I would have witnessed a murder

Image

Ernie Fernando Jasmin Sr, head of China bank security, killed by a gun man on a motorcycle in. Jasmin was walking home at around 8pm. Grieving in white is his wife, Lorecia

To keep fit, every Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays, I run around the village at around 7:30pm.  Last night, I was too lazy to run.  If i ran , I would have witnessed the murder of Ernesto Jasmin Sr, Chinabank head of security, who was killed by a gun man on a  motorcycle.  He died on the spot, on the main avenue of our village where I usually take my running route.

The killing happened four houses away from mine.  At around that time, I was on the internet- I heard shots, but I thought they were just firecrackers.  My dogs were restless and were barking non-stop.  I only found out about the incident when a neighbor sent me a text, and I went outside to check for myself.

Makes me think: How can assassins be so heartless? Is it because of poverty that they had to resort to killing just to feed their family?  Or is it greed just to buy themselves the latest gadget? Is our lives just worth a Blackberry?

So many questions running in my head. Everyday I pray to God for protection, I would have witnessed this murder, or I would have been killed as well for being a witness.  Tonight I thank Him that I got too lazy to run.

Advertisements

Deep in the woods

  • Image

In the last French Film festival that ran from June 8-17 in Shangrila Plaza Mall, the only movie that I really sought out to see was Au fond des Bois (Deep in the Woods).  It’s a typical poor-boy-falls-in-love-with-rich-girl-type of story set in 1865 in Southern France.

Timothee, a vagrant, fell in love with Josephine, daughter of a rich doctor.  He saw her first entering a church.  After spying her for several days, he then shows up at her home claiming to be deaf and mute. He was welcomed by her doctor father who sympathized to the boy and wanted to treat him. Over dinner, Timothee demonstrated an entertaining knack for illusions.

The next day he rapes Josephine, who is betrothed to a writer. He then brings her into the woods, where they did other the kind of exciting, nasty and satisfying things that lovers do. The problem is that as far as her family is concerned, Josephine has been kidnapped.

Timothee was then captured and was brought to trial for kidnapping. Josephine’s father remains to question whether his daughter was really under a spell, or she willingly followed him deep in the woods.

Although there were negative reviews, I really liked the movie.  My husband who is not into art films had no choice but to watch with me, and below are our reviews.

Review:

He says: Josephine was the witch, not Timothee.  She made him kidnap her, and in the end, she forced him to admit it, even if it was really what she wanted.

I say:  Timothee was a fling-type, the writer was the marrying-type.  Although Josephine liked the beggar, she knows that in reality she cannot live a vagrant lifestyle.

 

Behavior change first

Over the weekend, I attended a seminar on Effective Communication Planning held at Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication.  The seminar was conducted by AIJC president and UNESCO consultant Ramon Tuazon.  He said that long time development projects have been doing awareness campaign for years, and yet the respondents still suffer the same problems.  He cited the example on family planning.

The awareness on contraceptives campaign has been disseminated through out the years, and yet the population of the Philippines keeps on increasing.  Most people think that the problem is the church, which apparently is not. Based on studies and monitoring and evaluation,  people are aware of contraceptives, as well as the financial problems and consequences of bearing several children, and yet they still don’t respond to the need of family planning. The studies have found  that these people are mainly afraid of the health consequences brought about by the use of contraceptives, especially pills.  Therefore, they have concluded that awareness campaign is not the problem, but the need on the behavioral change and mindset of people.  This was realized because  science was applied to discover the source of the problem.

Behavioral change is needed not only on ongoing projects, but also future clients who does not believe on the methods of science needed to be applied to make their business succeed.  If they look down on your methods, then it’s best to let them know that they have wasted your time already, and they will be wasting everybody’s time in the future if they don’t change their behavior first.
Image

Ode to Manny

Pacman singing his heart out in Cids Bar Makati even after losing the fight with Morales in 2005

Manny Pacquiao lost to Timothy Bradly through a controversial-split decision win  a few hours ago.  Many people contested the decision of the judges. I was one of them.  But I won’t rant about how foul the results were.  There are enough blogs and analysis about it in Google. The question is: How does Manny cope from the loss?

In 2005, after Manny Pacquiao’s loss to  Erik Morales because of a Head Butt- he was bleeding  profusely, couldn’t see, couldn’t fight Morales well- he  went to a bar with Mrs. Jinkee and entourage, drank a couple of beers,  sang his favorite songs, and had a great time.

