Sunday Madness

(5 ...)

All it took was one second.

Just when the UST Growling Tigers thought that they’d wrapped up Game One of the UAAP Finals, commanding a one-point lead with one second to go, the Ateneo Blue Eagles snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, with Doug Kramer taking a quick inbound from Macky Escalona to put in a close range basket, giving the Blue Eagles the victory.

It was a game whose outcome was in doubt until the very last second, as I watched it go through several deadlocks, and a number of lead changes all the way to the end of the game.

When Evangelista shot that jumper with 4.8 seconds to go, I thought that was it. Game One goes to the Tigers.

What I didn’t count on was that the Blue Eagles actually had a fighting heart, and that they weren’t about to give up. Escalona and Kramer proved that.

By winning Game One, the Eagles can wrap it up on Thursday. Thursday will also be memorable for Ateneo fans because the junior squad, which forced a rubber match by winning yesterday, also go for the clincher on Thursday.

If everything works out, it’ll be a double celebration on Thursday. If not, I’ll be happy if the juniors clinch, and await a possible Ateneo victory next Sunday.

Charter Change, Ad Nauseam, Part Two

(6...)

I realize from my recent writing, that I am obsessed with Charter Change, stems from the fact that it is difficult for me not to respond to the inanities being bandied about by its proponents. It is much like watching a train or car wreck: I want to ignore it, but I am inexorably drawn to it.

My favorite pro-Charter Change advocate, Philippine Star columnist Carmen Pedrosa, continues to extol the virtues of Charter Change in her Sunday column.

In this column, she comments on the argument on whether the people’s initiative can be validly utilized to revise the Constitution, because the wording of the Constitution states that only amendments can be proposed through the initiative. She pooh-poohs the argument, seeing no difference in the two terms (revise as opposed to amend), and calling the difference “a tortuous legalism”. In her mind, “an amendment is revision and revision is amendment.”

She also dismisses the charges of Charter Change critics by asking, rather ingenuously, “who said anything about changing the entire constitution?” and going on to say that only two articles (VI and VII) are to be “amended.”

 

Well, duh. If the Charter Change proponents change those articles, shifting the system of government from presidential to parliamentary, doesn’t it follow that everything else will be affected? It’s a entirely new system, and the Constitution would have to be rewritten to reflect that change. If the “amendments” will stop at just the two aforementioned articles, how will that solve the problems in our country?

Furthermore, what is being proposed is a wholesale revision of the two articles. One might as well tear out the two articles and put in what Pedrosa and Company are proposing. How can that be seen as an “amendment”?

Finally, what steams me is that she plays the class card, saying that the whole issue boils down to the elite vs. the masses. This is a fallacy, because the forces behind the Charter Change are probably even more elitist than the forces against it. It’s also unconscionable, as, once more, the elite exploit the masses to further their own ends. Former President Estrada used this tactic to destructive use; Pedrosa and Company are also equally guilty.

One must keep in mind that the masses that Pedrosa so lovingly speaks of are also responsible for the current state of political events. The reasons why individuals such as Senators Loi Ejercito, Jinggoy Estrada, Jamby Madrigal, and Representatives Douglas Cagas, and Joey Salceda, who has gone on the record saying that the pork barrel funds in the 2007 budget will be increased, because it’s an election year, are elected.

I have said it once, and I shall say it again: no form of Charter Change will be effective unless the Filipino people are properly educated, and aware of what is written in the basic law of our land.

Destructive Beautification, Part 2

(7...)

A day after I had written about the destruction of trees in our subdivision to make way for sidewalks, a letter was stuffed into our mailbox.

It was the board’s response to the protesters, and, reading it, I realized that the issues ran deeper than the tree cutting, that there were factions in the subdivision, that the tree cutting was being used as a battleground.

During the motorcade, I remember one or two vehicles which carried signs other than protesting the tree-cutting. In effect, the signs insinuated that not everything was above board in the way the board ran the subdivision affairs. I remember thinking that it was uncalled for, that it muddled the primary issue.

The board members apparently thought so, because their letter responded to more than the tree-cutting.

