car sex ed

it’s the talk of the town, i’m told, but what town, why haven’t i heard or read of it elsewhere, how can i be so out of touch, nothing on twitter, well, i follow just 16 people, haha, and nothing from 150 or so facebook friends, so we’re from another place altogether?

Tired of all these sex talks
Resty O.

The hot topic in my part of town is the death of a young couple, a 15 year old girl and an 18 year old boy, caught inside the boy’s (?) car in post-coital slumber, with the car aircon left turned on. There must have been a leak somewhere enough for the trapped carbon monoxide to drive them to unconsciousness and deliver them to eternal sleep. Reports say a guard discovered them after wondering what a car with its silver cover was doing for such an irregularly long time at the parking lot. The story is at once tragic and hilarious.

This tragedy should not be a subject of laughter, of course, except that people can’t help commenting at the great irony, at how, in the young lovers’ effort to hide the deed from their families, they ended up being discovered, their secret tryst broadcast around the world. The whole idea may yet spell a double tragedy on their families, who are now left to deal with the shame even when they have yet to deal with the pain of sudden loss.

I bring up the topic because it has a connection with the day’s burning issue that I have pointedly avoid to tackle because I thought the usual exchange of accusations is ridiculous, bordering on the pathetic. It’s the same old tiring refrain of two contending parties presuming malice on both sides, a very offensive scenario for me. One side seems to presume the other to have the agenda of ruining the young, tempting them with illicit sex at such a young age. The other side, in their usual uncouth language, resorts to namecalling: religious nutters, hate-filled medievals, religious bigots, etc. I’ve often caught myself in the middle of that fray, and I want out.

That little news of the young lovers’ dying in tight embrace and totally naked tempts me to a comeback, because it may easily be related to how the new Department of Education head reacted to a media question on the matter. Responding to a radio reporter’s question on his position on sex education, he was said to answer “unbecomingly,” “I won’t answer that. You in the media are of no help.” Ouch. Insulting words, surely. He could’ve insulted trimedia more diplomatically.

Maybe Sec. Armin Luistro has also been dead-tired of it all. He might have been referring to the usual nasty exchange that brings everybody nowhere.

I can only imagine what’s going on in the former La Salle president-brother’s head right now: “Oh, wow, here’s the belligerent enemy once again, ready to pounce on a little quote, publish it out of context in a writeup with a mocking tone that suggests I am automatically taking the side of the priests who claim against all reason that sex education will only make the young even more promiscuous. Like it’s that simple. Could it be that the CBCP have noble motives too? Is it all about firming up their grip on earthly power whenever they open their traps?

“First, it must be clear what both sides are saying exactly, and what exactly they want to happen. If the other side says sex education should be offered to the kinder grade so they could learn how to use a condomand how to have sex with the same gender or another so as not to catch premature AIDS, that’s certainly out of the question. Age-appropriate is the word. Maybe we should review what the existing law says and what the current practices are (or have been for years).

“There is no question that kids need to have sex education. It’s unfair to accuse the Catholic Church of not wanting to touch sex, conveniently not mentioning John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” I think what the bishops are contending rests on who has the primary authority and responsibility in teaching sex to the kids, the parents or the school, and waht topics exactly are to be taught. That’s the major conflict, as I understand it, and surely a compromise can be struck. For example, a parent must be given the freedom to tell her kid to opt out if she doesn’t believe in the sex ed lessons due to religious beliefs. After all, we offer that option to the Sabadistas (Seventh-Day Adventists), right, who can opt out not to undergo Citizen’s Military Training because it is viewed by their religion as verboten or something, never mind the citizen’s duty to defend his own country when necessary?

“Next, we need to consider the available studies (those that are unbiased and authoritative, of course) on the effects, if any, of sex education on the kids’ sexual behavior later on in life.

“And so on, ad nauseam.”

