It's almost 1 o'clock in the morning, and it's officially the 26th anniversary of EDSA I. It's hard to believe a whole generation has grown up not experiencing that trying but exciting time. It's hard to accept that, after 26 years, little seems to have changed since then.
Our country continues to be under the grip of the social elite, and, because of it, our rich have become richer. Our poor remain poor. Our countrymen continue to go abroad for better jobs and better pay.
In politics, the political dynasties continue to dominate the playing field. Graft and corruption continue to be firmly entrenched in our government system.
Because of this lack of change, some of us who faced the tanks and held vigil at EDSA and Quezon Ave. have lost hope that our country will ever become great. Some of us who cheered Cory and Ramos and Enrile have become so jaded and cynical. Nothing will ever change, some of us say.
(Aside: At the same time, one of the benefits of EDSA I is the fact that I am
able to voice my negative opinions to the world, when, during Marcos'
time, I probably would have been summarily arrested, tortured, and
executed without the benefit of a trial. To this day, there are many
victims whose families do not know where they may be found.)
Almost two years ago, we placed our hopes and prayers that things will
change, when we elected the son of the lady who helped galvanize us
against the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. However, those hopes and
prayers have dimmed in the face of the current President's inability to
move our country forward in the right direction. Instead, he has shown
that he can be every bit as petty and arrogant as our previous leaders.
To some extent, the problem lies with us, since we seem to be unable to think intelligently about the way we choose our leaders, and we seem to lack the love of country that has made other countries great. Instead, we allow our votes to be bought by corrupt leaders, and we become insular and limited in our scope of concern.
It is only by truly loving our country that we can find the national pride and unity in helping our country grow in maturity.
We must try to rekindle that spirit that helped us rise up against the dictator, and we have to harness that spirit to move our country out of the darkness and into the light. We must exhort our leaders to uphold positive values, and hold them accountable when they don't. We ourselves have to realize that, in order to become a great nation, we have to empower ourselves and show that we are Filipinos in heart and mind, willing to devote ourselves to the building of a great nation.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Negative Images: Musings on House Resolution 2140
There's an irony in the resolution filed by a congressman asking TV and movie producers to stop portraying members of the House in a negative light. Pampanga Rep. Aurelio “Dong” Gonzales Jr. filed House Resolution 2140 "urging producers 'not to create stereotypes or negative public perception against members of the House of Representatives.'”
The irony is that Rep. Gonzales' province mate, Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is currently under hospital arrest in plunder cases. She is currently the most public face of the negative image attributed to the House of Representatives.
While Rep. Gonzales may have a point, and not all House representatives may be corrupt, columnist Cito Beltran of The Philippine Star says it well when he writes in his column today,
"Before any attempts are to be made to stifle or restrain freedom of expression or frustration, the honorable gentleman from Congress should probably start by looking into the accusations, allegations or cause of public contempt against members of Congress that has led to art imitating life. You won’t solve the problem by making the public or media look bad. We are not the problem, you are.
"Aside from the perceived or actual abuses of legislators, the honorable gentleman should put a “mirror” to the members of Congress and ask: What was done about it? When members or their staff were involved in vehicular accidents or brawls in golf courses or bars, did the Ethics Committee ever do anything to sanction the offenders?
"When a member of Congress was exposed for adulterous relations, what did the leaders of Congress do? Cite the member for conduct unbecoming of an elected official or congratulate the bastard for hanging his dirty linen in public?
"To the honorable gentleman who proposed to restrict freedom of expression and legislate hypocrisy, forgive us Sir if you are slighted, but if you wish to be treated with honor and respect then begin by cleaning up your own “House.” While you may not be guilty by commission, you might be because of omission."
All it takes is one rotten apple to spoil the whole bunch. Before Rep. Gonzales should fume and fulminate against the entertainment industry, perhaps he should ask himself why politicians have such a bad reputation to begin with. The reason why such images resonate with the public is that people see their congressmen waste their pork barrel funds, strut around with inflated arrogance, and use their power to suit their own purposes. Unless the Representatives themselves shape up and clean house, such images will continue to resonate and stay alive in people's minds.
Leo Martinez, whose fictional Congressman Manikmanaog parodies corrupt politicians, states it succinctly, "Art mirrors life."
The irony is that Rep. Gonzales' province mate, Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is currently under hospital arrest in plunder cases. She is currently the most public face of the negative image attributed to the House of Representatives.
While Rep. Gonzales may have a point, and not all House representatives may be corrupt, columnist Cito Beltran of The Philippine Star says it well when he writes in his column today,
"Before any attempts are to be made to stifle or restrain freedom of expression or frustration, the honorable gentleman from Congress should probably start by looking into the accusations, allegations or cause of public contempt against members of Congress that has led to art imitating life. You won’t solve the problem by making the public or media look bad. We are not the problem, you are.
"Aside from the perceived or actual abuses of legislators, the honorable gentleman should put a “mirror” to the members of Congress and ask: What was done about it? When members or their staff were involved in vehicular accidents or brawls in golf courses or bars, did the Ethics Committee ever do anything to sanction the offenders?
