Will Playboy (Philippine edition) fly?

On 3 April 2008, Playboy magazine will hit the Philippine streets, promising to be an engaging read for the “mature” audience. I’m intrigued how “mature” it would be. If it could capture the essence and spirit of the old Playboy I knew, it would be interesting.

The Playboy I knew had investigative reports on politics and economy, poetry, short stories, and really very, very good essays by good writers. The quality of its fiction and poetry was a blast. Could the Philippine version deliver on those types of content as well? If not, there’s really no sense buying a copy.

Way back in college, I delivered a crisp but really juicy political science class report on Chilean politics, including the death of president Salvador Allende and the assassination of his finance minister, Armando Letelier. Our professor was impressed.

“What’s your main reference, Mr. Llorito?,” he asked.

“Ah, uhmmm, sir, Playboy magazine, sir,” I answered meekly expecting a negative reaction. But the class erupted in appreciative laughter.

“Really?” His eyes shone like a hundred-watt incandescent bulb. “Could you please hand it to me?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Thanks. I’ll return it after a week,” he said, smiling.

I never heard anything from him about that magazine again.

That was in the mid-80s. In this day and age of the Internet, I’ve read lots of reports about Playboy’s declining circulation. FHM and its copycats emerged and it seemed Playboy was destined for the dustbin of journalistic history. Launching a Philippine version at this time therefore is a courageous decision for its financiers here. I’m intrigued how it’s going to differentiate itself in a niche market that is too crowded for comfort. (Photo credit: http://www.acmewebpages.com/graphics/playboyjune1962.jpg)

The demise of social networking?

Nah, I don't really mean that. What I'm saying is that social networking sites really have to evolve innovative revenue models to keep on thriving. Right now, many of them, according to the Economist are not making money.

Consider the premise behind these social networking sites: it’s all about profits, about making big someday, by getting being purchased by the big shots like Rupert Murdoch. And the likes of Murdoch are buying these sites by the billions hoping that someday, they could earn more billions from online ads. But it seems the premise or the assumptions about the business potentials of social networking are not necessarily accurate. Says the Economist:

"The big internet and media companies have bid up the implicit valuations of MySpace, Facebook and others. But that does not mean there is a working revenue model. Sergey Brin, Google's co-founder, recently admitted that Google's “social networking inventory as a whole” was proving problematic and that the “monetisation work we were doing there didn't pan out as well as we had hoped.” Google has a contractual agreement with News Corp to place advertisements on its network, MySpace, and also owns its own network, Orkut. Clearly, Google is not making money from either."

Same with Facebook. Economist observes:

"Facebook, now allied to Microsoft, has fared worse. Its grand attempt to redefine the advertising industry by pioneering a new approach to social marketing, called Beacon, failed completely. Facebook's idea was to inform a user's friends whenever he bought something at certain online retailers, by running a small announcement inside the friends' “news feeds”. In theory, this was to become a new recommendation economy, an algorithmic form of word of mouth. In practice, users rebelled and privacy watchdogs cried foul. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's founder, admitted in December that “we simply did a bad job with this release” and apologised."

“So it is entirely conceivable that social networking, like web-mail, will never make oodles of money,” says the Economist. And if they couldn't make lots of money, what’s the incentive of maintaining them? Are we going to see consolidation, of one site being gobbled up by the other? Scary thought, isn’t it.

Holy week hibernation

I practically hibernated in the last four days, doing nothing except reading, sleeping, and transcribing some past interviews for the Entrepreneur Magazine. Yeah, I finished two issues of The Economist, digested various topics like "economics and rule of law," China’s global quest for raw materials, and fund management. I also started getting back to some old Jonathan Franzen titles. I should have done some writing but my son was reviewing for his final exams (Calculus, and Physics); I had to yield the best working space in the house up to him. No worries there. Especially after waking up to a headline like this: “Filipina wins science award for ‘black holes.’”

Who says jobs are scarce?!

