Conspiracy Theory

An article published by one of the Philippine’s major dailies suggested that there is reason for Manny Pacquiao to be happy because the betting odds are inching closer in his favor (subject of my essay in my last post at the Philboxing.com). Let me quote some portions of the report: “He (Pacquiao) must be glad that slowly, but steadily, he’s been catching up on Oscar dela Hoya as far as the odds to Saturday’s ‘Dream Match’ is concerned.” The author reported from MGM Grand, Las Vegas, USA during the press conference for the December 6 mega fight held last Wednesday, Mountain Time.

This is an amazing conjecture. A prizefighter cares nothing about the betting odds unless he is putting his own money on the betting block. He or she may be glad or sad about anything, but I submit that this must not be because of whichever way the odds are moving. The odds mean only to those who play the gambling side of boxing, or of any sport, for that matter.

Nevertheless, that same report has raised my kind of a “conspiracy theory.” I don’t think Manny is concerned about the betting odds. However, I cannot say the same thing for Oscar and, to some extent, Bob Arum and Freddie Roach.

In the days that followed right after the contracts for The Dream Match were sealed and both the Golden Boy and Top Rank camps were loaded with verbal barbs against each other, not a few has said quite loudly that what loomed before us was a mismatch. A fight that should not happen in the first place, some would say. The global mood was reflected in the betting odds. In the first week of November 2008, the betting odds at SBGlobal, one of many online (which means anybody anywhere in the world with money and computer or mobile phone with internet connection can play and place bets) betting portals around, the odds stood at +180 for Manny and -230 for Oscar. This meant that a 100 wager on Manny will win 180 if Manny won the fight; on the other hand, those betting on Oscar will need a 230 wager to win 100 if Oscar came out the winner.

By end of November, the I-will-knock-you-out-Manny-in-five kind of stare down taunting ceased to descend from the bigger dela Hoya. On the other hand, Roach remained relentless in playing down the chances of the Golden Boy. This must have given the money game players their cue (or clue), as the betting mood showed it. The odds moved in Manny’s favor. From +180 it went down to +170. On the other hand, Oscar’s -230 went up to -200.

As fight night approaches, the Pacquiao camp—mainly through Roach and Arum—has not changed its ready-to-charge-and-gore-the-other-guy fighting pose. This is in stark contrast to the projection publicly displayed by the dela Hoya camp. Upon reaching Las Vegas early this week, reporters quoted Oscar as saying that he is worried about Manny’s power, about Manny’s speed, about Manny’s youth, etc. Nacho Berestain, the renowned trainer of many Mexican boxing champions that included Juan Manual Marquez and now working as Oscar’s chief coach, was seen on TV initiating a friendly hug with Roach. At the press conference last Wednesday, Oscar repeated his line: Manny’s youth and boxing skills must be acknowledged, and they are pushing him to climb the ring.

Without necessarily short-selling himself, what Oscar is trying to tell the boxing world is that The Dream Match will not be a mismatch. That the paying fans will get their money’s worth. The message also sends signals to the betting fans: If this is going to be an even match, why bet on Oscar when I stand to gain more by betting on Manny?

Sure enough, millions of dollars must have moved in behind Manny this past 48 hours. As this is written, the SBGlobal boards reflect yet another pull from pro-Manny wagers. Manny is now only +160 while Oscar remains at -200.

The trend established by the odds seems to indicate that the amount of bets placed on Manny has increased at a rate that is faster than that of Oscar’s. It suggest that the odds will eventually level off by the time Philippine politicians get themselves to unload tons of monies—some of which may not be their own. This is what the wagers for Oscar want. This is the time for them to flex hind muscles and get ready to jump for the kill.

The odds work like a currency exchange rate. If they go in you favor, you cash in with a few millions more by just betting at the right time and on the right currency.

As a Pacman fan, Oscar’s body language worries me. His focus goes beyond the fight itself. He is teasing the exchange rate. He cannot do this unless he is sure that he is the right currency.

The Odds Move Closer For Manny

Excitement intensifies as “The Dream Match” between Manny Pacquiao, currently the world’s greatest boxer pound for pound, and Oscar dela Hoya, the biggest draw of the sport, draws near. On the night of December 6, 2008, the boxing world will stop to watch what is expected to be a non-stop action from start to finish atop the ring at MGM Grand, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Part of the excitement comes from the generated up-level accounts of bravado as preparations by both camps for the big fight are winding up. Team Pacquiao is confident of winning the fight. Freddie Roach, the coach, has predicted that the fight will end before the final bell. And it will end with Oscar unable to maintain an upright position long enough to survive a career-ending ambush. The rest of the Wild Card staff is not far behind in advancing more or less the same drum-pounding hype.

The Dela Hoya camp is equally upbeat, whose message to everyone since Day One has hardly varied: there is no way Oscar can lose this fight. The Golden Boy himself even went to the extent of saying that Manny will not go beyond five rounds. “I will punish him for dishonoring me,” Oscar was reported to have said. For the many who knew little of how Manny dishonored Oscar, perhaps it would suffice to say that one felt offended by the other when Manny ended up being associated with Bob Arum’s Top Rank instead of Oscar’s Golden Boy Promotions. Manny obliges Oscar by assuring the Golden Boy that The Dream Match will settle the personal issue between the two of them.

So who do you think will come out winning The Dream Match? As the boxing world waits for the suspenseful fight night to come, I can think of three perspectives from which one can hazard a guess. The first comes from what the experts say. The second comes from betting odds. And the third will depend on one’s gut feel.

Boxing experts are not one in their analysis of who is likely to win this huge fight. Majority of boxers who used to be of consequence in their time, including former pound for pound champions Sugar Ray Leonard and Floyd Mayweather Jr, think that Oscar will win. Sports analysts and boxing writers are divided—and sometimes the stories would depend on who is a fan of who. Not a few are decidedly for Oscar. Filipino writers don’t bother with the spin, they just tell us that Manny is the Pacman and the Pacman will win. It is interesting to note that most of American boxing journalists who earlier dismissed the fight as a sham are now writing about it with interest; some are even hinting at the possibility of a Pacquiao win.

Another way of analyzing the fight outcome is to look at the betting trend. We can dismiss what the experts are saying. But we may not dismiss quite easily what the wagers are saying through their bets. The reason is simple: one has nothing but a mouth; the other is putting their money where their mouth is. (Whether that money is clean or dirty would be another story.)

Over the last three weeks, the betting trend has slowly shifted in Manny’s favor, although Oscar remains the heavy favorite. At SBGlobal , the betting odds stood at +170 for Manny and -200 for Oscar. This means a 100 wager on Manny will win 170 if Manny wins the fight; on the other hand, those betting on Oscar will need a 200 wager to win 100 if Oscar comes out the winner. The betting odds previously stood at +180 for Manny and -230 for Oscar.

(In an earlier post I advanced the proposition that it would be in the interest of those who are loaded with dollars and planning to bet on Oscar to rev-up the pro-Manny hype. I believe that an effective Manny projection can create a mousetrap for those who otherwise are not committed to betting on Manny, and a surge in betting funds for him will skew the odds closer to the middle of the probability spectrum. A heavy money game player, say one with a few million bucks, can win big if the betting odds are in his favor.)

The third point for analysis is what we feel about this fight. We concede that Oscar is superior in terms of height, bulk and heft. He will not need to load on his punches to make one a haymaker because of that advantage. Compared to Manny who will need to load on his own to bring his message across, as it were, Oscar will find it easier to keep his balance and attacking position every second of 12 3-minute rounds.

On the other hand, Manny is quick and explosive. Drawing power from a string of Lloyd-certified leg, hip and shoulder muscles, this former mini-flyweight can stun a middleweight. He also has stamina. Manny therefore has what it takes to create conditions for Oscar to make a slight slip or rest a fleeting second to gasp for air. A small opening is all Manny needs to knock the Golden Boy out and send him to his blissful retirement.

Above all, Manny wins because he puts hard work into his craft in ways that are probably unmatched by any professional athlete. He stands out because he has courage; he has self-confidence and he believes in his God. When he fought Marco Antonio Barrera the first time, the betting odds suggested that there was no way Manny could win that fight. Can the Pacman beat the odds one more time on December 6?
------------------------
I am a Pacman fan and this post was made to show it. Digital copies of my 148-page book “Who Can Stop The Pacman?” are available for USD 5.75. Order by Paypal through my account at pinoyprofits@gmail.com and I will send your copy to your inbox. Registration at Paypal is free, just click here if you have not account yet. You can also place your bets for the Dream Match online through SBGlobal. Just register (click here) and click to Sportsbook then click again to Boxing.

Watch Out For The Color Of Money

Painted all over the place and on the road leading to Las Vegas, Nevada, for the December 6, 2008 “Dream Match” between boxing greats Oscar dela Hoya and Manny Pacquiao will be the color of money. Watch out for it.

The first sign we saw how this fight promises to be a hit for business-minded folks came when 13,000 or so live tickets for the MGM Grand disappeared in two hours after it went on sale. In fact one can say that no tickets actually went out on sale: both co-promoters of the fight Top Rand and Golden Boy had already appropriated for each of them 5,000 tickets. The remaining 3,000 went to MGM’s box office.

Ticket hoarding like this does not happen everyday. It only happens when businessmen think they are in possession of an item whose price will zoom up in the foreseeable future. Real estate firms buy landholdings today (called land banking) in anticipation of an increase in their values in the future. Stock brokers also do lots of speculative investing.

Shaping up to be another frenetic front for money lovers is betting. We speculate that millions of dollars will go this route as fight night draws closer. And for one to make money in the betting game, he or she should not only place the right bet; the odds are equally important. For instance if the odds are even, a hundred dollars wager for Manny Pacquiao will win that same amount (less a few dollars for service fees) if Manny goes on to win the fight. But if the odds are against Manny—say a 100 wins 200—any bet amount will double if Manny wins the fight. There are variations to the betting game, such as betting on what round or in what manner (like KO or decision) a fighter one is betting on will win.