"When a member of Congress was exposed for adulterous relations, what did the leaders of Congress do? Cite the member for conduct unbecoming of an elected official or congratulate the bastard for hanging his dirty linen in public?
"To the honorable gentleman who proposed to restrict freedom of expression and legislate hypocrisy, forgive us Sir if you are slighted, but if you wish to be treated with honor and respect then begin by cleaning up your own “House.” While you may not be guilty by commission, you might be because of omission."
All it takes is one rotten apple to spoil the whole bunch. Before Rep. Gonzales should fume and fulminate against the entertainment industry, perhaps he should ask himself why politicians have such a bad reputation to begin with. The reason why such images resonate with the public is that people see their congressmen waste their pork barrel funds, strut around with inflated arrogance, and use their power to suit their own purposes. Unless the Representatives themselves shape up and clean house, such images will continue to resonate and stay alive in people's minds.
Leo Martinez, whose fictional Congressman Manikmanaog parodies corrupt politicians, states it succinctly, "Art mirrors life."
Del Castillo Impeachment: Abuse of House Power
Admittedly, I am not a great fan of Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo for having committed plagiarism in penning his decision on the Japanese comfort women. However, for the House Committee on Justice, apparently having found probable cause for impeachment, to decide to put the impeachment complaint against him to a plenary vote is, I think, going a little too far. It also may be indicative of an abuse of the House of its power to impeach.
For one thing, the House prosecutors haven't even made much headway in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona. In fact, they've been constantly scolded by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile about their lack of preparation, their ineptitude in asking questions of their witness, and their apparent lack of evidence against the Chief Justice. More often than not, the prosecuting team has been schooled by the defense, and there's no guarantee that the Senate will vote to convict Corona of the alleged crimes listed in the Articles of Impeachment. If such is the case, how will the House prosecuting team deal with the del Castillo impeachment?
Another problem is that, with the continuing impeachment trial of CJ Corona, if another impeachment case will be filed at the Senate, it will probably effectively paralyze the legislative branch, since the efforts of the House and the Senate will be bent in dealing with these cases. The deliberations on necessary legislation will probably grind to a halt, which will then paralyze our government's ability to improve our laws.
The other problem with impeaching Justice del Castillo is that the decision not to sanction him for his plagiarism was made by the Supreme Court Justices themselves. Granted, that decision was clearly a home court decision, designed to clear their colleague. Does that mean, then, that the House will then move to impeach all of the justices who voted to uphold that decision? What will happen then?
In my opinion, Justice del Castillo should have been reprimanded for his actions, even if, as the decision notes, no malicious intent was intended by his actions. Instead, the Supreme Court completely let him off the hook. However, I am not comfortable with the House committee's decision to vote on his impeachment, if that was his only lapse in judgment. It seems excessive in comparison to what Justice del Castillo actually did. At the same time, since he was cleared by the Supreme Court, I am unsure as to what sanction can still be imposed on him short of impeachment. It's a conundrum without solution, at least for me.
What I find problematic in this situation is the ease by which the House justice committee plunges itself into yet another impeachment trial. Is the new impeachment being done upon orders from Malacanang? Is that why the House justice committee doing this? If so, what we have is the same thing we had when former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was in power: a subservient rubber-stamp House, toadying to whatever the one in power desires.
Muntinlupa Rep. Rodolfo Biazon is correct in warning his colleagues in Congress about "over-exercising" their power to impeach. He says, "This is a special power granted only to the House of Representatives. To over-exercise this power poses the danger of Congress of losing credibility in the exercise of this power." Amen to that. Just because the House has the power, it doesn't mean that it can exercise it indiscriminately.
For one thing, the House prosecutors haven't even made much headway in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona. In fact, they've been constantly scolded by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile about their lack of preparation, their ineptitude in asking questions of their witness, and their apparent lack of evidence against the Chief Justice. More often than not, the prosecuting team has been schooled by the defense, and there's no guarantee that the Senate will vote to convict Corona of the alleged crimes listed in the Articles of Impeachment. If such is the case, how will the House prosecuting team deal with the del Castillo impeachment?
Another problem is that, with the continuing impeachment trial of CJ Corona, if another impeachment case will be filed at the Senate, it will probably effectively paralyze the legislative branch, since the efforts of the House and the Senate will be bent in dealing with these cases. The deliberations on necessary legislation will probably grind to a halt, which will then paralyze our government's ability to improve our laws.
The other problem with impeaching Justice del Castillo is that the decision not to sanction him for his plagiarism was made by the Supreme Court Justices themselves. Granted, that decision was clearly a home court decision, designed to clear their colleague. Does that mean, then, that the House will then move to impeach all of the justices who voted to uphold that decision? What will happen then?
In my opinion, Justice del Castillo should have been reprimanded for his actions, even if, as the decision notes, no malicious intent was intended by his actions. Instead, the Supreme Court completely let him off the hook. However, I am not comfortable with the House committee's decision to vote on his impeachment, if that was his only lapse in judgment. It seems excessive in comparison to what Justice del Castillo actually did. At the same time, since he was cleared by the Supreme Court, I am unsure as to what sanction can still be imposed on him short of impeachment. It's a conundrum without solution, at least for me.
