Boxing icon Manny Pacquiao, recently elected to the Philippine congress, has been heavily reported on by US news media recently, most notable of these the prestigious and well viewed 60 Minutes program on CBS. The ever smiling champion clearly charmed interviewer Bob Simon particularly when Pacquiao responded to the question as to who he believed was the best boxer of all time. “Including me?” asked Pacquiao. His answer that he believed he was the “one”, seemed uncharacteristic for the once outwardly humble Filipino, yet he seems to have a new air of self confidence, perhaps the result of his newly acquired political standing.
His self evaluation as the greatest of all time is definitely not an idle boast. Bob Arum, who has promoted many of Muhammad Ali’s championship bouts, made the same statement. “ He is a unique fighter, “ Arum explained. “Most fighters are ‘one-armed’ punchers. Pacquiao is different, he has power from both his left and right fists.”
And both fists are definitely going to be needed when he faces Antonio Margarito for the world’s super welterweight title November 13th in front of an expected 70,000 patrons at Jerry Jones’ Cowboy Stadium in Dallas, Texas. A win will give Pacquiao his eighth title adding to his already unprecedented seven world championship belts. And in the Philippines crime will take a brief holiday, insurrections will wait for another day, millions of tv sets will be on; taxis, jeepneys and calesas will be idled as all will watch with anticipation and glee the expected triumph of the one Filipino who seems to always put his money where his mouth is. Since he is descended from Cebuano ancestors we certainly expect a KULAS moment, kulas being the acronym for Kuyaw Ug Labok Ang
Sugbuanon. Whether in victory or defeat Manny will be in the hearts of all Filipinos.
Manny was also big in the news both in Nevada and California for reasons other than his boxing career. He is now a congressman and seems to understand the value an endorsement has in winning voters over. So when ex-boxer Harry Reid, the beleaguered candidate for re-election in Nevada, called Manny for the help the latter graciously and happily did so. The Nevada race was a very close one and the Tea Party movement had made Reid a special target for defeat. Swinging a few thousand Filipino American voters to Reid’s column certainly helped the current majority leader win re-election. Reid is an important figure in Washington and having him on our side is truly beneficial for Philippine interests. Good work, Manny.
*********************
The recent US midterm elections saw the unseating of the Democrats and the stunning, though expected, triumph of the Tea Party-energized Republicans. It also saw the election or re-election of more than 2 dozen Filipino-Americans to various positions around the country, most notably the confirmation by voters of the appointment of Tani Santil Sakauye as chief justice of the California Supreme Court. She is a descendant of Filipino migrant workers and now occupies the highest ever position attained by a Filipino American in the US mainland.
Hawaii, the state that gave us Ben Cayetano, the first ever American of Filipino descent elected governor of a US state, again led the field in number of Fil-Am candidates elected. A post election controversy, however, seems to have surfaced. It seems that supporters of Lynn Berbano Finnegan, the candidate for lieutenant governor as the running mate for Duke Aiona, are upset that many Filipino Hawaiians voted for the other ticket headed by Neil Abercrombie, the eventual winner. The Aiona-Finnegan partisans seemed to have expected that voters of Filipino descent should support candidates based on their ethnicity and I have a problem with this attitude.
Politicians and candidates of Filipino descent ought to be evaluated and voted on based on their qualifications and programs of government. In a state like Hawaii, candidates need to pull together a broad coalition that has appeal to the general voting public regardless their ethnicity. I remember back in the 1970’s many Filipino-Americans were complaining that it was difficult to get a Filipino-American elected because the Japanese-Americans as well as the Chinese-American community were larger then and usually voted as a block for candidates of their ethnic group regardless the qualifications of other candidates. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, the Finnegan supporters seem to want to do exactly what we opposed in the ‘70’s i.e. vote only based on one’s ethnic identity. There have been many successful Filipino-American candidates in Hawaii, most notably Ben Cayetano. And their road to success was made possible because they appealed to voters across ethnic groups. It is well and good to vote for a fellow Filipino American, yet the obligation to vote for the most qualified cannot be shelved aside for ethnicity’s sake.
ldq@aol.com
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Can Peace come to Jolo?
A Conversation with Father Joe
In school geography, from the earliest grades on, we generally referred to Jolo as belonging to an extremity, as in “from Aparri to Jolo”, to describe the length of the Philippines’ territorial reach. It’s coordinates per Google are as follows: 6°0′N 118°2′E.
Once upon a time the islands conjured, in our minds, images of swift, colorful vintas often, rightly or wrongly, feared for its reputation as the carrier of fierce warrior-pirates. At one time in fact, the smuggling of ‘blue seal’ cigarettes and other contraband was a primary source of income for the islanders.
There are many tribes that populate the islands. The most well known of these are the Tausugs and the Badjaos. The former are known for their fierceness and bravery (their tribal name is a combination of the words tau which means people, and ma-isug meaning brave) . The latter, the Badjaos, are known as adventurous seafarers and can reputedly ‘smell’ the weather and can sense an approaching storm at sea several hours before others can discern them. Since they spend most of their lives at sea and their ‘base homes’ are huts on stilts near the shore, it is said that when a new baby is born the badjao mother throws the little one into the sea. If the baby survives then he belongs in the tribe. If the baby drowns and dies then they conclude it would not have survived long anyway as falling into the water is a daily experience for badjao youngsters. ‘Sink or swim’ literally is a matter of life and death for them.
Jolo has been in the news over the past few years and very much less because of its colorful tribes but more because of the seemingly incessant violence visited upon the islands by groups of gunmen, some of whom are allegedly ‘Al Qaeda’ type ‘rebels’ also referred to as the ‘Abu Sayyaf’, while others are no more than gangs and thugs who kidnap, kill and rob natives and visitors alike.