Indeed, jobs are not hard to find, if you have the skills. Writing skills, for instance. I mean, if you think you have the passion for writing, and some skills, and the right attitude for that kind of work, you may contact me. There's one lifestyle magazine for instance that is looking for one full time writer. I also need some part time writers for our magazine, Entrepreneur.

See? Life is not hopeless, ZTE or not! lol!

Let's tax the Church!

Should we tax the Church? Why not? It’s high time!

Church officials—bishops, ulamas, pastors, priests—based on their rhetorics, are always holier than thou, especially when it comes to failure of government to provide economic opportunities for the poor. But does the Church really do something about it besides prayers and few charities? If they want to help the country, the poor, the best thing they could do is pay taxes for the Church properties, lands, and universities to generate resources for economic and social development. Church-owned schools charge the highest tuitions fees in the land, thus accumulating so much money. Since they don’t pay taxes, they hardly give anything in return to society.

The premise about separation of Church and State, about religion and politics, has always been fiction. The Church—be it the Catholic Church, Iglesia ni Cristo, El Shaddai—has always been a very active political animal in the country. When told not to meddle in politics, the Church authorities would say, they can’t help it because the realm of politics has moral dimensions, which the Church has a lot to say. Well, every thing has moral dimension.

Barack Obama's "Asian problem?"

Does Barack Obama have an "Asian problem?" I think so, given the huge support Asians are giving to Hillary Clinton. Is it racism, as what some “analysts” would like to think? I don’t think so.

This is my take: the rise of China, India, and the rapid economic growth of countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including the Philippines, is significantly caused by foreign policy pursued by the Clinton administration. It was Bill Clinton’s leadership in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) that led to the Bogor Declaration envisioning a global free trade by 2020. That one really pressured the Europeans to relent on the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, thus paving the way for the birth of the World Trade Organization. WTO is not a perfect treaty but that one really opened lots of markets for Asia’s exports, this boosting the economies in the Asia-Pacific region. Globalization in general in which the Asia-Pacific region is a major beneficiary accelerated during the time of the Clintons in the White House. So Asians have a generally warm view of the Clintons, including Hillary.

After Iowa, Obama issued statements against “the violence of outsourcing” and swore to adopt measures against the practice, a move that drew criticisms from the Asia-Pacific region. Hillary of course also seems to pander to the protectionist sentiments among the American electorates, but given the Clintons’ track record, Asians tend to look at those pronouncements as a message addressed largely to the home political market.

Plus Asian's in general don't have hang ups about having females as top political leaders.

Middle class getting back to the protest business?

I just had an hour or two with finance guys this morning in Makati and know what—they are joining the anti-GMA rally in Makati. I thought all along these money guys hate joining such activities. But they are and, I guess, it all boils down to what I call “middle class values.” The core issue of course is corruption that reaches up the highest echelons of government, and corruption is certainly bad for business. Yeah, its high time the middle class should be part of this struggle for a better society. Mabuhay kayo!

Rethinking John Rambo

It’s easy to think of John Rambo as a brute who does the dirty work for America, someone whom the types of George Bush would send to fight in Uncle Sam’s crazy little wars. I used to think that way. But hey, that’s actually not an accurate description of the character.

In fact, Rambo—at least the one I knew in First Blood, the first Rambo movie—was more of a victim. In First Blood, he was an ex-Green Beret guy with post-traumatic stress disorder in search of peace and quite in small town America, until a power tripping Sheriff treated him badly. In Part 2, he was stupid enough to agree to go inside Vietnam to take photos of supposed POWs only to be abandoned by the US Armed Forces when politicians realized the mission would have political repercussions. He was captured, tortured, survived and ended up saving some of the POWs. Since then he never returned to America.

He stayed in Thailand among the simple folks to live a humble and quiet life, only to be deceived once more into going inside Afghanistan (in Part 3), not for America, but for his friend and mentor who was captured by the Russians. In Part 4 entitled John Rambo: To Hell and Back, he went to Burma from Thailand to help his friends who were captured by the Burmese military (although I’m simply too busy to watch this one).

