To"Anonymous"

I’m flattered people read my blog.  It’s not that attractive;  it doesn’t have hi-tech thingamagigs.  It just has words, ideas, thoughts, reflections, opinions—all of which have one thing in common, they are all MINE.

You’re free to disagree with me;  I find that I invite that, anyway, without asking for it.  I can take disagreement in the same way I can dish it out.  

I am a big fan of integrity.  I mean what I say, I say what I mean. I do not take kindly to people calling me a hypocrite—especially people who hide behind anonymity, post comments to MY blog and refuse to even put their names to identify themselves.  I also do not take kindly to people who pretend to lecture me on how I should live my life and live out my principles and do not have the basic decency, courtesy and cojones to sign their name.

To “anonymous” who called me a hypocrite in my comments section—get some cojones (apologies to the female of the species) and sign your name to any posts you want to make.  You want to write to me, identify yourself first so we can have an intelligent exchange of ideas;  I refuse to converse with a nobody and that’s what you are because you don’t have the decency, the courtesy, the cojones to sign your name.  Why, are you so ashamed of your opinion that you wouldn’t want to be identified with it?  Tsk. Tsk.  Whoever you are, I pray you have a good life ahead because from your tone, it doesn’t seem like you’ve had one thus far;  and, unless, you manage to get some integrity (start with cojones), you probably won’t.

A great decade. . . of cheese

On the other hand, the 80s were also known for some of the cheesiest and tackiest things ever dreamt up:

1. That’s Entertainment -  all editions.  (No other comment required.)


2. That’s Entertainment -  all members (This is one black spot that Lea Salonga would probably want to expunge from her resume.).


3. German Moreno’s lunchtime extravaganzas -  “Germspesyal” (read:  “Germs-spayshal”, if by German Moreno but “Germs-spayshul” if by Ruffa—who even then was already sounding like a trying hard valley girl) later to morph into “GMA Supershow”.  (Again, no other comment required.)


4. Hair spray and industrial grade cement-like hair gel. (Not only did this result in some of the cheesiest do’s around but it probably accounted for that great big hole in the skies and for the climate change problems we’ve been having.)


5. Menudo (with a really young Ricky Martin and those falsettos going, “gotta catch a plane at 730” which caused no end of sonic distress to dogs everywhere.)


6. Netting substituting as clothes (look up Duran Duran’s old videos and you’ll know what I mean.) and while we’re on the topic . . .


7. Duran Duran (Their songs are catchy but what do they mean?  I think the break-up did them a lot of good.)


8. Shoulder pads (esp on Gary V.;  hey, I’m a great fan of Gary V but he had shoulder pads on his clothes for the longest time—and that’s reaching to the 90’s.)


9. Martin and Pops singing duets plus one (because one of them couldn’t really sing, guess which among them?  That was really tacky, one holding a dead mic with the other singing above pre-taped audio.)


10. Knots Landing, Falcon Crest and an aging Dallas (the precursors of all the telenovelas now.)


11. The A-Team;


12. That awful song written by Tito Sotto and sung by Virna Lisi (yes, that’s her name) after EDSA 1, Magkaiiiiisaaaaa!


13. That awful anthem by Jim Paredes set as music video in a really bad but obvious rip-off of USA for Africa’s We are the world – Handog ng Pilipino sa Mundo -  also during the days after EDSA 1;  (postcript to both songs:  if Ninoy Aquino had known that his death would spark such awful music, he might have decided against coming back.)

The One?

It’s a 3-way race for Chief Justice.  Or is it?

Puno. Panganiban. Quisumbing.  The three Senior Associate Justices, in that order, have declared their availability to be considered for Chief Justice.  Of the three, Justice Puno enjoys the edge in seniority, intellect and vision;  however, of the three, it appears that Panganiban enjoys the edge where it counts:  the appointing power’s graces.

The Supreme Court is the third branch of government;  the Chief Justice of the Philippines is the head of that branch.  He should not be beholden—nor perceived to be beholden—to the appointing power.  Nor should the appointing power be perceived to be making the Chief Justice beholden to it.

But, hello?  Reality check.  This is Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s government we’re talking about. In a word:  shameless.  In another word: corrupt.  In yet another word:  Unprincipled.   I can go on but to make it easier for you, look up all adjectives for “rotten”, “evil”, “corrupt”, “unprincipled”, “shameless”, “brazen” and “illegitimate”, and you have words to describe Gloria’s government.  Don’t get me started on Bunyi, Gonzales and Gonzalez;  and please let’s not even go to De Venecia and Ramos.  But I digress.

I am not a rabid fan of Justice Puno.  I didn’t agree with his ruling in the Gloria Arroyo legitimacy issue.  However, he is the best alternative of the three.  His intellect cannot be disputed.  His writing style is elegant and magisterial.  His positions on (some) progressive issues ahead of his time.  His elevation to Chief Justice is also the best way to show that, despite Gloria, some things still can be counted on, as a matter of principle.

However, with the recent appointment of Mercy Gutierrez, Mike Arroyo’s law school classmate and personal counsel to Gloria Arroyo, as Ombudsman, it doesn’t look too good for principled stands, progressive legal advocacies and intelligent discourses on the rule and role of law.  

Suddenly, that 3-way race is starting to look like a rout.

364 days more

364 days to go till the end of my term as OLA director.

I started as OLA Director today at 8 am with a meeting and several administrative chores.  Still need to get oriented with the way everything works—it’s been a while since I was part of the OLA decision-making processes;  certainly, there are changes that need to be made, some of them ASAP, the others yesterday.

What I want for OLA is a return to basics. It is, essentially and first, a teaching clinic.  It is part of the law school.  It is not a center for cheap or free labor.  It is also not supposed to be a substitute for the public prosecutor or the public attorney’s office.  

OLA should not be handling cases that have little or no pedagogical value where, in doing so, we relieve the public prosecutor or the PAO of their duties;  they are, after all, paid to do these duties.  Instead, OLA should fill a niche—the same niche it created twenty plus years ago—a revolutionary way of looking at legal education where students are encouraged to look at law practice as pedagogy in itself.    

OLA should also be fun. I had fun exploring the many ways law could work and the many ways law could not work when I was an intern a lifetime ago.  But it ceases to be fun when the intern is snowed down by soooo many administrative requirements that the pedagogical value of case handling is overshadowed or weighted down by these requirements.  Yes, OLA is 2000 units, but it can be 2000 units of fun.

Let’s see what happens in the next 364 days.

A great decade

Saw the “Madness” signs all around Malcom Hall; it seems that the theme this year is the 80’s. Now, that was a great decade—as in, a GREAT DECADE!

Ten things I remember about the 80’s:

1. Marcos’s butt being kicked all the way to Hawaii;

2. Tears for Fears ! (a great band; even if they were said to be looney tunes, they sounded great, especially on "Everybody wants to rule the world")

3. U2, Live at Red Rocks (not the one at Scout Tobias)!!!

4. Watching live bands at Red Rocks, Scout Tobias (the precursor of Club Dredd; where bands like Deans December--featuring a then already howling Binky Lampano--Razorback, E-heads would play and where, occasionally, a very single, very young, very pretty Dawn Zulueta would show up to watch the bands play)

5. Gold! Always believe in your soul . . .

6. Bagets! (Great movie; original, inventive, and hip at that time)

7. Rallies at Mendiola

8. Lining up veeeery early to enroll at UP

9. Watching APO hiking society concerts at Ateneo and waiting for "American Junk" so we could raise our clenched fists and thumb our noses at american imperialism;

10. Michael Jackson, when he was both black and bad! (Now, he’s just weird.)
10. Listening to Lean Alejandro address a rally;

10. Major Tom (the song);

10. Parties at Corinthian;

10. Our House . . . in the middle of the street;

10. Marx for Beginners, Lenin for Beginners, Nicaragua for Beginners, etc


The list can go on. . . .That was a great decade.

Grace 24 x 7

Back in the bad old days of my past life, I’d have called this week “hell week.”  Somehow, I could relate with Kiefer Sutherland on “24” except that I didn’t face any mortal peril—except the occasional cliff-hanging deadline-beating submissions that almost stopped my heart a few times, literally.

It’s been a week of full-packed, non-stop meetings, hearings, work, service—almost all of them interlocking and overlapping with each other.  From Monday to Friday, my work day started at 630 am with breakfast meetings almost every day and ended past midnight after either work or service.  

And the week’s not over yet.  Tomorrow brings new challenges.  I play marriage counselor to two dear friends on the verge, bringing with me the only thing that qualifies me for the role:  both of them trust me. After this initial tryst into marriage counseling, a meeting with Gay for pre-planning and then a session with my Spiritual Director and then preparing presentations for the planning session on Sunday.

Sunday brings with it a men’s conference that starts at 8 and ends at 5; after which, we go to Good Shepherd Convent for a branch council planning at 7pm that ends the next day (a holiday) at 6 pm; and continues with a talk on Financial Stewardship at 7:30.  And then, its Tuesday.

Strangely enough, I don’t feel tired even though I know I am.  Others would call this nervous energy or adrenalin;  I call it grace—God’s.  It truly is sufficient.