There were two parts in the letter, one rather badly and hurriedly written in Filipino by the board president, and the other written in English by the board members in general. In the president’s letter, he stressed the need for the sidewalk project, saying that it would help make our subdivision one of the best in Quezon City. He said that the trees were cut because they were “sagabal” (obstacles; you can’t beat Filipino for nuanced language) to the sidewalk project, that armed guards were needed to keep the peace, and that it didn’t matter what day the trees would be cut down because people in the subdivision knew that this was going to be done.

A side story I learned from a friend of mine is that one family of homeowners objected to both the sidewalk project and the tree-cutting, and that their trees were cut down when they were conveniently out of the city. The trees that were cut down apparently included a fruit-bearing avocado tree; yep, that’s truly an obstacle to beautification.

In the board letter, it answered various complaints that the protesters apparently made. I won’t go into the other issues; they’re not my purview. They did focus on the sidewalk project. They said that it was “technically feasible, legal, and ‘affordable’” for the homeowners, and that majority of the homeowners voted for the project.

I wonder if those who voted for the sidewalk project knew that the trees that were in the way would be destroyed.

Sure, it’s legal, but is it moral? In other subdivisions, I’ve seen sidewalks wherein the trees are given some leeway, so why can’t that be done in our subdivision?

The letter ends with some nasty insinuations, casting doubt on the protesters’ integrity, accusing them of appropriating the sidewalk space, which is technically public property, for their own benefit, calling them selfish for favoring their personal interests against the “welfare of the community?” I wonder how destroying trees that give shade along the streets of the subdivision is for the “welfare of the community?”

Personally, I’m not concerned about the other issues against the board; I’m not that in the know about these things. But I am concerned about the trees in our subdivision, and hope that some middle ground or compromise can be reached.

The protesters called for concerned homeowners to tie red ribbons around their trees as a sign of protest. I won’t do that, because that would mean taking their side, and everything it entails. Instead, Hazel and I placed a sign on our tree, informing people about its significance to my family, and why it shouldn’t be cut down. This way, we’re just focusing on the issue at hand.

Ateneo in the Finals

(8...)

Yesterday's Final Four game between the Ateneo Blue Eagles and the Adamson Blue Falcons had all the makings of a classic match-up. Both teams were relatively evenly matched, as evidenced by the two one-point victories by Ateneo, both won in the closing minutes. In addition, Adamson had a golden opportunity to end nine years of frustrating losses to their fellow raptor team, an 18-game losing streak. Finally, both teams featured MVP candidates: the Eagles with streaky JC Intal, and the Falcons with burly Ken Bono.

The game started out with the Falcons coming out with guns blazing, erecting an early 11-4 lead, which the Eagles quickly erased. The game seesawed back and forth between the two rivals, neither side gaining any headway. For every Ateneo basket, Adamson matched each one.

Ateneo did have some problem with the officiating, with Ateneo's Rabeh Al-Hussaini drawing a technical foul for protesting a loose ball foul; this gave him a total of four fouls before the half, reducing his effectivity for the rest of the game. Ateneo mentor Norman Black was similarly livid, drawing a technical himself for his loud protests.

At the same time, Adamson made sure it was a physical game, elbowing and jostling for every rebound. It got to the point that both teams were given technicals at the start of the second half as a warning against too much physical play.

During the second half, it was more of the same. Each team drawing out the best from its members, each side never giving up. Both MVP candidates shone through in the second half, although I think Bono had a better game, displaying surprising outside shooting accuracy by making three straight three-point bombs; he ended up with 33 points.

In the end, it boiled down to the last minute. The crucial play was a miscue by Adamson guard Polayapoy with Ateneo leading 72-70 with less than a minute to go. Polayapoy held on to the ball way too long, and, when he passed it, it was intercepted by an Ateneo player (can't remember who), who brought it back to make the score 74-70.

But Adamson wasn't beaten yet. Bono completed a three-point play to close the gap to one point. But Ateneo was able to push the lead back up to three, with 1.9 seconds to go. That sealed the Falcons' fate.

