My Reflection of The Two Popes

One of the unique offerings of Netflix this past month was the movie that talked about two popes, entitled, "The Two Popes". It shows the contrast between the current Pope, Pope Francis and the previous one, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Now, I'll leave this note here before I proceed with my reflection that most of what appears in the movie is based on 100% fiction. Pope Benedict, I believe is portrayed poorly. It shows the common trope of "conservatives are bad and progressives are good" while not addressing the in-between as much as I would have hoped.

That said, I liked how the movie made me reflect on the actual two popes. I'm at an age where I remember both of them being elected. I remember what both of them brought to the table as I noticed it in my life as a Catholic.

A line was said by Benedict in the film, "God always corrects one pope by presenting the world with another Pope. I'd like to see my correction." This line struck me as it wasn't the first time I had heard it. As a practicing Catholic, I love reading about how the popes in the past had addressed certain issues and how each pope is always different. They always bring different things to the table but always within the bounds of truth.

I remember the under Benedict XVI, a new translation of the mass became normal. The idea was to avoid translations of translations when celebrating the mass. The mass would be translated directly from Latin into the language being used. It was difficult at first but with this slight change came with it a huge appreciation for the faith I never knew was there.

Lines like, "And with your spirit," instead of "And also with you," have helped me see more clearly some truths that were previously not seen with the other translation. There are many more of these minor tweaks to the language which is said to encapsulate the meaning of the lines much better than the older translations. This is what I appreciate the most from Benedict XVI's papacy, which I don't think Pope Francis or Pope John Paul II would have even thought of addressing.

Contrast that to today, Pope Francis' papacy stresses the idea of welcoming more people to be in communion with the church. The single most important pronouncement, I believe, would be that all priests now have the authority to absolve the grievous sin of abortion. Most people do not know this but to stress how abhorrent abortion is to the church, she has a rule that abortion can only be forgiven when confessed to a bishop. In fact, the procedure when anyone confesses abortion to a priest who didn't have the authority to forgive it was to stop the confession and refer them directly to the bishop or to another priest who did have that authority.

The main goal of the church then was to stress the evil that was parading itself as a woman's right. Truly, it's much more difficult to be forgiven for abortion than for murder. Pope Francis, however, granted all priests the authority to forgive even abortions. This was done to stress the availability of God's love to the world. This move, I believe, is one that Pope Benedict would not have done as I think he wishes to stress the evil more than stress the power of God's mercy.

In fact, many conservative Catholics complained that this might be taken by the world as the church saying that abortion is not that grave a sin as it can be much more easily forgiven. I was one of those. But Pope Francis never said that abortion is any less grave now than before. He simply wishes to put more stress on the love of God for His children.

I find it very interesting to see what each pope brings to the table. Neither pope ever changed church doctrine. Then simply lead or nudge the church is the direction which is the most appropriate for their time. This is not to say that each pope is perfect. Far from it. But it's these imperfect popes we have that make our Church a great one.

Angkas, Tara Na!

There's this feud that Angkas and the LTFRB are having where Angkas is saying come the new year, 17,000 drivers will lose their jobs because LTFRB will only allow them to keep 10,000 drivers. LTFRB, on its part says that they in fact will usher in an additional 29,0000 jobs for the drivers as a result of introducing more players into the market. The LTFRB has said that Angkas is operating as a monopoly and that that should not be the case as it effectively puts the riding public in the hands of Angkas, a private company.

Now, as I've given ample time for the news to breathe and I myself have allotted some time to thinking about this issue, I've got to say that Angkas has got it right and we all should stand with Angkas on this matter. LTFRB saying that Angkas is operating as a monopoly is false. I repeat - ANGKAS IS NOT OPERATING AS A MONOPOLY.

Think about it. What is Angkas selling to the public? They're not selling an app where you can book motorcycle rides; they're selling transportation. As such, Angkas is nowhere near a monopoly. Angkas has to compete with all the other major players in transportation - buses, taxis, Grab, MRT and LRT. The LTFRB saying that Angkas is operating as a monopoly would be like saying that Titay's is operating as a monopoly since they're the only ones who produce Rosquillos.

Angkas, as a private company gets to enjoy being the only app based motorcycle ride sharing service. What LTFRB is doing is forcing this small playing field to have more competition when one would normally sprout out naturally.

Take the example of Netflix, for example. For the longest time, Netflix enjoyed being the only streaming service on the market and they were rewarded for that. Content creators liked being on Netflix as it allowed them to earn from their content and subscribers liked it for it's relatively low cost and ease of use on the side of the user. However, as time went by, other streaming services, like Hulu, Disney plus, and HBO plus, are making it so that Netflix is no longer the only player. This appearance of new players in the market happened organically WITHOUT any government intervention.

I think Angkas and it's very niche spot in the market should be left alone and a new player will simply pop out organically and it's this competition that will keep Angkas on their toes to provide the best service they possibly can. Until then, however, I think LTFRB should let Angkas operate as it is. Them forcing two other players into the scene simply reeks of corruption with some people suggesting that people in the government are pulling all these strings to that their company has a chance at succeeding on the market.

I've never ridden on an Angkas motorcycle but I stand with them as this case sets a very harmful precedence for other business who want to thrive. When the government has the power to dictate the market in this way, it's all a formula for disaster.

The Philippine Collegian

I've always known the Philippine Collegian to be biased to the left but they've shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted. Them and their allies cannot do anything wrong and if they are arrested, they cry wolf again and again without giving the whole story.

The latest of these allegations involve a group called Panday Sining. If you were to believe the Collegian, four of their members were illegally arrested while they were "making art". The charges are mentioned but only in passing but they always stress how aggressive the police were. The silence on this matter is very troubling and is actually a huge red flag for FAKE NEWS.

You see, an unbiased eye to the incident would at the very least include the statement of the police on the matter. A simple, "When asked why the Panday Sining activists were treated so roughly, the police merely responded _________," would have been sufficient to make the article a more well rounded article. The Collegian does mention the charges (vandalism) but they fail to show that this was an unjust arrest. Their conclusion right away is that the police merely want to silence the activists and that their rights were infringed upon. They even have their own hashtag, #StopTheAttacks

The Collegian doesn't even post this art as it would clearly show these activists were in fact guilty of vandalism. Photos surfaced in other news sources which show the vandalism done by these "artists".

Let me preface this by admitting that I may well be duped into thinking this was done by the artists and it could possibly be the case that they never had a hand in doing this at all! But weeks have passed and the Collegian is still very silent and refuses to publish pictures of these "works of art" by Panday Sining that I find it very much more probable that they were behind these vandals.

I seems that the Collegian as a whole seems to defend these vandals with every post they make. When they include words like, "to create murals and OTHER PROTEST MATERIALS depicting their critique ..." they've successfully conflated artistic murals with common vandalism and they expect everyone to believe their story.

I know the Collegian can be very dishonest in their reporting so I'll have to fill in the blanks to explain the policemen's "brutal" behavior. The most reasonable explanation I can derive is that these vandals were stopped by policemen and tried to make a run for it thus the policemen had to use some force in apprehending the vandals.

It's clear from the Collegian's framing of any issue lately, that they try to paint members of their side in as positive a light as possible and the the police/army in as negative a light as possible. As such, I need to blacken their whites and whiten their blacks to get a better view of the truth.

Such is the sad case of the Philippine Collegian.

Let the news breathe!

Last week saw wave after wave of complaints about a range of things concerning the SEA games that the Philippines is hosting. The first bit of news that broke was about a Php50M cauldron that was built. People thought that was excessive, which I believe is reasonable to think. Php50M is a lot of money for a structure that's just supposed to hold fire but I've spoken on this in a previous post.

The next wave of news came when several teams started arriving from other countries. Issues like the Cambodian team having to sleep on the floor of a holding room because their hotel room wasn't ready to some teams being brought to a different hotel started sprouting. Other news bits include some teams complaining about limited food options or a scarcity of water. There was even a news bit about the Singaporean team being served pork when some of them were Muslim.

