Same-Sex Marriage and Our Approach to the Issue

Well, Manny Paquiao dropped a bombshell on us: 

Of course, this video was cut. A lot of his supporters are actually encouraging people to look for the full video as the one being circulated by the media doesn't fully capture his stance. So okay, here's the "full, raw, uncut" video they are encouraging us to watch:

Manny P.
Eto ang tunay na clip! Gago din ang media eh!!!Panoorin nyu bago nyu ibash si Manny PacquiaoShare nyu nadin!#KupalLord#KupalCares#SiKupalAngMayAlamCTTO
Posted by Kupal Lord on Thursday, 18 February 2016

There you have it. Pacquiao may think that people engaging in same-sex relations are worst than animals. But at least, he's not condemning them. He's just condemning the practice of same-sex marriage. Those last few seconds taken away by major media outlets really saved Manny for me. I mean without those few seconds, I would have thought he is a bigot or whatever word people are using nowadays (sarcasm?).

But hey, you can interpret his words any way you want. You may interpret it as him calling for Martians to attack and enslave our children if you want. But there is one thing that we must keep in mind when watching this interview: Manny Pacquiao is running for public office.

By filing his Certificate of Candidacy, Manny announced that he is ready to represent every individual in our nation regardless of race, religion, social standing or whatever. Well, that's what I hope. That's the kind of professionalism I hope from anybody running for public office. But sadly, professionalism is not really a word that people associate with our politics.

Manny Pacquiao gave us his religious view. And he also pointed to it as his reason for being against same-sex marriage. Many politicians do it. Going to the bible for guidance is not a bad thing. But if you're in a position to change the lives of millions of people of differing world views and different holy books, maybe it's time we slide that bible back in its drawer.

The separation of church and state has been discussed in this blog before. I've long discussed my belief that the state should not concern itself with religion. You see, government is not doing God any favors by following His teachings in crafting laws. We've criminalized adultery and yet people still do it. The reasoning behind criminalizing adultery is not necessarily because it is "evil". It is criminalized because the legal spouse and children are being put in disadvantageous situations by the practice. This line of reasoning should be at the forefront when discussing policies. The state was not created to further the advances of a particular religion. It was created to improve the physical state of living of all of its constituents regardless of their personal beliefs. Manny Pacquiao and other politicians fail to realize and practice the separation of their religious views and their political responsibilities.

But aside from that particular lack of realization, another observable political feature showing itself in the issue is our inability to digest ideas solely on their merit. When Vice Ganda voiced his displeasure with Manny's sentiments, he was attacked vigorously by social media. People are saying he's a hypocrite for negatively reacting to Manny's sentiments when he himself profits from ridiculing others. Some people on the other hand went quickly to the defense of Pacquiao because of the pride he has brought to the nation. With Pacquiao being a national treasure, they encouraged people to give the legendary pugilist some slack. But the problem here is that this issue is not about Pacquiao or Ganda or Abunda or anybody else.

Pacquiao exercised his right to free speech and there is nothing wrong with that. We shouldn't be scrutinizing him. We should be scrutinizing the idea that we are okay with denying same-sex couples the right to adoption, the tax right-offs, inheritance and other rights being enjoyed by heterosexual couples just on account of their sex. Mon Tulfo was quick to Pacquiao's defense and explained he just exercised his right to free speech and went on a little homophobic tirade of his own. The problem is we forget that with our right to voice our opinions, others also have the right to scrutinize those said opinions. Vice Ganda, regardless of his past, has the right to react to Manny's views. And the validity of Ganda's sentiments should not be tied down to his past.

With that said, this issue has brought out several of the traits of Philippine Politics.We certainly don't have the perfect political environment for instilling progress on all fronts. But it is time we change that. We are far removed from the colonization of other nations. We have long passed the times of dictatorship. It's time we start getting the most of our democracy through intellectual and logical approaches to current issues.