He hates politicians. He hates the military top brass. His actions were always about his friends. He had to do it because others wont.

Philippines "rejoins" the Asia-Pacific region

I was in Laguna Technopark last Thursday when the government announced the Philippine economy grew by 7.3 percent in 2007, boosted by the 7.4 percent fourth quarter surge, the highest rate since 1976. I say not bad! Finally, we have “rejoined” the Asian community of fast growing countries.

I say “rejoined” because analysts always thought the Philippines seems to have been behaving like a Latin American country, with our politics prone to coups attempts and instability and economy that tended to enjoy sudden boom and busts. Now, we have reached a new level, 7 percent, after starting at a 5-6 percent GDP growth band from 2003 until 2006.

As expected, some practitioners of the Dismal Science were quick to downplay the numbers, saying the country’s economic performance this year might not be sustainable given the continuing risks posed by rising crude prices and the looming economic recession, an economic slowdown, in the US.

There is this economist from the UP School of Economics who has been going around since 2004 that the country could never achieve beyond 4 percent. He has been proven wrong all the time, but this time after hearing that the country’s GDP reached 7.4 in the fourth quarter, he stressed the country would achieve just around 4 percent in 2008. Here we go again!

The matter about economic recession in America is certainly a serious question. Unfortunately, even economist in the US are at a loss whether or not there is indeed a recession, how serious is it going to be, and whether or not it’s going to bring the global economy down. “When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold,” says the old dictum. And it was true then because when Americans stopped buying shirts, food, cars, gadgets, or just about anything, the factories from the rest of the world stopped humming, thus rendering thousands, if not millions, of workers jobless.

That nugget of wisdom, however, may not be true today because the world is no longer the same place that it was two or three decades ago. Now, analysts worldwide talks about “decoupling” or the capability of other economies in the world, including emerging economies like China and India, to growth despite the weak American economy. These countries could take on the role of growth drivers in the same manner that China has been boosting the economy of Japan and Australia through her rising imports of machines and raw materials iron ore, petroleum products, coal and other commodities. China now has also become a major destination for Philippine exports, a market that has become almost as huge as the America.

And more importantly, while emerging economies are riding on the wave of global trade expansion, many of them, including the Philippines, has been growing largely on the strength of domestic demand. It’s even true for China and India as much as it is for the Philippines. So the conclusion here is that, the recession in the US may or may not cause colds in the Philippines, and if it does, it might not be so severe co cause serious complications.

Realistically though, the number crunchers at the National Economic and Development Authority (Neda) believe that a full-blown recession could indeed affect us significantly. Augusto Santos, acting director general of Neda, says should America suffers a one-percentage point contraction from its current growth rate, the Philippines gross national product will shrink by 1.764 percentage points. That is huge.

But that’s assuming that neither America will do anything to lick the recession nor the Philippines address to boost the local economy and cushion the impact. But who knows, US President George Bush’s $150 billion stimulus package, wherein government will mail checks to Americans for them to spend it and prop up the American economy, might just work? And if we do our homework here, say continue spending for badly economic infrastructure, as we should, as we are doing right now, the Philippine economy might just get out of this in a decent shape.

One interesting thing about recessions is that statisticians, and therefore policy makers and the general public, know about it only when it’s long underway. It’s because of the time lag in the collection of statistics. So if there’s a recession in America, the Philippines should already feel it.

The GDP figures seem to show that with the 3.7 percent contraction in exports from a growth of 2.2 percent last year. “Net factor income from abroad” that measures remittances of Filipino expatriates working abroad also has declined. And yet the Philippine economy managed to surge to a 7.4 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter, on the strength of other sources of growth (eg., domestic demand, mining, construction, agriculture and fishery, outsourcing, among others). There are even signs of recovery in investments from the private sector as shown by the rise in fixed capital formation—an indication that business are constructing buildings, buying machines for the factories, and upgrading their equipment.