The whole point is the odds can either increase or reduce your winnings. This can be of little consequence for small bets, but they can be substantial when the amount of bets gets bigger. The current online betting odds at SBG Global put Manny at +180 and Oscar at -230. Thus if you bet 1,000 dollars on Manny and he wins, you will get 800 dollars more. If you bet 100,000 dollars, you get 80,000 dollars more.

Can the odds be manipulated? Certainly. Betting odds, like prices of commercial commodities, react to market forces (supply and demand). A greater amount of dollars chasing after a dela Hoya wager than on Pacquiao will push the odds up in Oscar’s favor, as it is the case now. So what do I do if I believe Oscar will win and I have a million bucks to bet on him? You guessed it right: I will tell the world that “no, contrary to what the boxing experts are thinking aloud, the dream match is not a mismatch after all.” I could even trick Freddie Roach to tell media that Manny will knock Oscar out in 9 rounds. The more credible your propaganda is, the better.

This is done with the end of view of enticing people to bet for Manny. Because when tons upon tons of money begin to pour for Manny at the betting portals in amounts that equal those that are intended for Oscar, the odds will eventually level off. That way, my 230 dollars will win 230 dollars, not a hundred. A million-dollar bet will win a million dollar, not 400,000 dollars or even less. One can be rich because he did his selling right.

So what’s this we hear that the Mexicans are rooting for Manny? That there is now an outpouring of support—and one that is fast shaping up to be a bandwagon—for Manny? If you ask me, could be one shade of a color of money.

Read Manny First Before You Bet

The World Boxing Council exposes its own hidden agenda for making public its threat to strip Manny Pacquiao of his lightweight championship belt. Sometime last week, the WBC through President-for-life Jose Sulaiman, publicly humiliated Manny for charging that he runs away from his obligations, in particular the sanction fees he supposedly owes the WBC. The WBC also attempted to attract international sympathy for itself by insinuating that Manny—with what WBC has described as an arrogant gesture on his part—has made the boxing governing body look like a beggar and a belt mill.

With its public outburst, I think the WBC tried to accomplish two things. One, to project a regalian image before the boxing world, even at the expense of one of its own—the pound-for-pound king no less—champions. And two, to trap Manny into a squeezed set of options where he could end up fighting somebody outside of his choices.

The first objective is really understandable for anyone desiring to preserve itself. In a world where competition has become very intense, and in a sport that has become too money-oriented that is professional boxing, projecting an image where one stands out from the crowd is not only necessary. It is also a duty. And the WBC cannot be faulted for telling everyone that it still is the most prestigious among so many boxing organizations today.

(Incidentally, the so-called alphabet world boxing bodies that exist today emerged from opportunities presented by the bungling and injustices assumably committed by the pioneering organizations, namely the WBC and the World Boxing Association).

But WBC needed something big to project its image for impact. And what better way to present its case than drag Manny Pacquiao to the picture? That Manny has been presented in a not-so-pleasing light may have been totally fortuitous; the point was WBC needed something to re-advertise itself before the boxing world.

The second objective, in my opinion, is a high-risk proposition, and could very well indicate how desperate the WBC might have been in trying to map its future. If there was nothing suspicious about its schemes, one will notice that giving Manny a deadline within which to settle his supposedly outstanding obligations was not necessary. But the WBC did impose a deadline. Why?
If the WBC waited for Manny to make up his mind on whether to defend his lightweight title or not after his December 6 showdown with Oscar dela Hoya, Manny can have options in which the WBC might find itself irrelevant. Therefore it was important for the WBC to force Manny into making a decision before December 6.

I suspect the WBC considered these scenarios:

1) If Manny goes on to defy the odds and dish out a credible performance on December, Manny will have the luxury of choosing his career-ending opponent. This scenario can make the WBC dispensable and irrelevant.

2) If Manny is badly beaten by dela Hoya, he can descend to the lighter divisions where his options are limited and in which the WBC can impose its presence. For example, if Manny is "forced" to defend his lightweight title, he will have to abide by WBC rules. And abiding by them would include meeting the deadline it set a week ago.

It is clear which of the two scenarios would be to WBC's liking. The problem with the strategy that would force Manny to commit to a decision is that it has a high probability rate of going wrong. In an earlier post I mentioned that publicly shaming people in the Philippines (as it is in most of Asia) just doesn't work, and in more ways than one that's what the WBC did to Manny Pacquiao. A belligerent Pacquiao can always do a Lennox Lewis and dump his lightweight belt to the trash can. If he does this the WBC might as well kiss its designs goodbye.

But if Manny complies with the WBC deadline it can mean that his gut feel tells him something about the uphill battle he faces in Oscar dela Hoya. It can expose him as having his own doubts over his chances of coming out victorious in the biggest fight of his career. To his millions of fans edging to place their bets, this is suggestion enough for them to go slow with their money. No amount of braggadocio from coach Freddie Roach can change the will of a fighter who nurses the lightest of doubts at the back of his mind.

This is not to say that self-confidence alone is enough to win battles. But every success in a contest—as in life—begins with belief in oneself and the will to win. Basketball coach Pat Riley once said "that belief, focus and hard work do not guarantee you championships. But without them, you don't stand a chance."
----------------

Sabongero El Mejicano

A devilish design pops under the recent verbal ejaculations of Jose Sulaiman's World Boxing Council. We see this from the publicized statement issued by the WBC as it concluded its annual convention in China last week, complaining that Filipino boxing icon Manny Pacquiao has not complied with WBC rules regarding payment of sanction fees. It further warned Manny that the WBC will strip him of his lightweight title if the problem is not resolved within 15 days. The public diatribe had an effect of accusing Manny for being dishonest in his dealings.

I find little comfort in saying this, but with that I suspect there was a Mexican effort to pad another layer of accusation over the one which Juan Manuel Marquez had initiated when he openly expressed doubts Manny ever beat him.

Although Sulaiman may have sounded apologetic in the succeeding statements he issued (part of the plot?), the point was that the damage to Manny has been done. Again I suspect the Mexicans might have studied the Filipino psyche very well, because what Sulaiman did was to hit Manny with feelings of shame, and shame is one of the most compelling values of Filipinos.

Sure—that the Pacman won over Marquez on points in their rematch was something which the judges ruled. It was beyond anyone else’s reach to control. Similarly, that Manny had obligations to pay would also be for his staff to track; the paperwork is not his to attend to. Both Marquez and Sulaiman know these; that they would make a public issue—and a heck of a fuss—about them is amazing. The Mexicans cannot beat the Pacman inside the ring. They probably think maybe they can smother him somewhere else.

And if beating Manny outside the ring is one strategy worth pushing, what better way to push it than having Sulaiman’s weight behind it?

And while we are in the business of shaming people, how about this baloney telling us that the Mexicans root for the Pacman more than they do for Oscar? Super Trainer Freddie Roach, Top Rank boss Bob Arum, Mexican hero Julio Cesar Chavez, among others, may genuinely feel that way, but I see a hand pulling some tricks to create a propaganda out of this. The latest item we heard was that some current Mexican champions have agreed to walk the Pacman to the ring when he meets Oscar on December 6.

It could be a subtle message to shame Oscar before the universe, put him into a ferocious rage and attack Manny like a wounded tiger (I guess nothing can hurt Oscar’s ego more than such a sight). In the Philippines, the sabongero (cockfight aficionado) does the same thing. Before releasing his gamecock inside the ring for a cockfight, he excites his gamecock to point where he gets so mad that he is ready to devour his opponent.

Perhaps this is how the Mexicans think Oscar dela Hoya would become when he meets Manny Pacquiao inside the ring. They want Oscar to devour Manny alive and take revenge for the collective humiliation they have been getting from the Filipino. Indeed this fight can be more than about money; it can be truly personal for both fighters.

But Manny will not run away from any challenge. The plan could backfire. It can make Oscar reckless. One mistake and the Golden Boy will be out. The “Dream Match” has the makings of a night that can put either fighter to dreamland.

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

The Third Mystery

From a public perspective, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has been consistent in its opposition against all forms of gambling. It therefore came as a surprise to many
when, some years ago, a number of bishops admitted to having received funds from the country's biggest gambling lord--PAGCOR.

The bishops explained that what they did was a way of transferring money from the rich to the poor (or something to that effect). Such a rationalization may have helped resolve issues expressed in terms of raised eyebrows, but it is one argument whose clarity and meaning nevertheless remains a mystery to me.

At the height of protests mounted against the Arroyo government over allegations of official malfeasance suggested, first, by the Garci Tapes and, second, by the NBN controversy, the CBCP issued a statement that exhorted the laity to seek the truth. The statement said in part: "... We are convinced that the search for truth in the midst of charges and allegations must be determined and relentless... For this reason, we strongly... Condemn the continuing culture of corruption from the top to the bottom of our social and political ladder...."

I find it difficult for one to condemn something about which he or she still needs to find what is true. That CBCP knew there was corruption but asks the people to seek the truth was, to me, the second mystery.

Lately Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, along with four other bishops, came out in public to slamn the Arroyo government and, with tones that sound seditious, called for a change in the leadership of the national government. Although Lagdameo's blaster does not carry the full weight of a CBCP statement, his being its president certainly makes it hard to ignore.

I certainly would not mourn the death of Arroyo's regime. But to wish it ill at a time when even the political opposition has started positioning its warring key figures to take advantage of early campaigning enroute to the 2010 presidential elections, this one seems totally out of rythm. What did the bishops see in Arroyo's government that the public did not? What fueled this
sudden surge of radicalism? Are people here trying to play the numbers game in Congress? For what--the new impeachment complaint or the reproductive health bill? I suspect it is about the one and not necessarily about the other. I am clueless whichever way. This is the third mystery.

Third Marquez Fight Could Be Pacman's Biggest Paycheck Ever

Bob Arum is right to caution fight fans not to rush with ideas of Manny Pacquiao’s future fights while the Pacman is in the middle of his preparations for the “Dream Match” against Oscar dela Hoya on December 6. There are boxing aficionados who just could not hide the excitement being generated by the Dream Match that some are now suggesting the idea of former pound-for-pound king Floyd Mayweather Jr’s coming out of retirement to face the Pacman next. In 2007, Mayweather outpointed dela Hoya in their “The World Awaits” encounter. The boxing world did not only wait, it bought tickets and pay-per-view access. The fight set all-time pay-per-view records.

