As celebrities go, Michelle Obama’s inaugural outfits weren’t that extravagant. (That’s a relative term, of course. I probably shall spend my entire life without ever wearing a $1000 dress, much less a $6000 ball gown.) Still, I’m curious about the ethical ramifications of fashion in the White House.
Who should pay for the First Lady’s outfits? Half a dozen designers each prepared several clothes and gowns for the First Lady to choose from. Does she return the rest or keep them just in case she feels like wearing one or two more to over affairs?
The First Lady doesn’t get a salary. Does she get a clothing allowance? Michelle isn’t a poor woman and her husband wrote two best-selling books, but given the standards expected of the US First Lady – poor Mrs. Carter was crucified for wearing a gown twice! – I’m sure it’ll be a drain on the pocket, especially since she’s taken a leave from work.
The news reports also confuse me because they cite past criticism over Nancy Reagan’s penchant for “borrowing” gowns – that’s something like movie stars do? Yet they seem to indicate that Michelle’s practice of borrowing jewelry is okay. And, hey, those aren’t all costume jewelry!
The Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/wiser/1391692,CST-NWS-jewelry22.article ) says: “The Rodkin jewelry isn't cheap; the chandelier earrings Obama wore with her camel-and-black ensemble at the concert are valued at more than $17,000.” Surely, the diamond drop earrings that went with the Jason Wu gown are even more expensive.
News reports say everything worn to the day inaugural and the ball will become part of the permanent collection at the Smithsonian. But not everything the First Lady wears will. If Mrs. Obama makes a practice of um, borrowing jewelry and clothes how will that affect governance when the designers and manufacturers face, say, trade or environment or tax issues?
Showing posts with label Inday Espina-Varona. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inday Espina-Varona. Show all posts
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
TIES THAT BIND
Street interviews indicated many Filipinos cared more about the fate of dinner on the morrow or the next week than the words of a black man with names reminiscent of a Muslim dictator and terrorism’s turbaned pied piper. But if some of us didn’t get it, Filipino broadcast stations drew on financial and technological resources and manpower to remind viewers and listeners that, whether we like it or not, our fates are twined with those of the 1.8-million tearful folk that filled Washington D.C.’s historic Mall one bright winter day.
If that didn’t quite convince you, the sight of The Manila Bulletin the morning after Barrack Hussein Obama became the 44th President of the United States of America, would.
Enough Obama-mania had reached across the ocean to breathe new life into the staid paper, which devoted its entire front page – normally the repository of press releases from favored politicians -- to the man one other paper had tagged “President of the World.”
There are enough examples -- including many humiliating ones -- to remind peoples around the globe that many of the vagaries of life on earth rest on how the US of A turns. Lately, the scale has been overwhelmingly tilted on the side of painful.
The US, under the leadership of its 43rd president, George W. Bush, bludgeoned even its closest allies and blustered its way across the world stage. It wasn’t enough to drag civil liberties back to the dark ages with White House approval of the use of torture and abduction and indefinite detention without access to lawyers or evidence; Bush and Dick Cheney harangued us to cheer while they sacrificed human rights – including that of their compatriots – on the alter of the anti-terror campaign. As they orchestrated the spread of their unique brand of democracy, Bush and Cheney also trashed lessons on transparency and accountability drummed into us by aid agencies their government controlled. There was little bidding on the lucrative Iraq contracts that went to favored Halliburton and even less punitive action following probes into over-pricing, ghost meals and supplies, reckless exposure of workers to danger, even into the tainted water served to the men and women dubbed as heroes of the war on terror.
Perhaps the most tragic offshoot of Bush’s presidency is, that his excesses actually fanned sympathy for madmen who think nothing of blowing thousands of innocent civilians into smithereens. Simply put, the last eight years gave democracy a bad name. Undoing that damage is Obama’s great challenge, other than having to shake a global economy, prostrate on the altar of excess, back to its feet.
Where giants tread, opportunistic dwarfs follow. Academics and militants will tell you that we owe the US our democracy but also the finer of the black arts that often make a travesty of that noble idea. The latter, and the green light given by Bush to despots – as long as they stayed in his camp – encouraged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to twitter and simper and sniff at reports of mounting extra-judicial executions, which were met with more killings and threats against complainants and witnesses.