What got me into writing about Jolo is that about a week ago, at a global family reunion in Houston, Texas I got reconnected with one of the eminent members of the generation in the family immediately preceding mine, the Rev. Joe Ante, OMI. During a brief lull in the reunion activities he and I got to talk a bit about Jolo. Father Joe, as we and his many parishioners call him, has been a parish priest in Jolo since 1964. And no, he was not exiled there by his superiors in the Oblate of Mary Immaculate order. In fact he was the top superior in that order at the time and at another time had also been the president of the Notre Dame University system in Mindanao.
“ I volunteered for the Jolo assignment because no one wanted to go there. As the superior I felt it incumbent upon me to take on this mission myself,” he explained.
“So how does a Catholic missionary function and survive in a seemingly hostile Muslim environment?” I asked as I had heard that Father Joe and others in the order have been targets of assassination attempts including three incidents of grenade attacks.
“I got lucky”, he said with a smile as he explained how one of the grenades missed him and rolled into the cathedral ( no one was hurt).
His mission, he explained, was one of education and the providing of skills to both the Christian and Muslim youth in the island.
“If our youth are educated,” he said, “then there is a better chance that we can find peace and togetherness in the future. It is a necessary, preliminary process”.
He explained that the natural hostility that Muslims might have for Christian missionaries is somewhat tamped down because he does not make any overt moves to try and ‘convert’ his Muslim students. In fact he demonstrates great respect for his students and Muslims in general and uses his extensive knowledge of their culture to ensure that nothing he does offends their religious sensitivities. He also maintains a very cordial and mutually informative relationship with Muslim religious leaders in the island and gets to interact with them on a regular basis.
He avers that educating the youth of the islands, including those from the Muslim population, gives him satisfaction that he is fulfilling his Christian mission. He does devote much of his time and effort attending to the religious needs of the 2,000 or so Catholics who are still in the islands.
Still he says, it is a hostile and violent place. It is reported that many officials who supposedly occupy local positions have relocated themselves and their families to places like Manila, Cebu and Zamboanga.
What about kidnappings, is that something that concerns him? What if he gets kidnapped by the Abu Sayyaf?
“I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it” he said with a smile, “yet I know I will always be an educator and if they care to listen to me we may even get somewhere,”.
Bravery and heroism take many forms. Even as I write this Fr. Joe is on his way back to Jolo and his mission. His family located around the world all pray that he makes it back for our next family reunion in the summer of 2012.
ldq44@aol.com
In school geography, from the earliest grades on, we generally referred to Jolo as belonging to an extremity, as in “from Aparri to Jolo”, to describe the length of the Philippines’ territorial reach. It’s coordinates per Google are as follows: 6°0′N 118°2′E.
Once upon a time the islands conjured, in our minds, images of swift, colorful vintas often, rightly or wrongly, feared for its reputation as the carrier of fierce warrior-pirates. At one time in fact, the smuggling of ‘blue seal’ cigarettes and other contraband was a primary source of income for the islanders.
There are many tribes that populate the islands. The most well known of these are the Tausugs and the Badjaos. The former are known for their fierceness and bravery (their tribal name is a combination of the words tau which means people, and ma-isug meaning brave) . The latter, the Badjaos, are known as adventurous seafarers and can reputedly ‘smell’ the weather and can sense an approaching storm at sea several hours before others can discern them. Since they spend most of their lives at sea and their ‘base homes’ are huts on stilts near the shore, it is said that when a new baby is born the badjao mother throws the little one into the sea. If the baby survives then he belongs in the tribe. If the baby drowns and dies then they conclude it would not have survived long anyway as falling into the water is a daily experience for badjao youngsters. ‘Sink or swim’ literally is a matter of life and death for them.
Jolo has been in the news over the past few years and very much less because of its colorful tribes but more because of the seemingly incessant violence visited upon the islands by groups of gunmen, some of whom are allegedly ‘Al Qaeda’ type ‘rebels’ also referred to as the ‘Abu Sayyaf’, while others are no more than gangs and thugs who kidnap, kill and rob natives and visitors alike.
What got me into writing about Jolo is that about a week ago, at a global family reunion in Houston, Texas I got reconnected with one of the eminent members of the generation in the family immediately preceding mine, the Rev. Joe Ante, OMI. During a brief lull in the reunion activities he and I got to talk a bit about Jolo. Father Joe, as we and his many parishioners call him, has been a parish priest in Jolo since 1964. And no, he was not exiled there by his superiors in the Oblate of Mary Immaculate order. In fact he was the top superior in that order at the time and at another time had also been the president of the Notre Dame University system in Mindanao.
“ I volunteered for the Jolo assignment because no one wanted to go there. As the superior I felt it incumbent upon me to take on this mission myself,” he explained.
“So how does a Catholic missionary function and survive in a seemingly hostile Muslim environment?” I asked as I had heard that Father Joe and others in the order have been targets of assassination attempts including three incidents of grenade attacks.
“I got lucky”, he said with a smile as he explained how one of the grenades missed him and rolled into the cathedral ( no one was hurt).
His mission, he explained, was one of education and the providing of skills to both the Christian and Muslim youth in the island.
“If our youth are educated,” he said, “then there is a better chance that we can find peace and togetherness in the future. It is a necessary, preliminary process”.
He explained that the natural hostility that Muslims might have for Christian missionaries is somewhat tamped down because he does not make any overt moves to try and ‘convert’ his Muslim students. In fact he demonstrates great respect for his students and Muslims in general and uses his extensive knowledge of their culture to ensure that nothing he does offends their religious sensitivities. He also maintains a very cordial and mutually informative relationship with Muslim religious leaders in the island and gets to interact with them on a regular basis.
He avers that educating the youth of the islands, including those from the Muslim population, gives him satisfaction that he is fulfilling his Christian mission. He does devote much of his time and effort attending to the religious needs of the 2,000 or so Catholics who are still in the islands.