The Dream Match also promises to be a hit at the box office. Live gate passes disappeared within hours after they went on sale. If the Dream Match cannot equal the money value of gate receipts generated by The World Awaits, it is only because the latter sold tickets at higher prices.
On the matter of Pacman’s future fights, one may recall that months ago renowned trainer Freddie Roach suggested a Ricky Hatton fight to cap Manny’s boxing career. “After de la Hoya and Hatton, Manny can retire as the greatest fighter of all time,” Roach was quoted as saying. Of course, he said that in the context of Manny’s beating both Oscar and Hatton.

The debate on who’s the world’s greatest boxer of all time is one that is likely to continue provoking fight fans until the end of time. There are those who say it’s Sugar Ray Robinson. Others insist it has got to be Gene Tunney, Archie Moore or Joe Louis. Muhammad Ali says it is none other than him. In the recent ESPN E:60 show that featured Manny Pacquiao, HBO Larry Merchant said that Pacman could be one of the world’s greatest if he does the impossible and goes on to beat Oscar. In an earlier article I posted here, I also said Manny looms as the world’s greatest prize fighter ever. Henry Armstrong and Roberto Duran did leap to weight divisions much higher from where they started as a professional boxer, but I feel that Manny’s rate of success viewed in the context of the over-all quality of ring opposition simply stands out.

On the matter of who Manny should fight next, the public senses the color of money wherever propositions go. But that’s what professional boxing is all about. If the Dream Match can match the money-making machine that was The World Awaits, it would not be hard to figure out how a Pacman-Mayweather fight can generate the same goldmine. A Ricky Hatton fight attracts for the same reason. The guy draws to the fight ring thousands of paying British fans.

I offer another view. Again not to distract Manny from his preparations for the dela Hoya fight, but a third fight against Juan Manuel Marquez could yet become his biggest payday ever. Of course such a prognosis would also depend on how he fares against Oscar on December 6 in Las Vegas.

The key is for Pacman to promote that Marquez 3 fight (as he himself pointed out in earlier statements). Pay Marquez what’s his due and collect his share of live gate and pay-per-view proceeds. This fight will sell to those who bought tickets and pay-per-view access for The Dream Awaits, the Pacman-Marquez fights, the Pacman-Barrera fights, the Pacman-Morales fights and now, for The Dream Match. In short, what a Pacman-Marquez 3 offers in terms of sales and profits can boggle the businessman’s mind.

TV Game Show: Read My Mind 1

© 2008 Hermilando D. Aberia

Despite remarkable progress in information and communication technology, the art of reading someone’s mind continues to amuse, entertain and create communication challenges for people and their fellow rational creatures, particularly those who are part of the communication process itself. Decisions that can change the world, at least figuratively speaking, can be made from fleeting moments in which people read other people’s minds. This TV game show brings out the unlimited wonders of basic non-verbal communication through mind reading.

Layout and Physical Arrangement

This TV game show shall feature two sets of participants/contestants (one set [of 37] shall comprise the “messengers” and another set [of 3] will be composed of “readers”), one or two game show host/hostess, and a TV studio specifically designed for the show. The studio layout shall provide for an elevated platform for 37 participants (similar to the one used in the Philippines’ ABS-CBN “1 vs 100” game show) and opposite to the elevated platform would be a level platform for 3 participants. The elevated platform shall provide for 100 color-coded seats. The 40 seats shall be clustered into 2 (red and white) of 20 each; the red 20 shall be divided into 2 (red-orange and red-yellow) of 10 each; the white 20 shall be divided into 2 (white-blue and white-black) of 10 each.

Each seat shall have access to electronic controls that can be used by participants. The readers shall have electronic write pads in addition to other controls they may need.
A wide screen shall be mounted opposite the elevated platform and just above the level platform. Smaller screens (but still visible to TV viewers) shall be mounted also in front of the desk of each of the 3 readers. These screens shall show for the TV viewers what the readers write on their electronic write pads, including the time he/she it took him/her to make the answer (eg, 1.7 seconds, 3.2 seconds, 4.9 seconds, etc.).
For the TV viewers at home, split screens of 2, 3 or 4 shall be designed/programmed at specific junctures of the game as the show progresses.

Selection of Participants

There shall be a total of 40 participants for every playing date. They shall be selected from texters to a number/s designated by game show producers. There shall be an extra cost for the text, and proceeds from the SMS shall form part of the game show’s operating funds. Obviously, those who send more texts shall have more chances of being selected as game participants.

Show Format

1 Theme Show of the Day

The show begins with the host/hostess welcoming the 40 participants/contestants into the show. The host/hostess shall ask the 40 participants (seated) to choose in 5 seconds 3 themes from a wide range of possible themes (flashed on the wide screen) the themes for the day. The themes (can be changed every playing date) may include: sports, documentaries, cartoons, news, talk shows, game shows, films (horror), films (comedy), films (action), films (romance), comedy/shows, soap opera, drama series, etc. It is important for the show to maintain a library of at least three to five film/video clips for each theme; which can be accessed by permission or for a fee from cable TV channels and websites like the YouTube.

The 3 themes that garnered the most number of votes from the 40 participants become the film/video themes for the day.

The 40 participants shall be divided into 37 “mind messengers” and 3 “mind readers.” There shall be two key parts of the show: first is the selection of messengers and readers portion (10 percent of the show); second, the mind-reading portion (90 percent of the show), where readers will read the minds of messengers.

2 Selection of Mind Readers

To select the 3 mind readers, a two-step screening process shall be applied. The first process shall make use of the “theme video” of the show for the day. The video shall have two parts. Each part shall run for 15 seconds.

The first part shall show spectators/audience/crowd, groups of people or animals, or individuals. The host/hostess shall ask the 40 participants to guess among two choices what the spectators are watching. The participants shall have 5 seconds to pick their answers. The second part of the video will show what the spectators are watching and shall provide the correct answer.

Those who made the right guess earn 1 point and shall qualify to participate in the second stage of the screening process.

The second screening shall show 4 slides on the screen. The host/hostess shall ask the participants who qualified to the second stage to choose what should appear on the fifth slide. Three choices shall be flashed on the screen for the participating contestants. The first 3 participants who made the correct answer shall earn another 1 point each and shall constitute the group of mind readers.

Getting through the second screening will require logic and/or verbal and non-verbal reasoning abilities.

Example 1: First slide—1 tree; Second slide—3 trees; Third slide—5 trees; Fourth slide—7 trees. The fifth slide (and the correct answer) should be 9 trees.

Example 2: First slide—picture of Abraham Lincoln; Second slide—picture of John F. Kennedy; Third slide—picture of Richard Nixon; Fourth slide—picture of Ronald Reagan. The choices are 1—picture of Barrack Obama; 2—picture of Bill Clinton; and 3—picture of Arnold Swarzzeneger. The correct answer would be 2 (picture of Bill Clinton).

The purpose of the second screening is to ensure that the mind readers are “smart” enough and having the potential to bring life and wit into the show. In this respect, it is important for the host/hostess to interact with the readers (and even with the messengers) whenever this is called for or suggested. In general, ad libs and out-of-the script repartees are suggested as fillers or tools with which to manage the time available for the show.

Once the 3 readers are selected they take their respective seats on the level platform opposite the elevated gallery for the other 97 participants (already seated). The host/hostess shall be situated in front of the elevated platform and alongside the level platform where the mind readers shall be seated.

TV Game Show: Read My Mind 2

3 Mind-Reading Portion

The messengers shall watch YouTube/cable TV video/film clips flashed to them through the wide screen, and on the basis of their facial expressions the readers shall guess what particular show are being shown on the screen. The readers can choose from three choices (A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2 or C3).

For example, if the theme for the day is sports, the choices can include A-Boxing, B-Lawn Tennis, and C-Soccer. Under boxing, more choices may include 1-Tyson vs. Lewis, 2-Ali vs. Foreman, and 3-Pacquiao vs. Barrera. The readers who choose the correct letter gets 2 points; they get another 1 point if they get their number right. The purpose of point configuration is to give credit to luck in addition to sharpness and focus. Obviously, the readers will need to be lucky to be able to get both letter and number right. Only those who guessed the correct letter can earn the additional 1 point for guessing the right number.

The readers control the length of time within which the video will roll. In no case, however, can video/film clips run for more than 5 minutes, or whatever time-limit the production staff may set (which basically would depend on the time slot available for the show). If anyone of the 3 readers feels that he/she already has an idea of what the messengers are watching, he/she can cut the video showing off, prompting the host/hostess to ask the 3 readers to write their answers on their electronic write pad within 5 seconds. The letter-number choices and their respective descriptions (eg, A-Boxing, B-Lawn Tennis, and C-Soccer) shall be flashed before the readers and TV viewers (in split screens) while the video/film clip rolls on and during the 5-second period within which the host/hostess asks them to write their answers. Under each of the letter choices are the number choices with their respective summary descriptions (eg, 1-Tyson vs. Lewis, 2-Ali vs. Foreman, and 3-Pacquiao vs. Barrera) for A-Boxing.

The TV viewers must see from their split screens what the readers write on their electronic write pads.
The messengers have access to full media (audio and video); the readers will hear nothing, they can only see the body language of messengers.

There shall be five stages for the mind-reading portion. The first stage will require the host/hostess to ask the first reader (the first one who answered correctly the second stage of screening) to choose from an array (flashed on screen and scrolling horizontally) of Cable TV channels/internet sites (like YouTube) from which he/she wishes the video/film clip taken. If, for example, the 3 themes include documentaries, he/she may choose The Discovery Channel. The 97 messengers will then begin to watch a Discovery Channel documentary on the wide screen (split screen to TV viewers). The readers will watch the body language of messengers (also seen by TV viewers on split screen).