Together with this wave of embarrassing news bits came news of some venues not being completed on time. Football fields or media centers that, based on the photos, were indeed embarrassing if they were in fact to be used. Now, the SEA games are ongoing and neither football field nor media center was used. No more pictures of toilet cubicles with two toilets inside and the like.

What have I to say about all these matters?

Let the news breathe! Around 24 hours would do.

It's very easy to jump on a news article that supports your viewpoint. Pro-admin camps will usually jump on any little news bit that will highlight the admin in a good light and anti-admin camps will do the same but with news bits that will show the admin in a bad light. As such, putting out any news bit that falls on either side of the aisle will no doubt be published to please a certain crowd.

Let's take the case of the Cambodian team sleeping on the floor. The news bit that broke the story didn't even get the side of the hotel as to why the team was sleeping on the floor, which I think is very irresponsible. The true story of the Cambodian team was that they simply arrived earlier than the agreed upon check-in time. The slept on the floor because they wanted to as the floor was carpeted.

The hotel that housed the team released a statement which explained everything very calmly and reasonably before the 24 hour breathing window expired. Those who shared about the Philippines being a bad host for treating its guests this way then became quiet as it was shown that everyone got riled up over a simple issue. Don't get me wrong, I still think it was an issue but it was very mild compared to how it was reported.

Another news bit that ticked me off was one where the article made it sound like there was a shortage of water for the athletes. "Athletes given 2 bottles of water only," the news goes. This news bit seemed odd to me at the onset as it sounded very familiar to me. The athletes said they were only given two bottles of water per room per day.

As our family operates a hotel, this was very familiar as industry standard is exactly that! Two complimentary bottles per room per day. There is free service water and paid bottled water beyond the two that you get for free but the way it was worded made it sound like the athletes came here for a Fyre Festival 2.0, which is very very much far from the truth.

The truth about this came out before the 24 hour breathing period and so if everyone simply waited for all the facts to come out, the Fyre Festival 2.0 comparison would never have been made. The same goes with the kikiam for breakfast news and the news bit about serving the muslim athletes pork! All of these supposed issues were explained further after the news was allowed to breathe.

So really, don't jump on any expose right away. Allow the news to breathe for 24 hours and you'll get a fuller picture of the entire story. In today's day and age, it can be very easy to forget that journalists have their own biases as well and we have to remember that they too can fall into the sin of reporting biased stories.

Not Prepared?

The 2019 SEA games have kicked off and the netizens (the most important Filipinos) are flooding social media with cases where the committee handling the event has bungled or made mistakes. Photos of unfinished event areas, athletes sleeping in function rooms or squatting on floors to (and this, I think is scraping the bottom of the barrel) eating the same food everyday. So much so that Alan Peter Cayetano has seen a need to address these allegations personally.

It must be said that organizing these type of events are very difficult and one will almost always end up with things like minor over sights, to major hassles. The most important part of every singular issue is that they are addressed! Now, if the Cambodian team is still sleeping on the floor a days after this happened, I'd say that's a major issue. Same goes with the teams from Timor-Leste, Myanmar and our own contingent.

Now, another issue I find in all of this is when news outlets decide to make a mountain out of a molehill. I saw the post of a Thai footballer simply stating that their head decided to buy them a different kind of food as the food that was served to them was repetitive. This wasn't a complaint, as far as I gathered from Google Translate. The way I see it, if I were an athlete and the news outlets saw me waiting for my food, ask me if I was hungry and publish that I was starving due to slow service.

These hiccups are normal for any major event. An amazing events coordinator will make it so that very few of those happen or make it onto Facebook. But our government officials are not trained in handling events. I would say that they should've hired a more competent organizer but I don't think that would've helped either.

Let's take a look at what the committee had to say about the first few incidents where some athletes had to wait in function rooms because their rooms weren't ready. I've been to my own share of hotels and this is NOT UNCOMMON!!! This irked me so much more than it probably should as our family does operate a hotel. Check-in time is typically in the afternoon and these athletes arrived early in the morning. Should they have been given preferential treatment? Maybe, but if all your guests for the SEA Games are VIP, then guess what? No one really is VIP.

This is why when one travels to a place early in the morning, it is expected that you'll have to wait until the afternoon to check-in. Also, these hotels inform their guests (or should, at least) that check-in time is usually around 2 or 3pm. So late check-ins? Not really. The function rooms were just set up to allow the athletes a place to rest while waiting. Considering the number of visitors arriving for the games, I'd venture to say the lobbies were full at this time and the function rooms were the only space decent enough for the hotel staff (yes, not the committee) decided to house their guests pre-check-in.

Just 2 bottles of water? (Gasps in Singaporean!) I seldom attribute to malice or incompetence things that can be more easily explained by ignorance. Hotels, in the Philippines typically include 2 water bottles per day per room (this matches with the story detail I read about) as a complementary thing for their guests. What's complimentary is the bottled water. Also typically free in Philippine Hotels - filtered water. Now, foreign athletes and local housekeeping attendants might lose more in the translation. Typically, the attendants will want to sell their wares and tell these foreigners that they made purchase more bottle water if they wish. Foreign athletes, may also be unaware that (for the most part) filtered water is safe for us to drink here). I'm sure that if I go to another country, I wouldn't know either!

Brought to a wrong hotel? (Gasps in Bahasa!) Looking at how the story went down, it seemed that a team was housed in one hotel while their staff was housed in another. In a less nefarious telling of the story, it could be said that the driver brought said team to their hotel only to find out that some people in his van should've been brought to another hotel. Lack of communication? Of course! Worthy of criticism, yes! Worthy of all the hate they're getting online? No.

Unfinished sporting venues? I see a lot of these but it seems to be a mix of things from journalists taking a photo of the wrong venue (old arena vs new arena) to actual unfinished new arenas which are really trying to beat the clock as far as construction is involved. The committee has stated that all venues do have a back up venue just in case something happens. I'm still in a wait and see mentality right now.

The main issue about the netizens is that they jump on a story without confirming any details or looking deeper into the story. What I like to do is to let a story breathe. Let all the details come out and see from their whether criticism or praise is warranted. But if you have a news outlet that simply wants to push a certain narrative, you're out of luck there.

To Junk or not the Junk RTL?

The Rice Tariffication Law passed earlier this year has come under fire yet again. The goal for he RTL was to lower the cost of rice by introducing other competitors to the market. This was a direct response to last years call for government action to address the high prices of rice. So what's the solution, people?

It seems that supporting the RTL means lower prices of rice across the board while making our local rice farmers' lives more difficult. While junking it would raise the price of rice across the board while making the farmer's lives better as they'd earn more. There seems to be a stalemate of sorts unless you consider other options.

The internet activists seem to think that being a net importer of rice is a bad thing. For an agricultural country, it surely is ironic, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Our country is a net exporter of so many other products that only we can produce. Why are we forcing this idea that the rice industry here has to be a lucrative one? It is not! The sooner we all can accept that, the better for everyone.

So what's the solution? Rice farmers now, should try to venture out to other crops. Rice isn't the only thing that needs planting! I will admit however that this is too simplistic to be a probable solution as rice paddies are generally not suitable for many other crops. Taro, however, can also be explored as an option. Other crops can also be looked into during the dry seasons when rice typically can't grow.

But enough of that. I'm tired of internet activists saying that we must junk the RTL while not giving any solution as to how to maintain the low price of food that we enjoy now that we didn't enjoy last year. Until a reasonable solution to both problems can be seen in sight, I cannot support the junking of the RTL. Too much is at stake and too many will suffer if it is junked.

Of course the Netizens know better!