“In my weakness, You are my strength” never became more real to me.  

Lord, keep me company even as I struggle to keep pace with You on the way to Heaven.

Not just yet. . .

“Just when I thought I was out . . . they pull me back in.”  Al Pacino, one of my favorite short actors (together with Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Danny De Vito and Robert Downey Jr.), said this memorable line.

It describes how I felt when Dean Carlota asked me, at the start of this current semester and at the start of his term as Dean of Law, to take over as Director of the U.P. Office of Legal Aid (OLA), the legal clinic of the College of Law.  I had plans (which I had been praying for over the last two years) of leaving the College of Law simply because I felt that it was no longer worth fighting for as Dean Carlota’s predecessor was simply too much of a politician and a salesman for my tastes (note the number of “shortcuts” he allowed in enlistment procedure, which a lot of students are now “paying” for when Dean Carlota quoted chapter and verse of the rules to justify a “stricter” policy;  note also the number of rooms forming the College’s patrimony and history that have been “sold” to those who have the millions to fund the renovation and name the rooms after them).  I felt that law had been so “commercialized” such  that the sheer joy I felt teaching law had evaporated;  of course, it did not help that the former office holder was not one who believed in letting bygones be bygones.

I had been planning to finish the second semester, out of deference to Dean Carlota, and then ride off into the sunset as far as my teaching career was concerned.  But then, Dean Carlota had other plans.

I prayed about accepting the OLA directorship.  Having served at OLA, first as a law intern, and then for several years as Supervising Lawyer, I know just how difficult it is to serve there.  Also, as a lawyer who has served  indigent clients from the get-go, I know how challenging it is to serve such a clientele.  But one thing that really prevented me from accepting it immediately was because of my current service as Branch Leader of Lingkod QC (a singles community of young professionals);  my commitment to them was clear, definite and unwavering and I knew that taking on OLA would mean a slice of the 24/7 pie that was already small enough considering all the things I’m handling.

Yet,  the Lord just assured me of one thing:  abounding grace.   The excitement I felt, similar to what I felt when I first became Supervising Lawyer at OLA, was an indication of blessing and, yes, grace;  there was not only peace that I felt but also excitement and some joy at the prospect of serving again at OLA.  I  put my burdens upon Him and He assured me of the ease of His yoke and the lightness of  His burden.

So, I accepted the Directorship of OLA and that means that I won’t be riding off into the sunset, just yet.  The Directorship carries with it an academic credit of 6 units and an automatic load of 8 units or a total of 14 units—2 units in excess of the 12 units I’m required every semester to teach;  so that means I won’t need to teach any subjects, unless I want to.  Right now, I’m still discerning whether I should teach again or just simply devote my time to OLA. Offhand, I may handle one subject a semester just to keep my hand in but things may change with time.

Change does not come easy for a lot of people.  My new post may mean changes, for many people, myself included.  But abounding grace to take on this new service means also abounding grace to accept change—I pray for grace to be able to see clearly what needs to be done but also the grace to accept whatever change brings in my life.

I have two hands

I’ve been taking guitar lessons from Alan, a brother from my singles community, and I must say, I’m learning a lot.  I now know why my left hand and my right hand are important in playing the guitar—no kidding!    Thanks bro, you’re cut-out for this—you have the patience, the passion, the skill of course, and the heart for teaching people.

I’m still a long way off, though, from playing. . . still, the excitement of being able to produce melody, not noise, and finally conquering Bm and, to some extent, F is tremendous.

Now, if only I could get my left hand to shift chords while my right hand is strumming . . .

My rant for the day

This will be a rant.  You want to stop reading, be my guest.  

You’re still there. . . tough.  Don’t tell me I didn’t warn you.


There’s a really bad pick-up line that goes:

“Man (to woman he wants to impress):  ‘Opportunity knocks but once. Hi, I’m Mr. Opportunity.’”

I hate opportunists.  For me, they are life forms lower than spineless jellyfish.  But more than opportunists, I hate opportunists who are not even open about being opportunists.  Give me “Mr. Opportunity” anytime—at least he’s honest.

I recently came across a write-up in Newsbreak about a certain law firm’s supposed intervention in the selection of the new Dean of Law at U.P.  It leaves a really bad taste in the mouth because I know everyone mentioned in that write-up.  I also know—and respect—Dean Carlota.  I also know the law firm and what it is capable of.

Is this what it has come down to?  Opportunity knocking and opportunists taking advantage?  Principle?  Is that now a dirty word?   I’d like to think not.

I think it is a signal dishonor to Dean Carlota for his name to be raked across the mud like this.  He is portrayed, unfairly, as an opportunist.  Worse than false accusation is malicious innuendo. Worse than malicious innuendo, however, is bad company.  Once and for all, Dean Carlota should squelch these rumors—if they are not true—and put that  law firm and all its lieutenants in their place.  To be fair to that firm as well, it should also say its piece (but also practice what it would preach as well).

Once and for all also, that firm and other similarly-minded, “well-meaning” alumni (making up various shades of “The Firm”) should just leave us in the UP College of Law alone—isn’t it enough that I have to be reminded of all of you and what you are once I  step into the Lobby of Malcolm Hall (should be renamed after that firm) and once I step into designated classrooms bought by and named for entities like Accra, Sycip, Binay etc.?    

U.P. Law is a public law school---the only one of its kind.  It shouldn’t be subject to sale like some political favor or some private property.  You want to be grateful alumni? Do some good by not foisting and keeping people like Gloria Arroyo on the people.  You want to be grateful alumni and do some good?  Stop representing big oil companies that keep the prices of oil up if only to maintain their “margin of profit.”   You want to be grateful alumni and do some good for U.P. Law?  Get the Senate and the House, and all the U.P. Alumni there, to stop sitting on their behinds and pass a realistic and reasonable appropriations act for U.P.  You want to live up to U.P.’s name?  Be a good witness to just how much the law can become a genuine force for change and for good.  Show to MY students just how much U.P.’s supposed grand manner has made you great lawyers—not just great businessmen and businesswomen.

If you can’t do that—please stay out of U.P. Law and let others who want to do that run the law school.  For us who have made a commitment to the Law School, this is our life and life’s work.  For me, a large part of  MY LIFE is invested in U.P. Law so do me a favor, all you “well-meaning and grateful alumni”, if you can’t help me and the country (see above,  in bold)—STAY OUT OF MY LIFE!

Did I tell you I really hate opportunists?  Ok, I’ll stop now.

So much more. . . in the name of love

More on love and loving .  . .

Heard this again over the radio this morning and it brought me back, way back.

PRIDE (In the Name of Love)
[Words: Bono; Music: U2]

One man come in the name of love
One man come and go
One man come he to justify
One man to overthrow

In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love

One man caught on a barbed wire fence
One man he resist
One man washed up on an empty beach
One man betrayed with a kiss

What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love

Early morning April four
A shot rings out in the Memphis sky
Free at last
They took your life
They could not take your pride

In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love

In the name of love

This is one of those anthems that strike directly at the heart and moves you in many, many ways.  Sheer poetry but also unmitigated truth.

“What more in the name of love?,” Bono wails.  

So much more .  . .


Lord, I ask for the grace to ask myself, “what more in the name of love” so many more times than I ask myself  “why me or why now” and for the additional grace to be perfectly honest with myself.

I'm not lost, I just don't know where I am

Men don’t ask directions; that’s an urban legend. In my case, it’s not entirely true. I do ask directions when I get lost. Now admitting that I’m lost—that’s another thing altogether.

That’s what I discovered last Friday when I, together with two lay missionary brothers Jopeng and Jobaqs from the Servants of the Word, had to navigate through the flooded streets of Manila on our way back to Quezon City. I had a vague idea of where I was going when I turned right to Morayta from Espana but after that, I knew zilch. My navigator was Jopeng (Jobaqs fell asleep midway through the journey) who always looks very confident and in whom I personally have great trust. Throughout the entire trip, we asked directions only twice and both times we had already committed to a certain route before asking directions—so it wasn’t entirely asking directions so much as confirming that we were on the right path. We never admitted we were lost—even if I readily admitted I had no idea where I was but that doesn’t mean I was lost—at least not out loud.

I didn’t feel anxious or nervous; I never felt lost although I really had no idea where I was at particular stretches. After about two hours or so of driving around flooded side streets of Manila, we got to Quezon City.

It was a fun adventure—even if I was so hungry (I’m sure Jopeng was hungrier as he fasts on Friday). I got home at 2:15 or so and plopped down on the sofa to rest my feet and promptly fell asleep; I woke up at 6:00 to finish my powerpoint slides for my talk at 9:00. Another day, another adventure.

God, thank you for adventures that allow me to see another side of You, and another side of me as well.

Lessons in Loving: Reality Bites

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” -  Matthew 5:9 (NIV)

Yesterday’s rally against Gloria was one of the most violent yet.  Most of those who were injured, arrested and/or detained were our clients (or quickly became our clients).  Video footage of the dispersal showed indiscriminate violence by the police who were armed with metal shields which they used not to push away but to stab and bludgeon.  Video footage also showed plain clothes policemen punching, hitting, smacking men and women already in custody.