Maybe that’s where all the animus of the La Salle Brother is coming from? Whatever. I hate to be in DepEd Sec. Armin’s Luistro’s shoes. It’s a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t situation. I prefer to keep my mouth shut on this one and watch how the events will play out. I just wish we transcend our differences and work on a compromise. Meanwhile, our kids continue to have secret sex inside cars and in other poorly ventilated corners at an age they have no business having sex, bear or abort unwanted children, catch AIDS, or much worse. And both contending parties stand to point an accusingfinger on their favorite enemy. Ho-hum.

how awful for the two kids.   how painful for their parents, families.   and what a lesson for all sexually active kids about a heretofore unknown risk re car sex.   no doubt about it, sex ed is a must, from puberty on.   and it should include not just a sense of the proper time, but the proper place, for sex.

update.  philippine star carried the story pala last tuesday.  Teen lovers found dead in car.

day one kababawan

woke up late, missed charice and ryan c. (that’s all i regret missing).  kumakanta ang APO.   ang labo, parang nangangampanya pa rin.  why not Handog ng Pilipino sa Mundo, ‘yon ang winner, ke-pro o anti-cory ka, maganda yung kanta.   doon pa ba nagpigil ng lantarang pagka-maka-EDSA One?   as for that highly touted ogie alcasid song, it was nothing memorable (i missed janno).

and what about all that waiting time.    i’ve worked on enough grand live productions to know that the sequence guide can be fine-tuned to the very last second to 12 noon for the perfect segue to the president’s oath-taking.   heh.   amateurs.

and what about the breach of protocol that says the president-elect should be the last one to mount the stage — pag nandoon na lahat ng bisita at ibang opisyales, para pag-akyat niya, umpisa agad ang programa.   nauna daw kasi dumating si aquino, nahuli si binay, and i suppose aquino didn’t want to wait for binay so nauna na lang siya umakyat?   josko.   sino bang in-charge of protocol???    did anyone warn binay that he had to arrive earlier than aquino?   did anyone warn aquino that he should arrive and mount the stage after binay?   hay naku.  as if the noy-binay relationship weren’t messed up enough already.

and speaking of amateurs, when i heard that prez noy was gonna oblige with a song, groan, i just deliberately ignored the street party and happily settled for wimbledon’s day 9, berdych defeated federer in 4 sets, whatta show.   but of course the next day’s tv newscasts just had to rub it in, share footages of the new prez singing, karaoke style.   i know i know he was nakikisama, natuwa ang masa, he’s one of us and all that.  but really?

and what about the biggest booboo of all, memorandum circular no. 1, oh my.   a blooper by any other name is still a blunder.   did any one ask karina constantino-david’s advice first?  none of it augurs well for the near future.   expect more confusion until the newbies get the hang of things.   oh well, at least no palace chandelier fell in noynoy’s wake.

***

read too:  lourd-de-veyra-campaigns-for-the-separation-of-kris-and-state.   joel’s “wang-wang” as baby talk.   and jb baylon’s mixed feelings.

truth commission

FERRETING OUT THE TRUTH
By Solita Collas-Monsod

P-Noy Aquino’s decision to establish a Truth Commission, judging from the crowd’s reaction when he broached it during his inaugural speech, struck a very responsive chord in the Filipino people. So I am willing to go along with it, particularly since former Chief Justice Hilarion Davide, Jr. is chairing it.

But a lot of issues have to be cleared up first: is this going to be a truth/fact-finding body, or will it be prosecutorial in nature as well? What “unresolved issues” are involved in this commission? Because if these include graft and corruption in the previous administration, particularly those attributed to former President Arroyo and her family, then surely there exist agencies which already (at least in principle) have the mandate to do it: the Office of the Ombudsman, the PCGG, maybe even the Department of Justice.