It was a well-played game on both sides, but I'm happy that Ateneo didn't have to go to a second game. That way, the players get to rest while they await the results of Thursday's match between UST and UE, as third-seeded UST managed to force a rubber match by beating UE, 79-75. The finals begin on Sunday, and it's probably going to be a great one.

In the junior division, FEU beat Adamson, 76-66, for the right to face the Blue Eaglets in the finals, while in the women's division, FEU dethroned champion Ateneo, 46-44, and will face UST, which won against UP, 72-68.

Quick One

Yeah, I know. It's been about three weeks of only one or two posts per week. Maybe I'm just a tad burned out, what with the exams just ending and stuff. Pity, though, because looking at my dashboard, I'm 10 (now 9) posts away from 500. However, I'm not just going to come up with posts for the sake of reaching 500 (although this post does put me closer to it).

What's been happening:

1. In my fantasy baseball leagues, the Blue Eagles look poised to wrap up this season on the top of the heap, with timely good hitting and pitching coming from my various players. The Dojoboys, however, mired in sixth place because of poor pitching, and lack of power hitting (I should've gotten Frank Thomas sooner, but who've thunk he'd revitalize himself in Oakland? Not many.), will be lucky to make it to fourth place; they're in fifth now, a half-point between them and sixth place.

2. We're preparing to file Gabby's application to a big, traditional school, so it's a bit of a flurry, gathering documents, and, at the same time, prepping her for the exam or interview. Here's hoping that she makes it in.

3. Fleur de Lys' chorizo hamonado is a wonderful breakfast/snack meal, whether with a savory waffle or with the traditional silog (garlic fried rice and egg). It's meaty and savory sweet. Yummy.

4. Monday next week is doomsday for some of my students, as their parents will be getting the report cards that day.

Maybe I'll find my second wind next week. Let's see.

Khas

One of these days, I’ll remember to take pictures of the dishes I write about, but today is not one of those days.

Last Saturday, Hazel, Bud and I got together with Haig and Charlie, and met up for a Middle Eastern meal at Khas, located in the swimming pool arcade in UP.

The ambiance isn’t anything to write home about, but that’s part of the charm, I guess, considering the prices are pretty good. Hazel, Haig and Bud all ordered keema (ground beef, cooked Middle Eastern style, smoky and spicy) with squid (P50), with toasted flat bread for Bud and Haig (P10 per piece), and rice for Haze (P6); Haze also asked that her keema be a little less spicy. Charlie settled for the beryani beef (P110?), a curry served with rice. I decided to be adventurous and order the ox brain sandwich (P48).

The ox brain was served a la shawarma, complete with lettuce and tomatoes, and it had a creamy texture, much like eating uncooked tofu. It had little taste beyond the spices that were used, and I probably wouldn’t be ordering it again (acquired taste?); once was enough for me.

Since I wasn’t full from the ox brain, I decided to order something extra, and settled on the plain keema (P40), along with two pieces of bread. That was a good thing, because the keema was fiery, three-alarm bell hot, almost close to the original Hot and Spicy Spam. The flat bread just barely absorbed the spiciness, and I was sweating after the meal.

It began raining hard in the middle of our dinner, and we were forced to finally move out when the rain started seeping onto the floor of Khas. By the time the rain weakened enough for me to get to the car, the restaurant was about two inches underwater, which probably meant that they would be closing early.

Despite the pounding rain, I enjoyed the food, although I still prefer the dishes of Mister Kebab. Still, Khas is within striking distance, and, if I’m in the mood for Middle Eastern cuisine, I can just pop over on the way home from work.

Khas is open daily from 7am to 12 midnight.

Destructive Beautification

I understand that, often enough, trees are often the victims of progress.

Almost a decade ago, the Moro Lorenzo Sports Center was built in the Ateneo campus, which necessitated the cutting down of a row of venerable acacia trees. Originally, the plan was to ball the trees and move them, but, apparently the trees were just too massive to be moved in such a fashion. Instead, they were just cut down.

A few years back, Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) head Bayani Fernando attempted to cut down the trees along Katipunan Avenue, to widen the road for better traffic flow. Concerned members of the area protested long and hard, and, fortunately, most of the trees were spared.

What I don’t understand is when trees are cut down in the name of beautification.