This is Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR).  Welcome to Gloria’s Philippines.

Jesus, in the sermon on the mount, tells us that the peacemakers shall be called children of God.  I found it really difficult to reconcile the images I saw of the supposed peacemakers with those that God would call His children.  But that’s why I am human, fallible, weak and definitely not God and that’s why God is God.  His ways are not mine and His thoughts are not my thoughts.

The most important commandment is to love God above all else;  the second most important commandment is to love others as you would yourself.  That’s the clincher:  love others as you would yourself.  

I  found myself very angry at what I saw on video yesterday but then I found myself reflecting on loving others as I would myself.  How would I want myself to be loved? I would want to be forgiven for my wrongs and transgressions;  I would want to be treated with humaneness, with dignity.  Definitely not like how the police treated the rallyists yesterday.  

Love others as you would yourself—easy to say, extremely difficult to do.  Lord, following you is truly difficult sometimes.  Loving others is difficult, especially when they are difficult to love.  

I pray for the grace to recognize the lovability of others, transcending the façade of unlovability, and for the grace to love others, despite their seeming unlovability.  I pray as well for the grace to be able to love without first looking for lovability in others and to surrender to this grace wholeheartedly, singlemindedly and relentlessly.

Retroactive 5.0 for Miriam in Evidence

As one who has been teaching Evidence for some time, I am ashamed of myself.  

I must apologize to all my students, present and past, for failing to tell them that triple hearsay is not only admissible but is also impressed with high probative weight.  I must confess that since I never had the “brilliant” Miriam Defensor-Santiago as my professor for Evidence, I really missed that particular legal principle.  I feel that I must commit the academic equivalent of hara kiri by turning in my teaching license, as it were, and make a public apology to all my students, present and past, for misleading them.

Hah, she wishes.

Miriam is the one who is a monumental embarrassment to the name of U.P. and particularly the College of Law.   She’s not even funny anymore—even when she goes from her “lucid intervals” to her “normal state”—she’s tiresome and tiring a total waste of taxpayer’s money.  

She should be given a retroactive 5.0 for Evidence and her diploma as a UP graduate should be withdrawn.

A gag order by any other name . . .

MALACAÑANG
Manila

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 464

ENSURING OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWER, ADHERENCE TO THE RULE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS APPEARING IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION UNDER THE COSTITUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, the Constitution guarantees the separation of powers of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government;

WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution provides that heads of departments may, with the prior consent of the President, appear before and be heard by either House of Congress on any matter pertaining to their departments and, when the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the president so states in writing, such appearance shall be conducted in executive session;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the rule of executive privilege, the President and those who assist her must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions since this is fundamental to the operation of the government and is rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution;

WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution mandates that the rights of persons appearing in or affected by inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate or House of Representatives shall be respected;

WHEREAS, recent events, particularly with respect to the invitation of a member of the Cabinet by the Senate as well as various heads of offices, civilian and military, have highlighted the need to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of persons appearing in such inquiries in aid of legislation and due regard to constitutional mandate;

WHEREAS, there is a need to prevent such inquiries in aid of legislation from being used for partisan political purposes, disrupting diplomatic relations with foreign governments, and weakening the stability of the State, thereby impeding the efforts of the government to generate and attract foreign investments;

WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that public officials and employees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the public interest;

WHEREAS, Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code prohibits any public officer from revealing any secret known to him by reason of his official capacity or wrongfully delivering papers or copies thereof which he may have charge and which should not be published;

WHEREAS, the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code of 1987 provide that the President shall have control of all government departments, bureaus and offices and shall ensure that all the laws be faithfully executed.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by the powers vested I me by law, do hereby order:

Section 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress. – In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions o separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress.

When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only be conducted in executive session.

Section 2. Nature, Scope and Coverage of Executive Privilege. –

(a) Nature and Scope. – The rule of confidentiality based on executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separations of powers under the Constitution (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995). Further, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that public officials and employees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the public interest.

Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers covered by this executive order, including:

1. Conversations and correspondence between the President and the public officials covered by this executive order (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002);
2. Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
3. Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
4. Matters affecting national security and public order (Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002).

(b) Who are covered. - The following are covered by this executive order:

1. Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
2. Generals ad flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege;
3. Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive privilege;
4. Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and
5. Such other officers as may be determined by the President.

Section 3. Appearance of Other Public Officials Before Congress. – All public officials enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation.

Section 4. Repealing Clause. – All executive issuances, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 5. Separability Clause. – If any section or provision of this executive order shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 6. Effectivity. – This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 28th day of September in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Five.

(Signed) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

By the President:

(Signed)
EDUARDO R. ERMITA
Executive Secretary

--------------------------------------------------------

You may be asking yourself, why should I care about this? I'm not a member of Congress. You may not be a member of C0ngress but you are a particle of sovereignty in this beautiful but benighted land of ours--and, for this reason alone, you should care what the great pretender is doing. For those old enough to remember Martial Law, this was how it all started.

Conrad de Quiros once wrote of people no longer caring that much--in psychology, the technical term is desensitization, in plain language, numbing. I agree with him that that would be the greatest challenge that faces us now--that we might not care enough anymore to form an opinion, express it and stand by it.

God gifted all of us with free will and a capacity to think. It's a waste of gifts if we don't use both, particularly when we can do so without peril to ourselves and particularly when we put our country at peril when we don't.

Changing of the Guard

A new Dean formally took over this morning at the law school: Professor Salvador Carlota, “Buddy” to his friends, “sir”, to us his former students (even those who are now teaching in law school).

His was the first oathtaking for a dean I attended since I started teaching in law school in 1995 because the previous officeholder and I never saw eye to eye and I didn’t bother to show up at his two oathtakings. He (the previous officeholder) didn’t show up at the oathtaking, something I expected from him (perhaps he’s now in Italy, licking his wounds to a magnificent view). His wife (also a law professor) did though (I thought that was big of her), albeit she came in late and after Dean Carlota took his oath already—she was warmly welcomed by everyone there, though I wasn’t sure if there was reciprocity but, well,. . .you can’t have everything.

I was gratified though to see a large number of faculty members who showed up this morning for his oathtaking, even those who ran against him were there. I was even more gratified to see Dean Carlota pulling faculty members who were “estranged” or “not speaking to each other” towards each other and asking them to publicly shake hands with each other and telling them, “hey, X, say hi to to Y. O, ayos na tayo ha?” It set a good tone for his tenure; when I commented on his doing that, he just said, “this may be a new item in my job description. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Children of God.”

I didn’t support his candidacy because I supported someone else; I never opposed his candidacy though, even as I opposed the previous officeholder’s bid for a prohibited third term. Dean Carlota has always been someone people respect, even if his views may be somewhat uber-conservative and his lectures (in and out of the classroom) long. Dean Carlota has always had my respect because he is conscientious, diligent, dedicated and very honest; his integrity is intact. He’s not flashy and his lifestyle shows it; his car, for the longest time, was a broken down Opel which had more rust than paint. When that broke down, he borrowed back his daughter’s car—a hand me down from him—an orange late 80’s Lancer which is also showing its age.

I hope Dean Carlota’s good witnessing in this aspect pervades the law school. I also hope the atmosphere this morning continues during his tenure as Dean and that some much-needed changes may finally happen.

God bless you, Dean Carlota (and your family, Professor Daisy, Pebbles and Rocky); Godspeed ahead.

A knockout!

Anyone entertaining doubts about how good Russell Crowe is as an actor should watch Ron Howard’s Cinderella Man. In it, Crowe shows that the Oscar he got for Gladiator wasn’t a fluke. He is totally captivating as Jim Braddock, a boxer with integrity.

The characterization is excellent. The triumvirate of Crowe, Renee Zellweger and Paul Giamatti is excellent and each of them was able to flesh out the roles of Braddock, his wife Mae and his manager and promoter, respectively. Giamatti is particularly impressive as Braddock’s manager/promoter. It is no exaggeration that Giamatti’s character provided the impetus that kept the film moving and made Braddock’s character so sympathetic. I particularly liked how Giamatti’s character would give Crowe’s character insight into how to beat particular boxers.

I’ve never particularly liked boxing movies (with the exception of Rocky I , Raging Bull and Million Dollar Baby) as they tend to be formulaic—good man down in the dumps and overcomes adversity, happy ending. But even if Cinderella Man does hew to this formula, Ron Howard’s direction, Akiva Goldman’s script and the triumvirate’s acting is just so excellent that the entire film transcends the formula and becomes the shot in the arm that we so desperately need today: an opportunity to feel good about ourselves and about humanity and an opportunity to be hopeful.

No glass slippers involved here but there is a "happy ever after" and something that's truly something magical about this movie. Go watch it.

Worse than Marcos

I never thought I would say this, but there is someone worse than Marcos. Her name is GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO and she is pretending to be President of the Philippines. (I refuse to call her Ms., Mrs., Madame as it would be an insult to women everywhere; I most certainly refuse to call her President.) Marcos, at least, put some semblance of legitimacy to his rule (and, in the process, gave legal scholars a lot of grist for their mills); Gloria doesn't even pretend anymore. She will just do what she pleases.