We are now at a point where we should ask ourselves several key question concerning same-sex marriage: Are we okay with people having the gall to liken our fellowman to animals just on account of who they choose to love? Are we okay with denying rights on account of their preferred sexual partners? Are we okay with distinguished people marginalizing the LGBT since they have "gay friends"? Are we okay with individual beliefs stopping the happiness of millions? Should we limit the other people's paths to providence and happiness by our own individual beliefs?

It's not that we have a, as Mon Tulfo put it, primitive society. It's just that we fail to ask the questions that would determine if we are ready for same-sex marriage.

A Major Problem: Unopposed Candidates

As the 2016 election draws near, the question of who to vote for is slowly creeping into the minds of our people. In my family, my mother seems dead set on foregoing her right to vote for anybody in the presidential and vice-presidential race. My brother and sister-in-law seem to have set their sights on Robredo as their vice president. I, on the other hand, still don't know who I will vote for but am completely aware on who not to support. The influx of candidates looking to be elected for the top posts has definitely made choosing a difficult endeavor. But if choosing through a multitude of names seems problematic, can we imagine having no choice when it comes to our leaders? Well, a few of our countrymen have this problem and there seems to be no solution in sight.

By the way, the problem with the high number of candidates with very similar platforms has been discussed in many shows and may become a subject of a future post here in my blog.

As for now, let's focus on how, in some places, we citizens are given no choice. BilangPilipino.com and Interaksyon.com produced an awesome picture of how many unopposed candidates are running for major provincial posts here.

ABS-CBN News also produced a report on the matter.  

Clearly, the problem is a recurring theme in our elections.With the high number of political families controlling their own respective little kingdoms, it would be a surprise if all our LGU's had all its positions contested by at least two individuals. But what makes a lack of opposition in elections such a problem?

If you've managed to stumble upon a news segment discussing the issue, an analyst would always say that the strength of the democracy lies in the choices the citizens are given. It seems like an ambiguous statement with no real meaning sometimes. But a person who studied these kinds of stuff for the better part of their adult lives can't possibly be blurting out generic gibberish on national TV, right?

To me, democracy is a system of controlled compromise whose end game is to pass policies that would lead to the improvement of its constituent's lives. I've said before that voting should be based on ideals. Since no candidate truly captures our personal preference, we compromise and should vote for the persons who have the platforms that resemble our ideals the closest.

In the absence of electoral opposition, we as citizens concede our voices when it comes to our leader and we compromise uncontrollably to whatever agenda the elected official has. Instead of the leader adjusting to the ideals and needs of the people, the people adjust their needs and ideals to that of the leader. Some people call it a dictatorship or even despotism. I wouldn't go that far since the officials still have to abide by a constitution approved by the people. But nonetheless, it still leaves the people, the ones for which the government was designed, somewhat voiceless.

But aren't the people voiceless regardless of the number of candidates running? Well, let's look at Duterte who, along with a few other people, is running for the presidency. He once expressed his support for same-sex marriage in 2015 in Vice Ganda's show. Here's a video of him addressing the matter:

He expressed these sentiments back in 2015. I was genuinely surprised when he said same-sex marriage was good. I hate the fact that our government is tied down to principles espoused by the Christian church. It was a refreshing and candid answer. It was clear that he supported it then.

But things change. In late January, the Davao mayor changed his tone. Nowadays, he supports gays but won't push for same sex marriage. This is not a surprise since he has officially confirmed his desire to be president since the release of the video. Aside from that, there is also the statistical fact that 70% of Filipinos oppose same-sex marriage. I guess same-sex marriage is not good enough for us to revisit our constitution.

Duterte needed to change his tone and his platform to be able to win this election. He had to compromise to the electorate's ideals. He doesn't have the luxury that Imee Marcos has in Ilocos who only needs to vote for herself to win the post. Instead for calling for the changing of the constitution to conform with the needs of our LGBT brethren, he chose to compromise with the people's ideals and stick to the status quo.