So let’s see!

America sneezes—are we supposed to get flu?

Are we going to get hurt badly because of US recession? It’s so easy to worry about that especially that we sell lots of stuff to the US market. But time has changed.

Ten years ago, electronics and semiconductors accounted for only 42 percent of the country’s exports with farm-based products like coconuts, pineapples, bananas, tuna, seaweeds, and baskets having significant percentages. Today, manufactures account for 86 percent of the country’s exports, the bulk of which are electronics and semiconductors. Farm-based products now account for only 4 percent.

Ten years ago, 36 percent of our exports were purchased by the Americans, such that we would always a catch cold, nay influenza, when America sneezed. When combined with our exports to Japan, Netherlands, Hong Kong, Great Britain and Germany, more than 70 percent of our exports were purchased only by seven countries. China and India were not even listed among our markets.

Today, America only accounts for 18 percent of the country’s exports. China is now our third largest market next to Japan. Suddenly we can see our friends in the Asean buying about 17 percent of our products. The rest are accounted for by Europe and the rest of the world.

What we see here is a diversifying export market for Philippine products, a trend that should lessen our vulnerability to external shocks. And yes, the World Bank, it seems, has taken an optimistic note on the Asia Pacific Region, including the Philippines.

I’m trying to be optimistic here, of course. China ultimately sells to the US. Once the American orders for Chinese goods are down, so the Chinese orders from us will probably be. This is still an interconnected world.

But let us see, because even in the US experts don’t agree on the extent of the recession. And here in the local front, the National Statistical Coordination Board has yet to report to us the whole 2007 performance. The numbers would surely be good, considering we had good numbers from the farm sector. But the enthusiasm will surely be dampened by the sobering thoughts about the recession. So let’s wait on January 31, the official announcement of the 2007 growth rate, what the experts will say.

Meantime, you may read the take of Finance Secretary Margarito Teves by clicking here.

After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads

Review
After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads
By Francis Fukuyama, 2006
Profile Books Limited, 226 pages

“Neoconservatism” as a way of thinking is a mishmash of contradicting social and foreign policy ideas originated by some New York City intellectuals who used to worship Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin’s buddy who espoused “world proletarian revolution.” How these once communist intellectuals and their thoughts permeated into America’s foreign policy during the administration of George W. Bush and brought the world’s superpower to a disastrous misadventure in Iraq and the Middle East, therefore, is a very compelling story. In his latest book After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads, Francis Fukuyama, political scientist and a former neocon himself, tells us this story with great depth and forceful insights, then proceeded to disavow and castigate the movement that he was once a proud member of.

Fukuyama traces the origins of neoconservative thinking to a group of working class intellectuals studying at the City College of New York in the 30s. They were once Marxists who turned to the right shade of the political spectrum following Trotsky’s exposes of Joseph Stalin’s brutality. Thus from being ardent supporters of socialism, these intellectuals, mostly Jews, became haters of communism and bitter critiques of “social engineering” programs and social planning that they thought tend to create unintended social consequences that make societies even worse off. When America joined the Allies to defeat Germany and Japan during World War II, the neocons started to see American military power as a force for good, something that America’s leaders should use to transform the world in an exercise of “benevolent hegemony.”

Neocons, having taken some pages from Plato and Aristotle, believe that “regime” or the internal character of states matter in foreign relations. “Rogue states” are likely to become a destabilizing force in global affairs, as “regimes that treat their own citizens unjustly are likely to do the same to foreigners.” America and her allies usually deal with these totalitarian and tyrannical states through carrot and stick but said measures are likely to be ineffective, according to the neocons. The best way out therefore is through changing the “underlying nature of that regime,” a phrase that translates into what is known as “regime change” under the Bush administration.