The latest incarnation of Marcos's Arrest Search Seizure Order (ASSO), Presidential Commitment Order (PCO), Preventive Detention Action (PDA) is Gloria's new rule on mass actions--Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR). Not only is it draconian, it is even ungrammatical as well as oxymoronic; where else can you find "pre-emptive" and "response" in the same phrase?

Her latest Executive Order gagging all executive branch officials , including the military and police, from attending congressional inquiries, is just another instance of just how much worse she is. At least Marcos didn't pretend, he just shut Congress down. The net effect of EO 464 is to prevent Congress from exercising oversight powers over the executive and, thus, prevent it from imposing a check on executive abuses (not that the Congress is itself a paragon of virtue but I'm speaking as a matter of principle, Constitutional principle).

I wish Gloria would be like a bad dream that you can wake up from, but I'm afraid that reality, upon waking up, might also make you want to just go back to sleep-- Mr. Pomade himself as President? Unfortunately, change has to start somewhere and, for me, that means, Gloria must go. First, she goes, then we worry about Noli.

Goodbye, Ma'am Haydee

Haydee Yorac has passed from this life back into God's firm embrace.

Goodbye, Ma'am Haydee. You are missed.

.............

it's been awhile since i last wrote anything here--not because i don't have anything to write about (there's been quite a lot happening) but somehow i just never got around to doing it. will see what happens in the next few days.

Ready to be surprised

In my old age, I realized that I had lost (to some extent at least) one of the traits I thought had always been among my essentials in a person and in myself: spontaneity. I valued that in myself and I value that in friends. Through the years, however, I noticed that, more and more, I was becoming straight-jacketed and more and more formulaic.

Yesterday, the Lord surprised me with news about a case that I had forgotten; it was affirming and came at just the right time as I was struggling with a bad case of the runs on an empty stomach (go figure) while teaching four consecutive classes from 11-6. I had left my phone in my faculty room and just got to see my texts after classes. The news surprised me and also led me to do something I hadn't done in a long time: let out a whoop of YES!!!!! with fist pumping to boot. Before I realized it, I had done it; before I realized it, the whoop was louder than I thought. But no matter, it felt good.

Spontaneity and the blessing of being able to still be surprised. That's what the Lord showed me yesterday.

Today, of all days, I'm ready to be surprised.

An Amazing Absence of Grace and Humor

Raul Gonzalez's dour reaction to ring tones with "Hello Garci" set to music displays an amazing absence of grace and humor: he says those who download or sell those ring tones can be prosecuted.

One reason why the GMA ship will sink in this crisis is this crabby (apologies to crabs everywhere), humorless, and utterly brown-nosed old man (apologies to senior citizens everywhere).

Get a life, man. Better yet, get a sense of humor.

Voices

Let's get real. Would GMA be this quiet, given her famous temper and her imperial impetuousness,if her voice didn't appear on that tape?

Did she steal the election? It sure sounds like it.

Let's get real. Are we willing to let crooks get off simply because we don't like the messengers peddling the message? I'm no big fan of Alan Paguia, Linggoy Alcuaz and the rest of those characters but I am not willing to ignore what appears to be a clear case of large-scale larceny of votes by no less than the President herself.

There's a joke going around-bakit tahimik si GMA tungkol sa tapes? baka mabosesan. It's funny but it's also true.

Time to get real. Joker Arroyo, in his memorable opening speech during Erap's impeachment trial, said that "we cannot have a country ruled by a crook." It is poetic justice and the greatest irony that the beneficiary of Erap's impeachment trial might just end being the subject of another such speech by Joker Arroyo.

Leaving home (Tobias Journal, no. 10)

{A brief note to start: I had intended to write a more regular account of my life in the Tobias Summer Household but somehow my experiences, which are recorded in a more conventional--read: pen and paper--journal are just too personal, even for this blog. Maybe someday, after I edit myself--which is a bloody process--I can post something. Don't mind the journal number, the numbers in between may someday see the light of print, so to speak.}

That was how I felt last Saturday as I cleaned, waxed and scrubbed the room I occupied for three weeks; as I packed my clothes and looked at my roommates do the same, I felt like I was leaving--and not returning--home.

The Tobias Brothers' Summer Household was an experience I was not prepared for. Going into it, I expected a very bloody adjustment because I am a creature of habit and my body, mind and soul do not take kindly to changes; yet, I am thankful that after my first night in Tobias (see previous post on this; journal no. 1), I found myself quite comfortable in that house (actually two adjoining houses but re-crafted as one). It was apparently a feeling that all the brothers shared.

During the first week, I could hear brothers referring to Tobias as "bahay" (house) and the act of going to Tobias as "uwi" (returning home); questions like, "bro, uwi ka ba ngayong gabi?", which ordinarily would mean the opposite slowly and surely took on the meaning, "are you sleeping at Tobias?"

I found myself referring to Tobias as home and started experiencing that excitement of returning home at the end of the working day, looking forward to quiet moments of being able to play the guitar in prayer time before chores (either cooking, setting the table or cleaning) or those moments of unforgettable bonding that only brothers living together can have--playing half-court basketball, table tennis, or just plain alaskahan and kumustahan. Apart from Morning and Night Prayers, Breakfast and Dinner were the times when the brothers were complete and these occasions would be the forge where the bonds of brotherhood of this household was tested; significantly, from the very first dinner, it was clear that this particular bunch of brothers had been handpicked by a power greater than any Branch Leader could divine--there was a chemistry, there was a bond that immediately formed. It was as if long-lost brothers had come home and picked up a conversation started but not ended and the times of breakfast and dinner were the moments when these strands were picked up again and woven into a tapestry of vignettes, anecdotes and life stories being shared.

I found myself adjusting not to sleeping on the floor (because I had spent two summers sleeping on stone floors and even soil during my activist days), but to distractions that arose at work because I was at work and would wonder what was going on at Tobias.

I found myself enjoying the simplicity of the life the brothers of the Servants of the Word led; I found myself inspired by the differences but also the similarities of the four brothers from SOW that we were with (Jobaqs, our household head; Byong, our household steward, Mark, our security steward, and John Yocum, our resident theologian and fanatical Pistons fan). These were brothers who were ordinary joes in all respects except that they had committed their whole lives--body, mind, heart, soul and spirit--to the God who had created them and called them; and that was the difference in these imperfect men because the perfect God whom they heeded was using their imperfections for His glory. And because of this, you saw their wisdom, their passion, their love, their service and even their imperfections in a very different light--that God uses ordinary men (and women) to bring His Kingdom here on earth and it is not a matter of our worthiness, it is a matter of God's worthiness.

The brothers I shared three weeks with was a rambunctious, loud, funny, fun group but they were also, to a man, passionately and deeply in love with the Lord and were each, to a man, figuring out what God had planned for us. And it was that process of discovery and discovering that each brother embarked on that made the household unforgettable; each brother entered Tobias with his own expectations and emerged with perhaps more questions than answers but definitely with a very different experience of God in their lives and that, I am sure, made an impact.

I personally felt the Lord speaking to me very clearly--not only through the sharings with the brothers in my Action Group but also through the talks and even the senses that the brothers and sisters would send me.

And so three weeks passed--just like that. To a man, each exclaimed that it was too short a period--such was the intensity of the experience that each of us felt that we would have wanted to continue living like this. Yet, it was now time to go into the real world--to be men in the world but not men of the world. To live out our calling to be men of God in a world where God's name is not proclaimed or, if at all, in embarrassed whispers or desperate screams of recrimination.

Yes, the three weeks of sheltered and protected existence had ended; it was now time to leave home and go out into the world. I can only pray that His grace be with me as I move on towards fulfilling His call for me. I also pray that the Lord will continue to protect and strengthen Tony, Dante, Polly, Ramil, Jason, Rice, Nandy, JC, Felix, Joseph, Red, Mike, Nick, Marlon, Luis, James, Mark, Byong, John and Jobaqs.

With joy in my heart, I left home last Saturday because I knew that home is where my heart is and, deep in my heart, I knew I could always go back home.

ROTS: Proven Wrong (well, not totally)

Star of "Return of the Sith" he is 


The best things about SW3:ROTS are Yoda, Ewan McGregor, Ian McDairmid and . . . Hayden Christensen (surprisingly). I was prepared to hate the movie after George Lucas described it as a galactic "Titanic" but somehow I was pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong although not totally--the scenes between Anakin (Christensen) and Padme (Natalie Portman) SUCK!!!!!-- but otherwise, the movie is quite good. I would even say its the best of the prequel trilogy (although nothing can be worse than SW: Chapter 2-"send in the clowns"); it's not in the same league (light years away) as SW5:The Empire Strikes Back or even SW6:Return of the Jedi (which was totally destroyed by those %#@*@> ewoks but was, otherwise, a very good movie) but certainly ROTS holds its own.