It must be noted that most, if not all of the Truth/Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRC) — or at least those I looked into, including the South African TRC which Justice Leila de Lima says we will model ours after — were set up to uncover the truth about past abuses — human rights abuses. The South African TRC was unique, because it had the power to grant amnesty (and did — to some 12% of petitioners) to perpetrators who admitted their guilt and asked for forgiveness. This, by the way, did not sit well with a lot of the victims, who wanted “justice,” i.e., that the abusers should all be punished — not just the truth. It is also noteworthy that the South African TRC not only condemned the apartheid government for its abuses, but also the African National Congress (ANC) as well, because indeed both sides were guilty.

And this evenhandedness is probably one of the reasons the African TRC is being used as a model. On the other hand, I have the feeling that a lot of Filipinos, including some of the original advocates of a Philippine TRC, are actually thinking more of Nuremberg-type trials (and other star-chamber proceedings) — and may be very disappointed at the results of a TRC, and may then take their ire out on the Aquino government. This whole thing is a double-edged sword.

One of the interesting results of my (admittedly superficial) research is that some of the TRCs were set up by the United Nations. East Timor, in 2001, and El Salvador in 1992 are examples. In the latter case, the TC was established to investigate and report on human rights abuses during their civil war (1980-1992), saying that “acts of this nature, regardless of the sector to which their perpetrators belong, must be the object of exemplary action by the law courts so that the punishment prescribed by law is meted out to those found responsible.” Sounds like what we want, right?

The UN Secretary General, appointed former Colombian President Belisario Betancur (How much more impartial can you get?) as chair, together with a Venezuelan and an American. Its report, finished after eight months of investigation was about as hardhitting as they come: 85% of all acts of violence were attributed to “state agents,” 5% to the rebel group FMLN, and the rest to the death squads. The assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero was laid at the door of the death squads, and the killing of six Jesuit priests at the door of the Armed Forces. Interestingly, TC did NOT call for prosecution of incriminated perpetrators — because it saw the Salvadoran legal system as incapable of executing such prosecutions effectively! Instead, it recommended dismissal of culpable army officers and civil servants from government employment and disqualifications of other persons implicated in the wrongdoings from public office. Talk about being realistic.

But the report was rejected by the country’s civilian government and the armed forces — in any case, five days after the release of the final report (after rumored threats of a military coup), the legislature granted amnesty covering all crimes related to the civil war.

Another interesting result: in Liberia, the TRC included in its list of 50 names of people who should be barred from holding public office, elective or appointive for 30 years for being associated with former warring factions, the name of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the head of government who created the TRC in the first place. Closer to home, South Korea has its own Truth and R Sirleaf in a list of 50 names of people that should be “specifically barred from holding public offices; elected or appointed for a period of thirty (30) years” for “being associated with former warring factions.” The Liberian parliament, in August of last year, decided to have a year’s consultations with their constituents, before deciding to implement the TRC’s report or not.

We could also learn something from Peru’s experience: the TRC there was chaired by Salomon Lerner, who was then the rector of the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Peru (the equivalent of our UST). Its report pointed to the Shining Path as the major violator — torture, kidnapping, assassinations — with the military coming in second and the MRTA (Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement) third. But it also criticized the performance of the Catholic Church, specifically the Archbishop of Ayacucho, Juan Luis Cipriani, an Opus Dei. Presumably, when Lerner said that “The report we hand in contains a double outrage: that of massive murder, disappearance and torture; and that of indolence, incompetence and indifference of those who could have stopped this humanitarian catastrophe but didn’t,” he was referring, in the latter case, to people like Cipriani.

South Korea’s TRC, charged in 2005 with examining human rights violations from 1910 (by Japanese occupation forces) to the end of authoritarian regimes — including civilian massacres by US military forces — is supposed to come out with its report anytime now (it was given an annual budget of about $19million a year). That should be interesting too.