Such was the case in my subdivision when the subdivision board decided to build sidewalks all over the subdivision early this year, as a beautification project. We were informed that we would have to pay for the installment of the sidewalk along the fronts of our houses.

What we weren’t informed about was that any tree in the way would be cut down. I saw evidence of this when I saw that some of the trees leading to the gate exiting to Commonwealth Avenue were cut down, one of them a relatively old tree. When I mentioned this to the board secretary, about whether it was right to cut down the trees, she blithely said that there weren’t that many trees to be cut down, and that the board apparently got permission from the barangay hall to do so (isn’t permission supposed to be obtained from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)?).

Last week, I saw several houses with red ribbons tied around their trees and signs protesting the tree cutting. Yesterday, I learned from a friend that there was going to be a motorcade that morning as a visible sign of protest.

During the motorcade, I was able to obtain a letter the protesters were distributing to households. It turns out that last week, men hired by the board began cutting down trees along a stretch of subdivision road. One of the casualties, I found out to my dismay yesterday, was a golden shower tree which Hazel and I admired. Accompanying the men and armed with a shotgun was one of the security guards, presumably to protect the men from being stopped from their job. Fortunately, a senior member of the community was able to stop the men before the damage spread, but the damage was already done.

I’m not sure if the protesters met with the board to voice their dissent; from the tone of their letter implies that they have, and their demands were rejected. Hence, the motorcade.It passed the street behind our house this morning, and it was a long one. Maybe the show of force will compel the board to rethink their stand, maybe not. But the point was made.

I cannot understand the way the subdivision board is thinking. Don’t trees beautify their surroundings? Why cut them down?

Okay, so the sidewalks are nice and uniform. But they're also quite dangerous after a strong rain; a mossy growth covers them, making them slippery and injury-prone.

We have a personal stake in this. When Gabby was baptized in UP, we were given a mahogany sapling, which we planted in front of the house; Gabby calls it her “Gabby tree.” While I think it’s outside the one meter width for the sidewalk, I’m not taking any chances. I’m tying red ribbons outside our house.

Requiem, Crocodile Hunter

It was sad news for people around the world to learn yesterday of the death of "Crocodile Hunter" Steve Irwin. The irony of it all was that it was not a land-based reptile that got him, but the barb of a stingray. From what I read in the CNN report, Irwin was filming a documentary near the Great Barrier Reef, when he swam over a stingray buried in the sand. Feeling threatened, the stingray lashed out with its barbed tail, taking Irwin in the chest. It was one of those freak accidents.

Irwin, who was known for his exuberant style of speaking ("Crikey!") and his capturing and relocation of crocodiles and other potentially dangerous animals, did much to raise the public's consciousness about the reptiles, and helped make people more aware that these animals also need to be protected.

He leaves behind a wife and two children.

Foodie Break

Well, it’s been a long break from posting for me, since we’d been having some problems with our house help. Hopefully, though, things have settled a bit, and I should be able to post more regularly from here on. We’ll have to see, though.

As you know, my friend Lori runs Dessert Comes First, a most interesting and informative (not to mention always appetizing) food blog. Combining great writing and vivid photographs, Lori has carved her niche in the blogosphere.

Last week brought her blog into clearer attention, as she had two features on her.

One was the baking demo I mentioned before I went off. Held at the Nestle Center at Rockwell two 

Saturday afternoons ago, the demo featured three of Lori’s recipes: her famous cheesecake, scones, and crème brulee. Sharing her knowledge and love of baking, Lori captivated the audience with a flurry of action and baking tips reminiscent of the Food Network’s Alton Brown. Among the useful tips she shared were the substitution of buttermilk with a mixture of vinegar and milk (or cream), why it’s not a good idea to bake when one is in a bad mood, and why it’s important to torch the sugar on the crème brulee just before serving (doing it ahead of time will turn the sugar into so much syrup.).

At the end of the demo, everyone looked forward to the eating of the desserts, but before the eating, a short trivia contest was held, with the answers based on information about Dessert Comes First. Angelie and I were able to go home with a Nestle gift pack, because Angelie remembered what sort of camera Lori used (Canon Powershot G2), and sent me off to answer.