The title of this post is sarcastic if you haven't gotten that by now. Earlier last week, a post made the rounds on social media about a Php50M cauldron which the Philippine government spent for the upcoming SEA games. I think that amount is ridiculous and the netizens have been right to point that out. Where I draw the line is when people start chiming in on where that money should have gone to.

You see this issue happening in any country hosting the SEA games or the Olympics. The fact stays that hosting these types of events in the country is always an expensive affair. Every little thing is going to cost money. The cauldron itself maybe shouldn't be that expensive and the palace has stated that it's cost comes from it being a work of art.

Looking at its pictures online, I can say it did cost a lot to design. It looks simple but elegant, something that these days is very expensive to find (oddly enough). I'm looking at two scenarios right now which justify the cost of the cauldron though these are two of three and so I'll put all three.

Scenario 1. The government decided not spend much on the cauldron.

The lighting of the cauldron is one of those epic moments during the opening ceremonies of any sporting event and if the cauldron just so happens to be ugly, it will no doubt draw flak from the online community (government is at a lose-lose situation here). If they happen to get a decent design (which I swear is difficult to get these days), no one would notice. Conclusion: better to hire a good artist to make the design.

Scenario 2. Government spent the Php50M and the opening ceremony is praised.

No brainer here. Conclusion: the Php50M cauldron was well worth the money.

Scenario 3. Government spent the Php50M and no one abroad notices.

The people online will then be the experts yet again. There is a chance that the opening ceremony will be criticized though seeing the design of the cauldron, I highly doubt it.

All this is reminiscent of the Cebu International Convention Center (CICC) built in Mandaue. When Governor Gwen Garcia had it built, it was criticized as well for being overpriced and not needed. The CICC, when it operated did bring in a lot of business to the area until Gwen's term ended and her successor decided to abandon the entire project since it was overpriced and done with "low quality". Now, Cebu has lost the CICC entirely. It's now a rundown shell and is now more of a waste than it was before. It's currently being used by squatters as their permanent settlement. It really is sad to see.

The point here is we really don't know how best to use the money of the government. We can criticize for sure but let this be our learning moment to realize two things from this:

1. We now know how the people who approved his think and can vote correspondingly.

2. The government sucks at everything. Amen.

I just started Chewing

I love food. I usually joke that I'm on a see food diet, which means when I see food, I eat. And so to eat more food, I tend to eat my food fast which means I don't chew as much as I should. Nikki has been telling me to chew my food more but I chose not to listen to that as it does mean I'll finish eating later. Since Nikki eats much slower than I, it's given me more incentive to try chewing my food more.

So I started and immediately I noticed a difference. When I don't fully chew all my food, I have this bloated feeling that makes me regret eating whatever I ate no matter how little I ate. Now when I chew my food, everything goes down much smoother. Odd as it may sound, I can feel my body digesting every single particle of food I take it and I love it.

I don't know how to make this blog post any longer so I'll cut this one short. Chewing my food at least 20 times before swallowing has been a game changer for me. Now, I don't wanna say it helps in weight loss but it is scientifically proven to be a healthier way to eat your food so that's all I'm saying about that. My dad does have a theory though. He says since it takes me longer to eat now, it give my body enough time to process the fact that I'm indeed full as opposed to simply eating very quickly. So there's that too.

We just a Pre-nup photoshoot

Now that me and Nikki are planning for our wedding, a lot of things come up that we always knew were there or expected but we never though we'd do ourselves. Things like, Nikki meeting designers for wedding gowns, me having a suit made, etc. But the one thing I never thought of myself ever doing is having a pre-nup photoshoot.

I never got why people did prenups. Regardless, we did one! And I just felt so tired after the whole thing. Halfway through the day, Nikki looked to me and said, "I don't get why some people say this is tiring. I'm having a blast." To which, I simply said, "Nik, you're talking to some people." I was so tempted to just call it quits midway through but Nikki looked like she enjoyed the day so much, I decided to enjoy it myself.

Most prenups see the couple wearing formal wear to locations they wouldn't normally wear formal wear. That's something Nikki doesn't like and something I never got. She prefers the more organic prenup shoots that feature clothes the couple would normally wear to the place they have their shoot. So when we went trekking, we wore trekking clothes. When we spent the day at the farm, we wore clothes that reflected what would actually be worn on a trip to the farm.

The day was long but I think we got a lot of good pictures in. I haven't seen any yet so it's hard for me to say if they came out good but judging from our photographer and the work he's already done, I'm confident in the end product. But of everything that we got from the pre-nup shoot, the chance to work with our photographer before the day of the wedding was the biggest plus for me. He got to see how we are as a couple, the things we don't like and the things we like, the things that excite us and the things that bore us.

We, on the other hand, got to know our photographer more. We know the poses to avoid, the things he thinks make for good shots and the ones that he thinks look to weird. I can't wait to see the prenup shoot pictures. I think I'm due for a Facebook profile pic change and I'm honestly just waiting for that.

World without Humans

A video posted on Facebook caught my attention and I'm shocked to say the least. This video imagines a world where humans one day simply cease to exist. I admit I'm a sucker for these kinds of thought experiments. 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2497052613646559

It starts of accurately in my opinion. Then it proceeds to paint a picture of a more beautiful Earth. Towards the end, the narrator even suggests that it could be a new Eden. This really gets under my skin for several reasons. The first is that in practically all other scenarios where other species suddenly go extinct (bees, snakes, frogs, flies, wolves, lions) the end result is always unfavorable. It always ends up with a chain reaction that sees the extinction of other species as well. This is actually one of the first things we learn in ecology - Nature abhors a vacuum.

That means when humans are taken entirely out of the picture, the world will indeed change and not necessarily for the better. The video, while not stating it outright, implies that no other organism depends on humans. It even mentions one organism that may actually depend on humans - mosquitoes and then states that mosquitoes will be fine as they consume plants as well. It was at this point I knew this was bogus.

While it's true that mosquitoes eat plants as their primary food, the pregnant females are the ones that need blood for their babies. Now, I'm unsure of whether they need human blood for this matter but I can say that many animals do depend on human conservation efforts for their survival. Also, almost all domesticated animals do in fact rely heavily on humans to take care of them. The grasslands of Australia, for example, require human intervention in culling kangaroo populations (and maintain balance in the circle of life).

This is one of those tactics in pushing an agenda. If you see any positive effects of an "aggressor" suppress it or ignore it altogether. In this propaganda piece, BBC is trying so hard to push that humans are simply aggressors to nature and have done absolutely nothing  good in working with nature. This is simply not true - not true at all.

Sports Synergy

Talks about synergy almost always start with a slide that which says "1 + 1 > 2". This is usually done for the workplace where each individual contribution of a team member taken together is a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts.

Now, however, I'll be talking about something I've bugged my friends over constantly during our badminton games. When playing mixed doubles, both partners have to be in sync with each other. If not, they're a very easy team to beat. Now, shear strength can overcome much weaker opponents but what I'm talking about here is when you take two players who (on paper) should lose to another team but because of their synergy, they are able to perform much better than expected.

I'm talking about one of the guys from my badminton group. Now, two years ago, I joined my current badminton group after a friend of mine, Nigel invited me and told me the guys there where really good. I didn't know anyone else there so everyone was a new person to me. One of the guys there, Grant, stood out to me because as we played, it was very clear we simply understood each other's movements. Grant would automatically cover areas I wasn't defending or set up a smash I could easily make.

The weird part of all of this is that me and Grant hadn't talked at all prior to that first game. In fact, to this date, we don't exchange much words between us other than the customary "Hi!" and "Hello!" But I've always found that playing with Grant, I feel I'm at my most natural state in playing badminton. I've played with other people, even ones who are objectively much better than Grant but we just don't click as well. Nigel, my badminton friend from back in high school, comes close but we had to build that up over years of playing with each other. My dynamic with Grant came naturally.

We still get to play on Tuesdays and while I don't get to play with Grant always, when I do, I always find it a pleasure. We don't always win but we are able to challenge pairs that are objectively much stronger than us with better than expected results.