Any of the 3 readers can stop (by pushing a button) the video/film clip from rolling, which in turn shall prompt the host to give the readers 5 seconds to choose from 3 choices flashed on their (readers) table screen and the TV viewers split screens. The reader who made the right guess earns 1 point. The reader who stopped the video/film clip earns 1 point for doing so, but loses it if he makes a wrong answer (meaning, he/she earns a total of 2 points for the stage if he/she makes a correct answer, but earns zero point if his/her answer is wrong). The first stage will not be repeated even if no one makes the right answer.

The second stage will require the host/hostess to ask the reader who made the first correct answer (the screen in front of him/her will indicate the time it took him/her to make the answer) to select from an array (flashed on screen and scrolling horizontally) of Cable TV channels/internet sites (like YouTube) from which he/she wishes the video/film clip taken, as in the first stage. In addition, he/she will also choose the group of 50 (either red or white) that will become his/her messengers. The other 6 six readers will also choose their respective groups of 50 (either red or white). Once these choices are made, the video/film clip will begin to roll and the process similar to stage 1 will be applied. The readers who made correct answer earn 1 point each, and each one in the groups of 50 messengers from whom the readers made the correct answers also earns1 point. The reader who stopped the video/film clip earns 1 point for doing so, but loses it if he makes a wrong answer (he/she earns a total of 2 points for the stage if he/she makes a correct answer). The second stage will not be repeated even if no one makes the right answer.

The third stage will be similar to the second stage, except that the readers will choose groups of 25 (either red-orange, red-yellow, white-blue or white-black) instead of groups of 50. The readers who made correct answer earn 1 point each, and each one in the groups of 25 messengers from whom the readers made the correct answers also earns 1 point. The reader who stopped the video/film clip earns 1 point for doing so, but loses it if he makes a wrong answer (he/she earns a total of 2 points for the stage if he/she makes a correct answer). The third stage will not be repeated even if no one makes the right answer.

The fourth stage will be similar to the third stage, except that the readers will choose only one person from each group of 25 (either red-orange, red-yellow, white-blue or white-black) instead of groups of 25. A messenger-participant already selected by any of the 3 readers can no longer selected by another reader. The reader with the most number of points earns the right to pick first; the accumulated time from stage 1 to stage 3 within which a reader made his/her answers will determine who will pick first in case of tie in points earned.

In choosing their 4 messengers, the reader may interview his/her prospects. The production staff will need to determine the length of time that can be made available for this interface.

The readers who made the correct answer earn 1 point each, and each of his/her 4 messengers shall also earn 1 point. The reader who stopped the video/film clip earns 1 point for doing so, but loses it if he makes a wrong answer (he/she earns a total of 2 points for the stage if he/she makes a correct answer). The fourth stage will not be repeated even if no one makes the right answer.

The fifth and final stage will be played only by 1 reader and 1 messenger. The reader with the most number of points earned shall pick his messenger from among the 37 participants and shall go on to play stage 5. As in the previous stage, the reader shall select from an array (flashed on screen and scrolling horizontally) of Cable TV channels/internet sites (like YouTube) from which he/she wishes the video/film clip taken, as in the first stage. The messenger shall watch the selected clip and from his body language the reader shall make an answer. Both reader and messenger earn 2 points if the reader’s answer is correct.

TV Game Show: Read My Mind 3

Computation of Prizes

The monetary value doubles for each point earned after each stage. For example, if a participant earns a point in the stage 1 of selection of mind readers portion, he earns a cash prize of 2,000. If he earns another point in stage 2 of that portion, he earns 4,000 in addition to the 2,000 he/she already earned. For each point earned in succeeding stages, game participants shall double their money earnings. The base amount can change (eg 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, etc.) depending on cash flow generated by the program.
Production Costs

Aside from the normal costs of running TV shows, there will be additional costs for maintaining the library of video clips. Some of the inventory may require royalty fees, which means additional costs for the library.

Source of Revenues

Aside from sponsorships, product endorsements and advertisements, the program shall earn income from a portion of the cost shouldered by prospective participants through text (SMS) messages. The production staff shall collaborate with communication networks for this purpose. Text messages can also be generated at certain portions of the show where home viewers may be encouraged to participate. Again the production staff can easily devise the mechanisms for this.

Attraction of the Show

People will watch the show for several reasons.
The first attraction of the show is variety. The production staff can maintain a big library of video clips to ensure that viewers will be treated to amusing, intriguing, entertaining, informative videos.

The second attraction will be the generated by the drama of how the participants will react at any given situation. Verbal communication is an infinite source of entertainment and amusement among individuals and groups of people.

The third attraction is layout and technical application of communication equipment. The readers and messengers will have access of initiating verbal communication among themselves at certain points of the show, through controls within their reach. The readers will have desktops with digital writers, and what they write can be seen by the messengers and TV viewers through screens right in front of them.

Bruce Lee's Style, Sugar Ray's Insight

When asked what his fighting style was, the legendary martial arts hero—Bruce Lee—said he had none. He just had to use whatever weapon was most effective under his control in any given situation. A few of his box office films showed some of the ways he used his weapons. He punched, he kicked, he bit, and he strangled, etc. his opponents.

Bruce Lee was not only a movie icon. He also excelled in martial arts competitions. He was phenomenal because he beat opponents thrice his size not only in films but also in actual combat.

His philosophy was to put himself always a step ahead of his opponent. He argued that a stronger opponent could only beat him if he hit him. Before anyone could hit him, the opponent must come close to him. And before anyone could come close to him, Bruce Lee had already hit him.

Bruce Lee said the ability to put oneself ahead of his opponent required mental and physical discipline, such as conditioning the muscles and motor systems to the task (he worked in the gym eight hours a day), openness to learn new things, and belief in one’s capabilities. He said application of power and speed can be honed to perfection with training. The power of a punch comes from the hips, he said; speed is a function both of physical conditioning and of focus.

Bruce Lee’s fighting philosophy gains resonance in the latest thoughts shared by legendary boxer Sugar Ray Leonard on the coming colossal fight between Manny Pacquiao and Oscar dela Hoya. Interviewed by James Blears of BoxingScene.com, Sugar Ray said “Manny Pacquiao can defeat Oscar De La Hoya but it’s going to take
excellent defense as well as his famed all out aggression.”

Sugar further said that the fight is intriguing, and he would watch it because of that. “… but I see Oscar as being just a bit too strong, with his reach and with his speed. It almost seems like a mismatch, but I don’t think it will be a mismatch, because also on the flip side Oscar could take him lightly. Will he? I doubt that very seriously, because Oscar needs a big win over a big name. But Oscar’s 35 years old now, and he has to be on his A game to beat Pacquiao. Pacquiao has one helluva solid chin, but can he take Oscar’s punch?”

But “you will see Oscar’s jab knocks Pacquiao back, it’s going to be a pretty short night. This whole thing is offense. Pacquiao’s game is offense, throwing repeated punches. He’s like a little Tasmanian Devil. He’s non stop. But will those punches hurt Oscar? Oscar will be in pretty good damn shape himself. He’s been hit by big guys, and I don’t foresee Pacquiao hurting Oscar. Sting him. But hurt him? No.”
“Pacquiao is very dominant with guys his size, but when he’s on the attack, he’s open, and very vulnerable. Oscar will see that…or he should see that. It’s very hard to say what Pacquiao can do and should do, because he has to be aggressive, because he’s the smaller of the two. But he also has to be defensive, to protect himself from the big punches.”

Thus for Sugar Ray, Oscar should win the fight. But Manny has chances. “I just think it would be an incredible feat for him to upset Oscar. Can it be done? YES! Anything can happen in the ring.”

When Blears asked him to comment on Freddie Roach’s saying Oscar can’t pull the trigger any more, Sugar said “You don’t lose power. I think what fighters lose as we get older - we lose that commitment to take a punch. When I was in the ring in my twenties, I would hit you, because I don’t think you’re not going to hit me back, because I’ll hit you so fast that you won’t touch me. But as I got older, when I turned thirty five and then forty, and those comebacks, I anticipated the punch coming back. So I didn’t have the same commitment. That’s the commitment in your head. I knew a consequence would come back.”

Like Bruce Lee, Sugar Ray Leonard beat his opponents because he believed he could hit them before they could do the same to him. Manny would do well to have this mindset when he faces Oscar on December 6.

Creating Conditions For A Sustainable City

Converting cities from a component local government unit of a province to a highly urbanized city (HUC) creates symbolic notions more than it brings about concrete positive impacts. It is like seeing a teen-age child telling his or her parent “Look Ma/Pa, I’m grown up now. I can take care of myself.” That is what qualifying for HUC-hood means—ie, a city must show having reached a certain level of financial capacity and constituent base. The law says that a component city may opt for conversion into a HUC status if meets two conditions: one, it earns an annual income of at least 50 million pesos and, two, its population has reached at least 200,000.

This is by no means intended to belittle the value of symbols; after all, people become productive only the moment they assume images of themselves as mature persons and stop being dependents of their parents. But for symbolic constructs to move people and institutions towards greater heights of socio-economic achievement (which is what gets to be articulated in proposals for HUC-hood) other givens must exist, such as proper and effective zoning, peace and order, positive environmental conditions, among many other things. In other words, cities become sustainable not so much because they are considered by law as HUC, but because conditions for their being sustainable and progressive have been established. People do not become productive by telling themselves they have become mature individuals; they are productive because they employ the means—skills, attitude, time, hard work, etc.—to become one.

In my view, that is how the planned conversion of Tacloban from a component city (of the Province of Leyte, Philippines) to a HUC must be contextualized. While no immediate gains (from the perspective of majority of its constituency) are to be expected, there are also no compelling reasons why such a planned conversion cannot be supported—even by the biggest stakeholder who stands to be adversely affected (or “slighted”) by its realization, which is the Leyte Provincial Government. HUCs, according to the law, are independent of the province where it is located, which in this case is Leyte.