Malacanang has reacted with bravura to the exit of its great, white brother. The US needs us, Philippine officials point out. Love is still in the air.
Even under Obama the US will put its interests first, true. But Mrs. Arroyo’s administration risks embarrassment with its cavalier dismissal of 44th’s ideals. Just in case the Palace folk were too deep into brandy on the day of Obama’s inaugural, here’s what he said: “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.”
Madame President, FYI. There’s a new kid in town.
If that didn’t quite convince you, the sight of The Manila Bulletin the morning after Barrack Hussein Obama became the 44th President of the United States of America, would.
Enough Obama-mania had reached across the ocean to breathe new life into the staid paper, which devoted its entire front page – normally the repository of press releases from favored politicians -- to the man one other paper had tagged “President of the World.”
There are enough examples -- including many humiliating ones -- to remind peoples around the globe that many of the vagaries of life on earth rest on how the US of A turns. Lately, the scale has been overwhelmingly tilted on the side of painful.
The US, under the leadership of its 43rd president, George W. Bush, bludgeoned even its closest allies and blustered its way across the world stage. It wasn’t enough to drag civil liberties back to the dark ages with White House approval of the use of torture and abduction and indefinite detention without access to lawyers or evidence; Bush and Dick Cheney harangued us to cheer while they sacrificed human rights – including that of their compatriots – on the alter of the anti-terror campaign. As they orchestrated the spread of their unique brand of democracy, Bush and Cheney also trashed lessons on transparency and accountability drummed into us by aid agencies their government controlled. There was little bidding on the lucrative Iraq contracts that went to favored Halliburton and even less punitive action following probes into over-pricing, ghost meals and supplies, reckless exposure of workers to danger, even into the tainted water served to the men and women dubbed as heroes of the war on terror.
Perhaps the most tragic offshoot of Bush’s presidency is, that his excesses actually fanned sympathy for madmen who think nothing of blowing thousands of innocent civilians into smithereens. Simply put, the last eight years gave democracy a bad name. Undoing that damage is Obama’s great challenge, other than having to shake a global economy, prostrate on the altar of excess, back to its feet.
Where giants tread, opportunistic dwarfs follow. Academics and militants will tell you that we owe the US our democracy but also the finer of the black arts that often make a travesty of that noble idea. The latter, and the green light given by Bush to despots – as long as they stayed in his camp – encouraged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to twitter and simper and sniff at reports of mounting extra-judicial executions, which were met with more killings and threats against complainants and witnesses.
Malacanang has reacted with bravura to the exit of its great, white brother. The US needs us, Philippine officials point out. Love is still in the air.
Even under Obama the US will put its interests first, true. But Mrs. Arroyo’s administration risks embarrassment with its cavalier dismissal of 44th’s ideals. Just in case the Palace folk were too deep into brandy on the day of Obama’s inaugural, here’s what he said: “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.”
Madame President, FYI. There’s a new kid in town.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Whose right? Who's Right?
MOB ALERT
"Mafia Fans Hounded Off Facebook" --For one nasty moment, I thought Facebook had cracked down on our Mob It’s actually a very interesting case of how anti-crime advocates harassed supporters of two jailed Italian mafia bosses...
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view/20090110-182614/Mafia-fans-hounded-off-Facebook
ROME, Italy -- Fans of Mafia supremos Toto Riina and Bernardo Provenzano have been hounded off of Facebook after Italy's anti-Mafia movement spurred thousands of people to infiltrate their pages.
The appearance of Facebook pages glorifying the two jailed former godfathers late last month sparked outrage among the victims of Mafia crimes and politicians.
Some have decided to fight fire with fire.
HERE GOES....
I peeked into “ gruppo creato per la santificazione di BERNARDO PROVENZANO.” Initially thought it could have been tongue in cheek -- a case of lost in translation -- but Agence France Presse seemed to treat it seriously.
At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I must say ambivalence is what the article arouses here.
Sure, the fact that the various anti-mafia groups have several thousand members each is gratifying, a sign of the growing resistance to the Mob. In contrast, the fans of the Mafia bosses are in the low hundreds. It the above page was any gauge, they do seem to be rather fringe folk.
But as much as I’d support the anti-Mob activists’ right to rail and rant and post screeds or oratory videos. I do not think their noble intentions excuse issuing threats.