My badminton friends will most likely tease me about this as I've been very open to them about how I love my dynamic with Grant even though we rarely speak to each other off the court. I'm pretty sure Nikki will tease me about this but I just wanted to let this out.

The Effect of Privatization

News lately has been that Manila Water will soon charge more for water after they were slapped with a fine by the Supreme Court. News outlets either report this as a 780% price hike or a Php 26 price hike if the SC does not reverse its decision.

Now, a side note, most news outlets want to paint this in as bad a light as possible and so stress the 780% figure as opposed to the Php 26 figure. Math geeks will love cracking these numbers and since I'm one of them, it basically refuses to state that water is currently priced (apparently) at Php 3.33 per cubic meter which I think is crazy cheap and a price hike is warranted.

Many of my UP friends then cite this instance as one of the dangers of privatization. Since private companies will want to make money, utilities might wind up more expensive than before. This is a no-brainer. When the power industry was privatized during then President Ramos, electricity rates did indeed go up! The promise was that prices would go down but let's not kid ourselves, prices went up. Judging by this Php 26 price hike, yes, the promise of lower prices is not fulfilled.

Why then do some people (me included) push for privatization at all? It's the quality that we're after. If you're a 90's kid like me, you will no doubt remember how brown outs and black outs were regular occurrences. Right when the power plants, the grid and the distributors were privatized, Filipinos experienced less brownouts. As a child, I didn't appreciate it or hardly noticed it but we had electricity more reliably. Now, it's not perfect. We still do experience brownouts every so often but it's due to these private companies wanting to make money that these brownouts are fewer and further in between.

The logic is simple. In the past year, we received several notices of possible brownouts. Only a few ever materialized as VECO knows that the longer the power lines are down, the longer the time is that their power lines aren't making money for them. These private companies are also more vigilant in catching cheaters who try to steal electricity or water. Do some escape? Of course but I dare say, much less than before.

Now we can talk about the fine that the SC imposed on Manila Water and how I think it's excessive and unreasonable but to stay on point, the short of it is that privatization assures that we have these services at all. Electricity may be more expensive, but the fact is it's more reliable than ever. Water may be more expensive, but the fact is it's there (even with the water crisis earlier this year, mind you).

These companies want you to use water and electricity so in other words, they have every incentive to continue providing the people with water and electricity. That's the effect that privatization has on industries. Having certain things government owned usually sees a decline in its quality slowly through time. Notice things like public schools, public hospitals, public roads and bridges. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's time we stop demanding a lot of things and start demanding nice things.

Misunderstood Bible Quotes: Ask and you shall receive!

I'm starting a new series of posts which will feature misunderstood Bible quotes. Now, I'm no Biblical scholar so I hope this series will be a sort of guide to people who also aren't Bible scholars to understanding more the word of God. I won't be dealing with the more difficult passages in scripture. Instead, this will be focus on passages whose contexts are usually missed (usually in the same chapter). This series shall follow this format:

1. The Bible passage and how people usually read it
2. The worst possible reading of the passage and how it's used against Christianity in popular media
3. Why this reading is incorrect based on surrounding texts
4. A more profound and meaningful reading of the text

Today's text comes from both Luke and Matthew. The text I'll use now will come from Matthew as it was this reading that made me see it in a brand new light.

Luke 11:9-10

"And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

People have normally taken this passage to be a promise from the Lord that whatever we ask for, we will receive. Most Catholics will say that this usually means you'll get what you ask for when God determines the time is right. They usually say this to explain away the worst way to read this passage.

As this is a quote from Jesus, many skeptics will take this to mean if you ask for something now and you don't get it, then maybe no one's listening at all. Logically, it makes sense. If God Almighty has declared that whatever you ask will be given, then you ask and it's not given, you can start to question whether God is Almighty at all!

I'm probably in the minority of people who find this passage troubling. I, in fact, have asked for many things from God. Some have been given to me, some have not. So what's the deal here? I thought all I needed to do was ask or seek or knock. Then upon closer reading of a few verses before this text, it then starts to make sense.

I always found the last part of the trio (ask, seek and knock) to be an odd ball. I get why asking and seeking are together but why is knocking in there at all? The answer to my years old long question was simply a word away.

Look at Luke 11:5-8 and you'll see that Jesus paints a story of a man who wants to ask for bread from a friend of his. His friend responds by saying that his DOOR has been closed and that he won't open it anymore. This short story closes by saying that his friend will eventually open the door because of the first man's persistence.

In effect, the passage isn't telling us that God is like a cosmic ATM where you just push some buttons and you get exactly what you ask for. It's not telling us to ask once and expect an answer. The passage is telling us to be persistent.

If a grumpy man who doesn't to give bread to his neighbor can be tired down by persistence, God, in contrast, will happily give us what we ask for or what we seek for if we are persistent.

It's heartwarming, in fact to hear about stories about people who's petitions were repeated over and over only to be answered after many many years. I personally had prayed for something over a period of 6 years before God had given it to me. My family had prayed for a particular petition continuously for close to 18 years only for it to be given at the best possible time for our family.

So maybe next time you mention to someone that all they need to do is ask, add that little bit on persistence. It really does make all the difference.

Traffic in Metro Manila

Apparently, the traffic situation in Metro Manila has gotten worse. Having lived there in the past, I didn't know it was possible but apparently it is. Several of my friends post on it and I give the same advice. And every time I get the same reaction, a laughing smiley. Guys, I wasn't joking. Maybe it really is time you guys left Metro Manila.

No, not Cebu. Not us. Please. I'm not even talking about the other big cities like Bacolod or Iloilo or Davao or Gen San. I've thought about this for a while now. Why is everything in Metro Manila? The only railway system is in Manila. Most major companies have their headquarters in Manila. Manila has everything.

It may be a chicken and egg scenario but it's ultimately because Manila's infrastructure makes it a very attractive site for businesses to pour their money into it. In a unitary form of government like ours, government officials in Manila see the need to add more infrastructure to make it even more attractive and so on.

Even in Cebu, which people say is the "Philippines 2nd City", I don't see the same amount of infrastructure support from the national government. We still have nothing like an MRT or LRT. Only more recently starting with PGMA did Cebu see more of that money that Metro Manila has long enjoyed.

So forgive me if I find the complaints about Manilenio's 2-3 hour commute to and from work unamusing. I'd be way more sympathetic if people weren't clamoring for more government intervention on these matters as opposed to less. The MRT/LRT problem goes back to everything wrong with government spending.

The state's primary concern is public service, not profit. As such any proposed increase in price for the train system would be met with huge opposition. Monthly maintenance costs take a back seat which is why people saw numerous car breakdowns during the time of PNoy.

Yet the LRT abd MRT continues to operate at a loss and that ultimately comes from the taxes of Filipino people, many of whon have never seen or set foot on an MRT train.

My advice? Cease any and all subsidy to the MRT and LRT trains immediately! Let them operate by themselves. They would be forced to jack up prices for the train rides to compensate for operating costs and new trains but it would at the very least be constrained to a local issue in Metro Manila.

The same goes with the PUV modernization program. The state is right in introducing this but should allow individual drivers to opt in or out of these programs. They should also be more free to raise the price of fares. I mean riding a dusty old jeepney as opposed to a brand new airconditioned Beep is like day and night and people will spend for the difference. The old cheaper options will still be available along side the more expensive more comfortable and safe options so it does encourage competition in this regard.

And I truly think competition is the only thing that can truly drive down the price of our transportation.

On Carlos Celdran's Death

Last week, Carlos Celdran, a famous activist and tour guide died. All accounts simply say he died of natural causes which leads me to think maybe it was a stroke or some other disease that had been slowly killing him could be why he'd been staying in Spain since the beginning of this year.