Our group posing with Manny

Today’s post- loss: Based from several tv interviews, he says that it’s a test of faith (read here).  He said no matter how much he knew he won the fight 100%,  it’s still God’s will. God has a purpose for him. And instead of going to a bar, have a couple of drinks, sing karaoke, Pacquiao says in an interview with the Buzz  that he is taking his family  to Israel, and pay homage to the Lord.

Because of this, Manny deserves a bigger applause! We are proud of you, Manny! Keep the faith!

On Pacquiao, responsible journalism, and respect

There are three things I learned this week:

1. Read carefully

2. Write clearly

3. Respect opinions

Over the weekend, I attended a media literacy seminar conducted by AIJC president and UNESCO consultant Ramon Tuazon in AiJC Greenhills.  The seminar discussed the use of new media, and how to effectively communicate to readers.

A few days later, with the publishing of Examiner.com on its interview with Manny Pacquiao, the bombardment of the hatred status on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs against him, (read here and here),  I realized that even well-known journalists need to go through the media literacy seminar as well.

The Examiner.com writer Granville Ampong wrote an apology letter, explaining his literary style (read here). Ampong said “nowhere in my supposition and integration of my interview with Pacquiao did I mention that Pacquiao recited this Leviticus 20:13 nor did I imply that Pacquiao had quoted such.”

Ampong used Leviticus as a source for Pacquiao’s opinion on same-sex marriage.  So who made a mistake?  The Examiner.com writer  tells the journalists who misconstrued his writing,  to READ CAREFULLY: ” being writers for USA Today and LA Weekly respectively, should have a better reading comprehension than I do, rhetorically.” 

This drives me to the second point – WRITE CLEARLY.

In today’s digital world, everyone is on a rush. Speed reading is a norm.  Do you expect an average internet user to sit down, and understand a literary style?    I for one made a grave mistake (thinking of seeing a comma) because of my rush reading when I saw a headline in Inquirer that says:

Fil-Am girl Jessica Sanchez leaves ‘American Idol’ judge J-Lo speechless (read here)

My mind read:

Fil-Am girl Jessica Sanchez leaves, American Idol judge J-Lo speechless

I thought I saw a comma.  I thought it was really PR stunt and tweeted it.  I had a rush of complaints afterwards. So I went back to the article again and read it carefully.  I had to apologize for that.

In comparison to Pacquiao, people like to stop reading on the headlines, others would  just skim the write-up.  Journalists really should be careful with this. As Ampong learned it the hard way- by inserting his source (Leviticus) after Pacquiao’s quote- explaining:

I have simply reminded in my column how God made it clear in the Old Testament time that such practice of same-sex marriage is detestable and strictly forbidden, in as much as God wants to encourage his people practices that lead to health and happiness and fullness of life. As my style of literary writing suggests in almost all of my columns, the critical thoughts I tied up in the structure of thoughts I wanted to convey pertinent to this issue at hand do not translate Pacquiao’s point of view, however conservative I am in my exposition.

Journalists: leave your poetic, and academic style writing in privacy!   The internet world is full of speed readers. Be simple. Be understandable.

Harvey Levin, TMZ producer and lawyer, reads Examiner.com article on Pacquiao, then tweets: The Grove has banned Manny Pacquiao because of the anti-gay comment, but it looks like he didn’t say what is in the story.

Respect other people’s opinion.   US President Barrack Obama used to be against same sex marriage and no one hated him then.  He changes his mind, some critics see it as political motivation and not policy (read here), but the American public- Liberal or Republican….-  still respected it.

But here comes Pacquiao, a man who was asked about his stand, and voiced out his answer against same-sex marriage. Local and foreign netizens suddenly slammed him for his opinion, and called him names.  I always thought the US is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Apparently, I realized that to be respected by the public, it is imperative that one has to conform to the dominant opinion, or be silent in fear of being ostracized.  And all because of  the Leviticus “Death to gays” quote- which Pacquio didn’t even invoke.

Sadly, the journalists will go write his apology, others wouldn’t.  Tomorrow will be a different story. But Manny Pacquiao will have to live on the irresponsibility of these writers.