Stormy statements, yes; threatening, no. A big no-no. Shortcuts are the way of the Mob, not of the righteous.
The Italian mafia buckled only partly due to the hunt of the Carabiniere. More decisive was the bravery of judges, many of them martyred, and of citizens who bravely stepped up to testify against the crime lords. Not all the witnesses were Mob insiders turned informants.
AFP quoted an anti-Mob leader (sister of a slain judge) saying the offensive was an alternative to banning the groups, which “would have given them more publicity and they would probably complain of censorship"
What happened, she said, showed that, "This kind of self-policing and internal dialogue is the most effective method. "Civil society has shown itself capable of reacting to those who sing the praises of the godfathers." Who was it who said that, if you start using the enemies’ weapons, you could wind up like them?
Who was it who said that, if you start using the enemies’ weapons, you could wind up like them?
Censorship takes many forms. As the victims of the Mafia know only too well, force often guarantees success of the censorship campaign – the most extreme case being the silence of the dead. But it’s not just government or organized groups like the Mob than can enforce censorship. Social networks in the past have often acted to muzzle outsiders and stifle legitimate dissent. The majority is itself a natural threat and the wielding of its power, however indirectly, always has repercussions for better or worse.
I may sound a bit like a free speech anarchist. Perhaps. Several years back, at a Bangkok conference on child abuse, I got into a tangle with some Amnesty International folk who said no newspaper had any business printing a letter from a self-confessed paedophile that obviously was defending his, er, mentoring of young people. As far as I was concerned, his acts deserved imprisonment; but I wasn’t going to put a gag on him.
Someone said, thoughts are the origins of actions. Hell, how many of us read or watch porn, including simulated force, and feel aroused without in the least being tempted to act this out? The fact that a few do does not make a crackdown legitimate. It’s just another version of blaming the media.
It’s a little bit like what I feel when asked why journalist groups defend even the “dirty” colleagues gunned down by irate subjects of their attacks.
Truth is, it is easy to defend the clean, the brilliant, the righteous. It is when we are called to defend our more problematic brethren that our commitment to a free press, free speech and free expression are most tested.
"Mafia Fans Hounded Off Facebook" --For one nasty moment, I thought Facebook had cracked down on our Mob It’s actually a very interesting case of how anti-crime advocates harassed supporters of two jailed Italian mafia bosses...
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view/20090110-182614/Mafia-fans-hounded-off-Facebook
ROME, Italy -- Fans of Mafia supremos Toto Riina and Bernardo Provenzano have been hounded off of Facebook after Italy's anti-Mafia movement spurred thousands of people to infiltrate their pages.
The appearance of Facebook pages glorifying the two jailed former godfathers late last month sparked outrage among the victims of Mafia crimes and politicians.
Some have decided to fight fire with fire.
HERE GOES....
I peeked into “ gruppo creato per la santificazione di BERNARDO PROVENZANO.” Initially thought it could have been tongue in cheek -- a case of lost in translation -- but Agence France Presse seemed to treat it seriously.
At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I must say ambivalence is what the article arouses here.
Sure, the fact that the various anti-mafia groups have several thousand members each is gratifying, a sign of the growing resistance to the Mob. In contrast, the fans of the Mafia bosses are in the low hundreds. It the above page was any gauge, they do seem to be rather fringe folk.
But as much as I’d support the anti-Mob activists’ right to rail and rant and post screeds or oratory videos. I do not think their noble intentions excuse issuing threats.
Stormy statements, yes; threatening, no. A big no-no. Shortcuts are the way of the Mob, not of the righteous.
The Italian mafia buckled only partly due to the hunt of the Carabiniere. More decisive was the bravery of judges, many of them martyred, and of citizens who bravely stepped up to testify against the crime lords. Not all the witnesses were Mob insiders turned informants.
AFP quoted an anti-Mob leader (sister of a slain judge) saying the offensive was an alternative to banning the groups, which “would have given them more publicity and they would probably complain of censorship"
What happened, she said, showed that, "This kind of self-policing and internal dialogue is the most effective method. "Civil society has shown itself capable of reacting to those who sing the praises of the godfathers." Who was it who said that, if you start using the enemies’ weapons, you could wind up like them?