I had been a fan of Carlos Celdran when my Aunt and Uncle took me to a walking tour where he was a guide. I learned a lot about the walled city of Intramuros, which I swear came alive during his tour. He was talented and knowledgeable. That's undeniable. He was also arrogant.

In 2010, he attended a mass which he disrupted in the middle to protest the Church's stance to the RH bill (now RH law). In that stint, he was calling the priests of the Catholic Church, Padre Damasos, a fictional character from Noli Me Tangere who is known for being hypocritical. He was later imprisoned for "hurting religious feelings". I guess that's the term the Philippine government decided to use to refer to disrupting religious services.

Whether you agree with Carlos Celdran on the issue or not, it was wrong of him to disrupt a religious service. He might've gotten more support if he had voiced his Padre Damaso outside of mass. I still wouldn't have agreed with him but I would have at least taken him more seriously. At that point, I knew he had his demons. I still believe he loves his country but I think he took it a step too far in that direction.

More striking is one of his last tweets where he retweeted a news bit which said President Duterte has an auto immune disease. To this he responded with, "Good. Now die. Please. Kthanxbye." This is shocking to me. I know he very much dislikes Duterte but to wish ill will upon someone else is something beyond what I thought he could do. The irony in this story is that the day after he tweeted this, he was the one who died. When I read the story, I couldn't believe it.

Now, his death with somehow always be connected to that last tweet of his. After his Padre Damaso stunt, I never liked Carlos Celdran even during the few times I agreed with him. But I can only hope only for the best for his soul. May he rest in peace.

Pleasing the Mob?

The type of activism that goes to the streets or is very vocal on social media should always be taken with a grain of salt. Where one group may say that we need government policy to do one thing, you might have another group whose interests are in the way and may end up suffering. Most politicians have the mentality of pleasing the mob. Meaning they jump on board any seemingly popular opinion with no regard to the soundness of the opinion.

Last week, a young girl named Greta Thunberg made headlines as she demanded that the world governments should take serious steps to address climate change. I personally have a problem with some politicians using her to paint others in a bad light as it does have an appeal to emotion. However, her points ring true and the internet activists flocked to support her.

Later in the week, public utility vehicles (PUVs) drivers and operators protested the PUV modernization program - a program that would slowly phase out the jeepneys (the old ones; more than 15 years old) and introduce more energy efficient and environmentally friendly PUVs! Isn't this what we wanted? Government (at least our own) making moves to address climate change? Well, not so much. Internet activists are then quick to point out how this policy is anti-poor and will negatively effect the drivers as the cars are too expensive. A direct consequence would be higher fares and no one wants that. Or so they say.

I'm in no way saying the same people protest both ways. I'm happy that I haven't noticed the same person complaining about the two inter-related issues both ways. What I am saying is that we cannot allow ourselves to be blinded simply by the loudest complainers (aka, the mob). Now, this second group of activists are now calling for the government to pay for the new jeeps. This then goes back to my post about free things.

Can our government afford to purchase all these new jeeps? For some reference, each unit would cost up to Php2M. Now, let's say we can afford them. Would you trust any government official to handle that kind of money? I think not.

I prefer the politicians who don't listen to mob. The ones that listen to the people without listening to the mob. Ones that try to solve the problem and not just give the mob what they want. Coz more often than not, the mob has no idea what actually works.

Divorce is being pushed in the Senate again

Senator Risa Hontiveros is pushing for a lot of laws including the SOGIE bill. She's also pushing for the legalization of divorce in our country. The Philippines is actually among the last few countries that don't allow divorce. One of the other countries is the Vatican.

What we currently have in it's place is legal annulment and legal separation. Before we discuss these things, it might be best to define these terms:

Legal Annulment = the marriage never happened (i.e., there was an impediment to marriage at the time of the wedding). Things such the couple are actually related, either spouse was forced into marriage, the marriage was never consummated and cannot be consummated, mental illness at the time of the wedding, and in cases where the couple got married while they were minors, the parents did not consent would be grounds for annulment. Annulment looks at the validity of the marriage itself. As such, physical abuse and infidelity are not grounds for annulment. 

Legal Separation = the couple is still married but for specific reasons, one of the spouses can request that both of them be legally separated. Reasons like a violent spouse or infidelity are among the reasons that legal separation is given. Legally separated couples are not allowed to marry other people. If they somehow do get married and the spouse is still alive, this can be ground for an annulment. 

Legal Divorce = both parties agree that the marriage happened (is valid) but one or both parties want to end the marriage. It's exactly like legal separation except that afterwards, the spouses are no longer considered married to each other.

Now, that that's out of the way, the only reason for legalizing divorce is to allow both parties to be free to marry other people as that's the only difference between the proposed legal divorce and legal separation.

As with almost anything that Risa Hontiveros files in the Senate, religious groups flock to oppose this move. Senator Hontiveros makes a good point when she says that divorce isn't something that is forced on people so if it opposes your faith, then don't do it. It should be so simple. But I'm still against this move by the good senator.

My reason for opposing the legalization of divorce is simple - it seeks to redefine marriage. Good marriages are the foundations of good families. Good families are the foundations of good societies. And good societies are the foundations for a great nation. In other words, we have to get marriage right if we're ever to grow as a nation.

So what is marriage? I want to take my time with this and go the opposite route. I'd start with what marriage is NOT.

Let's start from the one thing (probably the only thing) that everyone agrees on. Can family members (like siblings, parent/child, cousins) get married? To this people will rightly say "No." That's because marriage, while it rightly involves love, it refers to a romantic type of love - the type where both parties engage in sexual intercourse. The reason we exclude family members from marrying each other is that the offspring will have a tendency to have abnormalities and be generally weaker.

In other words, we cannot separate the idea of children from marriage. Even proponents for same sex marriage will agree that incest is a line they aren't willing to cross - even if it involves two sisters, for example. We, as humans, know that romantic love is NOT the sole basis of marriage as our minds directly go to the children of that marriage.

From this line of reasoning, we should then exclude everyone whose relationship is incapable of bearing children - same sex couples, incestuous relationships, etc. This means anyone can marry any one else of the opposite sex as long as they're not related.

Where does divorce enter the picture? We then have to define how long a marriage is to last. Practically everyone will agree that marriage isn't something people can go into willy nilly. There exists a heaviness with getting married to someone that doesn't exist with going into a relationship or a friendship with someone. If I were to pose that marriage can exist between a couple but only for a year then it's renewable after a year if both parties still consent, we'd find that rather odd.

As I've explained in my previous point where children are a part of the marriage equation, they should be considered again in this scenario. The reason we do not allow marriages to be valid for a fixed amount of time is the protection of the children. The model of a father and a mother in the household is still the best model for a family  - almost as if we were made for it but I digress.

In the same vein, we find it equally odd that a marriage would be valid only for an arbitrary period of time or "when one party doesn't want to stay married." Put simply, divorce actually goes against what marriage is and is in effect, trying to redefine it.

Right now, we already have legal annulment and legal separation. The push for divorce is a move to redefine marriage for the sole purpose of appeasing the tiny few who wish to remarry after being separated. Think about it clearly and that's exactly what this is.

And as I've said before, if we allow marriage to be redefined this one time, it will allow for so many other strange combinations in the future like a trio being married, or a child marrying their parent or an old person. People will say this is a slippery slope and I get that. But what isn't a slippery slope is to expect another redefinition of marriage if we allow it one time. I assure that.

The Reds aren't Even Hiding it Anymore

I find this troubling. Online activists, or the reds as I like to call them, are more open about being socialists and communists. I find this sad as more and more of them are popping up and they're coming from people I didn't expect it to come from. This post was shared by a friend of mine and I still can't wrap my head around the idea that he's become a red.

Socialists and communists. I admire their honesty in clumping these two ideologies together. I've heard it said that socialism is just the stepping stone to communism. Communism is a bad idea. It's a bad idea in all the countries that have tried it. Socialism is also a bad idea and it's also a bad idea in all the countries that have tried it.