What I find problematic in this situation is the ease by which the House justice committee plunges itself into yet another impeachment trial. Is the new impeachment being done upon orders from Malacanang? Is that why the House justice committee doing this? If so, what we have is the same thing we had when former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was in power: a subservient rubber-stamp House, toadying to whatever the one in power desires.
Muntinlupa Rep. Rodolfo Biazon is correct in warning his colleagues in Congress about "over-exercising" their power to impeach. He says, "This is a special power granted only to the House of Representatives. To over-exercise this power poses the danger of Congress of losing credibility in the exercise of this power." Amen to that. Just because the House has the power, it doesn't mean that it can exercise it indiscriminately.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
The Corona Impeachment Trial: Playground Brawl
The ongoing word war between President Noynoy Aquino and Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona continued over the weekend, and it's looking more like a playground brawl with each passing day.
While President Aquino has been unrelenting in his scathing criticisms against the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice has been no less crass, as he questioned the President's mental capacity by asking the President to make public his psychological records. Corona was likely referring to the 2010 election issue wherein an alleged psychological analysis of the President was released. However, this report has long been dismissed as bogus, so I'm not sure why Corona is bringing up the issue.
Perhaps it would have been better for the Chief Justice to have held his peace, although I don't blame him for hitting back at the President. Still, as Chief Justice, Corona demonstrated behavior unbecoming as one of the highest-ranking government officials when he hit the President with the psychological analysis rap.
At the same time, the President has shown extreme arrogance when, in response for both the President and the Chief Justice to stop their word war, the President refused to do so, claiming that he was speaking for the majority of the people. I think the popularity polls have gone to the President's head; they're making him think that he has the right to do whatever he pleases. What he forgets, though, is that relentlessly hammering away at the Chief Justice's supposed guilt, he may trigger a sympathy wave for Corona; it's possible that all the President's ranting will reach supersaturation, desensitizing people.
Furthermore, there appears to be a change in the rhetoric surrounding the impeachment trial. Originally, back in December, when Corona was impeached, Aquino apologist William Esposo castigated Corona for dragging the judiciary branch of government into the impeachment issue, and argued that only Corona was the issue, not the judiciary. However, the President himself included the judiciary in his refusal to shut up on the impeachment, saying, "He (Corona) is the face of what we have been fighting for, which is to reform the judicial system in the country."
The impeachment trial has taken a dangerous turn, as it appears that the principal figures involved aren't shy about burning everything in their path in order to get at each other. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail, and the trial can continue on more stable ground.
While President Aquino has been unrelenting in his scathing criticisms against the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice has been no less crass, as he questioned the President's mental capacity by asking the President to make public his psychological records. Corona was likely referring to the 2010 election issue wherein an alleged psychological analysis of the President was released. However, this report has long been dismissed as bogus, so I'm not sure why Corona is bringing up the issue.
Perhaps it would have been better for the Chief Justice to have held his peace, although I don't blame him for hitting back at the President. Still, as Chief Justice, Corona demonstrated behavior unbecoming as one of the highest-ranking government officials when he hit the President with the psychological analysis rap.
At the same time, the President has shown extreme arrogance when, in response for both the President and the Chief Justice to stop their word war, the President refused to do so, claiming that he was speaking for the majority of the people. I think the popularity polls have gone to the President's head; they're making him think that he has the right to do whatever he pleases. What he forgets, though, is that relentlessly hammering away at the Chief Justice's supposed guilt, he may trigger a sympathy wave for Corona; it's possible that all the President's ranting will reach supersaturation, desensitizing people.
Furthermore, there appears to be a change in the rhetoric surrounding the impeachment trial. Originally, back in December, when Corona was impeached, Aquino apologist William Esposo castigated Corona for dragging the judiciary branch of government into the impeachment issue, and argued that only Corona was the issue, not the judiciary. However, the President himself included the judiciary in his refusal to shut up on the impeachment, saying, "He (Corona) is the face of what we have been fighting for, which is to reform the judicial system in the country."
The impeachment trial has taken a dangerous turn, as it appears that the principal figures involved aren't shy about burning everything in their path in order to get at each other. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail, and the trial can continue on more stable ground.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Requiem, Kid
In baseball, perhaps one of the most challenging positions to play is catcher. Aside from the fact that a catcher is playing from a squatting position most of the game, the catcher is also the one who helps the pitcher decide what pitch to throw at the hitter; sometimes, the catcher engages the hitter in patter to throw off the hitter's timing. The catcher is also the one who blocks home plate when a runner is coming in to score; oftentimes, the runner simply crashes into the catcher, which sometimes results in injuries. To be able to play this position, and play it well, for 19 seasons, requires a special type of person, a special type of talent. Gary Carter, who died of brain cancer last Thursday at the age of 57, was one such person.
Carter played 19 seasons, primarily for the Montreal Expos and the New York Mets, but also one season each for the San Francisco Giants and the Los Angeles Dodgers. Over the course of those 19 seasons, Carter batted .262, hit 324 home runs, and drove in 1224 runs. He was an 11-time All-Star, won 3 Gold Gloves, and was a Silver Slugger 5 times. He holds the National League record for most games caught. He was voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2003, in his sixth year on the ballot. His Hall plaque reads, “An exuberant on-field general with a signature smile who was known for clutch hitting and rock-solid defense over 19 seasons.”