Prior to the collapse of Berlin Wall, foreign policy circles in Washington DC didn’t really take the neocons seriously even if their views fitted well with Ronald Reagan’s Cold War rhetoric about the Soviet Union as “evil empire.” The more credible voice then were the “realists” in the tradition of Henry Kissinger who respect power, downplay human rights as well as the internal character of states. For the realists, all states whether liberal democratic or authoritarian, seek and power and America and other democratic societies have to accommodate them.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the influence of neocons soared, vindicated as they were with the fact that the communist threat didn’t vanish through containment and détente as proffered by foreign policy “realists” but by the transformation of Eastern Europe and Russia into “democratic states.” It was a profound lesson Fukuyama thinks that Neocons—deeply ensconced into the mainstream foreign policy establishment under George W. Bush—wrongly applied in a world that has drastically changed since 911.

For Fukuyama, the Neocons, in a rapidly globalizing world, have failed to appreciate the growing influence and power of non-state actors (e.g. terrorists groups like Al Qaeda and Hamas) that couldn’t be deterred by conventional military forces. They have overestimated the capacity of the American military that, while unmatched in the conventional and high-tech warfare, was not prepared to deal with insurgency and the task of nation building. Neoconservatism, he argues, has proved contradictory in the real world in that, while neoconservatives loathe social planning and “nation-building,” measures toward these ends are necessary if Bush’s democratization project in Iraq and Middle East has to succeed.

The Neocons assumed that the world will buy the idea of America’s “benevolent hegemony” and confer her actions—clothed with scary rhetoric about preemptive wars against the axis of evil—with legitimacy, unmindful of the fact that anti-Americanism had been brewing all over the world decades prior to the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Anti-Americanism—Fukuyama contends—came about as a result of several factors, among them the American-led IT revolution and globalization that are perceived by Europeans as threats to the European welfare state system, the uneven result of “Washington consensus” (i.e. structural adjustment loans that tried to foster market-driven policies) in Latin America, and the Asian financial crises precipitated by American pressure to open up financial markets without adequate safeguards.

This book is Fukuyama’s way of explaining why he turn-coated on the neoconservative movement. And yet, he remained a Neocon in essence, warning against the greater dangers of American isolationism following the debacle in Iraq. This time, however, he labels his new advocacy as “realistic Wilsonianism” characterized by the greater reliance on soft power, the promotion of economic and political development worldwide, and the creation of legitimate international institutions that could respond effectively vis-à-vis global threats and issues emerging out in this brave new world of globalization and technological change.

Readers won’t probably agree with all the things that Fukuyama say in this book, but this piece of work once again seems to prove why many think Fukuyama is one of most engaging thinker and analyst of this era. It’s his finest piece since his equally controversial work, The End of History and the Last Man, came almost two decades ago. It’s a must-read for all those who want to understand the nature of America’s foreign policy after 9/11 and figure out where it is heading for.

Will the US recession hurt the Philippine economy?

America is definitely in recession. Lately, US president George Bush has lately called on the US Congress to give tax relief to consumers and business to boost the American economy. Many of us are probably wondering how it will impact the Philippine economy.

When America sneezes, the Philippines catches cold. We used to say that to highlight the Philippine economy’s dependence on the America economy. It’s a relief therefore to learn from experts from the World Bank that emerging economies including that of the Philippines could actually deal with this recession in America quite well. The reason? The continuing rapid growth in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly China, is going to cushion impact of the US recession. Says the World Bank lately:

“Resilience in developing economies is cushioning the current slowdown in the United States, with real GDP growth for developing countries expected to ease to 7.1 percent in 2008, while high-income countries are predicted to grow by a modest 2.2 percent."

The World Bank adds:

"GDP in East Asia and the Pacific is expected to grow about 10 % in 2007, with China expected to grow by more than 11%. Growth for the region should ease to 9.7 % in 2008 and to 9.6 % by 2009. The effects from the turmoil in the world’s financial centers may be small in most economies in the Region. Except for China, direct exposures of financial institutions in the region to mortgage-based securities (or sub-prime crisis) are limited.”