Both systems are based on Karl Marx's idea that everyone simply contributes to the community (which is where communism gets its name) and takes from the community according to their needs. No one entity owns anything. Everything simply belongs to the commune. In other words, the government owns everything and the government can distribute the goods however they see fit.

Simply put, in both systems, the government (or the community) controls the means and distribution of production. This is seen by the reds as a moral way of distributing the finite resources we have. But is it really? To do this would be to reduce the human person to a mere machine who's sole purpose is to provide goods or services for others.

Does the commune require all hands on deck to produce food? If it does, then that's what's needed. Never mind if you don't want to produce food and instead wish to provide entertainment for society. These systems do not take into account the personal choices of people and as such, would not lead to human flourishing. It could lead to human survival, but human flourishing? No.

How about things like universal health care? This is one of those "sounds good" ideas. I mean if everyone pitched in for healthcare, it should only be a good thing right? Well, not exactly. I've explored this in a previous post but the government is not the best at handling money. If we give the government money to handle our healthcare, we would expect to see a lot of wastage.

What would inevitably occur in the long run is hospitals would tend to increase their prices instead of lowering them since there's a guarantee of payment from the government. With increased prices, we would expect to see higher tax rates and we'd tend to have less money for other expenses we may have.

The reds brand socialism and communism as this moral way of handling state affairs. These systems actually undermine our own choice and as such are not moral. I can see how some people could see the appeal but I for one am not having any part of it. And I do think, neither should you.

Did Pope Francis change Church Teaching again?

Spoiler alert! No. No, he didn't. This Mirror article, however, will have you believe otherwise. See the link below.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/pope-francis-anyone-who-discards-14430539

I've mentioned this in a previous post of mine where I talked more in depth about the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Every time this article mentions church teaching, they actually get church teaching wrong.

It's very much apparent that the writer of this article cares so little about the accuracy of their article when it comes to the church's teaching on homosexuality. It seems that they've painted a caricature of all Christians as people who believe that the gays are less of people than the rest of us. It's quite disheartening as the Catholic position on this is very easy to find and upon comparison with Pope Francis' statement, there's not much argument there.

This is another one of those journalists who are trying to inject a certain narrative into their story oh so very subtly. The Church has always held the dignity of every human person, no matter what they may feel or believe. The Church also defends truth and rejects lies. So when the pope says we need to have compassion for the people in the LGBT community, of course we should! This has been known since day 1! What the Church doesn't do is say that homosexual acts are okay.

The article closes by saying that gone are the days when the church says "You are intrinsically disordered." but I'd challenge the author to point to a time when the church taught this at all! What the church teaches is that "Homosexual ACTS are intrinsically disordered." The humans still have their dignity and that's something no one can take away.

I find it curious the author mentions a quote from the Pope and does't understand what he's trying to say. The pope says that we are all too fixated on the adjective (gay) and we forget the noun (man). That means we derive our dignity from our being human, not from being gay, straight, black, white or Asian. And this has always been church teaching. There's nothing new here. Just some journalist who thought they stumbled upon something new.

The Joys of Writing

I started this blog many years ago and I've been writing on and off. It was once the case that I wrote for other people and that just depressed me. I didn't have readers. The ones that did read would just comment on my typos. I wasn't so encouraging.

Lately, however, I've had a change of heart. These days I still don't have that many readers but it doesn't matter to me any more. I write because it's therapeutic. I write about issues when they interest me. An unexpected use that I derived from this blog is that when a friend of mine expresses an opinion that opposes my own, I simply send them the link to my blog and viola! I've started a discussion with a friend.

I have actually mad a friend through this blog. We had disagreed on abortion and started a comment war on Facebook - you know, the ones that don't go anywhere? I decided to stop there and sent him a link where I more freely expressed my opinion on the matter and we had a few more back and forths. I think the best thing I got from that interaction was a new friend.

Right now, most of my posts go several days with just two or three views. But that doesn't matter. I write because it allows to me to arrange my thoughts. I write because it allows to me to leave behind something that might help someone think through issues in the future. I write because it makes me happy.

I won't lie though, I get a thrill when I see that a certain post gets more page views than usual. Considering I gave up on using photos on my posts, it gives me some pride knowing that some people do read my stuff. One of friends who I mean on average five times a year has told me that he regularly reads my blog. I'm not gonna lie - those times make me feel like a rock star. And then it just sparks a conversation and discussion - this is what excites me.

I think I should put myself out there more. I've got a lot of material which I believe can start discussions and conversations for issues and news bits. It might be nice to have more readers.

But whether I have 100 or 1 (my biggest fan, my fiancee) views on a post, it won't matter. I'll continue to write.

Hmmmm. I guess I chose the write title for this blog after all. It truly is just my own personal online journal.

New Tactic in Fake News!

Do you remember the story in Les Miserables where a Jean Valjean was imprisoned for almost 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread? A news bit came out recently where an old man (61 years old) was imprisoned for stealing food worth 20 pesos. The case went to court where this man had to pay Php2,000 and since he wasn't able to, was put in jail. His case was appealed and then dismissed but because of our lousy justice system, the man stayed in jail until a paralegal saw the error and he was released at once.

The news bit closes by recounting that the poor who aren't able to pay can be imprisoned for up to five years for stealing food worth 20 pesos. Sounds like the Jean Valjean of our times, right? Well, not exactly. I see this tactic being used lately where internet journalists weigh how much was lost versus the punishment without looking into what the act was.

The news bit actually mentions why the old man was jailed at all and it wasn't resolved civilly as the amount involved was just 20 pesos. But they mention it in passing and never mention it again when they weigh the punishment against the act. This old man stole food from a minor. Now, when a minor is involved, one can safely assume this wasn't a quiet theft but most likely a robbery by force.

At this point, you may see why this man was sent to jail at all. I still don't think he should've sent to jail and as his case was in fact dismissed, someone needs to answer for this. But the point of this post is to encourage you, dear reader, to open your eyes to how the media and internet activists try to manipulate information to get you to sympathize with their cause. I agree that this case should be reviewed and something must be done to avoid this from happening again.

We must always be careful to separate the story from the narrative. The story here is that a man was put in prison for a longer time than he was supposed to be held because the courts couldn't get their sh*t together. The narrative here wants you to believe that the poor can be jailed for up to five years for stealing what's essentially twenty pesos. Try to learn to distinguish one from the other.

Marcos, No Entry!

Having gone to school in UP Diliman meant I was well acquainted with activists blocking or protesting certain people from entering the campus to give talks or attend events. The latest case involves several UP activists wanting to bar Ferdinand Marcos' daughter, Irene Marcos-Araneta from entering the campus to attend a that she is one of the sponsors of.

The battle cry was simple. A Marcos should not be allowed on campus because we should never forget the martial law days. UP alumni feelings have been split. Some see that barring entry to the daughter of the late dictator has carrying the sins of the father onto the children which they don't think is right. Others think that since she doesn't acknowledge the sins of her father that it warrants the students rising up to bar her entry into the campus.

I've seen this happen multiple times on campus and have never given it much thought. Activists occasionally attempt to bar entry to several speakers especially ones with close ties to the current administration at the time (PGMA) or some corporate bigwig. I, for one saw how violent these protesters can get.

Because of this, I fear for the safety of Irene should she attend this event she sponsored. Yes, on this point, I'm on Irene's side. While I don't like what her family did and continues to do to our country I don't think we should bar people entry to UP because of it. Conflicting ideas is at the heart of academic freedom in UP. As such, we shouldn't be barring people entry because of faulty beliefs they may have or certain associations they may have with people we don't like.

Translation? We shouldn't bar people entry to the campus just because we don't like their ideas. I'm of the belief that false or faulty ideas will die natural deaths. The number one cause of death for such dangerous ideas is having them presented out in the open in an honest to goodness dialogue and debate.