Still he says, it is a hostile and violent place. It is reported that many officials who supposedly occupy local positions have relocated themselves and their families to places like Manila, Cebu and Zamboanga.
What about kidnappings, is that something that concerns him? What if he gets kidnapped by the Abu Sayyaf?
“I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it” he said with a smile, “yet I know I will always be an educator and if they care to listen to me we may even get somewhere,”.
Bravery and heroism take many forms. Even as I write this Fr. Joe is on his way back to Jolo and his mission. His family located around the world all pray that he makes it back for our next family reunion in the summer of 2012.
ldq44@aol.com
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
SF Giants are Champions; Pinoy Connection
SF Giants are Champions
Thanks to a ‘Freak’ who is part Pinoy
The wait for this championship moment was definitely an excruciating one, to be sure. The Giants moved to San Francisco from New York in 1958. Their counterparts of sorts, the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles the same year, and the intent of Major League bigwigs was to expand interest in baseball nationwide and what a better way than to introduce a west coast “rivalry”.
And natural rivals they were. There has long been a “one upmanship” contests of sorts between L.A. and San Fran ( “please don’t call us Frisco!!). In fact one could even say that residents of the two cities often deride each other publicly (e.g. “Beat L.A.”)
But insofar as major league baseball is concerned the L.A. Dodgers have had the upper hand. They began winning World Series championships since 1965 with a pitcher by the name of Sandy Koufax leading an outstanding staff. Later they also had Fernando Valenzuela, Kirk Gibson and other greats. The Giants on the other hand meandered along over the decades.
San Francisco is where I spent my first few years of life in the US and for this reason it is where I developed my “team loyalties”. I was a fan of the Giants in baseball, of the 49ers in football and the Golden State Warriors in basketball. And speaking of the Warriors, in the 1974-75 season, I managed to get me a couple of annual passes as one of the editors of Philippine News. This gave me free access to games at the Alameda Coliseum where they played. And that was the one year that they won the NBA championship thanks to Rick Barry and a few guys named Joe.
But back to baseball. The moment I think that I truly fell in love with the Giants was that one late afternoon in August of 1974 when, driving from L.A. to SFO in my old 1965 Ford Fairlane I was listening to a baseball game between the Giants and the Dodgers narrated by the venerable Vin Scully. It was the first game ever for a new rookie Giants pitcher by the name of John Montefusco. That game stuck in my mind because Montefusco ( he was nicknamed “The Count” in reference to the count of Montecristo) came to bat in the 9th inning I think and the bases were loaded. Few people gave him a chance to ever hit the ball and drive anyone in. The whole stadium erupted when not only did he hit the ball, he delivered a grand slam home run and won the game. From then on “The Count” became a Giants favorite and is regarded as one of the legends of the game in that city.
The Giants also had several big name players including Willie Mays, Willie McCovey and Bobby Bonds. Later Bobby’s son, and Willie Mays’ godson, Barry Bonds became the team’s stalwart thru the 1990’s.
Though I moved to the Los Angeles area in 1978 and lived there for 33 or so years, I kept my team loyalties anchored in my San Francisco roots. Needless to say I got ribbed by officemates during the bad years when the Giants did not fare well and the Dodgers won world championships. I thought the tide finally turned in 1989 when two Bay Area teams, the Giants and the Oakland A’s faced each other in the World Series. Well, would you believe it? Before they could hurl the first pitch the big San Francisco earthquake of 1989 happened. The stadium was vacated and the series postponed by a week or so and they had to play the game at the Oakland Coliseum. The Giants were swept 4-0. More humiliation.
Then again in 2002 the Giants were in the World Series versus the Anaheim Angels. I thought they would get the deal done by game 6 since they were leading 3 games to 2. But the resilient Angels managed to win the next two games. Bummer!
Over the past 2 years my interest in the Giants were revived with the arrival of Tim Lincecum. This very thin, long haired pitcher proved to be a phenom. He won two back-to-back Cy Young awards in 2008 and 2009, as the National League’s best pitcher. If I’m not mistaken this is the first time ever that a rookie accomplished this feat. He got the nickname “The Freak” because it is almost unbelievable that a guy so thin could hurl a baseball so fast and so wickedly that he has become the league’s strikeout leader.
And then I find out that his mother is Filipina, a 2nd generation Pinay, Rebecca de Asis, whose father was born in Hawaii and moved to Washington state. One of his ancestors, a grandmother, named Alberta Alcoy, came from Cebu City. So for the past year, like many Filipino Americans in the area I checked the schedule out to see when he’s pitching and make it a point to catch his game on TV. I saw both of the two World Series games he pitched, the 1st and the 5th games, the latter to clinch the title for the once hapless Giants.
After 52 years they finally won a championship as a west coast team to add to the 5 that they had won while still in New York.
And yes, I join all the Pinoys in the US who proudly claim Tim Lincecum as one of our own. By the way he does have a great sense of humor as well. Asked if he had met Manny Pacquiao and compares his accomplishments to that of the world boxing champion, he said, “ I can’t possibly beat Manny Pacquiao even with a bat in my hand.”
ldq44@aol.com
Thanks to a ‘Freak’ who is part Pinoy
The wait for this championship moment was definitely an excruciating one, to be sure. The Giants moved to San Francisco from New York in 1958. Their counterparts of sorts, the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles the same year, and the intent of Major League bigwigs was to expand interest in baseball nationwide and what a better way than to introduce a west coast “rivalry”.
And natural rivals they were. There has long been a “one upmanship” contests of sorts between L.A. and San Fran ( “please don’t call us Frisco!!). In fact one could even say that residents of the two cities often deride each other publicly (e.g. “Beat L.A.”)