It sucks to be part of the 30% in this issue. But at least, I can rest assured that the country is being shaped by its citizenry and not some person who is given authority just because nobody else can compete. I mean, I can still assess the field and vote for the presidential aspirant who most likely will take same-sex marriage seriously. Unlike the people of Ilocos Norte who have no choice but to accept Imee Marcos and whatever projects she has in store.

Diversity is important in a democracy. Though things get watered down sometimes, the choices the people are given are the ones that define our nation's present and the ones that will shape our future.

Maybe it's time to get an anti-dynasty law. Maybe it's time to make running for positions cheaper. Maybe gerrymandering is an issue we need to address. I'm not really sure about the solution to the problem of lack of opposition in some areas. But I'm definitely sure it's time we start addressing it.

Politics and Speaking Ill of the Dead

As Filipinos, we grew up doing or not doing certain things whenever certain situations come up. We don't sweep the floor at night. We have our girls jump from the third step of a staircase during their first menstrual cycle. Following certain traditions or customs doesn't really need the backing of logic. I mean, what do we have to lose by following these simple things? What do we have to lose whenever we say "tabi-tabi po" while we walk around an old tree? What do we have to lose whenever we grab our babies and pass them above the coffin in a wake? These things are simple. They give people assurance in some weird way and at the same time, it shows our culture and our history.

But sometimes, doing what is expected/accepted by society can bring about negative effects. During the New Year, for example, we are expected to spend thousands of pesos on firecrackers that can end up hurting us. Just like the social norms stated above, there's no logic behind it. But it's our culture. It somehow drives away evil spirits. And who am I to say how people should spend their hard-earned money? People follow this particular tradition or act because there is a trade-off. Besides driving away evil spirits, exploding triangles and beautiful lights make people happy. And the pollution and health effects are taken into consideration by the government when they decided to legalize the practice and set standards on the products... well that's what I hope.

Existing social norms are either inconsequential to the nation or, just like the case of using firecrackers, regulated/tolerated only to a certain extent. Note: These are my own personal classifications.

Now, the aforementioned classifications may seem crude. But social norms need to be classified by society and even individuals correctly to determine the things we should do away with entirely, the things we embrace and the things we control.

Looking at our society and individuals I come in contact with, one particular social norm is fully embraced without us realizing our accepting nature towards it and its effects on a national level. If you haven't read the title of this post, I'm talking about not speaking ill of the dead.

I'm confident most of us here were taught never to speak ill of the dead. We are told to keep our mouths shut when our abusive drunk uncle or perverted cousin die. It doesn't matter how they lived their lives. We should not judge them for they don't have the means to defend themselves.We should just let God do the judging. Plus, there's no point in upseting the loved ones. What do we have to lose when we keep our mouths shut when that person dies? Nothing right?

But what if the person who died was a government official instead of a random cousin and was corrupt instead of being perverted? What do we have to lose when we keep our mouths shut? Potentially, a lot.

A few days ago, ex-LTO chief Virginia Torres died. She was the LTO chief who got canned because she was the subject of a viral video showing her gambling in a casino. Personally, I had no problem with her gambling as long as it's her own money. But hey, memorandum circulars have to be followed even if they seem hypocritical.

Now, the fact that Torres already got fired already closes that case for me. But aside from that, another issue lingers over her name.

Torres is also embroiled in a controversy involving sugar smuggling. She allegedly used her contacts and dropped President Aquino's name in an attempt to get a shipment of smuggled sugar released so the money to be earned from the sales could be used for the upcoming elections. Unfortunately for her, she left empty-handed.

The fact that she left empty-handed is why keeping my mouth shut is the best course of action. What's the point of speaking? If we somehow prove she did use the president's name and tried to get smuggled sugar out of the BoC, that would only destroy her name and it would've cost us a ton of money. Clearly, shutting up and refraining from calling her something bad is for the best.

Unfortunately, sometimes officials don't get away empty-handed.

I'm sure we all know about Ferdinand Marcos so I won't go into detail with him. He is one of the few deceased politicians we never fail to talk about. He is either loved or despised. Cases are ongoing to retrieve the stuff he supposedly stole from the Filipino people. Sure, the case may be moving at a snail's pace. But at least, it's moving which is the most we can expect from our futile justice system.

