter.

The difference between the two though is quite simple: Civil War is built on friendship — between Steve and Bucky (Winter Soldier), Steve and Tony, and, to a lesser extent, Natasha Romanov (Black Widow) and Clint Barton (Hawkeye), Steve and Natasha, Tony and Jim Rhodes (War Machine) and Steve and Sam Wilson (Falcon). You even have something going on between Steve and Sharon Carter/Agent 13, and Vision and Wanda. DC didn’t have that, despite the source material having that as a central theme. Robin was dead. They turned Jimmy Olsen, photographer for the Daily Planet, into a spy and discovered. Yup, he’s dead too. These two characters have always been important to Bruce/Batman and Clark/Superman. Taking them away that way leaves these characters dead. The relationships that Bruce and Clark on the one hand, and Tony on the other, have with their mothers is but a part of who they are. The rest is due to their friends. DC missed that.

Friendships are essential in the whole story because it hurts you, the viewer, to see friends fighting each other and, yet, mesmerized by all their skill, weapons, talents and strength of character. DC just decided to bring in three of their most iconic characters and join in a slugfest, the very heart of which would leave you asking “why?” It’s so dissatisfying an explanation that you even wonder if these superheroes are worth it. Dawn of Justice may have started off as a Superman sequel but, with the introduction of Batman, the story got too complicated. Eventually, it felt like it wasn’t really a movie about Superman or Batman but Wonder Woman. I get it that it’s supposed to set up the coming of the Justice League what with all the cameos and the not so subtle hints but even that was badly managed. The plot was so messed up and characters badly casted or played that it hurts to watch sometimes. Remember how the idea of the Avengers began? It was just an after-credits scene and yet here we are. Civil War is not perfect but it works perfectly, and it all stems from those wonderful friendships.

An interesting sidelight to all this is a growing concern about civilians becoming collateral damage. DC built on that as the starting point of the conflict between the Bat and Superman but it went to great lengths to describe the final battleground as total devoid of humans because it was after office hours (what, no nightlife?) and “the monster” falling into an uninhabited area. Marvel also used it as their take off point, citing the casualties from the earlier adventures of the Avengers as a reason for government intervention, and the final fight scenes occurred in an unused part of an airport and an abandoned base. While we don’t mind the absence of civilians in the battlefield, it does make the films less real. Nevertheless, it may mean that DC and Marvel don’t want their audience to be desenthisized about collateral damage even if it is a reality. Ultimately, that is a good thing.

So, here you see both camps with the same basic story but with totally different results. Marvel won. Hands down.

Standard