But insofar as major league baseball is concerned the L.A. Dodgers have had the upper hand. They began winning World Series championships since 1965 with a pitcher by the name of Sandy Koufax leading an outstanding staff. Later they also had Fernando Valenzuela, Kirk Gibson and other greats. The Giants on the other hand meandered along over the decades.
San Francisco is where I spent my first few years of life in the US and for this reason it is where I developed my “team loyalties”. I was a fan of the Giants in baseball, of the 49ers in football and the Golden State Warriors in basketball. And speaking of the Warriors, in the 1974-75 season, I managed to get me a couple of annual passes as one of the editors of Philippine News. This gave me free access to games at the Alameda Coliseum where they played. And that was the one year that they won the NBA championship thanks to Rick Barry and a few guys named Joe.
But back to baseball. The moment I think that I truly fell in love with the Giants was that one late afternoon in August of 1974 when, driving from L.A. to SFO in my old 1965 Ford Fairlane I was listening to a baseball game between the Giants and the Dodgers narrated by the venerable Vin Scully. It was the first game ever for a new rookie Giants pitcher by the name of John Montefusco. That game stuck in my mind because Montefusco ( he was nicknamed “The Count” in reference to the count of Montecristo) came to bat in the 9th inning I think and the bases were loaded. Few people gave him a chance to ever hit the ball and drive anyone in. The whole stadium erupted when not only did he hit the ball, he delivered a grand slam home run and won the game. From then on “The Count” became a Giants favorite and is regarded as one of the legends of the game in that city.
The Giants also had several big name players including Willie Mays, Willie McCovey and Bobby Bonds. Later Bobby’s son, and Willie Mays’ godson, Barry Bonds became the team’s stalwart thru the 1990’s.
Though I moved to the Los Angeles area in 1978 and lived there for 33 or so years, I kept my team loyalties anchored in my San Francisco roots. Needless to say I got ribbed by officemates during the bad years when the Giants did not fare well and the Dodgers won world championships. I thought the tide finally turned in 1989 when two Bay Area teams, the Giants and the Oakland A’s faced each other in the World Series. Well, would you believe it? Before they could hurl the first pitch the big San Francisco earthquake of 1989 happened. The stadium was vacated and the series postponed by a week or so and they had to play the game at the Oakland Coliseum. The Giants were swept 4-0. More humiliation.
Then again in 2002 the Giants were in the World Series versus the Anaheim Angels. I thought they would get the deal done by game 6 since they were leading 3 games to 2. But the resilient Angels managed to win the next two games. Bummer!
Over the past 2 years my interest in the Giants were revived with the arrival of Tim Lincecum. This very thin, long haired pitcher proved to be a phenom. He won two back-to-back Cy Young awards in 2008 and 2009, as the National League’s best pitcher. If I’m not mistaken this is the first time ever that a rookie accomplished this feat. He got the nickname “The Freak” because it is almost unbelievable that a guy so thin could hurl a baseball so fast and so wickedly that he has become the league’s strikeout leader.
And then I find out that his mother is Filipina, a 2nd generation Pinay, Rebecca de Asis, whose father was born in Hawaii and moved to Washington state. One of his ancestors, a grandmother, named Alberta Alcoy, came from Cebu City. So for the past year, like many Filipino Americans in the area I checked the schedule out to see when he’s pitching and make it a point to catch his game on TV. I saw both of the two World Series games he pitched, the 1st and the 5th games, the latter to clinch the title for the once hapless Giants.
After 52 years they finally won a championship as a west coast team to add to the 5 that they had won while still in New York.
And yes, I join all the Pinoys in the US who proudly claim Tim Lincecum as one of our own. By the way he does have a great sense of humor as well. Asked if he had met Manny Pacquiao and compares his accomplishments to that of the world boxing champion, he said, “ I can’t possibly beat Manny Pacquiao even with a bat in my hand.”
ldq44@aol.com
Monday, November 1, 2010
I Hung Up on President Obama
Sure, it was only a “robocall” made to millions of voters this morning (just as I was having my first cup of coffee) but it was President Obama’s voice. No such call was made in 2008 and that it was deemed necessary this time around perhaps underscores the desperation that the Democratic Party has sunk to. A last ditch attempt to reach and hopefully convince the millions of us who crossed party lines in 2008 to vote for Obama to once again cast our lot with his party.
Sorry bud, you should have known that you had one chance to make it work and you blew it. And, oh, by the way, I also have received almost daily emails from you, Michelle, Joe Biden and various other sources in the party hierarchy. This morning I received one from you that included this line:
“Leandro, we've got to keep moving America forward -- but I need allies in the Senate and governing states to make it happen.”
Come now, Mr. President, you know that’s b.s. We gave you a 60 member majority in the senate in 2008 and what did you do with it? You ended up giving us a healthcare reform bill that will raise health insurance costs, not reduce it. If you believed in your heart of hearts that lowering of such costs can only come with a public option why did you so easily and casually abandon it? Now my neighbor, who did not vote for you and opposed your ideas from the very start, is laughing at me, for good cause, and on the health care issue I can no longer defend your program with much the same vigor as I did eighteen months ago.
Then of course you got the $700 billion stimulus bill passed and I told my neighbor then that we should start seeing unemployment numbers come down as the stimulus money begins to make its way into the economy. Boy was I wrong. Unemployment did not diminish, it increased. And all the gobbledygook you and your economists put out made no sense and had no impact. Sure it was Bush who got us to where we were but we elected you to reverse the Bush tide and fix the problem.
You said in 2008 that we need to stop Washington’s “business as usual” mode and that you would usher in “change”. Well, you didn’t. You entrusted the stimulus spending to the very entities that you said we needed to remake.It seems you were expecting a different result by doing exactly the same thing.
And of course there are many other things that puzzle ex-supporters like me.
You said that you would close Guantanamo, yet it is still open and functioning as it did when Bush was president. My question is did you really mean what you said or were you so naïve and so inexperienced that you really did not know what you were talking about in 2008?