Perhaps Carter's greatest moment was in the 1986 World Series. Down 5-3 in the 10th inning against the Boston Red Sox, with two outs, Carter hit a single which started a rally that led to Bill Buckner's infamous error. The Mets went on to win the Series in Game 7; Carter also contributed to the win by driving in the tying run in the 6th inning.
Carter who was known as "The Kid" for his sunny disposition, played the game to the fullest. According to Hall of Famer pitcher Tom Seaver,
"“Nobody loved the game of baseball more than Gary Carter. Nobody enjoyed playing the game of baseball more than Gary Carter. He wore his heart on his sleeve every inning he played.”
Requiem in pace, "Kid".
Carter played 19 seasons, primarily for the Montreal Expos and the New York Mets, but also one season each for the San Francisco Giants and the Los Angeles Dodgers. Over the course of those 19 seasons, Carter batted .262, hit 324 home runs, and drove in 1224 runs. He was an 11-time All-Star, won 3 Gold Gloves, and was a Silver Slugger 5 times. He holds the National League record for most games caught. He was voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2003, in his sixth year on the ballot. His Hall plaque reads, “An exuberant on-field general with a signature smile who was known for clutch hitting and rock-solid defense over 19 seasons.”
Perhaps Carter's greatest moment was in the 1986 World Series. Down 5-3 in the 10th inning against the Boston Red Sox, with two outs, Carter hit a single which started a rally that led to Bill Buckner's infamous error. The Mets went on to win the Series in Game 7; Carter also contributed to the win by driving in the tying run in the 6th inning.
Carter who was known as "The Kid" for his sunny disposition, played the game to the fullest. According to Hall of Famer pitcher Tom Seaver,
"“Nobody loved the game of baseball more than Gary Carter. Nobody enjoyed playing the game of baseball more than Gary Carter. He wore his heart on his sleeve every inning he played.”
Requiem in pace, "Kid".
 |
| Image from Gretchpages |
Friday, February 17, 2012
Musings on Linsanity
 |
| Image taken from playborhood.com |
Some of the Lin highlights during the seven-game streak include a whopping 38 points against Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers, and a game-winning 3-pointer against the Toronto Raptors. Some of his biggest fans include director Spike Lee and U.S. President Barack Obama. Things are certainly looking up for Jeremy Lin, whose meteoric rise to stardom has spawned the term "Linsanity", probably the most popular of the word plays on Lin's name.
Of course, not everything is coming up roses for Lin. Fox sports writer Jason Whitlock tweeted an insulting tweet on Twitter, for which he has since apologized, and Floyd Mayweather posted his own tweet about why Lin is getting so much media. Admittedly, the fact that there are hardly any other Asian-American NBA players right now does raise the specter of race, as CBS sports columnist Gregg Doyel points out.
The challenge now for Lin is whether he can continue playing at a high level, especially when Knicks forward Carmelo Anthony comes back from his groin injury. Hoop Nut hits the nail on the head when he observes that, even though he hasn't played as well as he should've, "Melo believes that New York is his team, his city." It'll all boil down to a question of ego, although it should be pointed out that, with Lin starting, the Knicks have won seven straight, while, with Anthony, the Knicks are a paltry 8-15. However, Anthony, admittedly, is the highly paid star, so it will be interesting to see how the Knicks will deal with a possible situation when Anthony is well enough to play.
In the meantime, Jeremy Lin is free to continue his romp through the NBA, although, as one columnist has opined, he will no longer be a surprise to opponents, who will undoubtedly make adjustments to deal with this pesky newcomer. How Lin will react to these adjustments may determine if he truly has what it takes to play in the NBA.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
The Corona Impeachment Trial: Shut Up
Here's the thing about the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona: both sides should simply shut up and let the trial complete its course, since by continuing to speak out about merits and the flaws the trial, the opposing parties are obviously trying to exert outside influence on the trial.
On one side, President Noynoy Aquino and his merry men, particularly spokesperson Edwin Lacierda, continue to openly criticize CJ Corona and his alleged dollar deposits, and his apparent discrepancies in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), in an all-out effort to compel Corona to make public his bank deposits.
The reason why the President and his merry men should simply keep quiet is that, more and more, it's looking like the main reason for the impeachment trial is that of political vendetta, rather than the anti-corruption drive the President has supposedly espoused since his inauguration.
On the other hand, Corona minces no words when he blasts the President and says right out that the primary reason for his being impeached is because the Supreme Court ruled that the President's family's land, Hacienda Luisita, should be distributed to the farmer-tenants. Corona also insinuated that a triumvirate is behind his impeachment; while he didn't name names, it's fairly clear that he was referring to the President, his running mate and Department of Transportation and Communiciation (DOTC) Secretary Mar Roxas, and Corona's colleague in the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
The reason why Corona needs to keep quiet is that he doesn't do himself any favors when he tries to attack the President, who is far more popular than he. Instead of looking saintly and innocent, an image he has tried to push, the more he rants, the more he comes off as being defensive about what the prosecution is doing, and people will suspect his guilt all the more. Moreover, his rants are unbecoming of one who is Chief Justice, although, to be fair, the President's statements on the impeachment trial are equally as unbecoming.