Tulfo vs Barretto/ Santiago: What really happened in Naia

Image

photo by abs-cbn

Columnist and radio host Ramon Tulfo had a brawl with Claudine Barretto and spouse, Raymart Santiago along with other friends on May 6, 2012 at the Naia 3 terminal.  According to Inquirer, the columnist initially sympathized with Baretto, who was complaining about their off-loaded luggage. But when the stewardess was viciously balled-out by the actress, Tulfo decided to take photos using his cellphone.

Airport Scene. (parody)

Tulfo: *thinking* Scoop to! Ma lapitan nga, at maidag-dag nga ito sa column ko against budget airlines – baka heto na yung opportunidad na maka- fly-all-can na ako!

Barretto: Sir anong gingawa niyo? (*thinking* naku, si Tulfo to ah. Mahal to. Wala na akong pera pambayad dito)

Santiago: Sir, ano hong ginagawa ninyo? (*thinking* naku, paparazzi.  Ang taba pa naman ng asawa ko, pag wala akong gagawin, lagot ako!!)

Tulfo:  Anong pakialam mo? (*thinking* sino na namang kumag tong nakikialam. Mauudlot pa yung lifetime frequent flyer ko.)

Santiago: Akin na yang cell mo, kundi suntukan tayo.

Tulfo: Tara Black belter ako!

Police Scene:

Santiago: Nagrereklamo lang naman po ako sa missing baggage namin…Some of the children’s things and medicines were in the missing bags (*thinking* andun yung ipad, at si Barney! Magtatantrums yung mga anak ko pagwala yung mga yun!)

Barretto: “Pagpasok ko nag-hello pa ho siya [Tulfo], nang-aalaska pa. Tawa siya ng tawa hindi ko alam kung bakit. Ngumingiti-ngiti siya eh. Tapos nagbitaw ho siya ng salita na hindi niyo alam kung sino ang kinakalaban niyo. Iyon ang sinabi niya sa amin. Thrineaten niya ho kami.” (*thinking*  I bet, sisirain niya career ko sa Bitag!)

Tulfo: Hello lang, threat na (*Thinking* beware the Tulfo brothers)

Cebu Pac management: Whew! Buti nalang nagaway.  Wala kami pakialam dyan ha!

First Gentleman Arroyo: Si Raymart lang pala katapat ni Tulfo.  Beeeh, Buti nga !  HAHAHAHA!

Scarborough dialogue in my mind (parody)

Image

Image

PART 1

PHILIPPINES-US TALK

This is how I imagine the conversation that happened during the US-Philippine Ministerial Dialogue at the Jefferson Room, State Department April 30, 2012.  The Philippines asked the US for assistance on the ongoing standoff with China on the Scarborough Shoal dispute.

Philippines:  We’re losing Scarborough Shoal to China. We admit, our Navy just doesn’t have the equipment to win this.

U.S.: What do we get from it, it does not have oil, or gold. We don’t want to side with anyone here, especially super power China.

Philippines: Are we not band of brothers, Joe? Did we not fight together during World War II?

U.S.:  That’s so last century, y’know.

Philippines:  Please, help us.  We will keep watching Hollywood films, and stop buying pirated DVDs!

U.S.: Fine.  We will help you  upgrade your  Navy.  Go to our dock, we have many ships there after Vietnam War that we don’t use anymore. Take your pick, just stop being annoying!

Philippines:  Oh thank you my white brothers!  We will now have air conditioned ships to help us fight China longer!

PART II

US -China talk

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives in China on May 1, 2012 for top level talks on human rights activist legal activist Chen Guangcheng, who has taken refuge in the US Embassy.  According to Reuters, the United States also hopes the talks will encourage greater Chinese cooperation on trade.

Image

U.S.:  Our Chinese brothers, when will you help us with the fight with North Korea?  Kim Jung senior  died already, and yet we cannot defeat North Korea!

China: We want rich! We want trade our fake Crocs and Pradas to U.S..  Very good quality, better than Italy!  Very Cheap!

U.S.: Ok no problem, but you also have to help us with Iran.

China: We want richer!  We want trade our melamine milk to your milkshakes and mad cow to your hamburgers!

U.S.:  How about the Scarborough Shoal?  Our little brown brothers asked for our help to attack you.

China:  Hahahaha!   Remember: $1.2 trillion, how you pay us? You are poor country now compare to us.  But you can  still buy cheap melamine milkshake, and mad cow hamburgers!  Confuscious says:  You look fat, you still look rich! Come, come, we have giant dimsum for you. Agree?

U.S.: Agree!