Anyway, sorry for rudely hanging up on you this morning. I just had no stomach to hear your pleas to go to the election booth to vote for your friends. And I imagine, based on the polls, that much of the country feels as I do.
In fact we feel so helpless and so frustrated that it is possible that we might send a pro wrestling promoter in Connecticut to the senate and in Nevada we would probably elect a nut case who once advocated giving prisoners massages and who threatened to eliminate Social Security as well as Medicare. What harm could they do? We want to send a message. Any message. The message for you is: keep your word. You promised a new brand of leadership yet in the end you turned out to be no more than the politicians and lobbyist driven hordes you sought to demonize not less than two years ago.
And of course we know that the Republicans are no better and that they threw everything at you from the outset, and your own seeming ineptness made them the more effective. And all we are left with is this very bad taste in our mouths as we quietly utter, ah, “ a plague on both your houses”. Who can we turn to next? Exactly.
Sorry bud, you should have known that you had one chance to make it work and you blew it. And, oh, by the way, I also have received almost daily emails from you, Michelle, Joe Biden and various other sources in the party hierarchy. This morning I received one from you that included this line:
“Leandro, we've got to keep moving America forward -- but I need allies in the Senate and governing states to make it happen.”
Come now, Mr. President, you know that’s b.s. We gave you a 60 member majority in the senate in 2008 and what did you do with it? You ended up giving us a healthcare reform bill that will raise health insurance costs, not reduce it. If you believed in your heart of hearts that lowering of such costs can only come with a public option why did you so easily and casually abandon it? Now my neighbor, who did not vote for you and opposed your ideas from the very start, is laughing at me, for good cause, and on the health care issue I can no longer defend your program with much the same vigor as I did eighteen months ago.
Then of course you got the $700 billion stimulus bill passed and I told my neighbor then that we should start seeing unemployment numbers come down as the stimulus money begins to make its way into the economy. Boy was I wrong. Unemployment did not diminish, it increased. And all the gobbledygook you and your economists put out made no sense and had no impact. Sure it was Bush who got us to where we were but we elected you to reverse the Bush tide and fix the problem.
You said in 2008 that we need to stop Washington’s “business as usual” mode and that you would usher in “change”. Well, you didn’t. You entrusted the stimulus spending to the very entities that you said we needed to remake.It seems you were expecting a different result by doing exactly the same thing.
And of course there are many other things that puzzle ex-supporters like me.
You said that you would close Guantanamo, yet it is still open and functioning as it did when Bush was president. My question is did you really mean what you said or were you so naïve and so inexperienced that you really did not know what you were talking about in 2008?
Anyway, sorry for rudely hanging up on you this morning. I just had no stomach to hear your pleas to go to the election booth to vote for your friends. And I imagine, based on the polls, that much of the country feels as I do.
In fact we feel so helpless and so frustrated that it is possible that we might send a pro wrestling promoter in Connecticut to the senate and in Nevada we would probably elect a nut case who once advocated giving prisoners massages and who threatened to eliminate Social Security as well as Medicare. What harm could they do? We want to send a message. Any message. The message for you is: keep your word. You promised a new brand of leadership yet in the end you turned out to be no more than the politicians and lobbyist driven hordes you sought to demonize not less than two years ago.
And of course we know that the Republicans are no better and that they threw everything at you from the outset, and your own seeming ineptness made them the more effective. And all we are left with is this very bad taste in our mouths as we quietly utter, ah, “ a plague on both your houses”. Who can we turn to next? Exactly.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Why Obama is “Failing” and the rise of the Nutcases
Like millions in America I too looked at the 2008 presidential elections as an opportunity to usher in “real change”. The prospects were encouraging for people like me. The protagonists were John McCain, whose 2000 campaign I supported and joined, and Barack Obama. With either as president we would certainly see some serious change in Washington.
McCain’s unexpected selection of Sarah Palin for vice-president unveiled for me a flaw in his character that I was not comfortable with: he seemed prepared to take a risk, a gamble, for risk sake, perhaps to cement his “maverick” credentials, but certainly not a quality we want in our president.
So I was one of the 8 or 9 million Republicans, Independents and conservative Democrats who cast a vote for Obama. Here was a man who envisioned himself a “transformational” president who would help remake our future as FDR once did or Abe Lincoln over a century ago.
But now here I am with probably the same 8 or 9 million who are now quite disenchanted with Obama.
Speaking for myself, here are my reasons for the turnaround:
• He promised that we would not have “Washington as usual” and would bring an end to partisanship. Yet his attempts at having Republican senators and congressmen board his wagon seemed feeble and ineffectual. For sure the GOP was determined to see him fail and adopted the “NO” mantra to anything he proposed, but I thought he could have tried harder. And if they did not want to be active participants in bringing about change he should have proceeded with the promises he made in the campaign and not water down the Health Care legislation to appease the GOP. If having a “public option” was the trigger to lowering health care costs he shouldn’t have backed away from it. Now health care costs are rising, thanks to insurance companies’ greed and they’re blaming Obamacare for it.
• He promised he would end the influence of the lobbyists for good. Well, he hasn’t. While it may be true that lobbyist do not seem to have much of a presence in the White House, they are all over Congress in even bigger numbers and with even more visible clout. I had expected Obama to go to Congress with a whip and lash at the lobbyists the same way that Jesus cast off the money changers from the temple. Obama could have, at the outset of his term, demanded from congress a strong reform law that publicly financed national , congressional, state and city elections thus reducing to a vast extent the influence of political contributors. The country would have supported this. It seems he really did not mean what he said in 2008.