What we need to remember is that there is a process for the impeachment trial, and, so far, only the prosecution has been presenting its 'evidence'. The defense is yet to present its evidence in defense of Corona. As it is, the prosecution has only shown evidence for two of the articles of impeachment, and is going to take a while to finish. Until then, if we are to show that we are maturing as a nation, the principal figures in the impeachment need to exercise sobriety and patience, and not resort to the court of public opinion to make their respective cases.
On one side, President Noynoy Aquino and his merry men, particularly spokesperson Edwin Lacierda, continue to openly criticize CJ Corona and his alleged dollar deposits, and his apparent discrepancies in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), in an all-out effort to compel Corona to make public his bank deposits.
The reason why the President and his merry men should simply keep quiet is that, more and more, it's looking like the main reason for the impeachment trial is that of political vendetta, rather than the anti-corruption drive the President has supposedly espoused since his inauguration.
On the other hand, Corona minces no words when he blasts the President and says right out that the primary reason for his being impeached is because the Supreme Court ruled that the President's family's land, Hacienda Luisita, should be distributed to the farmer-tenants. Corona also insinuated that a triumvirate is behind his impeachment; while he didn't name names, it's fairly clear that he was referring to the President, his running mate and Department of Transportation and Communiciation (DOTC) Secretary Mar Roxas, and Corona's colleague in the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
The reason why Corona needs to keep quiet is that he doesn't do himself any favors when he tries to attack the President, who is far more popular than he. Instead of looking saintly and innocent, an image he has tried to push, the more he rants, the more he comes off as being defensive about what the prosecution is doing, and people will suspect his guilt all the more. Moreover, his rants are unbecoming of one who is Chief Justice, although, to be fair, the President's statements on the impeachment trial are equally as unbecoming.
What we need to remember is that there is a process for the impeachment trial, and, so far, only the prosecution has been presenting its 'evidence'. The defense is yet to present its evidence in defense of Corona. As it is, the prosecution has only shown evidence for two of the articles of impeachment, and is going to take a while to finish. Until then, if we are to show that we are maturing as a nation, the principal figures in the impeachment need to exercise sobriety and patience, and not resort to the court of public opinion to make their respective cases.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Requiem, Whitney
It's been a busy Monday in the news, what with the revelation of the defense panel of Chief Justice Renato Corona that a Cabinet member allegedly offered bribes to the Senator-judges, and the resulting fallout from that revelation, but, since the impeachment trial's going to be on for a while, I'll go back to that later on this week. Right now, I'd like to focus on the passing of a star in the field of music. I'm talking about pop star diva Whitney Houston, who was found dead in her hotel room last Saturday.
Admittedly, unlike many who have shared their experiences about the late star, my own experience with Houston has been fair, perhaps because her songs, notably, "I Will Always Love You" and "Greatest Love of All" (both covers of Dolly Parton and George Benson, respectively), were played to ad nauseam levels on the radio. However, I was always in awe of her vocal range and power, as the New York Times describes in its article on her death:
"Ms. Houston’s range spanned three octaves, and her voice was plush, vibrant and often spectacular. She could pour on the exuberant flourishes of gospel or peal a simple pop chorus; she could sing sweetly or unleash a sultry rasp."
Unfortunately, that vocal range was wrecked by a combination of addiction and a bad marriage (to Bobby Brown). In fact, when Houston came out with a new album in 2009 ("I Look to You"), it was apparently clear during a live performance that her voice no longer had the same quality; even listening to the music video of "I Look to You", I found a raspy undertone to her voice that wasn't there before.
Houston's passing is both a great loss, and a cautionary tale about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. Hopefully, wherever she is, she's finally at peace with herself.
Requiem, Whitney.
Admittedly, unlike many who have shared their experiences about the late star, my own experience with Houston has been fair, perhaps because her songs, notably, "I Will Always Love You" and "Greatest Love of All" (both covers of Dolly Parton and George Benson, respectively), were played to ad nauseam levels on the radio. However, I was always in awe of her vocal range and power, as the New York Times describes in its article on her death:
"Ms. Houston’s range spanned three octaves, and her voice was plush, vibrant and often spectacular. She could pour on the exuberant flourishes of gospel or peal a simple pop chorus; she could sing sweetly or unleash a sultry rasp."
Unfortunately, that vocal range was wrecked by a combination of addiction and a bad marriage (to Bobby Brown). In fact, when Houston came out with a new album in 2009 ("I Look to You"), it was apparently clear during a live performance that her voice no longer had the same quality; even listening to the music video of "I Look to You", I found a raspy undertone to her voice that wasn't there before.
Houston's passing is both a great loss, and a cautionary tale about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. Hopefully, wherever she is, she's finally at peace with herself.
Requiem, Whitney.
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Corona Impeachment Trial: Of Dollar Accounts and TROs
The Supreme Court's 8-5 decision to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the Senate impeachment court from looking into Chief Justice Renato Corona's alleged dollar accounts in PSBank only served to open up more questions about the Chief Justice's apparent wealth.