This is where ideas either flourish or die. As such, barring people entry to the campus simply because we don't like what they have to present or we don't like the topic of their talk is encouraging the idea to flourish in secret. Silencing someone only draws sympathy for the person being silenced as they have technically had their freedom of expression infringed upon.

Welcoming Irene Marcos-Araneta into the campus will in no way diminish the sins of her father. It will not show that UP has somehow forgotten the victims of abuse. On the contrary, it will show that UP isn't afraid of the truth and in the end the truth will come out. It will only come out faster if the lies come out as well.

The Rice Tariff Conundrum

Recently there have been calls to raise the floor price of rice as farmers are now only earning Php7.00 per kilo of rice instead of the normal Php12.00 per kilo. I understand and sympathize with the rice farmers. But to raise the floor price would bring us back to the time when everyone was complaining about the price of rice. Do you guys remember that? Or are our memories that short?

Remember that when prices rise, the heaviest hit by such an increase are the poor. The rich can afford more expensive rice so no one worry about them. The rice tariff law signed earlier this year basically reduced the tariffs to be paid by foreign suppliers of rice. This allowed for more competition in the market and with more competition, prices tend to go down. That's simply how the market operates. Now, demand for rice in our country it seems will not change. Whether rice is expensive or cheap, people will buy rice so for this analysis I'm assuming the demand curve to be a straight horizontal line.

Now, we're at this awkward position where imposing a higher floor price would see to benefit the rice farmers by allowing them to earn more. It also benefits the foreign suppliers of rice by allowing them to earn even more than they are already. This measure will hit the poor the hardest though as to eat rice, they will have to shell out more just to get by. If we don't raise the floor price, the hardest hit are the local farmers.

Now, I'm tempted to side with the farmers and just raise the floor price. It does indeed seem like the fastest solution. But is that wise? A raise in the floor price would be harmful to the poor after all. It seems like a stalemate. What we fail to realize in this situation is that competition is good and lower prices for commodities is a good thing for our countrymen. Why ruin competition to cater to the weakest player?

Yes, our palay farmers are the weakest players. While other countries' farmers have made use of technology to make their rice cheaper, we're stuck with old outdated ways of farming which produce more expensive rice. Business is tough and it might be best for our palay farmers to either accept the low price of Php7.00 per kilo or look for another line of work which pays more. Such is the nature of capitalism. If a player is unable to compete, its best move might just be to provide another goods or service.

The farmers right now are suffering and I feel for them. But when the Philippine government allowed foreign players to participate in our economy more, I feel that was the right decision. The solution to our problem is more competition - not less. The palay farmers should be able to move on to something different and it might even end up being better than what they have now.

Rice rice baby

I had a chat with a good friend of mine over the recent issue with the rice farmers. I'm still in shock how me and her came up with the same idea though we haven't been in contact for several years now. The reason that the rice farmers have to sell their rice at a lower price is because foreign players have entered the country and are able to sell rice a cheaper price.

This then begged the question. If foreign competitors, who still have to pay tariffs (up to 35% of declared value) to bring their goods into our country are able to sell at a cheaper price and still make a profit, why can't our farmers turn up a bigger profit if they don't need to pay tariffs?

I'm no business major but the basic concepts are simple enough. To turn up a profit, your revenue must exceed your expenses. Also, smaller volume sold tend to be more expensive as the fixed cost (the ones unaffected by volume) will have to be compensated by a smaller volume. So the problem lies in any one of the variables in the equation.

I personally think the problem lies in a low volume, high fixed cost and high variable cost or the operational costs. The high operation cost can be attributed to our equipment being outdated, the absence of farm to market roads, etc. As such, the solution seems clear. We should invest in heavy equipment for farming. The capital expense might be larger but in the longer run, the operational expenses will go down, provided we get the right equipment for our needs.

Who knows what farming requires more than the farmers? I say no one. As such, they're important in solving this crisis. The second part of the equation is seen as the bad guy by the activists but they are not! Who has the dispensable income to invest in modern farming equipment? While some people would say the government, I say it's private enterprises who have this money to invest. And I'll explain why in very vague terms so as not to draw attention to certain private groups.

Months back, we decided to buy a machine that could help us in our composting in our family farm. We had heard of a good machine that the Department of Agriculture (DA) bought in bulk. Since they did buy in bulk, they were able to purchase these at a lower price than regular - or Php250,000. Their regular price was Php300,000. Being as composting is essentially a non-profit activity of a business, we decided to skip on this. We later found a different supplier selling a similar product for one-fourth the cost!

This got me to thinking why the DA would purchase a very expensive machine when cheaper alternatives were available. And that's where it hit me. The government has the biggest purchasing power in the country and so like rich man, it doesn't care if it spends more for a certain thing. All it cares about is that it provides the machinery. Unmentioned in this analysis is the probable kickback everyone involved in the purchase of these machines is able to get.

Compare that kind of spending to that of a private entity whose main goal is to minimize cost and maximize profit. They will no doubt try to get the most for their money and as such be a more efficient way of investing in these types of endeavors.

What's keeping private enterprise from coming in an attempting to modernize the agricultural sector? First, we have very restrictive laws which make it difficult. Add that to the the activists always painting the private sector is such a bad light. It's no wonder rice farming is seen as a tedious business. That's also why the Chinese just stick to rice milling and rice distribution!

Let's stop vilifying the author of the Rice Tariffication Law. Senator Cynthia Villar's only fault is not introducing this into law years ago. Here's something to think about before I close. Why did we see the need for Villar's law? It was in response to heavy criticism from the public that saw the highest inflation rates in 20 or so years! Remember the figure of 6.8%? Economists agree that it was due to the high prices of rice and food that caused this inflation rate. Now, with cheaper rice, we do indeed see a lower inflation rate, though no one talks about that, now do they?

Does Rallying Really Work?

Or course, they do! History has shown time and time again that collective action and even violent action has changed society. The French Civil War, the American Civil War, our very own EDSA revolution have all had an impact on society in either deposing a corrupt leader or abolishing an inhumane practice.

Recently, the Hong Kong protesters did win a huge battle where after weeks of protesting, Hong Kong's leader pull the extradition bill, which was the cause of the protests in the first place. So yes, protests work. Almost as soon as this bit of news broke out, many of my UP friends pointed out that if Hong Kong can stand up to China, why can't we? And that we should protest as well!

Well, no - not really. The activists in our country are at it again. For all five years of my life in UP, activists have been calling for mass action, walk outs, and protests consistently. For five years... consistently. I can only assume they've been doing the same since 1986 until now. That means they've been discontent with our government for more than 30 years.

It's hard to describe how I feel about the activists calling for rallies for every single small thing that they don't like. It makes me wonder if they took the time to approach the issue calmly with open dialogue and discussion. But one more accurate analogy I can think of is the feeling of the villagers about the boy who cried wolf. If rallies are the done consistently for more than 30 years, what makes the Filipino people think that this time will be any different.

Do I think we should voice out our ideas to our government? Most definitely. The best avenue would be a calm discussion with our political leaders. Like I've said previously, the best antidote to faulty ideas is to put them out in the open... calmly. Rallies, protests, and mass action should be a second to the last resort with civil war being the last resort.

Let's give our current system a chance. For 30 years, the activists have not once given it a chance. I think it's about time they stop crying wolf.

Define the Terms Please (SOGIE at it again)

SOGIE is hot on the news yet again. I'm against it's passage for the plain and simple reason that the bill has way too many ambiguous terms. Some terms are way too broad to have any place in a legal document. Even when defined, they are still very much too broad.

Take the act of discrimination, for example as defined by the bill.

I shall lift from Senate Bill 1271 as not to miss anything:

"Discrimination refers to any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, hereinafter referred to as “SOGIE”, and has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, access to, enjoyment, or exercise by all persons on an equal footing of all rights and freedoms. For purposes of this provision, the actual sex, sexual orientation or gender identity of the person subjected to discrimination shall not be relevant for the purpose of determining whether an act of discrimination has been committed."