• He obtained passage of a $700 billion stimulus package but thereafter seems to have lost sight as to what the objective of the stimulus was: to stir up the economy and get Americans employed again. It is clear that he has underestimated the negative and depressing impact that unemployment creates in the minds of people who cannot find jobs. Unemployment insurance is fine for a couple of months but people who are used to earning a paycheck are definitely more buoyant in their demeanor and outlook; they prefer to be “doers” and not “do nothings” relying on a “dole” regardless of whether they have paid unemployment insurance dues all their lives. If it were not so painful I might have died laughing when I heard President Obama a few weeks ago said he is asking another $ 50 billion in funds to devote to “infrastructure” programs. Wait, weren’t you supposed to do that with the $700 billion stimulus program in 2009?
I am not a “tea party” sympathizer by any stretch of the imagination but I can truly understand how irate some segments of the voting public are. They seem to be prepared to elect an ex-witch in Delaware and a glowing nut case in Nevada to the US senate just to express their anger. Or perhaps a large segment of the electorate has come to realize that regardless how smart or how altruistic the motivations are for the leaders we’ve sent to Washington, in the long run they can’t do us much good. Perhaps the witch and the nut cases might stir a different brew. How much worse could they make Washington?
Personally I find Obama's fall to be a tragic one. The hopes of so many were riding on him. Had he just lived by the cause he espoused, and lured millions of us to,
the outcome might have been different. Had he just made a decision that he would do the right thing for America at all times regardless the political consequences he would have, at the very least, kept the respect of many who want this country to be great and successful in every aspect of human endeavor. Alas, sadly, he chose the path of the politician, and indeed the country is worse for it and I wonder if we shall recover at all. "Hannibal ante portas" the beleaguered Italian villagers used to scream as the invading Carthagenians approached. The demagogic Tea Party tainted Republicans are about to take over after November 2nd. The billionaires, millionaires,corporate entities and their minions are bursting at the chance of a Bacchanalian celebration but I doubt that many of us would join them, nor even get invited.
ldq44@aol.com
McCain’s unexpected selection of Sarah Palin for vice-president unveiled for me a flaw in his character that I was not comfortable with: he seemed prepared to take a risk, a gamble, for risk sake, perhaps to cement his “maverick” credentials, but certainly not a quality we want in our president.
So I was one of the 8 or 9 million Republicans, Independents and conservative Democrats who cast a vote for Obama. Here was a man who envisioned himself a “transformational” president who would help remake our future as FDR once did or Abe Lincoln over a century ago.
But now here I am with probably the same 8 or 9 million who are now quite disenchanted with Obama.
Speaking for myself, here are my reasons for the turnaround:
• He promised that we would not have “Washington as usual” and would bring an end to partisanship. Yet his attempts at having Republican senators and congressmen board his wagon seemed feeble and ineffectual. For sure the GOP was determined to see him fail and adopted the “NO” mantra to anything he proposed, but I thought he could have tried harder. And if they did not want to be active participants in bringing about change he should have proceeded with the promises he made in the campaign and not water down the Health Care legislation to appease the GOP. If having a “public option” was the trigger to lowering health care costs he shouldn’t have backed away from it. Now health care costs are rising, thanks to insurance companies’ greed and they’re blaming Obamacare for it.
• He promised he would end the influence of the lobbyists for good. Well, he hasn’t. While it may be true that lobbyist do not seem to have much of a presence in the White House, they are all over Congress in even bigger numbers and with even more visible clout. I had expected Obama to go to Congress with a whip and lash at the lobbyists the same way that Jesus cast off the money changers from the temple. Obama could have, at the outset of his term, demanded from congress a strong reform law that publicly financed national , congressional, state and city elections thus reducing to a vast extent the influence of political contributors. The country would have supported this. It seems he really did not mean what he said in 2008.
• He obtained passage of a $700 billion stimulus package but thereafter seems to have lost sight as to what the objective of the stimulus was: to stir up the economy and get Americans employed again. It is clear that he has underestimated the negative and depressing impact that unemployment creates in the minds of people who cannot find jobs. Unemployment insurance is fine for a couple of months but people who are used to earning a paycheck are definitely more buoyant in their demeanor and outlook; they prefer to be “doers” and not “do nothings” relying on a “dole” regardless of whether they have paid unemployment insurance dues all their lives. If it were not so painful I might have died laughing when I heard President Obama a few weeks ago said he is asking another $ 50 billion in funds to devote to “infrastructure” programs. Wait, weren’t you supposed to do that with the $700 billion stimulus program in 2009?
I am not a “tea party” sympathizer by any stretch of the imagination but I can truly understand how irate some segments of the voting public are. They seem to be prepared to elect an ex-witch in Delaware and a glowing nut case in Nevada to the US senate just to express their anger. Or perhaps a large segment of the electorate has come to realize that regardless how smart or how altruistic the motivations are for the leaders we’ve sent to Washington, in the long run they can’t do us much good. Perhaps the witch and the nut cases might stir a different brew. How much worse could they make Washington?
Personally I find Obama's fall to be a tragic one. The hopes of so many were riding on him. Had he just lived by the cause he espoused, and lured millions of us to,
the outcome might have been different. Had he just made a decision that he would do the right thing for America at all times regardless the political consequences he would have, at the very least, kept the respect of many who want this country to be great and successful in every aspect of human endeavor. Alas, sadly, he chose the path of the politician, and indeed the country is worse for it and I wonder if we shall recover at all. "Hannibal ante portas" the beleaguered Italian villagers used to scream as the invading Carthagenians approached. The demagogic Tea Party tainted Republicans are about to take over after November 2nd. The billionaires, millionaires,corporate entities and their minions are bursting at the chance of a Bacchanalian celebration but I doubt that many of us would join them, nor even get invited.
ldq44@aol.com
Friday, October 15, 2010
Aquino’s Missed Opportunity: An Exercise in ‘Wishy-Washy’
This is a rewrite of an earlier column. This one focuses mainly on
the Aquino findings and its implications
We are close to two months since the infamous “Mendoza-cum-police-incompetence-cum-egg-in-our-faces” massacre of Hong Kong tourists. Finally, President Aquino let known his “findings” and “actions”. Does anyone get the impression that here a “mountain labored forth and sired a molehill”?