For one, if CJ Corona has such dollar accounts, were these accounts listed in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN)? And if they weren't, how can the Chief Justice explain them? As it is, there are apparent discrepancies between Corona's peso deposits in PSBank, and his listing of assets in his SALN, which may already be difficult for Corona and his defense team to justify.
I agree, though, with the TRO, since there apparently is a law protecting the confidentiality of such accounts. The Senate cannot simply set that law aside in its supposed quest to ferret out the truth. However, even if the accounts were not brought to light, the fact that they apparently exist may be damning to Corona's defense. As DJB in Philippine Commentary, noted,
"SOME PEOPLE ARE ASKING what in the world is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court doing with five secret dollar bank accounts? (emphasis from the blog) that he is now running to his own collegial buddies at Padre Faura to keep absolutely secret from the prying eyes of that rights-trampling crowd at the Senate Impeachment Trial?"
What the Supreme Court didn't do is issue a TRO to stop the actual impeachment trial from proceeding. More than the TRO on the dollar accounts, this action probably could have triggered a constitutional crisis. While noted constitutional law expert Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, has noted that the Supreme Court can intervene in the impeachment trial if it determines there is a grave abuse of discretion, the Senate would have to agree that such an abuse of discretion has been committed, and if it doesn't agree with the Supreme Court ruling, what then?
At this point, even if Corona will be acquitted by the Senate, his capacity to serve as Chief Justice will be severely impaired, due to both the propaganda war the President is waging, and the proceedings of the impeachment trial itself. As Inquirer columnist Neal Cruz notes:
"The sensible thing for him to do is to quit now while the quitting is good. If he wants to save the nation from a constitutional crisis and from dividing into two opposing camps, he should resign and ride into the sunset. What a statesmanly statement that would make. Then he would be remembered more kindly by the nation and the history books will even praise him."
It remains to be seen, though, if Corona has the honor to do so. His acceptance of Arroyo's Supreme Court-blessed midnight appointment says a lot about his character.
For one, if CJ Corona has such dollar accounts, were these accounts listed in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN)? And if they weren't, how can the Chief Justice explain them? As it is, there are apparent discrepancies between Corona's peso deposits in PSBank, and his listing of assets in his SALN, which may already be difficult for Corona and his defense team to justify.
I agree, though, with the TRO, since there apparently is a law protecting the confidentiality of such accounts. The Senate cannot simply set that law aside in its supposed quest to ferret out the truth. However, even if the accounts were not brought to light, the fact that they apparently exist may be damning to Corona's defense. As DJB in Philippine Commentary, noted,
"SOME PEOPLE ARE ASKING what in the world is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court doing with five secret dollar bank accounts? (emphasis from the blog) that he is now running to his own collegial buddies at Padre Faura to keep absolutely secret from the prying eyes of that rights-trampling crowd at the Senate Impeachment Trial?"
What the Supreme Court didn't do is issue a TRO to stop the actual impeachment trial from proceeding. More than the TRO on the dollar accounts, this action probably could have triggered a constitutional crisis. While noted constitutional law expert Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, has noted that the Supreme Court can intervene in the impeachment trial if it determines there is a grave abuse of discretion, the Senate would have to agree that such an abuse of discretion has been committed, and if it doesn't agree with the Supreme Court ruling, what then?
At this point, even if Corona will be acquitted by the Senate, his capacity to serve as Chief Justice will be severely impaired, due to both the propaganda war the President is waging, and the proceedings of the impeachment trial itself. As Inquirer columnist Neal Cruz notes:
"The sensible thing for him to do is to quit now while the quitting is good. If he wants to save the nation from a constitutional crisis and from dividing into two opposing camps, he should resign and ride into the sunset. What a statesmanly statement that would make. Then he would be remembered more kindly by the nation and the history books will even praise him."
It remains to be seen, though, if Corona has the honor to do so. His acceptance of Arroyo's Supreme Court-blessed midnight appointment says a lot about his character.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Earth's Fury
Amidst the current brouhaha in the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, we're reminded of our own helplessness in the face of nature's upheavals.
Last Monday, an earthquake registering 6.8 magnitude hit the Visayas region, its epicenter located somewhere between the islands of Negros and Cebu. More than a thousand aftershocks have already been felt, according to .
At first, I thought only a few people were affected, in terms of deaths, as initial reports had casualties less than 10. It was only the day after that I discovered the extent of the toll. The last count I read was more than a hundred either dead or missing, as landslides buried two towns in Negros Oriental.
The pictures of the damage are horrific, as the earthquake tore roads and bridges apart, a testament to the strength of the earth's fury.The Philippines is part of the so-called "Ring of Fire" in the Pacific Ocean, and is subject to volcanic and seismic activities.
What's heartening for me is that, once more, our countrymen have banded together to help those in need. Like those affected by the storms in Mindanao, people from across the country will once more dig into their pockets to donate whatever is needed by the victims of this newest tragic event.
I offer my own prayers to those affected by the recent tragedies, that they may have the strength and resilience to cope with and rise from this situation.
Last Monday, an earthquake registering 6.8 magnitude hit the Visayas region, its epicenter located somewhere between the islands of Negros and Cebu. More than a thousand aftershocks have already been felt, according to .