But aside from Marcos, other individuals who have passed had their cases diluted if not completely forgotten. One such individual is Angelo Reyes. Angelo Reyes killed himself in front of his parents' grave just as the "pabaon" generals case went full swing. At first, people were ready to scrutinize Reyes of his supposed involvement in the scam. Jinggoy and Miriam were really grilling him hard. But by the time he died, people were singing his praises. He was praised to the point that he was buried in Libingan ng mga Bayani with full military honors
.

I'm not saying that Angelo Reyes was a scumbag who stole from us. I mean, the case did get dismissed by 2013. But our initial suspicion was subdued by his death. It's like we suspended our critical thinking and quickly accepted him as a great man when he died and labeled a potentially corrupt individual a hero by burying him in Libingan ng mga Bayani. In doing that, we quickly forgot that this guy could've walked away with millions of pesos. He died an innocent man. But that doesn''t mean we should quickly call him a hero and allow him to rest for all eternity in our heroes' cemetery considering what was happening at the time.

Shutting up about the dead's faults is one that needs a little more thinking than most. People tend to dismiss the act as inconsequential and critical thinking needs not be spared. But in the case of important people like public officials who are held in high esteem, social norms are no longer that weird or proper thing to which we need to adhere. It can become a practice of critical thinking.

Let's let Virgie Torres rest for now... at least until someone finds something connecting her to some sort of graft or corruption. And at the same time, let's not be so quick to let the dead get away with things they may have done when they were living like allowing Marcos to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Government officials should be tied down to accountability even after the Grim Reaper shows itself through the door. We stand to lose everything if we let mortality get in the way of accountability.

An Unconventional Holiday Season

Well, it certainly has been an eventful holiday season. Grace Poe is fighting an ongoing battle to legitimize her claim of being a natural born Filipino as well as a qualified presidential candidate. Ms Philippines was also able to bring home the title of Ms. Universe to the delight of millions of Filipinos. The NBA has been full of story lines from Golden State's dominance to Kobe's retirement tour. While PBA playoffs have been really exciting lately.

Whether you're a follower of everything politics or sports or beauty pageants, which should encompass most Filipinos, I'm sure you can label your holiday season as "eventful" or "exciting". As for me, it's been rather different.

For the past few holiday seasons, I just simply did my thing. My birthday falls within the season and I have multiple Christmas parties to which I usually look forward. Getting drunk and adding to my already burgeoning waistline was the norm.

This particular holiday season has been anything but normal though. Never mind that a couple of my close friends got married. It's been different because of one name: Nona.

Typhoon Nona really packed a punch. Though it did not affect us here in Laguna, it really did a number on my parents' home province of Oriental Mindoro. My relatives in Calapan live in well-built homes and were relatively safe. It's my mother's town of Victoria that really felt the power of Nona.

Typhoon Nona's winds ripped away roofs of the kubos of Victoria. It left trees bent and plants uprooted. Power lines were devastated leading to a power outage that has lasted until today, around ten days later. Crops were destroyed and animals were exposed to crippling weather. My aunt and uncles' small farm suffered quite a bit as their trees were destroyed. They lost a few ducks, chickens and a couple of piglets. Those are pretty substantial loses considering they only operate at a small scale. But then again, their luckier than most who lost all their livestock and crops not to mention a relative or two.

Typhoon Nona was really strong. It may not have been as strong as Yolanda or Sendong but it was strong nonetheless. My aunt, a former cop, relayed information that the town of Baco is withholding their true death toll which according to her reached the hundreds. The mayor of Victoria which is a distant relative apparently won't accept help from NGO's in an attempt to save face for the elections. Hopefully, she received wrong information and Baco is safe. Hopefully, my distant relatives are doing what's best for the town of Victoria even if it goes against what my family sees of that clan.