The atmosphere, as predicted and pitched, is dark. The tension, for once, is sustained all throughout--which makes the scenes between Padme and Anakin stand out even more for their inspidity--and this sets the tone for the betrayal by Anakin of the Jedi and the Jedi way. This is where Christensen more than holds his own. The combination of angst, idealism and confusion is essayed very convincingly by Christensen and it becomes utterly believable that he would be swayed by the dark side. Ian McDairmid is brilliant as Palpatine; using his voice as his greatest asset, he totally makes the dark side and the siths attractive (if you could imagine the voice of the serpent in the garden of eden, it would probably be McDairmid's).

The fight scenes do not disappoint. The first scene, reminiscent of an intergalactic "Saving Private Ryan", is a long whooooaaahhhh moment as Obi Wan and Anakin go after General Grievous. The last scene, set in a lake of lava, is awesome as Obi Wan and Anakin square off.

But what I totally liked about ROTS was the pace--it does not let up. I also liked the manner Lucas managed to seamlessly tie in events and answer FAQs from "Brave New Hope" (Ch. 4), "The Empire Strikes Back" (Ch. 5) and "Return of the Jedi" (Ch. 6) without managing to make them stick out. A personal FAQ that ran through Chs. 4, 5 and 6 was answered by Lucas in ROTS--if Obi Wan was killed by Darth Vader in Ch. 4, how come Luke hears him still and how come he, together with Anakin and Yoda, show up in Ch. 6; this was explained in a classic Yoda moment not to be missed--but its so subtle that you might miss it (look for it near the end of the film; if this is your personal FAQ, you'll go--'aaahhh ok'). Also,the early edition of the TIE fighter that Darth Vader favors is seen in the film. Not to be missed is the return of the Grand Moff Tarkin (played in Ch. 4 by Peter Cushing) although played by another actor who is Cushinge's spitting image (Trivia: Lucas manages to get together two actors who, in the same generation, played Dracula--Peter Cushing [Tarkin, Ch. 4] and Christopher Lee [Count Dooku, Chs. 2, 3]).

I enjoyed the film though I'm not raving about it; and I'm glad to have been proven wrong, even if not totally. I still maintain that Lucas can't write a decent script but he directs a mean yarn and, in the end, that's what Star Wars is--a 6 chapter (thus far) yarn that spans several generations.

Something more serious than a bath(Tobias Journal, no. 1)

I spent my first night at 27-B Scout Tobias last Saturday. It was the start of the 2005 Brothers Summer Household at Tobias (one of two households of the Servants of the Word) and I, together with 20 other brothers from different Lingkod branches had come together to participate in this experience.

We (the QC brothers: James, Marlon, Luis and Nick) went early to the house (7 am) for morning prayers and to drop off our things because there was a Way of Life course that morning. It was the first time for all of us to attend morning prayers at Tobias and, speaking for myself, it was a tremendous experience—coming from a veeerrry late night and a tiring week, it was a refreshing experience to start the Saturday chanting the psalms and worshipping with other brothers.

We then went our separate ways-James had classes, Luis had work, Marlon, Nick and I went to the WOL course.

After a loooong day, Marlon and I rushed back to Tobias for Lord’s Day and when we got there, Byong (our House Steward) was giving the other brothers the tour; since I had already taken the tour last year (during Rommel’s and Ryan’s household), I was listening with one ear while digesting what was going on around me. That’s when Byong told us about the rule from which the title of this post comes from.

Byong explained that since there will be 24 brothers and only a few bathrooms (4, I think), we would need to maximize the use of the bathrooms. So, rule # 1, according to Byong, when taking a bath, don’t lock the door so that the other brothers can use the sink or the urinal; rule # 2, it is only when you’re doing something more serious than a bath that you can lock the door. I couldn’t help myself, I just had to smile at that. At this, Felix (from Makati) whispered soto voce, “bro, what if you’re already taking a shower and another bro enters to do something more serious, is he allowed to lock the door—with you in it, taking a shower? Can’t you complain, bro, nauna ako.” At this, I just had to laugh.

I was no longer in Kansas, or BF Homes in my case.

Lord’s Day at Tobias is a big deal. They had this really quaint and beautiful gas lamp—not a candle—and wooden cups to drink from. Great atmosphere.

Afterwards, we had a sumptuous dinner—grilled porkchops, fresh vegetable salad, spaghetti with tomato and mushroom sauce, beer, softdrinks and fruits (peaches and almonds)—which led most of the brothers to ask, “will the food be like this everyday?” To which Jobaqs, the Household Head, smiled and said, “no, it’s only for tonight.” I suddenly had visions of the fattened calf and the condemned man and his last meal; when I voiced this out, Jobaqs laughed and said, “same result. You got the idea.” I don’t think the other brothers appreciated Jobaqs’ brand of humor; I did, and I laughed heartily.

After cleaning up, we lazed around on the comfortable sofas and swapped small talk. The QC brothers were waiting for night prayers—which we assumed was at 10—until John Yocum passed by and said, “have a good night brothers, magandang gabi.” No night prayers? When we asked Jobaqs, he smilingly replied, “yun ba inaantay nyo? Wala ngayong gabi.” At that, Marlon and I jumped up and headed for the showers to wash off the grime of the day and to prepare to sleep.

Feeling more human after a shower, I went to my assigned room (Jake Yap’s, as it turns out; I could see from all the pictures in the room featuring Oxford and Belfast and with Jake prominent in most of the pictures) and since I had no roommates yet, I had the pick of the room. Laying down my banig in the corner, with my electric fan at full, I said a short prayer to thank the Lord for what remained of the day; shortly after I said, “amen”, I know I dozed off.

Things they never taught me in law school

Someone handed me a copy of the Western Police District Investigator's Handbook, which purports to be their "bible" when it comes to crime investigation. Unintentionally (or I'd like to think so), there are a lot of "gems" in the handbook which may not directly contribute to speedy resolution of crime cases or even effective investigative work but are good examples of things they don't teach law students in law school.

From Chapter 20 entitled "Homicide (Generic) Investigation" come these gems:

"5. Terms encountered in Homicide (p. 57)

(h) Suicide-- Taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally to death. [My comment: I hope so because I cannot imagine taking one's own life and living to tell the tale.]

xxx

(n) Homocide-- Not the killing of a homosexual but a misspelling of homicide." [My comment: this is so funny by itself, I don't even have a comment to do justice to this.]

Also from chapter 20 (p. 59 this time), this particularly strange advise to an investigator:

"(a) If the suspect is at the crime scene, do not advise him of his constitutional rights unless he is to be questioned there immediately for evidence of his own guilt to be used against him in court." [My comment: Du-uh]

And this one (from chapter 20, p. 59) I found particularly hilarious:

"(x) Semen samples in rape or rape with homicide cases should be obtained medically not by hand." [My comment: this couldn't be any funnier if the author had deliberately written it to be funny. I almost died laughing when I read this.]

And, this from . . . you guessed it, Chapter 20, p. 59:

"(g) Have a psychiatrist." [My comment: Shades of Hannibal Lecter]

Requiem for Ray

 

Today, Ray Punongbayan died after a PAF chopper he was on crashed somewhere in Nueva Ecija. He was probably the most famous volcanologist in recent memory and the explosion of Mt. Pinatubo (see picture) was one of the primary reasons he became famous.

He was intelligent and articulate but he was also passionate, to a fault, about his chosen field. He also cared very deeply about his country which you would discover after a 30 minute conversation with him. He was also an honest man and that is saying a lot for a man in government.

I had a chance to meet him when I defended him from a baseless graft charge filed by a subordinate who was after his post. Throughout 3 years of protracted litigation, I got to know the scientist, the man and the Filipino, Dr. Ray Punongbayan:a good man.

He retired from the office he held for 20 years, Director of PHIVOLCS, poor as a mouse but still dedicated and committed to serving his country. Until the date of his death, he lived in a rented apartment--a far cry from many government officials whose mansions sprout within the first years of their appointment.

Ray enjoyed many simple things. He had a great sense of humor and he could laugh at himself. He enjoyed good conversation and could imbibe spirits with the best of them. But the one thing I saw that he was really passionate about was his craft, his science. Once he toured me through the equipment at PHIVOLCS and his eyes were alit as he explained to me, practically a luddite when it came to volcanoes and the equipment in the room, patiently and very clearly what was going on. He was most excited when talking about PHIVOLCS, volcanoes, earthquakes, science and his country.

He retired with a graft conviction wrongfully imposed on him for a corruption that was so alien to him; yet that did not turn his mind from serving what appeared to be an ungrateful country. He poured himself into another realm of public service, serving as governor of the Red Cross--which is how he found himself on that chopper earlier today.

Ray was not a religious man; he did not speak of God often. He was also a man of science which does not lend itself easily to faith. Yet I know that Ray would appreciate that he is now with the Creator, He who made the volcanoes, the rocks and the nature he loved so much in life.

Goodbye Ray. Pacem en requiescat.

She put the GG in PCGG

She put the GG in PCGG 

Haydee Yorac both defies and surpasses all your expectations.