Seven or so weeks of inquiries, investigations, back-and-forths in media speculation, coupled with promises of “repercussions” and what did we come up with?
Eight officials have been “tagged” as the culprits. Yet the way it has been explained is a demonstration of confusion and indecisiveness. There seems to be a scheme to “spread out” the blame so that no one person is really burned too badly. That, hopefully, misery will love company. It revealed an indecisiveness not worthy of a country’s president.
“Maybe this, probably that, perhaps here, could be there,” is what I seem to hear as the verdict for the heinous and tragic loss of life. For example, why is Merciditas Gutierrez, the ombudsman, held liable in this case “because she enraged” Mendoza by not being “clear” about his case? Why was it even necessary to go to her for a remedy?
No judge in the civilized world would promise a terrorist-hostage taker that a decision would be reversed, otherwise there’ll be hostage taking every week.
The position of the government, represented by the chief of police, should have been, and must always be that “We do not negotiate with terrorists”! “ We will gladly hear your side but only after you let the hostages go and put down your weapons,” is a statement that should have been made very clearly and resolutely.
The media people who had access to and also gave a venue for the terrorist; why were they even allowed close to the scene? Perhaps because Manila’s corrupt police find they must cater to the media lest some of their daily shenanigans get exposed, or that perhaps by extending the media unusual or unprecedented access the latter will treat the police leadership with kid gloves, maybe even portray them as heroes? The police could have kept the media ten blocks away from the scene. Life or death emergencies, acts of terrorism and general mayhem that threatens lives and the public order justify certain levels of restriction over media access and activity. “The need to know” concerns can be addressed and satisfied after the crisis is resolved and danger to lives dissipated. A case can be made that there is a symbiotic, and filthy, interaction between police and media on a daily basis hence in critical situations like the hostage taking, the “tayo-tayo” culture gets into play.
It is unfortunate that President Aquino failed to seize this moment, this opportunity to usher in true and far reaching reforms in an area of life that touches most Filipinos – their police forces. He should have taken Rahm Emmanuels’ oft quoted advice that, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before”.
I had hoped that in dealing with the August 23 carnage that President Aquino would use the occasion to once and for all institute strong, serious, effective and a much needed revamp of our police services. Not just a change in personnel but in the very character of our law enforcement institutions. That he would finally work to rid our police forces of the gross incompetence that has come about because of the corruption, nepotism and lack of professionalism in that institution. It is sad and tragic that he has instead taken the “wishy-washy” approach. And so the zarzuela continues, the “moro-moro” lingers on. Entertaining perhaps, yet hardly funny.
Aside from firing the police brass he also could have then come up with a clear “code of conduct” for our police officers that emphasizes service to all citizens regardless of stature in life, and an uncompromising stance against any and all criminality regardless of who is involved. He could have listed down the “top ten” principles that policemen must adhere to and have it posted at all precincts. And before the start of the each shift the police officers would verbally affirm their commitment by reciting these principles.
He could then have also told the citizenry to document any corruption they hear of
or see and send it to Malacanang. Those cell phone cameras/videos could really come in handy.
If he had used all his power, both as the official head of state, and as a person respected by all for his undisputed integrity, he could have ushered in a much needed renaissance for our country. The country is behind him. He has a mandate to clean government up. The Manila police department would have been a very good place to start. Needless to say he and the country missed an opportunity to take that serious and credible first step to reversing the decades old problem of police corruption, and what we are left is this dreadful feeling that more crises will come and the mistakes that characterized the massacre of the Hong Kong tourists may well repeat itself.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
P-Noy and ‘Pinoys’: An Exercise in ‘Wishy-Washy’?
We are close to two months since the infamous “Mendoza-cum-police-incompetence-cum-egg-in-our-faces” massacre of Hong Kong tourists. Finally, President Aquino let known his “findings” and “actions”. Does anyone get the impression that here a “mountain labored forth and sired a molehill”?
Seven or so weeks of inquiries, investigations, back-and-forths in media speculation, coupled with promises of “repercussions” and what did we come up with?
Eight officials have been “tagged” as the culprits. Yet the way it has been explained is a demonstration of confusion and indecisiveness. There seems to be a scheme to “spread out” the blame so that no one person is really burned too badly. That, hopefully, misery will love company.
“Maybe this, probably that, perhaps here, could be there,” is what I seem to hear as the verdict for the heinous and tragic loss of life. For example, why is Merciditas Gutierrez, the ombudsman, held liable in this case “because she enraged” Mendoza by not being “clear” about his case? Why was it even necessary to go to her for a remedy?
The position of the government, represented by the chief of police, should have been, and must always be that “We do not negotiate with terrorists”! “ We will gladly hear your side but only after you let the hostages go and put down your weapons,” is a statement that should have been made very clearly and resolutely.
The media people who had access to and also gave a venue for the terrorist; why were they even allowed close to the scene? Perhaps because our corrupt police find they must cater to the media lest some of their daily shenanigans get exposed, or that perhaps by extending the media unusual or unprecedented access the latter will treat the police leadership with kid gloves? The police could have kept the media ten blocks away from the scene. Life or death emergencies, acts of terrorism and general mayhem that threatens lives and the public order justify certain levels of restriction over media access and activity. “The need to know” concerns can be addressed and satisfied after the crisis is resolved and danger to lives dissipated.
And the “wishy-washy” syndrome seems to manifest itself all over government. Take the case of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima telling the media that she “contemplated” resigning over Aquino’s selective use of her findings and recommendations. Say what? So, O.K., the flaw here is perhaps not so much the wishy-washiness of the situation but the utter lack of loyalty and delicadeza on her part.