Who was it who said that, if you start using the enemies’ weapons, you could wind up like them?
Censorship takes many forms. As the victims of the Mafia know only too well, force often guarantees success of the censorship campaign – the most extreme case being the silence of the dead. But it’s not just government or organized groups like the Mob than can enforce censorship. Social networks in the past have often acted to muzzle outsiders and stifle legitimate dissent. The majority is itself a natural threat and the wielding of its power, however indirectly, always has repercussions for better or worse.
I may sound a bit like a free speech anarchist. Perhaps. Several years back, at a Bangkok conference on child abuse, I got into a tangle with some Amnesty International folk who said no newspaper had any business printing a letter from a self-confessed paedophile that obviously was defending his, er, mentoring of young people. As far as I was concerned, his acts deserved imprisonment; but I wasn’t going to put a gag on him.
Someone said, thoughts are the origins of actions. Hell, how many of us read or watch porn, including simulated force, and feel aroused without in the least being tempted to act this out? The fact that a few do does not make a crackdown legitimate. It’s just another version of blaming the media.
It’s a little bit like what I feel when asked why journalist groups defend even the “dirty” colleagues gunned down by irate subjects of their attacks.
Truth is, it is easy to defend the clean, the brilliant, the righteous. It is when we are called to defend our more problematic brethren that our commitment to a free press, free speech and free expression are most tested.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Good intentions
I’m having a hard time making heads or tails of the Alabang Boys scandal.
If the allegations are true – and if a review of past decisions on anti-narcotics cases bears this out – it would show in graphic terms the breadth and depth of drug cartels’ reach. If, on the other hand, the charges raised by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) officers are baseless, then we may be in for a witch hunt that could last till elections.
Except for the families of the three suspects, who have obvious self-interest at stake (and I won’t begrudge them that), both sides raise the banner of noble causes.
It can tear you apart. I am passionately anti-drugs, having seen too many relatives and friends succumb to narcotics’ evil call. I am also passionately pro-human rights. I rather envy those three young men. Last I looked, even court rulings sometimes aren’t enough to spring suspects from left-leaning or Muslim groups, or anyone considered an enemy of the state. Often, final vindication in the Supreme Court comes after decades of incarceration. Isn’t that the reason for the penalty clause in the Anti-Terror Law and laws providing compensation for miscarriages of justice?
Here then are some questions for all the gentle folk concerned:
1) Since when did prosecutors become so cavalier about the disposition of possibly dangerous criminals? How can State Prosecutor John Resado think it’s okay to ignore a standing mandatory review order, and then let the cops handle the problem of missing suspects should a review overturn prosecutors’ dismissal of a case?
2) Is it SOP for Justice Department officers to ignore the fact that they have a Secretary? Why? Shouldn’t the President just assign someone else with enough energy to oversee everything?
3) How can government lawyers say it’s okay to ignore a Secretary’s resolution (in this case, penned by Simeon Datumanong) because they don’t want to get into trouble? Do they have a paper trail of their attempts to inform their superiors about the lousy, dangerous regulations imposed on them?
4) It’s one thing for Justice Undersecretary Ricardo Blancaflor to ask why suspects remain held even with a resolution of dismissal; it’s an altogether different story when he breezily allows his secretary to deliver privately-sourced but public interest-bearing documents without personally establishing legitimacy. Have the inmates taken over the hospital?
5) How come Gonzalez, who has chewed officials and enemies for much, much less, doesn’t have it in his heart to even display displeasure towards Verano -- who engaged in manipulation and misrepresentation at his expense?
6) Guys who stage such creative buy-bust operations can surely do entrapment. Does PDEA really want us to believe it does not have the capability to trace calls? Why didn’t it seek help from other law enforcement agencies? Is there no one you can trust in law enforcement? Is the situation that hopeless?
7) If he can bandy names like Joe Tecson (without really verifying if he had the right man on the other end of the line), why can’t Maj. Ferdinand Marcelino name his mistah would-be briber? The mistah’s civilian identity is no excuse; civilians aren’t exempt from the law. Surely, the righteous Major isn’t telling us he has one standard for the world and another for his mistahs?
I will grant Marcelino his sincerity. And I will grant that there are too many specious and suspicious arguments advanced by the DOJ’s lawyers. But I wonder how scrupulous are law enforcers in ensuring that cases are built up properly.