Given all these country experiences, perhaps CJ Davide and his TRC, in tackling “unresolved issues,” should focus on the media killings first. Arguably, these have given the Philippines as much of a black eye as corruption. And certainly, if the killings continue, the enthusiasm of media to blow the whistle on corrupt practices will be even more impaired.

juana change calls out edwin lacierda

via Harvey Keh

Dear Atty. Edwin,

Tumaya at nangampanya ako para kay P-Noy! Pero aaminin kong meron akong interes na gustong isulong sa pagvo-volunteer sa kanya-ang makakita ng tunay na pagbabago sa gobyernong papalit kay GMA na kinasuklaman ko ng over. ‘Di na dapat maulit!

Ngayon panalo na si P-noy at boksingan na para sa mga posisyon. Kaya nga ako tumaya para may karapatan akong magsalita at tungkuling magbantay! Kahit na anong galing at kahit gaano kakailangan ni P-Noy ang serbisyo ng mga pinakamalalapit na kaibigan, kaklase o pamilya, dapat sila na mismo ang magparaya para makapasok ang mga sariwang mukha ng pagbaBAGO! Bagong dugong may kaalaman, eksperyensya at integridad. Sa pag-ikot ko, nakasalamuha ko ang napakaraming Pilipinong marangal at handang maglingkod kaso ‘di mga makakapal ang mukhang makipagbrasuhan sa posisyon.

Sa interview sa akin ng GMA tungkol dito ay iniwasan kong magbigay ng mga pangalan. Pero nasa isip ko na nuon ang mga Abad, Montelibano, at Juico.

Imbes ay pinili kong magpangalan sa isang artikulo ni Joy Aceron sa Facebook kung saan binanggit ko ang pangalan ng mga Abad dahil sila ay derechong makakabasa ng comment ko. Hindi ako kailanman nagalit sa mga Abad! Sinabi ko doon na sana ‘di naman mga pamil­ya ang nasa gobyerno gaano pa man sila kagagaling at kakailangan. Pwede din silang tumanggi!

Nakupo! Pinutakti na ako ng pangungutya ng mga tao ni P-Noy sa Facebook sa pangunguna ni Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda. Bakit daw galit ako sa mga Abad? Gusto daw nyang marinig ang punto ko pero ang pinakamatinong maibibigay nyang comment sa akin ay naiinggit lang daw ako! Sinabi ng writer ng presidente na masahol pa daw ako sa mga trapong kinasusuklaman ko! At sabi naman ng taga new media na mahusay mag inggles na ako daw ay isang weasel. Pinagtanong ko pa ang ibig sabihin ng weasel dahil ang alam ko lang ay hayop yun! Tinatawag palang weasel ang taong tumitira ng patalikod!

Pinagtatanggol lang daw ni Lacierda ang kanyang kaibigan. Usapin ito ng mga prinsipyo para sa tunay na pagbabago! Hindi ito kampihan!

Dahil sa aking pagsasalita, nagalit ang mga tao ni P-Noy sa akin. Ito ba ang uri ng mga taong nakapaligid sa kanya? ‘Di makuha ang isyung pinag-uusapan? At nagkakampihan?

Kami sa Pinoy Power ang humingingmakipag-usap sa kanila kung saan si Lacierda ay tahasang tumanggi! ‘Di na daw kailangang makipag-kape! Ganun? Kasi volunteer lang ako? Kasi sila naman ang nasa pwesto? Kasi takot siyang humarap dahil nagkamali sya sa banat nya sa akin ng patalikod? Dahil ‘di sya dapat bumitaw ng ganung mapagparatang na salita dahil spokesperson sya ni P-Noy? Walang b____? Gusto kong malaman!

Sa proclamation nag-abot ang aming mga tingin. Inabot ko ang aking kamay sa kanya at sabi ko, “Edwin magkape tayo.” Pautal syang umoo sa akin.

Tagapagsalita ka ng pangulo ng Pilipinas. Ako nagpaparating ng sentimyento ng taumbayan. Bakit ka galit sa akin?

Ganunpaman, ang anumang gusot ay dapat na napag-uusapan. Kaya ko yun Edwin. Dapat kaya mo rin! Kaya mo ba? Usap tayo!

Para sa bayan at mamamayan,

Mae Paner aka Juana Change