The Bank has a favorable prognosis for the Philippine economy in 2007 and expects it to grow by a decent 6.2 percent in 2008. What explains this trend? Simple: these trends are a part of the economic and social transformation obtaining in the Philippines, a trend I call the “Revolution from Beyond.”

Is the Economist pricing itself out of the Philippine market?

I went to the National Bookstore a few hours ago to check on the latest issue of my favorite economic magazine and was shocked to learn it’s now priced P250 pesos a copy (more than 6 US dollars). The last time I bought a copy it was less than two hundred bucks and I was agonizing whether or not to buy. Now, I feel it’s way too expensive for my limited budget. It means I’ll only buy it once in a blue moon when the issues covered are really so compelling.

One thing I like about the Economist is its intellectual courage. It’s the only magazine that takes positions on issues, usually reflecting its free-market orientation. You may like its arguments or not but it’s never afraid to draw the line. And it does prescribe solutions to issues or problems, unlike most publications that only present contending views without stating its own position.

That’s the true mark of intellectual courage. It’s so easy to criticize and analyze issues or problems, but it’s so difficult to propose solutions, essentially because alternatives could be lighting rods for scrutiny from others. And it’s in proposing solutions where we are shown whether or not we really have the discipline to think through what we offer in the market place of ideas.

But I’m digressing here too much. The fact is that I could no longer afford my favorite magazine. Oh my!

Reducing oil tariff: just another misguided policy

The other day, the government announced that it has reduced tariffs for oil products by one percentage point supposedly to cushion the impact of rising crude prices. Sounds good except this policy might end up becoming a subsidy to oil companies without achieving the social objective of “cushioning” the rise of oil products like gasoline, diesel and LPG.

The fact is that the industry is deregulated and movement of prices is determined more by global trends and the nature of local competition than government actions. Lower tariff for oil products simply means that importers are going to enjoy lower import costs or charges. Whether or not they are going to pass the lower import costs to consumers in terms lower prices is another matter. They probably won’t as they always did in the past. Market competition should theoretically force oil companies to go easy on raising prices but that’s only possible in a competitive environment. Right now, the local market is still dominated by the big three (Shell, Caltex, and Petron) and it seems the newcomers, the so-called independent oil producers, are simply taking the cue from actions of the Big Three.

The new policy therefore is another populist measure that may end up achieving nothing. The best thing the government could have done therefore is to maintain the current tariff levels and continue collecting the money to improve government finances. If policy makers suspect that oil companies are colluding, they might as well look for effective ways at bringing greater competition in the oil and energy sector.

Barack Obama is an enemy of outsourcing

What?! Outsourcing is “a form of violence similar to the Virginia Tech killing?” That’s crazy, but Barack Obama, fresh from winning the Iowa caucus, thinks so. I thought all along he has the most realistic view about globalization and outsourcing among the US presidential candidates. Now he is pandering to the mob to fortify his lead over Clinton and Edwards who are both protectionist in their rhetorics. In his speech lately, courtesy of the Texas Rainmaker, Obama said:

“There’s also another kind of violence that we’re going to have to think about. It’s not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways,” he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of “violence.”

There’s the “verbal violence” of Imus.

There’s “the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country.”

I don’t have to react to this, for the blogosphere has plenty. Consider this one by Radley Balko of Reason Hit and Run :

"No one has the "right" to be paid by someone else for their labor. Employment in a free market is peaceful and voluntary, on both sides. So is the decision to stop that agreement, both for the laborer, who may find a better job, or for the employer, who may find someone who can do the job better, or cheaper, or both. There's nothing remotely violent about any of it. To compare a business decision to employ cheaper labor to the senseless slaughter of innocents--even if by way of tortured, nonsensical metaphor--is really reprehensible. It reeks of exploitation."