Nona has turned my family's holiday season upside down. Because of the destruction in Victoria, my aunt and two uncles there celebrated their Christmas here in Laguna. I had to help out as our helper was given the holiday off. One of my aunts came home from Vietnam and my sister came from Singapore to celebrate with us along with my other relatives here in Laguna. It was fun. It's not what we usually do for Christmas but fun nonetheless.

Today, my uncles and aunt return to Victoria as they attempt to get their lives back to the way it was. Their eight hour travel time won't come close to the journey they are going to take back to normalcy. But hey, they've done this their whole lives. We, as Filipinos, have done this our whole lives.

This may have been an unconventional holiday for me personally. But in the sense of being Filipino, what is a conventional holiday season? We got hit by Yolanda, Ruby and Sendong near the holidays. Some of us lost loved ones during the Christmas tsunamis a few years back. Remember the Rizal Day bombings? If Nona didn't hit, I'd be treating a hang over right now after a long night of drinking with my brothers and sister or my friends. But sometimes, more often here in the Philippines, the holiday season is as much about vacations, consuming or loving each other as it is just getting through life.

Happy holidays everyone

The Problem with Celebrities Endorsing Politicians

I don't watch teleseryes voluntarily. My only exposure to them is brought about by my mom's incessant "tampo" whenever I change the channel. She would always say "ito na nga lang kaligayahan ko (this is my only source of happiness)". Of course, I have no choice whenever those words are said and simply surrender the remote of our living room TV even if she has a TV of her own in her room.

Don't get me wrong. Sometimes, teleseryes can be entertaining. But to enjoy them fully, you have to endure tons of advertising. That's the deal breaker right there. I was tempted to watch Pangako Sa'yo because it brings out a lot of memories of the early 2000's when I was forced to watch it because of my mom. But the commercials really sucked the enjoyment out of watching the show.

Commercials suck. They ruin shows for me. But I won't go as far as saying that I hate them. I mean, they do serve a purpose even though I frown upon certain types of commercials like the ones promoting medicine. They inform us of new products and to top it off, the salaries our talented actors and production crew receive mostly come from them. They have their benefits. I don't like watching Alden Richards and Yaya Dub promoting Mcdo three times in a span of five minutes. But at the same time, I understand it.

However, this level of understanding I have for celebrities endorsing products is not present in political endorsements. I usually hate it when celebrities endorse political candidates.

Now, don't misinterpret me here. I love that celebrities are politically aware. I understand that they have a voice and they have the right to promote someone who they believe can mold this country into a prosperous land. I don't blame these celebrities at all. There are just some things about some celebrity endorsements that screw up our already flawed democracy.

What do I mean by "these celebrities"?

My biggest problem with celebrities endorsing politicians is that we don't really know which ones are genuine endorsements and which ones are mere advertisements. The Brgy. Ginebra basketball team can endorse gin-bulag without me expecting them to actually drink it. They earn millions of pesos a year and we're supposed to think they actually drink gin-bulag? Come on.

Celebrities endorsing products do not require any defense. Anne Curtis can say she likes GSM Blue. Bela Padilla apparently likes San Mig Light. But in reality, these celebrities were chosen by the products. These products believed fully in their endorsers. The endorsers, on the other hand, only believe in the product up to a certain level. That belief in the product won't keep Bela from drinking whatever beer she prefers.

This lack of belief is what irks me whenever I see celebrities endorsing politicians. I don't mind celebrities endorsing products they kinda believe. But once they endorse people for positions that would change the country, they need to be completely behind the person's ideals. They have millions of fans following their lives and they have the ability to influence a few voters. They should keep that in mind when endorsing politicians and only endorse if they are fully aware and fully behind the candidates.

If you think I'm hastily antagonizing the practice of celebrities endorsing politicians, here's a video:

 Juday:And I for one also maybe one way or another believed in her also

Why did Juday endorse Madrigal when she herself is not sure if she completely believed in Jamby?

Celebrity endorsements should not be taken seriously. Unfortunately, it's hard to set aside the fact that these celebrities have strong drawing power. I mean, there's really no study showing their efficacy in getting a politician elected. But if campaign masterminds are willing to pay millions of pesos, just as the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism once reported,  to get these celebrities then who am I to tell them they are wasting money? 