Her reputation as a tough, no-nonsense, intelligent and articulate lawyer precedes her; it is a reputation that is well-earned because she is all these. But she is also more than all these. Fiercely loyal to her good friends and comrades, intensely passionate about things she loves, compassionate for those who find themselves with the shorter end of the stick, Haydee Yorac's tough demeanor hides a heart that beats not only with nationalistic pride and fervor but great love for those who find themselves honored with her friendship.

Of all those appointed to head the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), she put the GG in PCGG. She will not be missed BY government; she will be missed IN government.

Ma'm Haydee,welcome back to the grind--may God hold a warm place in His heart for you.

SW3: Be very afraid of George Lucas

Read somewhere that SW3:ROTS (that's Starwars 3:Revenge of the Sith, in shorthand) has been pitched by George Lucas as an intergalactic "Titanic."

I am afraid, I am very afraid.

Of all the films Lucas could have alluded to, it would have to be "Titanic." Just when I had gotten over the monumental stupidity that was SW2:Send in the Clowns ("Anakin, how you've grown"-retch, barf, vomit), Lucas had to go and compare ROTS to "Titanic."

Screen writing is not Lucas's strong point--SW2:Send in the Clowns is a sterling example, SW1 is a close second (compare both to SW5:The Empire Strikes Back NOT written by Lucas and you will see the difference palpably). So when Lucas brags that ROTS is going to be another Titanic, I am afraid that the insipid love angle in that monumental waste of time and money passing itself off as a film is going to be carried over to what should have been the crowning glory of the SW trilogy.

Just when I was excited to see how the wookies come into the picture; just when I was excited to see how Anakin would turn to the dark side; just when I was excited to see the monumental battle between Anakin and Kenobi that the GREAT Sir Alec Guiness (THE Obi Wan Kenobi; though Ewan McGregor does a fantastic job of channeling Guiness and at the same time creating a totally absorbing younger Kenobi) alluded to in SW4:A Brave New Hope; just when I was excited to see how Samuel L. Jackson (totally underused in SW1 and SW2) would KICK BUTT--Lucas has to go and say that it's going to be a Titanic.

Now we're probably going to have to sit through lame, insipid,mushy, did I say lame already, dialogue between Anakin and Padme just so that the film can have the obligatory love angle which Lucas botched big time in SW2:Send in the Clowns. He could have totally excised the love angle from Send in the Clowns and the film would have rocked--but no, he had to put it in and he had to insist on writing it himself.
I hope Lucas comes to his senses and asks someone who knows writing, like Lawrence Kasdan, to come in and save this film from Lucas himself.

Old dog, new tricks

You really cannot teach an old dog new tricks.

The President has reportedly signed an Executive Order directing a National ID system--something the Supreme Court had already struck down as a violation of privacy a long time ago. What is more, the President refused to wait for Congress which is deliberating on an Anti-Terrorism Bill which would also contain provisions for a National ID system.

To mix metaphors, the National ID system is a big, fat, fastball waiting to be hit out of the park. Can't wait.

For whom the bell tolls

I almost went to sleep early.

Tuesday evening, while scanning the channels (GMA7, CNN, BBC and EWTN) monitoring the events at St. Peter's Square, I was about to switch the tv off when I heard Vicky Morales excitedly saying, live from the Vatican, that there was smoke from the chimney. Sure enough, there was.

But, it wasn't clear to Vicky because her vantage point was ground level at St. Peter's Square whether it was black or white; from where I sat watching the tv, it was WHITE and I wanted to scream at her, "hey, its white! We have a Pope!" But then, a few minutes after, it turned grayish and then white again. That led every commentator, including the very knowledgeable John Allen Jr. (his book, The Conclave, is very informative), to issue a cautionary notice. Then, very wisely, the priest on EWTN (very cool guy, I must say), intoned in his deep baritone that "we must thank John Paul II for this--his foresight in ordering the great bell at St. Peter's to toll if there is already a new Pope."

So, the eyes of the world, previously riveted to a smokestack, which was now literally smoking, turned to a great bell. Minutes crept by and as filler commentary poured in, the crowd at St. Peter's was already chanting, "Habemus Papam"; they knew, don't ask me how but they knew. About fifteen minutes after the smoke, while all eyes were on the great bell, I SAW IT MOVE even before it tolled! Then, bedlam ensued.

As the bell tolled, you could hear the crowd cheering and clapping. From where I sat, I texted friends whom I knew would still be awake (and a few that I was sure wouldn't mind being awakened) the two words that everyone had become familiar with over the past two weeks--"Habemus Papam!"

While speculation was rife over who it would be, I was almost sure that it would be Cardinal Ratzinger given the brevity of the conclave. There would be no surprises and the man who entered the Sistine Chapel a Pope came out as Benedict XVI.

As the bell continued to toll and the crowd continued to thicken, I said a short prayer for my new shepherd--"a lowly laborer in the vineyard of the Lord"--for his protection, for grace and blessing, for his health, and for wisdom and inspiration. But I also said a short prayer for me--his stubborn sheep, his obstinate lamb, his headstrong ward--that I would be able to trust in the wisdom of Our Father in Heaven and His Holy Spirit of Truth, that I would be able to transcend any intellectual disagreements with Pope Benedict's conservative edicts and believe, with all my heart, that God's wisdom will be made manifest in not only his choice of shepherd but also his selection of sheep.

I had many intellectual disagreements with John Paul II's pronouncements on a lot of things but never on matters of faith and belief; my intellectual disagreements, however, never detracted from nor diminished my respect and love for the man, John Paul The Great. And now the man behind a lot of John Paul II's pronouncements was now seated on his chair. I knew that, in the days to come if he proved true to his character and his principles, I would have the same intellectual disagreements with Benedict XVI. I took refuge, though, and found comfort in the knowledge that he was a choice made not by man but by God Himself, working through men, and that there is a divine wisdom, unfathomable to man, in his choice as shepherd to me. And, humbly, I accepted and I obeyed.

As the bell continued to toll at St. Peter's Square, I ended my prayer to the background of the cheering crowd and the tolling bell, lending my cheers to the crowd and knowing fully well for whom the bell tolled.

It tolled for me: tolling an end to my stubborness, my disobedience, my hubris and my pride.

It tolled for me: asking me to embrace wholeheartedly the faith that stretches unbroken two thousand and some years back.

It tolled for me: inviting me to put my trust in my new shepherd, the one whom God had burdened with the task of salvation, of conversion, of transformation.

And I said simply, Amen.

For two weeks, everyone was a Catholic

From the time John Paul II died until last night when Benedict XVI pronounced his blessing urbi et orbi, everyone was a catholic. The long queues said it all--it didn't matter that some people in line didn't believe in God or a god, they came anyway to catholicism's largest and most famous shrine--St. Peter's Basilica.

For two weeks, unfamiliar terms were on everyone's lips: conclave, camerlengo, in pectore. But for two weeks, two names were familiar to everyone: John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger. The latter, pronounced great by everyone who came and paid him the respect he was due, because of his death, the latter, anticipated to be a great steward of the See as well, because of the grace he exhibited during the death of the former.

And now one name is now familiar to everyone, after two weeks: Benedict XVI.

Now it remains to be seen, if ater two weeks, everyone remains to be catholic.

A German Shepherd in the land of the PapaRatzi

Filipinos never fail to surprise me with our sense of humor and great appreciation of irony. A few minutes (and I do not exaggerate this) after the camerlengo came out on the balcony to announce that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is the next Pontiff and that he had chosen Benedict XVI as his name, I received a series of text messages from an irreverent and funny friend of mine (who is also a very devout Catholic): "The church is safe, we have a new shepherd--a German Shepherd! The italian cardinals fondly call him Papa Ratzi!"

In the midst of the emotion-filled moments surrounding the confusion over the smoke and before the tolling of the great bell at St. Peter's Basilica, that text gave me more reasons to smile.

Tell the world of his love

The song “Tell the world of His Love” was written for a special occasion and with one person in mind. It was written for the World Youth Day 1995 in Manila and, of course, it was written with Jesus Christ in mind. But to a Philippines that fell in love (even more) and remains to be in love with the one man who symbolized the love referred to in the song—John Paul II—the song will also be indelibly linked and identified with him.

“He has sent His message of love and sends to those who hear, to bring the message to everyone in a voice loud and clear.”

To the many who have queued up and are still queuing up to see the Pope in repose for mere seconds were not only told of his love, but experienced it. Some may have had the privilege of being ministered to by the Pope; others may have been blessed by his visits to their countries; still others may have been inspired by his writings and encyclicals. But to a person, not one of those in line at St. Peter’s Basilica will deny that John Paul II, in speaking of Christ’s love to the world, spoke as well of his own great love for the world and all its peoples.

We were fortunate to have been blessed by two visits—1981 and 1995. If not for failing health, he would have been here, for a third time, in 2003. In those two visits, we felt not only Christ’s love but his love as well for us as a people. A particularly astute observer said it well, the Pope does not hurry when he is attending to people, he gives you his complete and absolute attention; it is as if you were the only person that existed at that moment. It is a testament to how much he loved people and how telling that love for people was.