The immediate effect of conversion would be that the Provincial Government of Leyte will lose its supervisory powers over that of Tacloban City. All ordinances and Executive Orders enacted or issued by the city, for example, will no longer pass the Sannguniang Panlalawigan for review, unlike in the case of component cities. The constituents of a HUC will also have no need to vote for the elective officials of the provincial government. Instead, a HUC can constitute at least one legislative district; its voters can therefore elect their own representative(s) to the House of Representatives.

Another immediate effect of HUC conversion would be the increase of salaries of Sangguniang Panglungsod members, among others. This alone is incentive enough for component cities to initiate the process of conversion to HUC, the Sangguniang Panglungsod being the one authorized by law to initiate such a process. Although this sounds self-serving, the increase in salaries is justified from the perspective of equity. HUC officials are bound to assume greater responsibilities, and should be properly compensated for it.

Beyond these symbolic changes and increase in salaries of city officials lies the real HUC challenge: creating conditions for a sustainable city.

Urbanization is a phenomenon where there is significant movement of population from rural areas to urban areas. Attracted by better livelihood opportunities, people leave their homes in rural areas and resettle in urban areas, especially large cities. The dramatic rise in the number of population of Tacloban City resulted not from high population growth rates but rather from intense in-migration. On the one hand, this is a positive commentary of how the city has grown economically over the years. People see it as a progressive city and want to be associated, at least economically, with that progress; they establish their livelihood in the city, become one of its inhabitants, and eventually make the place their own. Indeed the former barrio of Basey, Samar, has now grown big enough to become home of people coming from the Samar provinces, Biliran, as well as Leyte and Southern Leyte municipalities.

On the other hand, high levels of urbanization strain the carrying capacity of a city. The primary basis for its economic boom, which is the increase in population (meaning increase in purchasing power stimulates more economic activities and production), can turn to bane unless managed satisfactorily. HUCs may experience congestion, pollution, environmental degradation, rising crime incidence, prostitution and, eventually, the blight of urban poverty. All these negative effects of urbanization can contribute to the rise in cost of doing business in the area, not to mention the cost of living. They can become disincentives for investors and eventually derail the economic progress of HUCs.

One key area which Tacloban City must focus on to improve its investment climate is to promote the efficiency of doing business. Traffic congestion must be addressed through improved zoning regulations. In Tacloban, little is known about setbacks and buffer zones. It is not uncommon to see one piece of land having three or more conflicting uses. A street, for example, aside from being passageway for vehicular traffic, is being used as market or store, pedestrian area, and parking or terminal area all at the same time. In many socialized housing areas (not to mention structures in the downtown area), people have appropriated for themselves as part of their housing units what should have been left as setbacks—or even sidewalks in some cases—for the public. The main thoroughfares hardly provide areas or spaces for separate uses, such as parking and pedestrian lanes. Apart from causing inefficiency in mobility, these can create problems in terms of public safety and the overall well being of the city.

Other key concerns relate to the need to maintain peace and order, control noise and air pollution, general cleanliness and protection of the environment. How Tacloban City is able to address these concerns will be an indication of its capacity to sustain its progress as a highly urbanized city.

Oil Cartel? Just Live With It

News reports have it today that representatives of transport groups and oil companies have exchanged heated words in a consultative meeting facilitated by the Department of Energy.

The transport groups demanded another round of rollback of prices of oil products considering the continuing drop in the average price of petroleum in the world markets. From a high of USD 145 per barrel six months ago, crude oil now sells at USD 86 a barrel. The Philippine oil companies have at various rates rolled the prices of their oil products down at least 13 times already since August this year.

However, despite what seems to be a valid ground for such a demand, the oil companies insisted that cost considerations do not warrant any further price downward adjustments. One representative even explained that no amount of threats from transport groups to wage massive strikes can change the operating limits there are to the demanded price rollback.

Such a dialogue has been taking place in government regulating bodies since the time I don’t think anyone would care to remember. Why would such confrontations be important? Same tales of woes, same lines of reasoning, same results: neither government nor business can do something about easing the people’s burden with respect to the high cost of oil. People just have to live by what the market dictates. Those who make their complaints known about the oil cartel in the Philippines dictating market behavior should have understood the futility of their effort.

Even the government—during the Marcos dictatorship—tried to challenge that cartel. It put up a government corporation, Petron, to serve as counterweight to the excesses of the cartel. The cartel devoured Petron and became part of the cartel itself. What happened was one more case of an ogre that never dies.

So what are we to do? Obviously the most practical way is to do nothing; just live it and trust that everybody will at one point in their lives come to think about the afterlife.

The emergence of small players in the oil industry has yet to get the attention that Petron once got from the ogre. When they do get to reach that point one can assume that they might be important enough to become part of the league—and forget what the heck are hecklers have to say about cartel.

Nevertheless, there is a time for consumers to claim one fleeting victory while the whole ogre-making process is taking place. Transport groups for example can buy their entire inventory from the small players while the latter remain outside of the league and therefore continue to put up some semblance of competition. Cannot be done?

Those who shake their heads are proof that some are less smart than others.

The first Filipino World Chess Champion: Coming Soon?

Fourteen-year-old GM Wesley So, the highest-rated Filipino chess player and the world’s youngest grandmaster today, has not fared very well in two international chess tournaments held in the Philippines recently. But he performed exceedingly well in tournaments he participated in months earlier, namely the World Junior Championships and Under-16 World Championship, both held in Turkey. He placed 9th in the Juniors and led the Philippine team that placed 3rd in the Under-16 championship. If Wesley continues to improve in his game, he can be a World Junior Chess Champion before he reaches the age of 20 and, like World Champions Vishy Anand, Kramnik and Kasparov, eventually position himself to take the world chess crown in the future.

A good number of Filipino chess players are also pushing brilliant moves lately. The Philippines has produced three grandmasters in the last couple of years—namely So, Jason Gonzales and Darwin Laylo. It is such a bountiful harvest in the cerebral sport, and one that is unprecedented in local chess history. Several others—such as John Paul Gomez, Andrew Sanchez and Catalino Sadorra—have gained points leading to GM status. There is thus an apparent surge of renewed interest in the game of chess in the country, and much of the credit should go to the National Chess Federation of the Philippines under the leadership of Prospero “Butch” Pichay and the inspiring presence of former FIDE President Florencio Campomanes.

Chess has such an appeal that it continues to maintain a following despite a seemingly lack of institutional support for the sport. In contrast, the government and some sectors in private business offer monetary and all sorts of incentives to athletes who do well in the Olympics. Boxing (at least as shown by Filipino boxing icon Manny Pacquiao) and billiards offer compelling material rewards. Little of this kind can be said about chess. Nevertheless, the sport does flourish even without external support. It seems chess has a life of its own.

Being a “brain” sport, people used to think that ethnic groups known (at least by some sectors in the science community) to have superior brain bytes (like the Jews, for example and, if Adolf Hitler is to be believed, Aryans), have an edge over other races in the game of chess. This is like saying that long distance running belongs to Africans while basketball belongs to Americans and Europeans. But the emerging presence of strong chess players from India and China is gradually creating a myth out of what may be called superiority based on ethnicity, or racial genes.

What is more widely known is that Asians have more developed right brains than other ethnic or racial groups. The left brain is source of artistic and creative energy among humans. The right brain, on the other hand, is what makes people cope with scientific, mathematical and all sorts of objective analysis.

Garry Kasparov once said that (before he lost to Deep Blue, the chess playing computer), human beings have an edge over machines because humans can use intuition to plan ahead or map strategies in a chess game. This can mean that, all other things being equal, the one who intuits—or one who applies art or creativity—in addition to the mathematical analysis that needs to be perfected on the board, is likely to stand over and above the chess playing crowd.

The current World Junior champion is an Indian. Chinese players are inching up in the rankings among the elite group of super grandmasters. The youngest grandmaster in the world today is Wesley So, a Filipino. He has the makings of a World Chess Champion and he could be one in the future.

Book Summary: Who Can Stop the PacMan?

There was a time when The PacMan had nothing—no money, no decent clothes, no formal education, not much food to eat. There were but a few whom he could call his kin or friend. There was hardly someone he could turn to for comfort, assurance or counsel. He was so wretched it was hard for anyone to think he would come out winning this big. Yes, anyone—except probably himself.

Today, Manny “The PacMan” Pacquiao is rich in many respects. His assets are now worth hundreds of millions of pesos. By year-end, he could be a certified billionaire. He has taken college courses. He has a lovely family. The number of his relatives and friends has grown from a reluctant few to a cheering multitude the size of an entire race—the Filipino race. And he now maintains hordes of expensive advisers.

His rise from the bottom to the top is phenomenal. He started with nothing except the will to overcome adversity. He opened doors of opportunities for himself by deciding to become a boxing champion. It was a decision backed by action. He toiled as he dreamed. He worked hard in the gym to hone his God-given talent in the sport. He put effort into his craft like no one ever did. He tried to follow his star where others would not dare stick their neck out of their comfort shells. And, at 29, he has succeeded like no one ever did.

The story of Manny Pacquiao is not only about boxing. His story is also about hard work, focus and determination. His story is about faith in himself and in his God. His story is about courage. His story is about heart.

With the stuff he is made of, who can stop him from winning both inside and outside the ring?

The Dream

Emmanuel Dapigran Pacquiao was born on December 17, 1978 in Bukidnon, Mindanao, Philippines, to parents Dionisia and Rosalio Pacquiao. The Pacquiao household would eventually move to General Santos City (or GenSan), also in Mindanao, where he would eventually grow up. It was a life in GenSan—and the death of a childhood friend—which drove the young Emmanuel to build and nurture a dream.

Even as he attended public elementary school, Manny helped his family cope with its daily survival needs. He sold home-made doughnuts and all sorts of merchandise within the neighborhood. He shined shoes. The budding macho man helped mother Dionisia do some laundry work. But as in many impoverished places, no amount of work could generate income sufficient enough to lift them from abject poverty. Missing meals was not uncommon. Manny often went to school with an empty stomach, wearing worn out clothes, and unshod. The separation of his parents all the more made it tougher for the Pacquiao household to survive.
As the days went on and the daily struggles grew tougher, the will to survive and come out successful emerged from the depths of Emmanuel’s young consciousness. He tried his hand in one of those boxing matches among boys meant to entertain the peryahan crowd during fiestas. It did not take long for him and his friends to find out that he could throw away a flurry of fists. He had a boxer’s gait—the punching flair, the heart of a winner, the predator instinct of a tiger.
In between family chores and studies he pummeled a boxing bag he himself improvised. A few more exposures in those barangay fiestas gave him enough confidence to chase his boxing dream. At 14, he packed whatever could be called his personal belongings, left his GenSan home, and sailed away for Manila.