I love it when celebrities become politically aware. I love that Jim Paredes is very open about his belief in the Liberal Party even though I don't fully agree with the LP leaning so hard on PPP's when it comes to major infrastructure. I love the conviction Chito Miranda has when tweeting or posting about Duterte even if I don't appreciate the lack of respect Duterte has for human rights. These are the political endorsements I can appreciate. They are fully behind their candidates and there's no doubt that they are gonna vote for these politicians. Even though their criteria in choosing the candidate are different from mine, at least I know what they are.

Unlike Paredes' or Miranda's endorsements, the ones  we see on TV seem like any other commercial for snacks or appliances. They are hollow and perfect metaphors for our ailing democracy. If celebrities really want to support candidates, they should do it like Paredes and Miranda - void of cheesy song or meaningless one-liners. If they are willing to go on TV and promote their candidates, they should be willing to go on TV to explain why and be scrutinized justly in the same way Miranda and Paredes have exposed themselves on social media. But of course, their parent TV stations won't risk their stars' image being damaged by potentially looking foolish on TV.

Celebrities have political power. They exercise it whenever they tell us which brand of milk to buy or which food joint to check out. Once they exercise it in the realm of governance, their views need to be scrutinized just like the views of their candidates. If their managers won't allow them to go on TV to discuss political matter, at least they must share their views on social media so we can scrutinize them.

The risk for celebrities in endorsing should be correlated to what they are endorsing. If they endorse a brand for something as simple as washing the dishes, then the risk for them should be low. When they endorse someone for something as important as the person who will shape the present and future of the nation, the risk for them should skyrocket.

Reactions to Rodrigo Duterte's Profanity-Filled Proclamation Speech

*** THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN WORDS NOT SUITABLE FOR MINORS... OR WHOEVER ***

Putang ina. This particular expression was the go-to-move of aspiring presidentiable Rodrigo Duterte this November 30 when his party PDP-Laban proclaimed him as their standard bearer. It is an expression many find taboo and hurtful. That being said, it is a common expression being used by many of us Filipinos.

Aside from the constant appearance of "putang ina" or any of its varieties, Mayor Duterte also sprinkled some "Fucks", "Fuckshits", jokes about marijuana usage and a reference about masturbation in his speech. It was certainly a colorful, be it, disjointed speech. A portion of the crowd certainly thought so.

That being said, many were not pleased with the mayor's speech.

Gabriela did not appreciate how Duterte nonchalantly admitted having several partners. According to them, "womanizing and treating women as objects are an affront to women and it should not be flaunted".

People from the Roman Catholic church certainly did not appreciate him cursing the pope and making light of how he kills criminals in Davao. Archbishop Oscar Cruz was quoted in a report by GMA saying Duterte is dangerous. He says Duterte only acknowledges his own rights and he is worse than a dictator. As expected, CBCP president Socrates Villegas was also not pleased.

MAYOR DUTERTE?What the world desperately needs now is leadership by example. We have so many leaders in office and...
Posted by Socrates B. Villegas on Monday, 30 November 2015

Mayor Duterte was really on a roll yesterday. He made enemies out of a lot of people. He may have even turned off some of his supporters. It was crazy. Mar Roxas' own "PUTANG INA!" moment paled in comparison to this one. This profanity-laden speech was something special. I can't imagine anything like this happening again in the near future.

That being said, I find the reactions to Duterte even more reprehensible than his actual speech.

Duterte is a breath of fresh air. Here is a guy who doesn't give a damn about politicking. He's very vulgar like most of us. And like all of us, he has a basket full of flaws pulling him down. His style is certainly more palatable to me than the clean-cut trapos spewing generic gibberish in their campaign rallies.