Here’s unsolicited advice for the young Marine officer: You once turned down the Magdalo because you didn’t believe in short cuts. Well, don’t change. There are many, many forms of corruption and not all involve money. Be as disciplined in casework as you are with your morals.
Prosecutors have a job – to green light a case for trial or throw out an indefensible one. After all, they’re the ones who engage in courtroom skirmishes. Even the best prosecutor cannot salvage a shoddy case. To do the latter with regularity, you would have to be working in a dictatorship where laws are an afterthought. And for god’s sake, stop whining about technicalities. Too many autocrats use that same term for civil liberties.
That said, may the force be always with you. And may you find a government prosecutor equal to your zeal.
If the allegations are true – and if a review of past decisions on anti-narcotics cases bears this out – it would show in graphic terms the breadth and depth of drug cartels’ reach. If, on the other hand, the charges raised by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) officers are baseless, then we may be in for a witch hunt that could last till elections.
Except for the families of the three suspects, who have obvious self-interest at stake (and I won’t begrudge them that), both sides raise the banner of noble causes.
It can tear you apart. I am passionately anti-drugs, having seen too many relatives and friends succumb to narcotics’ evil call. I am also passionately pro-human rights. I rather envy those three young men. Last I looked, even court rulings sometimes aren’t enough to spring suspects from left-leaning or Muslim groups, or anyone considered an enemy of the state. Often, final vindication in the Supreme Court comes after decades of incarceration. Isn’t that the reason for the penalty clause in the Anti-Terror Law and laws providing compensation for miscarriages of justice?
Here then are some questions for all the gentle folk concerned:
1) Since when did prosecutors become so cavalier about the disposition of possibly dangerous criminals? How can State Prosecutor John Resado think it’s okay to ignore a standing mandatory review order, and then let the cops handle the problem of missing suspects should a review overturn prosecutors’ dismissal of a case?
2) Is it SOP for Justice Department officers to ignore the fact that they have a Secretary? Why? Shouldn’t the President just assign someone else with enough energy to oversee everything?
3) How can government lawyers say it’s okay to ignore a Secretary’s resolution (in this case, penned by Simeon Datumanong) because they don’t want to get into trouble? Do they have a paper trail of their attempts to inform their superiors about the lousy, dangerous regulations imposed on them?
4) It’s one thing for Justice Undersecretary Ricardo Blancaflor to ask why suspects remain held even with a resolution of dismissal; it’s an altogether different story when he breezily allows his secretary to deliver privately-sourced but public interest-bearing documents without personally establishing legitimacy. Have the inmates taken over the hospital?
5) How come Gonzalez, who has chewed officials and enemies for much, much less, doesn’t have it in his heart to even display displeasure towards Verano -- who engaged in manipulation and misrepresentation at his expense?
6) Guys who stage such creative buy-bust operations can surely do entrapment. Does PDEA really want us to believe it does not have the capability to trace calls? Why didn’t it seek help from other law enforcement agencies? Is there no one you can trust in law enforcement? Is the situation that hopeless?
7) If he can bandy names like Joe Tecson (without really verifying if he had the right man on the other end of the line), why can’t Maj. Ferdinand Marcelino name his mistah would-be briber? The mistah’s civilian identity is no excuse; civilians aren’t exempt from the law. Surely, the righteous Major isn’t telling us he has one standard for the world and another for his mistahs?
I will grant Marcelino his sincerity. And I will grant that there are too many specious and suspicious arguments advanced by the DOJ’s lawyers. But I wonder how scrupulous are law enforcers in ensuring that cases are built up properly.
Here’s unsolicited advice for the young Marine officer: You once turned down the Magdalo because you didn’t believe in short cuts. Well, don’t change. There are many, many forms of corruption and not all involve money. Be as disciplined in casework as you are with your morals.
Prosecutors have a job – to green light a case for trial or throw out an indefensible one. After all, they’re the ones who engage in courtroom skirmishes. Even the best prosecutor cannot salvage a shoddy case. To do the latter with regularity, you would have to be working in a dictatorship where laws are an afterthought. And for god’s sake, stop whining about technicalities. Too many autocrats use that same term for civil liberties.
That said, may the force be always with you. And may you find a government prosecutor equal to your zeal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)