“John Paul II, we love you” the chant would go; and invariably, the response would be, “John Paul II, he loves you too.”

For most of this generation, John Paul II was the only Pope they knew; I was in first year high school when Karol Wojtyla of Krakow became John Paul II. And even as I was aware of Paul VI and John Paul I, his immediate predecessors, John Paul II was the only Pope of any impact in my life.

The number of countries he has visited, the trips he has made, the sermons he has given, the encyclicals he has written, the countries he has helped free are part of the history books. But what, by far, is his most memorable legacy, for me, is the number of lives he has changed simply by John Paul II’s decision to tell the world of Christ’s
and his love as well.

All throughout, the gospel he has preached remained the same—the gospel of God’s love and mercy. Yet, in the telling of that gospel, John Paul II told also of another love—his own love for the people of God. This would perhaps be the reason why he would break the traditions of an imperial pontificate—of the faithful going to the Pontiff—and insist on a practice that perhaps only he was suited for and called to—that of bringing God’s gospel of love and mercy to the peoples of the world. If not for his own love, as well, for God’s people, the choice to go to all the farthest corners of the world would not have been an easy one; yet, you could see that John Paul II truly loved God’s people. In all his visits, in all his travels, you could see that he truly relished being one with the people of God and he truly was energized by the opportunity to tell the world of His love.

“Search the world for those who have gone astray and lead them home. Fill the world’s darkest corners with His light from up above; walk every step, every mile, every road and tell the world. . . of His love.”

John Paul II searched the world’s darkest corners and brought the message of God’s redeeming and transforming love to those in darkness; one by one, they fell—those who kept God’s people in darkness. Dictators fell or were transformed, one by one, after God’s Ambassador came to tell them of God’s love for His people.

He walked every step, every mile, every road—yes, including the roads not taken. Praying at the wailing wall, praying at the Tomb of St. John The Baptist in a mosque, apologizing to the jews, breaking bread with the Greek Orthodoxy and many others—all so that he could tell the world of Christ’s and his love.

God, in His infinite love for us, chose John Paul II, a man so in love with God and so in love with God’s people, to tell the world of His love. In his rich telling of God’s love through his words, his acts and his life, John Paul II managed to tell us as well of another great love—his own. The messenger became the message as well and we, God’s people, are all the richer for that re-telling.

Let us tell the world of the love John Paul II had for God’s people and in that telling, let us re-tell as well a tale of another love—that which John Paul II had for God’s people.

Good bye, Holy Father, vessel of God’s great love. I will miss you. I love you.

"A soul leading the body, a soul stronger than the body"- 2005

Originally written July 29, 2002, considering the recent health challenges of the Holy Father, I thought of reposting this with a new explanatory note:

[Last Easter Sunday, I agonized at the sight of John Paul II unable to speak but bravely trying to. My heart went out to this courageous man who has, despite the frailty of his body, shown us the indomitability of his spirit and the robustness of his faith.

There have been so many things said about John Paul II being unable to lead a Church he cannot speak to. Some have said that since he can no longer speak, he might as well step down because apparently for them, the Pope is only as good as his words. Some have expressed concern that he might no longer be in control as he cannot speak or make known what he wants and thus, the pronouncements that are attributed to him--with the stamp of infallibility on matters of doctrine and faith--might not actually be his but someone else's.

Everyone is a conspiracy theorist at heart. And I would be dishonest if I said the thought has not crossed my mind. Time and again, however,I have banished these thoughts simply because I know that God still has a mission for John Paul II--even in these difficult days of physical challenge for him. Whatever physical impossibility may be posed by his inability to speak, I believe that God will grant him grace to be able to communicate through other instruments and vessels. As to his words not being his, I claim in faith that God's hand is at work and He will not allow the evil to strike at the heart of goodness.

John Paul's most lasting legacy will be his ability to make an impact--one way or the other. And if the reaction of the crowd to him during the Easter celebration at St. Peter's Square is any indication, his ability to make an impact despite his physical weakness remains strong. Even speechless, he remains a great inspiration to the faithful; his mere presence was enough last Sunday.

I pray that God will continue to minister to this Servant of the Servants of God, His bishop on earth, that John Paul II may live out his mission to the last of his strength, his mind, his soul, his heart and his spirit.]

"A soul leading the body, a soul stronger than the body"
[Regardless of what you may read in the next few paragraphs, this is not a
eulogy nor is it intended to be one.]

The title of this piece comes from Joaquin Cardinal Navarro-Valls, the Vatican Secretary of State, and he describes, in those words, the state that John Paul II is in right now. It is a sad commentary on humanity's frailty but its also a glorious exhortation of the magnificence of the human spirit and soul, especially one that is led, animated and inhabited by God.

I was in first year high school (1978) when Karol Wotyla became John Paul II and captivated the world not only with his personal history--he was a priest at a time when it was unfashionable and dangerous to do so in a Poland riven by war--but also by his vigor, charm, charisma and strength. As a polish pontiff, he was a breath of fresh air in the stuffy confines of a centuries-long tradition of Roman Popes--especially one that hinted of a scandal in the way John Paul I died. The promise of vigor, charisma, and charm clearly seen upon his ascension to St. Peter's throne was on full display throughout his papacy. Using these and his direct claim to being God's vicar, John Paul II revolutionized evangelization throughout the world. Comparable with John XXIII, who courageously reformed the church through Vatican II and Paul VI, who quietly but effectively led the Church throughout his papacy, John Paul II was the perfect pope for the new age--that of electronic evangelization, globetrotting diplomacy and even brave advocacies.

To see John Paul II now--bent, tired, frail and weak--is agonizing for those of us who witnessed him at his prime--full of vigor, charm and strength. To see him struggle with his words and his thoughts is a terrible sight; to see this once strong and vigorous prince of the church felled by his physical limitations is frustrating.

But the sight of John Paul II struggling, in his weakness to still discharge God's mandate to him, is an inspiring one. Truly, lesser men would have simply given up; he has not and shows no sign of doing so. For other lesser mortals, the depradations of physical frailty would be cause enough for honorable retreat into obscurity, not so for John Paul II. Clearly, he views his continued existence as being a direct command from God--that his mission on Earth is not yet done and that, even as he journeys closer and closer to heaven, he still has work to do. The evangelization that he has revolutionized---with rockstar proportion crowds, multi-ethnic welcome parties in every place he visits, the hero-like proportions he is received worldwide (especially in the Philippines)---cannot be performed by any other pontiff. And that is why, apparently to the very last ounce of physical strength, he continues to be led by God and His will for him.

Even as I do not agree with some of his views (although not those that are ex cathedra, on which he is infallible), I draw inspiration and strength from John Paul II's struggle over his own frail physicality and his unwavering focus on being led by God. Too many times in my life (especially the last two weeks), my physical self has been complaining loudly and often my spirit has followed suit. Too many times have I felt pain, fatigue, tiredness and weakness in my physical self and, tragically, saw my spirit quickly wither. Human frailty is not enough reason to not stand our ground and stake our claim on God's mission. That is what John Paul II is showing me--us.

The strength of his soul is evident even as the weakness of his body is manifest. And that is because his is a soul that is directly tied up to God and exists only for God. Would that all of us could possess that strength of soul and spirit to say, despite all the depradations and frailties of the flesh, that "For you alone, Oh Lord, I continue to exist. Only you and no one else. For without you, there is no reason to continue but with you and for you, every thing has meaning."

Let us continue to pray for the Holy Father, that his soul may continue to lead his physical self that he may continue to minister to all of us whose physical and spiritual selves are broken and under repair; let us also continue to pray that God, in His infinite mercy and divine wisdom, may shower His faithful servant John Paul II with every measure of blessing and grace while on earth and upon his departure, swiftly bring him on the wings of angels to His heavenly reign.

Bombs

Its infinitely harder to be against the death penalty after three bombs have just gone off in a span of minutes in cities that are far apart from each other. People look at you and ask, "how can you be against the death penalty after what happened?" or "how would you feel if it happened to your loved ones?" or just the simple "don't you care?"

The questions hurt and sometimes I wish I could say, "been there, done that" in answer to the same questions over and over again; meaning, I've been asked those questions before, since 1995 and I've always been able to give an answer. Sometimes, I wish I could give neatly packaged answers that are gems of intellectual insight and reasoned argumentation so that the questions will no longer hurt.

But, I've realized that there is a reason why the questions hurt. Its because a part of me is being challenged each time--my principles, my moral compass, my soul, my heart, my faith in my fellowmen and my God. And the only way to make the questions not hurt is to precisely realize the reason why they hurt in the first place.

I've also realized that testing your principles in a vacuum is an easy but ultimately fruitless exercise but testing your principles in the forge of everyday realities is a painful but extremely fruitful process. It's easy to say I'm against the death penalty when no one has been killed heinously or raped brutally; it's easy to say I'm against the death penalty when no one from your family has undergone horrifying and horrible experiences with crime. But try to stake your principles when everyone else is saying the opposite; when the people you love and who matter to you cannot look you in the eye because they disagree with you; try saying to someone you love, "I'm sorry you're in pain but I don't think killing the one who hurt you will remove your pain."