The Rising Star of Philippine Boxing

Making both ends meet was equally tough in the big city for Manny. He took all sorts of odd jobs—mostly in construction sites—before he finally found himself associated with the owners of the L & M Gym in Manila. A few days after turning 17, he debuted on January 22, 1995 as a professional boxer against Enting Ignacio in Mindoro Occidental. They fought for four rounds as junior flyweight at 106 pounds in Mindoro Occidental. Then he fought 11 times in 12 months after that, winning all of them, four of them inside the distance. Most of his fights were covered by Blow by Blow, a boxing program carried by national television. By this time, he was already the toast of Philippine boxing. A star was in the making.

The streak evidently bloated his ego. He faced his 12th opponent—a much heftier Rustico Torrecampo—exceedingly confident. His fighting condition was suspect and paid dearly for it. Torrecampo knocked him out in the third round. But Manny would soon regain his will to overcome setbacks. He learned his lessons and went on to rack up 15 straights wins in just three years, 13 of them inside the distance, four of which having ended in the opening round.
He became a world flyweight champion at age 20 when he stopped Thailand’s Chatchai Sasakul on December 4, 1998 in Thailand. But yet again he crashed. After failing to make the flyweight weight limit in a title defense against Medgoen Sinsurat, another Thailander, in 1999, he suffered his second career loss by stoppage in the third round.

He came back and won seven straight ring battles before being held to a 6-round technical draw by Dominican Republic’s Agapito Sanchez in a super bantamweight title fight against on November 10, 2001. Five months earlier Manny won the IBF super bantamweight title from South Africa’s Lehlohonolo Ledwaba. He retained his super bantamweight title 5 times before challenging Mexico’s Marco Antonio Barrera.

In a span of 8 years since turning pro in 1995, Manny Pacquiao climbed the boxing ring 43 times, or an average of over 5 times every year. His ring record: 40 wins, 2 losses and 1 draw. Of the 40 wins, 28 ended by either knockout or technical knockout; only 9 went the full route. Interestingly, all 9 fighters who went the full distance against Manny Pacquiao were Filipinos. By this time Manny had already beaten 18 foreign fighters, all of them inside the distance. Did he have a soft spot for compatriots? Maybe. It was also likely that, knowing him fully well unlike foreigners, Filipino beakbusters found it more pragmatic to simply go through the motions of fighting rather than engage the PacMan in full combat. Manny once said that his early fights ended because the other guy could not continue either due to punishment he got from him or due to exhaustion from too much backpedaling.

Little Tiger from the Philippines

Despite his resume, Manny Pacquiao faced Marco Antonio Bandera on November 11, 2003 in Texas, USA, a relative unknown and a huge underdog. Larry Merchant, the legendary sport journalist whose resume includes throwing a wicked right to the chin of a boxing fan for distracting him during a post-fight interview and one of the HBO commentators working on the Pacquiao-Barrera I fight, could not believe what he was seeing inside the ring. He had expected—along with a great majority of boxing fans—a demolition; but not the demolition of the great Mexican. He wondered how Barrera—who earlier mauled undefeated fighters and fellow future Hall of Famers like Prince Naseem Hamed and Eric Morales—got clawed by what he called “the little tiger from the Philippines.” Manny Pacquiao pulverized to submission Marco Antonio Barrera, who was then recognized in the boxing world as the People’s Champ.
“Manny Pacquiao has just shaken the boxing world…” Merchant told his TV audience. Manny’s celebrity status also zoomed away to unparalleled heights.

Storm from the Pacific

Adoring fans became a common sight wherever Manny Pacquiao went. Who is this man? Not a few rushed to offer him names. The destroyer. The Mexecutioner. The PacMan. Bob Arum of Top Rank called him a walking money machine. Interviewed by Philippine media on his arrival from the US after his sensational win against Erik Morales in their rematch, Manny called himself the “Storm from the Pacific.”

Profile in Courage

From one who weighed 106 pounds when he began his boxing career, Manny climbed the ring at 135 pounds in his last fight. In June 2008 he challenged David Diaz in a title fight for the latter’s lightweight crown. Manny has emerged a world champion for the fourth time in as many weight divisions. Regarded by boxing experts as the world’s best boxer today, pound-for-pound, Manny Pacquiao is at the height of his career. Except for nagging questions on the results of his two previous fights against Juan Manual Marquez—another great Mexican boxer—the PacMan has nothing more to prove inside the ring.

But the PacMan is not done just yet. He embarked to sail on still unchartered seas. No boxer in recent history has tried what he is going to do soon—fight somebody who belongs to a weight division two levels higher. When he fights Oscar de la Hoya on December 6, 2008 in Las Vegas, USA, the Pacific Storm will test his limits anew. He certainly is showing courage no one else may come close to doing—ever.

LottoOnline.com

© 2008 Hermilando D. Aberia

How it works

The website provides a facility for lotto players to place their bets through the internet instead of lotto outlets. Essential features of the site include opt-in tab, credit card/paypal/ e-passporte/bank transfer page/menu, PCSO products menu, lotto card pages, tabs linking to the PCSO home page and daily lotto results, etc.

Lotto players will need to be a member and register an account to be able to play and place their bets. Membership will require credit card or paypay/e-passporte accounts and a minimum deposit (20 USD or Php 1,000). The site shall maintain a database which can track the amounts deposited by each member. The member can only play as much as his/her deposit warrants (eg, a Php 1,000 deposit will allow him/her to play until his/her bet reaches Php 950.00; the site will prompt the player to re-load so that he/she can continue playing).

The database shall filter the numbers that win (including 3, 4 and 5 digits for 6/42, 6/45 and 6/49). Members who played the winning number combinations shall get their prize through their paypal or e-passporte accounts, less charges from these facilities.

To protect the members and the playing public from fraud, the site administrator shall have specific agreements with paypal/e-passporte and the site processing credit card applications and processing. It can use profits from the business to pay for services of its partners. The terms of service among all parties concerned shall specifically provide for security and protection of all concerned and to which prospective members/partners should agree when registering with the site.

How the PCSO can profit from this site

The site will serve as an additional lotto outlet and offers a more convenient facility for lotto players to use rather than falling in line at those outlets to place bets. This means it has a market. Prospective members who have no credit card can still register for as long as they have bank accounts; millions of GSIS and SSS members have e-cards which they can use to register and deposit. In addition, Filipinos overseas and foreigners can play through the LottoOnline.com.
The commissions that go to lotto outlets can be used to pay partners (credit card, paypal, etc.). It is a wonder why the PCSO has not used this kind of facility a long time ago.

Schaefer's Marquez Gambit

The call for a dream fight in Pacman-Marquez 3 has dramatically grown more intense after Juan Manuel Marquez cut down Ring Magazine lightweight champion Joel Casamayor last Sunday, September 14 (Manila time), in Las Vegas, USA.

To be sure, a Pacman-Marquez trilogy has presented itself after the two brave and brilliant gladiators clashed in a rematch last March 2008 also in Las Vegas. Richard Schaefer, Golden Boy Promotions’ Chief Executive Officer, has said in a post-fight interview that the Oscar dela Hoya outfit can offer Pacman 6 million dollars to face Marquez in a third outing. Pacman did not grab the offer but instead went on to browse his order of battle and ended up signing a ring date with the Golden Boy himself—now dubbed “The Dream Match”—and set to rouse the boxing world on December 6, 2008, again in Las Vegas. Schaefer’s latest gambit is not so much about the prizefighter in Pacman, but rather it touches on the testicular ego of any fighter.

In a recent interview with setantasports.com, Scheafer insinuated that Pacman dreads facing Marquez again. Scheafer said that while he would like to see a Pacman-Marquez 3, he believes “that Pacquiao and his team know what the result would be... The money for Pacquiao-Marquez fight is there so it cannot be the money.” Scheafer also shot down the notion that Pacman picked Diaz over Marquez because of money. For facing Diaz, Pacman was reported to have pocketed a professional fee much smaller in amount than what Golden Boy earlier dangled to propose a Pacman-Marquez 3.

These are all calculated wordwork aimed at baiting the Pacman to descend to the level of Marquez. Many people say that Marquez is an intelligent fighter, whose rabid fans are now bracing up to raise him atop the pound-for-pound ranking, beside (if not ahead), or at least a notch below, the Pacman himself. This is where the irony lies. The branded Marquez brain hardly shows in how he attracts paying fans. The net effect is he remains dreaming for compensation that is anywhere close to what Pacman has been getting.

Although at one point the Pacman corner—after two epic ring battles—has already dismissed the Marquez question as answered, a third serving continues to draw so much interest for several reasons. One is what should be an obvious appreciation of the drawing potential of a third—and hopefully deciding—match at the box office. Another is pride of the Americas. And still another arises from the strategic positioning in the rivalry between the Golden Boy where Marquez belongs and Bob Arum’s Top Rank, to which Pacman is associated.

Pacman fans feel that Marquez does not have what it takes to beat Manny. Marquez should have lost the first time they met, but one judge who obviously did not know how to count or who probably forgotten what the rules say came to his rescue. Marquez salvaged a draw and kept his junior lightweight title which at the time was at stake. The second fight was also close, but the judges ruled that Pacman won it.

Marquez fans on the other hand think that Marquez won both fights. They claim that their fighter is a far superior boxer, technically and in terms of ringmanship (whatever that means), and as shown by his hitting Pacman with more precise, if not more telling, shots. (Maybe somebody should devise an alternative scoring scheme for fights that go the full distance, like looking at whose face gets more distorted at the end of the fight, or which boxer looks more spent and is gasping for more oxygen, etc.—but that would be another story.)