Ah politicians. They are the same all over the world. Now, surely this statement may have sent shivers down the spine of the American corporate economy that is benefitting immensely from global outsourcing.

A scam in Boracay?!

Has anybody heard about “Diniwid Beach Resort” in Boracay? I bet nobody does, nor most people in Boracay. But try clicking their websites (here and here) and you will see a very enticing place supposedly just beside the beach. Well, it’s supposedly a “beach resort.” So my architect friend booked and paid here in Manila hoping she could bring joy and warm welcome to a sister who came from Canada. Upon landing in Boracay, they were surprised that nobody knows about the “beach resort” and were shocked to learn it’s not located beside the sea but an interior, almost like a squatter’s area. In her blog, my friend Louise recalls:

"Imagine to our surprise when we arrive yesterday at Diniwid Beach, looking for the Diniwid Beach Resort, and there was no Local who can point to us where's it located... After almost 30 minutes of asking around, she finally found where it was, only after she mentioned the owner's name.

And there we saw our place, after being led to an alley. A shack of a house [see picture], absolutely different from what was advertised on the web. Ano to, squatter's area?, my Ate was furious. The steps leading upstairs was only about 18" wide, too steep, my folks would sure slip any time, if they can even manage to climb it at the first place. The other cottage showed to us was more deplorable. Instantly, we decided to transfer to a better location…"

Refund! That’s the only solution when you are misled but the operator, a british national, wouldn’t return the money. Says Louise:

"Negotiating if we can get a refund for the deceit the Owner did to us, we were met by her rough British husband who flatly declared a NO REFUND policy. It seemed that he owns the place and uses only the local as his front."

The gall! Louise said she is going to file complaints at the local tourism office and I hope she gets her money back soon.

The local tourism office, nay the entire local government should act on scams like this before it destroys the image of Boracay

So let everybody be warned about this “resort” (kuno).

Get the gun, it's Santa!

Get the gun, it’s Santa! That’s Eric’s good natured take on how Americans celebrate Christmas. Imagine yourself seeing a fat man getting into your house through the chimney. What will you do?

And yet this Australian actually tried getting through one’s chimney and got stuck for ten hours until rescuers did their job.

The man had been stuck inside the chimney for about 10 hours with his knees
jammed tightly into his chest, said local fire station officer Mark James. "He
was like a grub in a cocoon when we found him," James said. "He was really
wedged in there."

That guy, of course was a thief, but really I’m no fan of Santa, especially the ones they got in New Zealand.

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — A gang of about 50 apparently drunken Santas invaded a New Zealand cinema complex at the weekend — frightening customers, damaging property and swearing, the cinema's manager said Monday. Police believe the Santas were a group of university students dressed in Santa suits who ran amok for 20 seconds through Hoyts Cinema complex in the South Island city of Christchurch on Saturday, manager Derek Rive said.

Being a cop is probably one of the noblest professions (assuming one does her/his job seriously) putting order in society, enforcing the law, etc. And society respects them for that. But in America sometimes they are treated as nothing but a nose wipe, as what this woman did:

Cpl. S.E. Elliott said he had arrested the 36-year-old woman last week after
seeing her slap a man, bite him on the elbow and spit in his face. Elliott said
the woman wiped her nose on him as he led her into the police station for
booking on a charge of domestic battery.

Anyway….

If no one wants to give me any travel bag, a nice “Bush Out of Office Countdown 2008” Calendar will do. Happy New Year to all!

Complete domestication in 2008?

I won a flat iron from our Christmas e-raffle. Will I be “domesticated” in 2008?

Lest you think I’m superstitious, consider this. During our 2005 Christmas party, I got a travel bag. Our editor told me: “Maybe you are going to travel beyond the shores in 2006.” A few months after, while enjoying my life in Palawan after leaving Today Newspaper, I got a call from the US embassy.

“Dave, do you want to go to the US,” said a voice from the other line.

“Sure! But why should I go there?” I asked. “And how?”