My principled opposition to the death penalty has been tested many times and each time I've realized that I've always had to think about whether I am correct in opposing the death penalty. I've always had to look at faces of real people in order to weigh each time the burden of my principles. And each time, I've realized that my stand remains the same even though the reasons have become different.

I always say that the death penalty ceased to become an academic topic for me in 1999 when two of my clients were killed before my eyes. Since then, it has defined me and my life in many ways. My practice has taken on a vastly different complexion--often I am called by my most famous client's last name, "Echegaray" and often I get strange requests to help out in the most hopeless of cases. Its quite flattering, to be candid, but its also very scary.

From 1994 till February 1999, my stand against the death penalty was a legal one; I knew all the legal arguments for and against it and prided myself in being able to come up with the best arguments against capital punishment. In 1999, two of my clients were killed before my very eyes. My stand became a personal one; it's impossible to forget their faces and I have not forgotten. More and more, my arguments took on their faces--from strictly legal ones, they became more personal, more intimate, more human. In 2001, I gave my life to the Lord and have, at every turn, weighed my stand against the death penalty with what my God would want me to do and each time, I have come away convinced that there is no place for capital punishment in a Gospel that preaches love above all else.

Each time I am asked the questions that shake me to the core of my beliefs against the death penalty, each time I see horrific images of death of innocents from senseless acts of hate, my all-too human heart bleeds and cries out. It would be very easy for me to give in and say, "yes, they deserve to die for all that they have done." But each time, the Lord shows me His face, His hands, His pierced side, His bleeding heart that nonetheless loves despite all the hate He endured. And each time, my God reminds me that He forgave those who persecuted Him, those who hated Him, those who betrayed Him. It is difficult to gaze at that face and remain unmoved that love does not triumph over hate and evil. It is difficult to gaze at His face and not say, "I put my trust and my hope in You that this world will soon know the peace you were born to bring."

In a season of violence, I choose not to spread more violence. In a season of bloodletting, I choose not to spill more blood. In a season of death, I choose life. In this month of love, I choose to love even more.

Better than Daredevil (but its not saying much)

One thing I can say about "Elektra" is that Jennifer Garner can act and she really has great moves; but that's about it. The film is better than Daredevil, where the Elektra character (also played by Garner) was introduced, but that's not saying much considering that the only memorable thing about Daredevil was one song from the OST (and again, its not saying much). Rob Bowman (one of the major writers from "The X-Files") disappoints tremendously only because he is probably capable of so much more, both as director and writer; plot is thin as Mcdonald's coffee, pacing is bad, characterization is shot and, by God, the love angle is so lame. On top of which, they totally destroy what makes Elektra so awesome as a comic book character. Oh well, I'm sure there'll be a sequel--hope Bowman does better.

Who and whose we are (a pre-Ash Wednesday meditation)

The act of labelling, marking or branding is an act that sets apart the object labelled, marked or branded. It is also an act that calls attention to the label, mark or brand which will, in turn, inform people of the reason for the label, mark or brand.

In the book "The Scarlet Letter" (or the film, if you prefer), the leading character Hester is forced to wear the letter "A" on her at all times as a sign that she is an adulterer; the scarlet letter identifies and labels her as a sinner. As a result, she is ostracized and excluded from society--set apart, if you will, but in a different sense.

The tradition of marking our foreheads with ash on Ash Wednesday, which ushers in the 40-day period of lent, is similar to us bearing our own scarlet letter. It is a brand, a mark, a label. The mark on our forehead is intended to remind us--and all who see us--that we are sinners and, like Hester, we deserve to be labeled as such and also to be set apart--ostracized and kept from God's kingdom. Unlike Hester, we wear it only for a day--or less. The symbolism of our fragility and weakness as a people--the ash or dust from which we came is externally imprinted on us--helps us to begin lent by remembering that we who have sinned and are capable of greater sin are deserving of punishment.

The ashes remind us of who we are.

The ashes also remind us of whose we are.

The practice of branding cattle or other animals with the initials of the owner indicates ownership of the cattle or other animals. In a similar way, the ashes we receive are not only a mark of our sinfulness but also a label of ownership as well. We go through the day not with initials but with the sign of the cross--the mark of Christ. Through this mark, we remind ourselves, if only for a day, that we belong to Christ; we are His because all of us, though great sinners, were saved by Jesus's death on the cross.

Its no coincidence that the first reading for today, the day before Ash Wednesday, reminds us of how we were created and who created us. It is a reminder to us that we, who were created in God's image and likeness, belong to God and that it is time for us to realize that.

So, tomorrow, as we receive the mark of ashes on our forehead, let us remind ourselves of who we are and whose we are. Let us humbly reflect on why we are being labeled and set apart. First, lets remind ourselves who we are--sinners. Second, lets remind ourselves whose we are--God's.

One thing more, perhaps. Ash Wednesday also reminds us who God is.

The ashes remind us of Jesus, this God who is holy and set apart, willingly allowed Himself to be ostracized, ridiculed, mocked, and labelled as a sinner, to be put to death among criminals and to be publicly rejected by His own people; the ashes remind us that Jesus who became one of us did so purposedly to claim us, great sinners though we are and continue to be, label us and set us apart for God that we may be redeemed, forgiven and loved by our Everlasting and All-loving God.

My first cuppa in a week

I had my first cuppa coffee this morning; the first in an entire week.

It was a strange but also familiar experience--like going back home to a place that you haven't been to for some time. Smelling the aroma of the freshly brewed beans and holding the hot cup in both hands was a pleasurable experience all over again but it was also a new experience as well--not having experienced it for one whole week.

Sometime during the past week, I offered up my coffeeless days as a fast for the Crossroads retreat; more than giving up something perhaps, I look at it now, in the light of what Ding Bondoc quite correctly reminded all of us last Saturday, as not settling for second best. The rush that I get from drinking so much coffee is second best compared to the great joy of being able to come before the Lord and encounter Him face to face each and every moment of my life.

So far, I'm still on my first cuppa. . . and I feel fine!

Perseverance and endurance

I'm only now realizing just how powerful a book Hebrews is. The readings for the past few days have been taken from Hebrews and there's a lot that the Lord is saying to me from this book.

Hebrews 10:38 - ". . . my righteous one will live by faith. My soul takes no pleasure in anyone who shrinks back."

That's what I'm chewing on right now.

Coffeeless. . . and loving it!

I find myself on my fourth day without coffee; its a strange feeling to drink water--pure, cold, unadulterated H20 first thing in the morning, and not some dark steaming liquid with that great aroma.

So far, I've not only been surviving, but I've been productive--something I never expected without coffee.

I pray for the grace to be able to continue this fast at least until the end of the week.

Java Jives

I've been without coffee for three days. That should not be news if not for the truth that I have been a serious coffee drinker since 1985; by serious, I mean an average of eight mugs a day.

My coffeless days started quite inauspiciously.

Last Saturday I woke up early to get ready for our Evangelization Training Day and discovered that I had ran out of coffee beans and that there was not a trace of instant coffee in the house. Because I needed to get out early, I thought of just making a quick beeline for the nearest McDonalds for a drive through (their coffee is as thin as paper but that's how badly I crave coffee). But traffic prevented me from doing that. During the day, I "forgot" about coffee--something that has never happened before. So I started and ended Saturday without a drop of coffee in my system.

Sunday, I woke up dehydrated; and since there was no coffee at home, I had to "orange juice up" to hydrate myself. Possibly because of withdrawal, my head was aching the whole day so the prospect of driving out to buy coffee was not appealing. I left the house only late afternoon to go to mass at UP but, somehow, it never occurred to me to get coffee even if Starbucks was nearby. So I also started and ended Sunday without any coffee in my system.

Today, I woke up feeling better. I had my prayer time and the Lord led to me to a familiar phrase--"my grace is sufficient for you" that led me to take stock of what I am and where I am now. I realized that one reason I was finding difficulty with joy was that I had not been living on grace but on crutches; I had depended for so long on things that were not from God to keep me going. Affirmation from people, material rewards, indulgences--like coffee--had fueled my life for so long. I loved to tell people that if I didn't get two cups of coffee in my system at the start of the day, I wasn't "formally awake yet." Yet, I had been without coffee for two whole days and I was well. The Lord reminded me that "my grace is sufficient for you" means exactly that; I did not need two cups of coffee to sustain me, I needed just an ounce of His grace. That familiar phrase never felt so real to me until today--after two coffeeless days. I decided, consciously, that I would try to extend my streak to three coffeeless days. So far, I'm almost done with my day and I'm okay so far.

I know that I will eventually drink coffee--I'm human after all. But I suppose what the past three days has taught me is to not to lean on my crutches. I know, in my heart if not in my mind, that coffee is a false "grace" and that I don't really need it for my day to begin; just like today, I started with prayer and no coffee.

If I do take coffee at all in the next few days, it will be just for the usual reasons--eggs taste great with coffee and pandesal!--but definitely not for the reasons I took coffee before--the false notion that I could not live without it.

Hi, my name is Ted, and I'm a recovering coffee junkie!