The inconclusiveness of the results of the two Pacman-Marquez fights is such that one wonders if both camps of Pacman and Marquez, or whoever boxing gods may exist out there, may have fixed the outcome so that a third fight can be this compelling. The succeeding forays by both fighters in the heavier lightweight division against separate opponents have produced impressive performances—Pacquiao stopping David Diaz in 9 and Marquez demolishing Casmayor in 11—all the more whetted the appetite of boxing fans for Pacman and Marquez to rumble one more time.

Some writers have declared that a Pacman-Marquez trilogy has now become a must. And observers will probably note that proponents of such a necessity mostly come from the Americas (particularly the North and Latin America). The Pacman has demolished the greatest boxers that America can shove in front of him atop the ring. It seems Marquez is the only one there is that can check American humiliation. While these proponents anticipate Pacman’s surrender at the hands of Oscar come December 6, they also concede that Pacman’s handicap in size does not inspire redemption for American pride.

People with a flair for commerce are also attracted to the what a Pacman-Marquez 3 can offer in terms of dollars. Such a dream fight has captured the imagination of boxing fans that it is easy to figure out the millions ready to come out and pay for it. But even here money makers will have to thank Pacman for a potential market that has grown dramatically huge. For challenging Oscar and the odds, Pacman has stoked the fire and passion for boxing as a sports spectacle the world has not seen since Henry Armstrong and Roberto Duran. Pacman simply has no match in the ring, and in projecting himself outside of it; he looms twice or thrice a draw after December 6.

Finally, Pacman and Marquez constitute a proxy war between the leading fight promoters today—Top Rank and Golden Boy. Like a tree that gets known and valued by the fruit it bears, promoters keep and expand their markets by the fighters they keep. Let no one forget that both promotion outfits had early on fought tooth and nail to lock Pacman into their stables, which makes the issues surrounding Pacman, Oscar, Marquez, Arum, among others, partake of something personal of some individuals concerned. But beyond all of the personal swipes that marred their professional ties lies the need to map their future. This is about strategy. Schaefer has laid the basis for it by baiting Pacman to face Marquez. But this has nothing to do with American pride. This has everything to do with commerce.

It's the culture, stupid!

At least from the time Spain sold our country to America for an amount much smaller than the cost of the aborted ZTE deal, doubts have lingered if our sense of nationhood would ever show up. We seem like a race pretending to be a nation. And our problem, I suppose—and as pointed out countless of times before—is culture. Some say it is damaged. Others may say there is just not enough “glue” to bind us as a people.

What was it that justified Andres Bonifacio’s death at the hands of his fellow Filipinos? If we assume that his execution was legal, then I suspect that our laws have not worked in ways that inspire national unity.

What drove us to sign parity and all kinds of agreements with the US then? Because we wanted economic progress. At least that was how our leaders told—and continue to tell—us. Why are we tying ourselves up with China, among other countries, in our attempt to exploit the Spratlys now? The reason may well be same as above.

Years after we signed deals with other countries, and after putting in billions upon billions of pesos of public funds through national and local budgetary appropriations, along with billions more from loans and grants, we see what economic progress means. More and more families in the past few years have earned incomes below the poverty line; a line set so low that wags wonder if it has something to do with our height. An October 28, 2007 Philippine Daily Inquirer report says in part: “The share of the poorest 30 percent of the country’s families in 2006 accounted for only 8.6 percent of the country’s total income, while the top 10 percent accounted for almost 36 percent … the combined wealth of the 40 richest Filipinos according to Forbes Asia is P773.5 billion, which is equal to the total incomes of nearly 60 percent of Filipino families, or almost 52 million (out of 86 million) Filipinos.”

What I am trying to say is this: we lack a determined and relentless drive to propel our country forward on the path of justice and equity. Our government is driven not by strategic development needs in the context of what we see our nation to become in the next hundred years. It is driven by what compels us today until the next elections. It does not draw its power from representation; ours is a dysfunctional republic. It does not represent the people. It represents but a few interest groups in the land.

America was right. We Filipinos are not capable of governing ourselves by genuine democratic rules. On January 9, 1900, Senator Albert Beveridge boomed on the floor of the US Senate to defend the Treaty of Paris ending, among other things, the Spanish-American War. He also argued against granting us our independence; instead he urged America to colonize the Philippines.

Part of the Beveridge speech said: “… in all solid and useful education (Filipinos are) dull and stupid. In showy things … they have apparent aptitude …. In their stupidity (they) are like their carabao bulls… we must never forget that in dealing with the Filipinos we deal with children.” America went Beveridge’s way and ruled us until nobody knew when.

We are dull, stupid and poor organizers because our culture tolerates it. We thrive on being clowns because that is how we cope with the travails of life. Are we not among the happiest races in this planet? We idolize entertainers more than we hail scientists. Our culture sees individuals as members of the clan—or gang—more than they constitute a community that requires serious organizing. We have no need for visual expansion. In my limited view, two things stunt our cultural activism. One, our faith in the gang frees us from worries of this world and inhibits our concern for others. Two, our faith in the resurrecting power of the Sacrament of Penance frees us from worries of the next world; it suggests that we may defile ourselves mortally and as often as we please.

Unfortunately, that same retarded culture has sanctioned the death of Bonifacio. And it is the same culture that allows our students to disappear in the night. That same culture has, in the name of economic progress, pushed our government to strike deals with governments that satisfy the needs of a few more than they address the needs of the many. That same culture has debased public institutions and made public policy captive at the hands of powerful gangs. It is the same culture that whets immoderate greed and breeds unrestrained corruption.

We reached this point because we lack the kind of moral fitness that can allow our value systems to regroup. Where have our teachers gone? The traditional guardians of society’s morality are themselves hardly inspiring. The catholic bishops, for example, denounce gambling in all its forms. But they accept Pagcor and PCSO funds to help the poor. They are masters of rationalization. They make it easy for us lesser mortals to steal public money now and give to charity later; they make thieves look good. They are quite a sight—church, government, thieves—in a unity walk against poverty! They also preach and practice freedom. Many priests, for example, freely take liberties to break their vows.

Over at the palace, the President dishonored the words she ejaculated on the day she honored our national hero. She desecrated the electoral process by ringing an election officer at the time rigging of votes was alleged to have taken place. When her supporters explained she did nothing wrong with that “hello,” people wondered what she was sorry for. She admitted that something smelled wrong with the ZTE deal (this time not in front of TV cameras, the better, perhaps, to conceal her acting), but accorded it her official approval anyway. Far from being a creation of political noise as Malacanang says they are, these are facts made known by what the President herself said. The truth stares us in the face and the bishops urge us to seek it.

In my confusion I can only imagine the bishops may want na makuha naman kayo sa tingin. Why would we expect a President to keep her constitutional covenant with the people when our pastors blithely violate their sacred vows? Indeed, who does not sin? The only difference is some sin against private grace while others sin against public weal and accountability. One answers oneself, the other answers the taxpaying public.

Perhaps the question is not for how long we can endure a President who prostitutes her word, her office and the people she theoretically represents. Maybe the question is how wretched we can be to see the standards drop just to accommodate her moral shortage. Being called unworthy is one thing. Losing all moral balance is another. One is about lack of something; the other is about lack of everything.

Beveridge’s point slams it home: like children, we entertain ourselves even if it is time to be serious. We break our vows, say sorry, but do not feel the need to resign.

Manny Pacquiao: The World's Greatest Boxer

I wonder if there is any fight in recent history that has generated as much discussion as the December 6, 2008 Oscar de la Hoya-Manny Pacquiao fight. While there had been huge ring battles in the recent past—among them Mayweather-dela Hoya, Pacquiao-Morales, Castillo-Corrales, etc—they were huge not only because the protagonists represented the cream of prizefighting crop, but also because they looked like, from whichever way one sized them up, evenly matched. Not like this one, obviously. The Pacquiao-dela Hoya match looks like a huge mismatch. And the intriguing part of it is that while mismatches do not normally attract attention, this one does.

Aside from the drawing power of both fighters, what adds to the excitement among boxing fans and tension among partisans is the fact that nobody thought that a fight like this could have happened in the first place—ever—except perhaps Manny himself. Sure some people—like HBO’s Larry Merchant and Super Trainer Freddie Roach—have early on dreamed aloud about it, but their visions would have amounted to nothing had Manny stayed within the mold of the ordinary. That Dela Hoya needed to rationalize it—he (Pacquiao) challenged me, he said—may have helped the two fighters to come to terms, but the key still hinged on how Manny measured his limits. He said more than once he could beat Oscar; and when media announced that the fight with the Golden Boy was on, Manny’s loyal fans could only hope he meant what he said.

But still a large part of the boxing world remains skeptical. While a few—like the legendary Roberto Duran—picks Manny over Oscar; the rest of the mob feels otherwise. Reactions to the fight varied from disbelief to summary verdict: “Pacquiao will not last a few rounds against de la Hoya”, “Oscar will knock him out!”, “Midget Pacquiao—No Way!”, etc. The betting odds at Las Vegas, upon which most boxing experts base their analysis of fight outcomes, currently favor Oscar, +180 against -230 (a bet of 100 on Manny wins 180, while a 230 wager on Oscar is needed to win 100).

Viewing the pound-for-pound king Pacquiao as underdog is not baseless. Oscar has fought as a middleweight at 164 pounds, while Manny started his professional boxing career at 106 pounds. And although Manny weighed 135 pounds in his last outing against David Diaz to Oscar’s 154 pounds in his last bout against Steve Forbes—or a difference of 19 pounds—the size disparity between the two still makes it hard for ordinary mortals to imagine that one of them could be taking on the other inside the ring. The dream match obliges both fighters to go after the magical weight limit of 147, putting Manny farther away from his normal fighting weight more than it does to Oscar.