She is a cabinet appointee and “serves at the pleasure of the President”. If she has, had or will have a disagreement with him she should arrange to see him in his office, in private and express her views to him. If at the end of the process he still decides to go it his way then she is bound to march in lock-step with him. If she has to leave she ought to do so in a manner that does not in any way undermine his authority and standing. Openly discussing it with the media is just plain wrong, and a display of classlessness on her part.
A parallel can perhaps be drawn from the recent departures from the Obama administration. Larry Summers left so that he could go back to Harvard; Jim Jones to pursue “other interests” and so forth and so on. As appointees they are members of the President’s team and if their usefulness had been diminished and their departure necessary so that changes in policy and direction can be effected by the president, they made sure that it would be with the least amount of disruption and damage to his administration.
Then too there is this joke of a situation at the Dept of Interior and Local Governments, where there is apparently an open airing of disparate and opposing views between the Secretary, Jesse Robredo, and the undersecretary Rico Puno. Why are these clowns playing this out in public? Robredo is the department head, Puno reports to him.
If the latter has any concerns and disagreements those should be aired privately to Robredo and if Puno believes he cannot continue to support his boss he should find a “graceful exit” and move on. The job and the mission of the department cannot be more important than Puno’s ego or “hurt feelings”. And why is Aquino handling this matter in public? He should have summoned the two to his office and told them in no uncertain terms that if either of them again airs “dirty linen” in public that would be their last act as members of his official family. In fact he should issue the same warning to all appointees in his administration. Get down to business and get the job done. Period.
I had hoped that in dealing with the August 23 carnage that President Aquino would use the occasion to once and for all institute strong, serious, effective and a much needed revamp of our police services. Not just a change in personnel but in the very character of our law enforcement institutions. That he would finally work to rid our police forces of the gross incompetence that has come about because of the corruption, nepotism and lack of professionalism in that institution. It is sad and tragic that he has instead taken the “wishy-washy” approach. And so the zarzuela continues, the “moro-moro” lingers on. Entertaining perhaps, yet hardly funny.
Seven or so weeks of inquiries, investigations, back-and-forths in media speculation, coupled with promises of “repercussions” and what did we come up with?
Eight officials have been “tagged” as the culprits. Yet the way it has been explained is a demonstration of confusion and indecisiveness. There seems to be a scheme to “spread out” the blame so that no one person is really burned too badly. That, hopefully, misery will love company.
“Maybe this, probably that, perhaps here, could be there,” is what I seem to hear as the verdict for the heinous and tragic loss of life. For example, why is Merciditas Gutierrez, the ombudsman, held liable in this case “because she enraged” Mendoza by not being “clear” about his case? Why was it even necessary to go to her for a remedy?
The position of the government, represented by the chief of police, should have been, and must always be that “We do not negotiate with terrorists”! “ We will gladly hear your side but only after you let the hostages go and put down your weapons,” is a statement that should have been made very clearly and resolutely.
The media people who had access to and also gave a venue for the terrorist; why were they even allowed close to the scene? Perhaps because our corrupt police find they must cater to the media lest some of their daily shenanigans get exposed, or that perhaps by extending the media unusual or unprecedented access the latter will treat the police leadership with kid gloves? The police could have kept the media ten blocks away from the scene. Life or death emergencies, acts of terrorism and general mayhem that threatens lives and the public order justify certain levels of restriction over media access and activity. “The need to know” concerns can be addressed and satisfied after the crisis is resolved and danger to lives dissipated.
And the “wishy-washy” syndrome seems to manifest itself all over government. Take the case of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima telling the media that she “contemplated” resigning over Aquino’s selective use of her findings and recommendations. Say what? So, O.K., the flaw here is perhaps not so much the wishy-washiness of the situation but the utter lack of loyalty and delicadeza on her part.
She is a cabinet appointee and “serves at the pleasure of the President”. If she has, had or will have a disagreement with him she should arrange to see him in his office, in private and express her views to him. If at the end of the process he still decides to go it his way then she is bound to march in lock-step with him. If she has to leave she ought to do so in a manner that does not in any way undermine his authority and standing. Openly discussing it with the media is just plain wrong, and a display of classlessness on her part.
A parallel can perhaps be drawn from the recent departures from the Obama administration. Larry Summers left so that he could go back to Harvard; Jim Jones to pursue “other interests” and so forth and so on. As appointees they are members of the President’s team and if their usefulness had been diminished and their departure necessary so that changes in policy and direction can be effected by the president, they made sure that it would be with the least amount of disruption and damage to his administration.
Then too there is this joke of a situation at the Dept of Interior and Local Governments, where there is apparently an open airing of disparate and opposing views between the Secretary, Jesse Robredo, and the undersecretary Rico Puno. Why are these clowns playing this out in public? Robredo is the department head, Puno reports to him.
If the latter has any concerns and disagreements those should be aired privately to Robredo and if Puno believes he cannot continue to support his boss he should find a “graceful exit” and move on. The job and the mission of the department cannot be more important than Puno’s ego or “hurt feelings”. And why is Aquino handling this matter in public? He should have summoned the two to his office and told them in no uncertain terms that if either of them again airs “dirty linen” in public that would be their last act as members of his official family. In fact he should issue the same warning to all appointees in his administration. Get down to business and get the job done. Period.
I had hoped that in dealing with the August 23 carnage that President Aquino would use the occasion to once and for all institute strong, serious, effective and a much needed revamp of our police services. Not just a change in personnel but in the very character of our law enforcement institutions. That he would finally work to rid our police forces of the gross incompetence that has come about because of the corruption, nepotism and lack of professionalism in that institution. It is sad and tragic that he has instead taken the “wishy-washy” approach. And so the zarzuela continues, the “moro-moro” lingers on. Entertaining perhaps, yet hardly funny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)