“We have chosen you as a fellow for the International Visitors Program 2006,” she said. “It’s for leadership training in print journalism. Please come to the US embassy on Monday.”

And indeed I traveled to Washington DC, Virginia, New York, Florida, the mid-West (Nebraska and Colorado), and California (San Diego and Sta. Monica) to interact and learn from media organizations there.

In December 2006, someone gave me another huge travel bag. An officemate joked that I’ll be on a tour once again. True enough, I went to Australia courtesy of the Jaime Ongpin/Australian Ambassador’s Choice Awards. Then came the Jefferson Fellowship where I got to Hawaii, Silicon Valley, China and India.

Last week, I won a Hanabishi flat iron. Does it mean I’ll be completely domesticated in 2008?

Will somebody please give me a travel bag before the year ends?! Haha! Joke. Happy New Year to all!

Christmas sans carbon footprint

You will probably call me Grinch or kill joy, but I really feel there’s a need to reassess the way we celebrate Christmas. No, I’m not complaining about the “crass commercialism” that Christmas has gone down to. The flow of commerce is important if we are to create jobs and all that, but is there a way we could celebrate it in less environmentally harmful ways?

I’m no certified tree hugger (well, I did hug trees when I still enjoyed tree climbing as hobby and that was years ago), but I do think a paradigm shift is in order. But I won’t preach to you guys, but let me share here how I do Christmas with less carbon footprint.

I won’t shoot or light firecrackers, for obvious reasons.

I don’t have Christmas lights to help minimize the burning of fossil for electricity. I don’t have any Christmas tree, either. I find it so artificial.

I don’t wrap the gifts I give. Those wrappers always end up as tons of wastes in the dumps.

I minimize travel to minimize vehicular emissions.

I avoid excessive consumption for my health’s sake. Haha!

To celebrate Christmas, I only pray in silence, and read books to nourish my soul.

Would that make a difference? I don’t know, but if many of us adopt some of these measures, the world will be a better place and Al Gore wouldn’t think he is a failure.

Merry Christmas to all!

Is Mar Roxas really a reformist? I dont think so.

I’m puzzled by this story going around that cause-oriented types are now warming up to Mar Roxas hoping he will pursue “policy reforms” once he captures the presidency come 2010. As far as I know, Mar has never been associated with any progressive policy agenda. Mar doesn’t seem to have the knack for speaking for or against anything even when time demanded so. We never heard him talking about agrarian reform or agricultural modernization. He never knew him being passionate about human rights and political killings. He was never truly pro-Erap nor was he really anti-Gloria. He doesn’t seem to have clear stand on anything: environment, globalization, foreign debt, gender, deregulation, Doha round of talks, etc. He never spoke against monopolies and oligopolies. Maybe he behaves this way because he is just consistent being pro-Mar Roxas.

If there’s one thing he is associated with, it’s with Corina Sanchez, and the buzz about them simply faded after he won his Senate seat. Now, that he is angling for the Presidency are we going to see him with Corina again? And why does he have to do that? What is he trying to cover for?

Mar says he is Mr Palengke (markets). But he never had any legislative proposal for expanding or freeing Philippine markets. He is probably even anti-market.

Consider this: In 2001, Roxas caved in to the local cement lobby that was then complaining about “injuries” caused by rising cement imports and was forced to slap additional duties (about P20 per bag) on them, thus significantly raising cement prices in the local market and penalizing the local construction industry. In response, the Tariff Commission conducted an investigation and found out that Roxas’s decision was totally baseless, as local manufacturers maintained an 80-percent share of the domestic market. The report also stated that there was no injury to speak of, nor was there any worker losing his job because of the rise of cement imports. The industry, in fact, improved its productivity as a result of the rising foreign competition. But Mar Roxas simply brushed off the Tariff Commission study in order to shelter the cement industry from foreign competition.

Mar, who are you really? Show us the real stuff you are made of.