At first, I thought only a few people were affected, in terms of deaths, as initial reports had casualties less than 10. It was only the day after that I discovered the extent of the toll. The last count I read was more than a hundred either dead or missing, as landslides buried two towns in Negros Oriental.
The pictures of the damage are horrific, as the earthquake tore roads and bridges apart, a testament to the strength of the earth's fury.The Philippines is part of the so-called "Ring of Fire" in the Pacific Ocean, and is subject to volcanic and seismic activities.
What's heartening for me is that, once more, our countrymen have banded together to help those in need. Like those affected by the storms in Mindanao, people from across the country will once more dig into their pockets to donate whatever is needed by the victims of this newest tragic event.
I offer my own prayers to those affected by the recent tragedies, that they may have the strength and resilience to cope with and rise from this situation.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Post-Super Bowl Musings
It's a pity that local cable didn't readily broadcast Super Bowl XLVI, so I had to make do with reading accounts and watching highlights on YouTube. One of these days, I'll watch the whole thing from start to finish.
It's been a while since I'd been interested in American football. More often than not, the past few years, the only time I would check football news was during the playoffs. This year, I was excited because two of my favorite teams, the Green Bay Packers, and the Baltimore Ravens, were in the hunt, but, unfortunately, they were both eliminated by the two teams that faced off in this season's Super Bowl: the New York Giants and the New England Patriots. I have never been a fan of New York teams in any sport, so I was rooting for the Patriots.
And, once more, I was stymied, as the Giants came from behind to wrest the win, and the championship, from the Patriots.
There's a strong feeling of deja vu in the New York Giants' 21-17 win over the New England Patriots, with a number of similarities with the Giants' 17-14 win over the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. Consider the following:
Given the difficulties of the football playoffs, where a single game means a team advances or goes home, it's hard to tell whether these two teams will meet again next season. However, if they do, it's likely that the Patriots will have this year and 2008 in mind, and how they deal with that may determine if third time's the charm.
It's been a while since I'd been interested in American football. More often than not, the past few years, the only time I would check football news was during the playoffs. This year, I was excited because two of my favorite teams, the Green Bay Packers, and the Baltimore Ravens, were in the hunt, but, unfortunately, they were both eliminated by the two teams that faced off in this season's Super Bowl: the New York Giants and the New England Patriots. I have never been a fan of New York teams in any sport, so I was rooting for the Patriots.
And, once more, I was stymied, as the Giants came from behind to wrest the win, and the championship, from the Patriots.
There's a strong feeling of deja vu in the New York Giants' 21-17 win over the New England Patriots, with a number of similarities with the Giants' 17-14 win over the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. Consider the following:
- Both teams started the same quarterback from Super Bowl XLII: the Giants had Eli Manning, and the Patriots had Tom Brady.
- In both Super Bowls, the Patriots were favored to win; in fact, back in the 2007-2008 season, the Patriots would have had an unbeaten season if it weren't for the Giants.
- In both Super Bowls, the Patriots were leading until late into the fourth quarter.
- In both Super Bowls, the New York Giants, led by quarterback Eli Manning, engineered a comeback victory late in the fourth quarter.
Given the difficulties of the football playoffs, where a single game means a team advances or goes home, it's hard to tell whether these two teams will meet again next season. However, if they do, it's likely that the Patriots will have this year and 2008 in mind, and how they deal with that may determine if third time's the charm.
Monday, February 06, 2012
The Corona Impeachment Trial: Some Musings
As the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona continues on its fourth week, a number of thoughts come to mind.
One is the lack of preparation by the prosecution for the trial. I'm inclined to agree with those who believe that the House members leading the charge on the impeachment thought that they could force a resignation from Corona before the whole trial started. Unfortunately for them, Corona decided to dig in and fight, and now the House prosecutors are scrambling to get their act together, with little success, despite some rah-rah sound bites from Presidential spokespersons.
Second, while the defense, ably led by former Supreme Court Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas, has managed to score points on the prosecution's ineptitude, the defense attorneys have resorted to treating the impeachment trial as a court trial, and have used a number of legal-style tactics to stymie the prosecution. While these are legal and proper, it also gives the impression that Corona's defense hinges on the technicalities rather than the actual innocence of the person. The defense conveniently forgets that impeachment is a political, rather than purely legal, process, and their attempts to prevent evidence to be presented, or attempts to have some of the Senator-Judges to inhibit themselves (well, Senator Drilon, anyway) may raise more questions about their client's innocence than end them.
Third, I'm wondering how valid the argument that the impeachment trial is connected to the Supreme Court's decision on Hacienda Luisita is. It cannot be denied that the Cojuangco clan, of which the President is a member, stands to lose much if the plantation land, a whopping 6,474 hectares, is redistributed to its tenants, although the clan may gain much, depending on how much the land is valued to be worth (some have estimated it to be P5 billion.). Last year, the Supreme Court decided that the Hacienda Luisita stock distribution scheme was not valid, and ordered that 4,915 hectares of the land should be given to the tenants. There are a number of points raised about the Hacienda Luisita connection, but I think I'll take a look at it in another post.