No one needs to be reminded that a pound of flesh is sacrosanct in boxing. An expensive boxing promotion can be scrapped when questions over weight limits are unresolved, as in the case of the recently-aborted Nate Campbell-Joan Guzman fight. Belts can change hands—or waists—on the same issue, just like what happened to Manny early in his career. The late Diego Corrales refused to face Jose Luis Castillo a third time because the latter stayed two pounds over the limit at weigh-in. “I have a family and children to feed,” Corrales explained, obviously alluding to the health risks fighters face when they are up against bigger opponents.

Manny has thus separated himself from ordinary mortals when he decided to face the much bigger Oscar inside the ring. Even without his size advantage, Oscar will be hard to beat. The Golden Boy glitters because he has substance. He is not a 10-time world champion for nothing. Against the smaller PacMan, he will not need to load up on his punches. He can lob left hooks and long rights like he is flicking jabs.

At his current financial stature, Manny hardly needs to take any risk. He needs something else. He must have felt—as he himself said it through media—that the challenge to beat Oscar meant more than the lure of money. Taking the challenge could have been a way of saying he needed to prove what he can do against the best fighters in the planet; and with a size handicap, he can raise the standards of prizefighting to an improbably higher level.

For daring to test his limits, Manny has given himself a stab at greatness and boxing immortality. With courage, enough preparation as well faith in God and in himself, he has what it takes to defy the odds and beat de la Hoya. Even the best of them can miss their target, and an Oscar dela Hoya who blinks for a fleeting second is all Manny needs to land a picture perfect shot. With speed and power inside the ring, the PacMan will have his chances to explode, create mayhem and come out of the match without equal.

The day after December 6 can be the start of Manny’s undisputed reign in boxing. By then the debate on who is the world’s greatest boxer ever can neither begin nor end without mention of his name.

Balangiga in Philippine-American-Spanish War History

More than a hundred years ago, a bloody encounter between small-town residents (mostly farmers) and American troops erupted in Balangiga, Eastern Samar that shook America’s war rooms and exposed its imperialist designs. The incident may have been dismissed by both American and Philippine authorities as a forgettable footnote of Philippine-American war history, but it continues to resonate with unresolved issues until today.

At dawn of September 28, 1901, the bells of Balangiga rang like they never did before. It turned out to be the signal for hundreds of bolo-wielding Balangigan-ons to attack the barracks of Company C, an elite group of the United States Army that, months earlier, appropriated for itself a military base in that town. Forty-eight of the 74 American soldiers present died as a result of the assault, while 28 native combatants perished. Up to that time, not a single band of the US Army has suffered as much number of casualties anywhere as it did in Balangiga.
The hierarchy of US armed forces raged at knowing about the carnage, one that the Americans would eventually call “massacre.” None of their generals must have thought that such an atrocity—a “terrorist act” in present-day language—could have happened with their own men at the receiving end. For a country edging to become the world’s new military superpower, the incident has, for a moment, shaken its military headquarters. Reprisal had to follow. Out for revenge, the American forces condemned Balangiga and practically all of Samar Island into a “howling wilderness,” razing houses and properties to the ground, and killing and maiming people—including women and children. The sweeping condemnation has been recorded as responsible for the death and disappearance of thousands of Samareños.

In victory the Americans left Balangiga with three of the church bells in tow. Two of the bells would eventually end up on display in Wyoming and one was left in a US military base in Korea. For years, individuals and groups (mostly from the Philippines) have petitioned the US for the return of the bells to Balangiga. But up to this day the bells remain in American possession, prompting some quarters to say in exasperation that the Philippine-American war has yet to end.

Balangiga in the context of Philippine-American-Spanish war
Spain was a global colonial power until at least at the closing years of the 19th century. Its colonies included Cuba and the Philippines. Cuba revolted against Spain in 1995 and the Philippines, through its katipuneros, did the same at about the same time. While all these things unfolded, the US has expressed its sympathy for the independence dream among colonized countries, and in particular for Cuba. The US in effect put itself at odds with the colonial interests of Spain.

Something dramatic happened in February 1898 when the US battleship Maine exploded and capsized in Cuba, claiming the lives of 250 American soldiers. America charged that Spain was responsible for the attack. In the same way that the September 11 attack pushed the US to pulverize Irag a hundred years later, American declared war against Spain. Armed hostilities broke out in Cuba in April 1898 and in Manila Bay in May 1898.

General Emilio Aguinaldo, who succeeded Andres Bonifacio as chief katipunero after a contentious political bickering that led to the latter’s own execution, had earlier agreed with Spain to go on exile in exchange of Spain’s carrying out political reforms in the Philippines. On the prodding of America, Aguinaldo in June 1898 returned to the country from his exile in Hongkong, convinced that America was helping the Philippines gain independence from Spain. He declared Philippine independence on June 12 of that year, but America did not recognize it.
Leaving the Filipinos out of their schemes, America and Spain plotted a mock battle in Manila Bay in August 1898, after which formalities sealed Spain’s surrender to America. Four months later the Treaty of Paris would be signed, with Spain formally ceding the Philippines to the US, and selling it for 20 million dollars.

The Philippine-American war followed, which ended in March 1901 with Aguinaldo’r arrest and eventual surrender. Nevertheless, pockets of rebellion would erupt from time to time after that, prompting America to implement a “pacification program” throughout the country. In July 1901 the US Army sent the Company C—widely recognized for its successful campaigns in earlier battles—to Balangiga to pacify Samar Island.

The people of Balangiga and the Americans co-existed harmoniously. But the Filipinos would eventually resent the latter’s presence. They complained of abuses being committed against them, particularly against the women. The resentment would reach a point where the bells in Balangiga would reverberate on that fateful morning of September 28.

What happened in Balangiga exposed America’s desires. Apart from helping Cuba and the Philippines gain their independence from Spain, the US in reality flexed its muscle as an emerging imperial power. America was (and is) willing to kill and to risk the lives of its own soldiers, all in the name of manifest destiny.

Defending the Treaty of Paris on the floor of the US Senate on January 1900, Senator Albert Beveridge said: “God … has made us the master organizers of the world … He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth. He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples… This is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit …”

Time for government workers to unite

The bribery-attempt controversy that hounded the Court of Appeals (CA) the past several weeks has led, after an investigation, to sanctions being imposed by the Supreme Court on the justices involved. Some say heavier penalties should have been meted out on those found to have erred, if only to salvage whatever credibility the judiciary might continue to have. Others have expressed at varying decibel notes either concurring or dissenting views.

There is just too much cash and power at stake involving the Government System Insurance System (GSIS) and Meralco—whose feud ignited the bribery scandal—that no one knows what, where and how the next scandal will explode. For now the debris coming from the blast, aside from the one which the public has already come to know as the piling up of dirt at the appellate court, looks poised to continue creating impact on the public that tries hard to make sense out of the mess, and in the process firing up opinion makers, rumormongers and kibitzers in the days to come. Already there are calls for Justice Vicente Roxas, hit hardest by the spanking from the Supreme Court, to disclose everything he knew about the GSIS-Meralco case. Already, somebody wants the lawyer of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, who sits in the Board of the GSIS, investigated.

Honorable judges being charged for malfeasance are a pitiful sight. We cannot say as much about politicians, after all judges do not get to sit where they are on account of popularity and sometimes stolen votes. They get appointed to the bench for their professional qualifications. Or at least that’s how the public should view them.

But sadly, that view—which had been shattered by cases of rogue judges in the past—may have taken irreparable blows from what is happening in the judiciary today.

I think that’s what the bribery attempt scandal was all about. The judiciary has been infested with people who got appointed not so much by merit and fitness, but rather by partisan considerations. For example, one gets reminded of questions raised a year or two ago with regard to the appointment of a Supreme Court justice whose association with Manny Pacquiao, the world’s greatest pound-for-pound professional boxer today and a key political ally of the President, was suspected to have more than compensated for the appointee’s scant qualification in relation to those of other aspirants.

Often Malacanang would argue away the President’s prerogative when the exercise of its power to hire and fire comes into question. And often, too, that argument would end all arguments. But something creeps into the system that pollutes the air, as it were. Because when people believe that theirs is a government of shaky integrity, they pound at points where it has to give, for their benefit. When people know that the government is for sale, they rush to buy at least a piece of it—for their self interest, of course. Added up we have a government that is a certified box-office hit among plunderers, grafters, scalawags, thieves, smugglers, killers, kidnappers, etc. We have a government that rots at all levels and in all its three key branches: the executive, legislative and judiciary.

The GSIS, whose funds are owned by government workers and ought to be free from partisan politics, is similarly contaminated. While on surface its beef with Meralco supposedly arose from its concern for members burdened by rising electricity expenses, in reality GSIS could not hide its partisan duty to the Arroyo government. Malacanang in turn has hardly made any effort to hide its support for GSIS’ eventually gobbling up Meralco.

What rots anywhere rots in GSIS. Reports have it that CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. has two children who occupy high-paying positions in GSIS. The GSIS has close to a million paying members whose salary is less than 10,000 pesos a month. They constitute the majority of GSIS members owning the GSIS funds. And yet they have no control over how GSIS funds are managed; in fact they don’t even have control over decisions on who should manage those funds.

The GSIS buys paintings worth millions of pesos, while lowly members get shabby treatment from arrogant GSIS employees when they apply for loans. It says its funds are growing; for example from 410 billion in 2006, funds increased to 442 billion in 2007. That rate of growth is about 7.8 percent. But with double-digit inflation, this means GSIS is actually losing, not making, money.

It is time to amend the GSIS Charter, particularly on the way its Board of Trustees is constituted. The current GSIS President, Winston Garcia, is son of a Cebu political leader and brother of the Cebu governor. The Garcias are no doubt indebted to the President; they have been credited for giving her a big margin over her rivals in the last presidential election. Under the present scheme of things, the GSIS is duty bound to serve the one who appoints its Board, and not necessarily to the government workers who own its funds.

It is time for workers in government to unite. They will need to members of the GSIS Board must come from accredited organizations representing government officials and employees. If a law cannot be enacted, then it is time for government workers to shun the GSIS and start organizing a social security organization which they can truly call their own. This is in keeping with the spirit of unionism in the public sector and the promotion of professionalism in the civil service.