Aside from Lori’s masterpieces, other guests had brought their own desserts, ranging from chocolate cakes, to ice cream (toasted cashew, mmm), to cookies. Angelie and I sampled as much as we could, and I was able to bring home some to Hazel; unfortunately, the scones, cheesecake and brulee were all consumed, so I had to console myself with bringing home a slice of chocolate cake and the mocha mousse.

I was able to sample the scones and the brulee; the cheesecake escaped my attention somehow. The scones were warm, soft and buttery, most comforting, although I’m sure a spot of jam and cream would’ve made them heavenly. The brulee was okay; I’m not a big fan of flan-type desserts, but the brulee was nicely creamy and coconutty.

Reminder to self: the next time Lori holds a baking demo, Angelie and I will make sure to bring our own desserts, maybe the cinnamon rolls, or coffee cake. 

* * *

The other bit featuring Lori was Thursday’s Kitchen Rescue in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The author Reggie Aspiras focused on Lori’s vivid and enticing photography, and shared some of Lori’s tips for aspiring food photographers.

It was a nice feature, and had some of Lori’s wonderful food pictures, such as a fruit tart from DeliFrance, waffles from Pancake House, and a mountain of chocolate chip cookies topped with chocolate kisses. The photos just leap out and grab one's eyes. It’s clear from the photos that Lori is a foodie through and through, and her love of food is vividly translated onto the pictures.

Kudos to a good friend, for providing us with such wonderful posts and photos.

Charter Change, Ad Nauseam

My apologies for continuously harping on this issue, but, since it won't go away, I can't seem to pull myself away either.

With the defeat of the impeachment against the President, the government is throwing all its weight and resources behind the move to change the Charter (Cha-Cha). Already, Sigaw ng Bayan, the group responsible for collecting the necessary signatures to push a people’s initiative has filed the petition at the Commission on Elections (Comelec) last week, and has had it rejected, moving the battleground to the Supreme Court. 

Meanwhile, pro Cha-Cha columnists such as Alex Magno and Carmen Pedrosa have stepped up their campaigning, pinning their hopes that the Supreme Court will reverse its 1997 ruling on the people’s initiative then. As proof, the two Philippine Star columnists continuously and effusively cite the dissenting opinions written by current Chief Justice Art Panganiban and Associate Justice Reynato Puno as supporting evidence that the Court should reverse its ruling.

In Congress, the House of Representatives is preparing to shift itself into a constituent assembly in order to effect changes in the Constitution, with House Speaker Jose de Venecia lending support to the call for the Court to reverse its decision, saying that the Court cannot ignore the clamor of the people, as represented by the 6.3 million signatures. (Aside: but isn’t that number still a minority of Filipinos? How can it be argued that a majority of Filipinos support Charter Change?)

All this noise ignores the fact that changing the Constitution at this point will not be beneficial for the country. The current moves for Charter Change are motivated by selfishness and a desire to consolidate one’s hold on power, and are not meant to really help the Filipino people. The proponents claim that the Filipino people are wholeheartedly for the change, but their words ring as true as Squealer's reports to the animals in George Orwell's Animal Farm. For one thing, as I’ve written before, how can a shift to parliament be beneficial, when the members of such a parliament will probably be members of the current Congress, which as big a circus as I’ve ever seen?

It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the Charter Change movement will flourish. From where I stand, the Court will have to decide the following issues (this is assuming such issues will be brought before the Court, which cannot initiate decisions on its own, but I’m pretty certain that opponents of Charter Change will bring it up before the Court at the right moment.):

1. Is R.A. 6735 a sufficient enabling law?

2. Does Congress vote as separate houses, as the Senate believes, or is the Senate subsumed into the House and they vote as one big body, as the House believes?

and finally,

3. Is changing the form of government an amendment, or a revision, and is the people’s initiative the right method to effect a change of government?

As for reversing its 1997 ruling on RA 6735, the current members of the Court can only do so if there is enough compelling evidence that shows that there is a difference between the current Charter Change movement and the movement in 1997. Is there enough evidence? Only the Court can decide that, and I, for one, will be watching and waiting.