In saying that, I will not endorse Mayor Duterte for president. It's not because he's a foul-mouthed old man who has four women satisfying his sexual needs. It's because he prefers to have bilateral talks with China and in doing so, killing our political leverage. It's because I can't see him handling International Policy effectively. It's because I don't agree with his style of enforcement where civil liberties are not respected. It's because his reasoning can be flawed sometimes like how he justified his adultery by saying if he can love an entire city, he can surely love four women. It's because he has yet to speak of certain issues I feel strongly about like the PPP law this administration is silently getting done. It's because he changed his stance on taxation from calling for the exemption of poor families in June to being against lowering tax rates in late November

Hopefully, people voting for him don't see a tough guy who will solve all our problems. Hopefully, they vote for him because of his stance on same-sex marriage or feudalism or iron-fist enforcement. Hopefully, they vote for him because they are willing to compromise some of their beliefs because in their view, Duterte's ideas can lift our nation instead of Duterte himself lifting our nation.

Mayor Duterte can call Pope Francis whatever the hell he wants. If there is a God and He decides to banish Duterte to hell for his remarks, that's on Duterte. But that should not have any weight on his style of governance.

Politics is the art of making people believe in what you are saying. It is up to us, the people, to judge ideas based on their merits and not on the merits of the ones who came up with them.

Bad Reporting on a Mechanical Fan Invention

LALAKI, NAKA-IMBENTO NG BENTILADOR NA DE KWERDAS, NAHINGI NG TULONG
Posted by Bayan Bangon at Alamin on Friday, 13 November 2015

Here's an example of news reporting that can make my blood boil. If you watch the report, you'll notice the slow humanization of our creative hero. It started with how to use the fan. But that's the deepest it would go with regards to the product. These sentences would follow:

"Ito ang Salfan, ang imbensyong bentilador ni Mang Ramon Salva mula Lucena City na sagot aniya sa mahal na singil sa kuryente. Hindi kasi ito gumagamit ng kuryente dahil sa mekanismo ng Salfan. (This is Salfan, a mechanical fan invented by Mr. Ramon Salva who hails from Lucena City. According to him, it is the answer to expensive electricity bills because it doesn't use electricity because of its mechanism.) "

So, it doesn't use electricity. Ok. But how effective is it? If I crank the mechanism, how long will the blades spin? If it can last a suitable amount of time, is it possible to enlarge the prototype? How long did it take for Mr. Salve to build his small machine? None of these questions were answered.

The report went on to share that Mr Salva has 10 kids.  He's still persevering as a watch repairman so that 2 of his kids could study. The report also shared that the family supports Mr. Salva in his endeavors. This is basically the entire report.

My question now is why would the report focus on something that has nothing to do with Mr. Salva's product? It's like the product of his creativity took a backseat to his current situation. Yes, Mr. Salva is like a lot of our countrymen who strive to make an honest living. But Mr. Salva is of the different breed. He potentially did something awesome. Why focus on how hard his life has been? Why focus on how his family supports him? Why not focus on his machine? It's like the report dismissed it.

I don't think Mr. Salva is some poor schmuck with a stupid child's play thing that the report portrayed. To me, Mr. Salva is a creative man who was able to translate the gears he repaired in watches into something that could be really helpful.

Hopefully Mr. Salva finds an investor. Or at least, he finds a proper avenue that would focus on his creation instead of how he his life has been.

Pharmaceutical Companies Should Not be Allowed to Advertise

I'm sure most of us here watch prime time soaps being offered up by the major networks. I myself have watched Dream Dad, Juan Dela Cruz and whatever ABS-CBN offers up after TV Patrol. What can I say. We have one communal TV and my mom's the boss. So while being forced to watch these shows, I can't help but notice the amount of promotions for medications. Although I don't mind seeing Anne Curtis flying around as she promotes Enervon, it's still not something I encourage having in our country.

Medical costs in the Philippines is pretty significant considering a citizen's purchasing power. Oscar Picazo wrote a detailed article about it for the Daily Inquirer. The significant cost of medication is compounded by the fact that many don't care for insurance. People tend to see insurance as something for the already weak and feeble and only go for it when it's too late.