Fourth, so far, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile has managed to keep an even keel on the proceedings, making sure that due process will be followed. Even at his advanced age (87), his mind is still sharp on legal matters, and has shown that, whatever the result, the trial will be done as fairly and as impartially as possible. For that, he has my kudos.
Fifth, and last, like the impeachment trial of Joseph Estrada, this current trial is pivotal to the political education of our countrymen. Like Estrada's trial, many are glued to their radios, televisions, or live streams, as they follow the twists and turns of the current trial. As a result, we have become more informed as a people, and, hopefully, we become more mature in the way we treat our political processes.
One is the lack of preparation by the prosecution for the trial. I'm inclined to agree with those who believe that the House members leading the charge on the impeachment thought that they could force a resignation from Corona before the whole trial started. Unfortunately for them, Corona decided to dig in and fight, and now the House prosecutors are scrambling to get their act together, with little success, despite some rah-rah sound bites from Presidential spokespersons.
Second, while the defense, ably led by former Supreme Court Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas, has managed to score points on the prosecution's ineptitude, the defense attorneys have resorted to treating the impeachment trial as a court trial, and have used a number of legal-style tactics to stymie the prosecution. While these are legal and proper, it also gives the impression that Corona's defense hinges on the technicalities rather than the actual innocence of the person. The defense conveniently forgets that impeachment is a political, rather than purely legal, process, and their attempts to prevent evidence to be presented, or attempts to have some of the Senator-Judges to inhibit themselves (well, Senator Drilon, anyway) may raise more questions about their client's innocence than end them.
Third, I'm wondering how valid the argument that the impeachment trial is connected to the Supreme Court's decision on Hacienda Luisita is. It cannot be denied that the Cojuangco clan, of which the President is a member, stands to lose much if the plantation land, a whopping 6,474 hectares, is redistributed to its tenants, although the clan may gain much, depending on how much the land is valued to be worth (some have estimated it to be P5 billion.). Last year, the Supreme Court decided that the Hacienda Luisita stock distribution scheme was not valid, and ordered that 4,915 hectares of the land should be given to the tenants. There are a number of points raised about the Hacienda Luisita connection, but I think I'll take a look at it in another post.
Fourth, so far, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile has managed to keep an even keel on the proceedings, making sure that due process will be followed. Even at his advanced age (87), his mind is still sharp on legal matters, and has shown that, whatever the result, the trial will be done as fairly and as impartially as possible. For that, he has my kudos.
Fifth, and last, like the impeachment trial of Joseph Estrada, this current trial is pivotal to the political education of our countrymen. Like Estrada's trial, many are glued to their radios, televisions, or live streams, as they follow the twists and turns of the current trial. As a result, we have become more informed as a people, and, hopefully, we become more mature in the way we treat our political processes.
The Corona Impeachment Trial: Week 4 Begins
Looking back on the last two weeks, the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona has been moving at a snail's pace, as prosecutors delved into CJ Corona's Statement of Assets, Liabilities - Net Worth (SALN). More than once, the prosecution has bumbled, with one of their witnesses disproving the supposed discount that Corona had gotten on a penthouse apartment (due to storm damage, it was sold at a reduced price), as well as the apparent lack of coordination between prosecutors, wherein one prosecutor claimed that Corona owned 45 properties, and another denying that such a claim was leveled.
There were moments of levity, as well. Senator Lito Lapid, known for his reticence in speaking publicly, good-naturedly asked the audience, as well as his fellow Senators, why they were laughing at his rare speaking opportunity. Sen. Lapid's question delivered an unexpected result, when the prosecutor being asked admitted that the evidence being presented was to prove "unexplained wealth." This was a blunder by the prosecution since the Senate had already disallowed the presentation of such evidence to support Article 2.4 of the impeachment complaint.
This week, the prosecution aims to tackle Article 3 of the impeachment complaint, which tackles CJ Corona's alleged betrayal of trust. Apparently, according to a report in the Manila Standard Today, lead prosecutor Niel Tupas has been removed from his role as lead prosecutor due to his grandstanding. Instead, Akbayan party-list representative Arlene Bag-ao will take the lead in dealing with Article 3. Here's hoping that the prosecution gets its act together, and manages to present concrete evidence to support the article.
There were moments of levity, as well. Senator Lito Lapid, known for his reticence in speaking publicly, good-naturedly asked the audience, as well as his fellow Senators, why they were laughing at his rare speaking opportunity. Sen. Lapid's question delivered an unexpected result, when the prosecutor being asked admitted that the evidence being presented was to prove "unexplained wealth." This was a blunder by the prosecution since the Senate had already disallowed the presentation of such evidence to support Article 2.4 of the impeachment complaint.
This week, the prosecution aims to tackle Article 3 of the impeachment complaint, which tackles CJ Corona's alleged betrayal of trust. Apparently, according to a report in the Manila Standard Today, lead prosecutor Niel Tupas has been removed from his role as lead prosecutor due to his grandstanding. Instead, Akbayan party-list representative Arlene Bag-ao will take the lead in dealing with Article 3. Here's hoping that the prosecution gets its act together, and manages to present concrete evidence to support the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)