 This definition alone should be cause for alarm. Let's zero in on what I think the problematic part of this definition is - "imparing the recognition". This means everyone must acknowledge the woman-ness of a trans-woman as doing otherwise would impair their recognition as such.

What I find odd is that the bill even states that a person's actual sex is not to be relevant in determining if discrimination occurred as such terms like man, woman, male and female need not be defined - or at the very least their definitions don't matter.

Here's another definition that proves my earlier point:

"Gender Identity - refers to the personal sense of identity as characterized, among others, by manner of clothing, inclinations, and behavior in relation to masculine or feminine conventions. A person may have a male or female identity with the physiological characteristics of the opposite sex."

 Here's a bill which, in enacted into law, would penalize criminally, not recognizing the gender identity of someone. And the only way one would know of someone's gender identity would be through a "personal sense" a.k.a. "very highly subjective".

The terms we should be defining if we want to move forward are male, female, man and woman. One of the speakers in the Senate Hearing for the SOGIE bill has said that these terms have already been defined by the Supreme Court. I'll admit that the Supreme Court isn't always right (but we all have to somehow think they are) and I'll admit that things can change so let's go on.

Here's something that I don't understand and wherever you are on the spectrum, I think it's a valid point.

How can anyone know what it feels like to be a (blank) if they've never been a (blank)?

I will never know what it's like being a woman as I've never been a woman. I'll never know what it's like to be a rice farmer as I've never been a rice farmer. Now, in both cases, I can definitely try. I can spend a week as a rice farmer and can probably get an idea or a glimpse but that's it - a glimpse. Unless I quit my job and get a job as a rice farmer, I will never truly know.

In the same vein, a man who says they feel like and know they're a woman, can never truly feel like a woman as they've never been a woman. They may feel like they like wearing women's clothes and using women's products but such simplifies what a woman is to what a woman wears or looks like (a.k.a. stereotypes) and we're taught not to bound men and women to stereotypes as there are strong and powerful women and very nurturing or motherly men

I've heard that to bypass this logic, transgender men and women will say that they've always been that gender. Meaning, a trans-woman had always been a woman if when he was a little boy and a trans-man had always been a man even when she was little girl.

As such, you'd expect that once someone has come out as transgender, one would have to accept that they've been that gender their whole lives, even when they competed in sporting events of the opposite gender. Remember that denying this would be among the prohibited acts of the bill.

Say they truly have felt like the opposite gender. As I've never been them or in their shoes, I will never know and as such I have sympathy for transgenders. I'm in no place to question that but in a society where things we believe must have basis, it must be noted that when a person looks at their body, they know what sex they are and public policy cannot be based on subjective feelings that say the contrary.

You may be thinking, "What's the harm in accepting them for who they say they are?" I've felt this as well. In fact, who are we to push our beliefs on others? But this is where it gets tricky. If I can't push my belief upon a trans-woman that he is a man, then a trans-woman should also not be able to push their belief on me that he is a woman. However, pushing for the SOGIE bill does protect one act as non-discriminatory while categorizing the other as discriminatory. That's why there's such an uproar especially from people who don't buy into this ideology.

Proponents of the SOGIE bill have tried to spread the lie that this bill seeks only to protect the rights of the LGBT community and that religious freedom will not be compromised. But read it more closely and ask questions. In a senate discussion, it's already been categorically stated that if an all girl's school denies a trans-woman admission because they were born male, that this would be one of the prohibited acts.

I'll end this post here. But I encourage you, dear reader to read the SOGIE bill and educate yourself. I wouldn't want to live in a society that can't get the basic definitions right. Maybe that's were the LGBT community needs to start if they want this bill to pass. So please, define the terms, for our sanity.

The Essence of a Woman

Last week, senator Tito Sotto, in response to the SOGIE bill being pushed in the said that a man can never be a woman because a trans-woman cannot have a baby, he doesn't have ovaries or the sexual organs associated with the fairer sex.

Social media blew up with people from the LGBT community and their allies attacking the senator saying he was reducing the worth of a woman to that of child bearing. Vice Ganda put it very bluntly saying that women who have their ovaries removed or women who don't want to have children are no less women because of they don't have ovaries or don't want children. He then ended by saying, "Sila ay babae dahil sila ay babae."

What Vice considers a huge mic drop moment is actually meaningless. It's as meaningless as saying that "Chukabas are chukabas". Vice has missed the opportunity to move the conversation forward by putting words that Tito Sotto's mouth. Now, I'm no fan of Tito Sotto but the man's got a point in his original statement.

Trans-women want to be accepted as women in our society but they have failed to define what a woman is. Actually, no one is concerned about it from the LGBT community. Here, we have Senator Tito Sotto give his definition and the LGBT community and their allies just bash him saying he got the definition wrong without giving their alternative definition. This is what I find to be the most problematic part of the SOGIE bill. No one seems to be concerned with the definitions of a man or a woman - they just are.

What makes me, for example, "not a woman" and my mother and sisters, "women"? Men and women are terms whose meanings we've known very well for thousands for years. It's only now that we pretend we don't know.

Like it or not, being a woman has something to do with the reproductive system (Tito Sotto's point). Even the LGBT community knows this - why do you think gender reassignment surgery is a thing? We all know that our plumbing (if you will) is directly related to what it means to be a man or a woman. Men have penises and women have vaginas.

Part and parcel with the woman is her inherent ability to carry a child in her womb. Such is not possible at all with a man. This is why we say a woman has a healthy reproductive system if she's able to get pregnant. A woman who cannot bear a child even if she tried so much, is just a woman who doesn't have a healthy reproductive system. A woman who chooses not to have children is simple a woman who's chosen not to use her reproductive system.

It bothers me a bit that people - mostly women - think it's an insult to women when we say that childbearing is one of the things that comes with being a woman. Women, to the exclusion of men, are the only people who can carry children. As such, they are the only people who are able to bring about the next generation. No man has the honor of being able to do that.

Now, some people will not agree with me and that's fine. From the few online debates I've been on, no one seems keen on defining what a woman is. So if you don't agree with me, open my mind and tell me what a woman is.

Laughcry nalang

Hahahahahahahahahuhuhuhuhuhuhu...

That's probably the best way I can describe an emotion I feel when going through social media or the news. Laughcry. It's where you start off laughing and end up crying inside. Feelings of "how did we get here?" usually accompany laughcrying. Now, this is not to be confused with laughing so much that tears form. Laughcrying starts off with a laugh and ends with a cry with actual sad emotions.

Many things make me laughcry. One in particular caught my attention so much I think I died a little when I read it. Well, after I laughed so much first then I died a little.

Just recently a Catholic school in the US removed the Harry Potter series from their library because of the risks of "conjuring evil spirits". I read this thinking it was some weird news bit and laughed until I died a little. I've since read the article and it doesn't seem to be as bad as it was originally made out to be.

But removing the Harry Potter series because it contains magic and conjuring of spirits or that their characters made questionable decisions is downright absurd! Following that logic, the Chronicles of Narnia and the Lord of the Rings series should also be removed. But those two series are very Christian in their writings.

From a Catholic perspective, I understand their qualms but to remove a book because of potential threats is downright lazy. A more effective way to go about it is to properly form the students so they can watch out for these things by themselves. Teach the students to separate fact from fiction, right from wrong, etc. But I digress.

Laughcrying is an emotion I'm sure many people have expressed. Another meme (I'm unsure how newsworthy it was) posted a picture of Gretchen Diaz saying that there should be schools exclusive to LGBT students. I laughed because the idea itself is silly and one that I'm sure the LGBT community doesn't actually want. And then I cried because I'm not sure anymore that everyone thinks it's a bad idea.

In our world today where things are losing their meanings and people put meanings into things that don't have them, well, laughcry nalang.