Due to the high cost of medicine in the Philippines, the government has written laws and constructed policies to solve the issue. The Generics Drug Act and the hotly debated and  apparent watered-down version of the Cheaper Medicines Act come to mind. But even with these policies, a major flaw is being ignored within the economics of our pharmaceutical industry.

I don't claim to be an economist. But as a guy who loves to relax on his couch, I can't understand the use of promotion for drugs. As I mentioned, I don't mind seeing as the art form they are. It's just that they serve no purpose worth serving.

The purpose of advertisements is to inform. There are products out there that need persuasion to be consumed. For example, when choosing the best snack, we have tons of choices. We have Snacku, Mr. Chips, Chippy, Mang Juan and a whole host of other stuff. It's important for these manufacturers to invest in advertising because all of them have the same thing to offer which is the pleasure of eating they're product. The pleasure derived from consuming these products differ though from person to person. So having a famous face eating their product or a catchy theme song is important. These advertisements remind us that these products taste good because of the models' facial expressions in commercials or the lyrics of the theme song. I see no problem with these manufacturers trying to persuade us, regardless of how cheap their attempts are.

Now, as for medicine, pharmaceutical companies are adapting the same concept. The problem here is that unlike the pleasure we get from eating Snacku or Mr. Chips, the efficacy and the suitability of drugs is not up to us. We have doctors who should be the ones saying we need atapulgite or telmisartan.We should be spared from these cheesy commercials of Skelan or Xenical.

Now, aside from the fact we shouldn't be urged to take stuff without doctor's consent, there's still one more bad effect of pharmaceutical commercials I haven't tackled. This is actually the more economically sinful thing.

The biggest difference between medicine and snacks is this: the different brands for snacks differ in flavor which is where we derive it's effectiveness in benefiting us while the brands of medicine we have don't differ in curing illness. What I mean is, loperamide will always be loperamide whether it be labeled Imodium or Diatabs. As long as the dosage is the same, it will have the same effect. So now I ask, what's the point of advertising the products which in turn will drive the price up? What's the point of paying medical representatives P200,000/year to promote the brand to doctors? How does that help the consumer?

In the production of goods, every step needs to benefit both the producer and the consumer. The cost of the plant for snacks production is beneficial to both parties because without it, the producer can't earn and the consumer can't get his hands on some snacks. Advertising snacks is the same way. Advertising increases the demand, or for economic geeks moves the demand curve to the left, thus increasing profit for the producer and it also informs/reminds the consumer of the awesomeness of Snacku and its effectiveness in pleasuring our taste buds or, again for econ geeks, move the supply curve to the right. Sure, it drives the price up, but we don't need to eat Snacku. Unlike medicine which we need to take if the doctor says so.

So yeah, I am calling for the stoppage of the pharmaceutical ads like the Skelan and Enervon ads. But, wouldn't that make less receptive to seek medication? No, because what that will do is lower the price of medicine. Instead of buying Imodium or Diatabs outright, you can go to a pharmacy and they can sell you the cheapest loperamide or activated carbon which you wouldn't have known about because of the brand loyalty instilled by advertising Aside from that, Generika and other approved drugstores selling cheap medicine would only have to compete against other drugstores instead of the drug manufacturers. Drug manufacturers in turn will focus on increasing their productivity to increase profit. What will set them apart from other manufacturers will be the cost of producing the drug instead of the creativity of their commercials.

Medical advertising should no longer be part of the consumers' lives. Having brand loyalty for a medical brand will not benefit the consumer. Advertising of drugs should only be done if the drug is new. And it should be limited to the doctors.

A lot of us have clamored for universal healthcare. Philhealth and normal HMO's do not include medication in their benefits. With the price so needlessly bloated, I can't blame them.

Having to pay P70/tablet of Micardis is insane especially if both your parents are taking them. In the US, it's around $1.50/tablet which is roughly 20% of a minimum wage earner's hourly rate. Medicine is too expensive here. My suggestion may be drastic. But don't we need drastic results?