james.soriano

And he should play.

The Wizards should not bench him and tank the rest of the season for hopes of winning the Lottery. In principle, that goes against everything that sports stands for, not to mention a shame to guys like Antawn Jamison and Caron Butler, who still show up, give their best effort every night, and take responsibility for the losses.

But even pragmatically, the Wizards don’t necessarily have much to gain by purposefully losing.

Theoeretically, they have a 25% chance of getting the top pick if they get the worst record. But in the 24 years that there has been a lottery, the worst teams have only gotten the top pick four times. In actuality, that translates to around 17%, which is a pretty bad deal if you keep on hoping for a good lottery pick when you could do so much more with the GM actively making moves for better players in the offseason.

In fact, sometimes to lose out on the draft is to win in the long run. Case in point: 2007 Boston Celtics, who had the second worst record that season, and should have gotten the second pick in the Draft. Instead, they got fifth. That prompted them to trade the pick to Seattle for Ray Allen, which initiated the deal that would land KG in Beantown.

That next year, they won the championship.

If they had gotten that first pick, though, do you think they would have traded away for Ray Allen and KG? No, they probably would have kept their young core and drafted either Greg Oden or Kevin Durant. Yay, more lottery.

But more importantly, it’s about Arenas gaining confidence in his knee. He has to know whether it will hold up, especially in game situations. You don’t get that from pickup games with undrafted free agents, or fullcourt workouts. If he knows his knee won’t tank on him, that will give him the confidence he needs for another breakout season next year. (It’s not gonna happen this late in the season; they’ll bring him in slowly for sure.)

And God knows how much I’ve missed Arenas. He had game to back up his swag. I want to see that arrogance back. I want to see him hit some clutch shots. I’m almost hoping for an Arenas game-winner tonight against Detroit.

If he shows premature flashes of Agent Zero, though, I’m buying his shoes over the summer.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 25 March 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

---

When the victim in a high-profile rape case that has captivated an entire nation retracts her accusations despite the decision that has already been made in her favor, and the immediate and apparent complications that would result, I can’t help but feel that something has gone horribly, horribly wrong somewhere.

The question is, where do you begin to find out?

When Nicole first brought her accusations to public light a couple of years ago, an entire nation was incensed at this blatant, deeply heinous act of oppression committed by a foreigner on our soil. It was as if the violation of Nicole’s body was a violation not only of her soul, but of ours as well. Perhaps this is why people rallied to her cause of their own will—or so it would seem.

But at the end of the day, it was not public outcry that decided this case. The real battle for justice was to be fought inside the courtroom, set against the deeply political backdrop of the Visiting Forces Agreement, which some believed allows for crimes against our people to continue without legal punishment. The irony is that our courts tried him with full knowledge that they would have no real jurisdiction over him.

Nonetheless, the courts handed over their decision, pronouncing the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

It was a decision that would not be truly upheld.

In many ways, the whole trial was a farce, themed by the undeniable observation that justice always belongs in the hands of the more powerful. As soon as the decision was cast, he was immediately smuggled in the dead of night into the custody of the United States. The rendering of the court’s decision as moot put into question our real capability to deal with our former subjugators, who supposedly now treat us as equals. To my mind, it casts doubt on whether our sovereignty and independence as a nation is not just on paper.

Yet—farce upon farce—the bigger spoof is the recantation.

This is not because Nicole should not have retracted. It was her case, and she had every right to do so. We have no right to judge her based on that decision. Whether or not rape truly happened is now out of the question, for that is something that her conscience will have to wrestle with. As far as our society is concerned, our laws have already made a statement.

Some would claim that the US bought her silence. But again, whether this is true is irrelevant now. The fact of her recantation only gives them the right to say, “I told you so.” It confirms their position of higher moral ascendancy, proving that justice was on their side all along, and only rightly so.

Others would argue that her act was a sellout. What of everyone who stood up to fight for her? What of her? Did she captivate an entire nation for this—a retraction? It is the worst kind of prank one could pull.

But I ask back: did she ask for our support? Did we not base our decision on guesswork and a trial by pubicity? Could it be that her case was simply utilized towards a greater political end: that is, to hit on the government for their flawed foreign policy? If so, again we prove them right.

There is also the question of her desire for closure and a normal life. If it is true that our government had been part of some deal that would lead her to retract, then it just goes to show that there truly is no justice in this country. We still cannot blame her for retracting.

Enough. We ponder questions that have already been answered before they are even asked.

At the beginning, I asked: here do we start?

Faced with these observations, I now ask: do we even start?

The only answer I have is the feeling that we have been the victims of a very real practical joke. They are the pranksters, and we are the duped. And in the end, there is nothing left to us but the knowledge that the joke has been on us all along.

April Fools’ Day is just around the corner.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 18 March 2009 Issue

---

Lately, open parties have been the object of much criticism and disapproval. After some heightened coverage by certain media and news establishments, the issue has reached controversial, even scandalous proportions. I’m not sure the issue deserves this much publicity, and given the power of the media to set the agenda for society by defining what we will consider as important issues, I’m not sure I approve of it.

Still, I understand the fear that parents and other interested onlookers collectively feel about open parties, given the way it has been portrayed. The fact that the barkadas who organize them responded in a reckless manner has not helped. Instead, it seems to affirm the notion that parties are a den for the mass corruption of today’s youth, and a lair for a range of activities that are, in short, bad.

These fears do have some basis in fact. Alcohol is a staple in many open parties, like it seems to be anywhere else. Brawls are not. Sex and drugs occasionally happen in a few, though far from the extent that everyone has been led to believe. You could also make the argument that the groups put on the spotlight are not exactly paragons of virtue. But is the single incident being talked about representative of the whole so-called phenomenon?

Yes, these fears do have some basis in fact; unfortunately, there is more than a fair mix of fiction. Hence, there is a need to step back from the initial shock value that this sensational issue creates.

In other words, we should be a bit more level-headed before passing judgment, since it is always easier for us to damn something that we have not witnessed.

In the first place, there is a problem with the distinction that has been made between “open parties” and other parties in general. In reality, these parties are virtually no different from college parties, house parties, and even birthday parties featuring dancing and mobile bars, where people have just as much of a propensity to go out of control. It feels like people just arbitrarily lumped together the negative qualities present in different kinds of partying, added that this is now “the rage amongst private school teens,” and christened it “open party.”

What is perhaps alarming is the fact that teenagers are organizing this, and are succeeding. If considered entirely from the now-popular perspective, this points to a problem with the way kids are being allowed to run amok: either parents give their consent (parties are often held in village clubhouses), or some rules are not being followed. This does not speak well of establishments who may be skirting some laws for profit.

On the other hand, we have based our portrayal of these parties on a single incident, and they are hardly representative of what goes on inside them.

Here is another thing that is problematic: the treatment of the entire incident. I feel that the situation has been handled irresponsibly. Our perception of this issue is based almost entirely on a version of facts which cannot be corroborated. Besides this, too many words have been exchanged by the parties involved. In the end, the incident has become mangled beyond recognition.

Trying to distill this in terms of black and white has, I fear, only enlarged the problem and exaggerated our notion of what our youth has become.

And if we are to talk about the youth, are we to view them in light of those barkadas who have been featured? Are they representative of what our youth has become? If “open parties” have generally been without incident for the last decade despite the temptations that are sometimes present, I think that says something about how we, the youth, really are.

But say for the sake of argument that they are the face of today’s youth: Do they need to grow a spine and a sense of responsibility? Definitely. Do they have a distorted sense of values? Perhaps. But are they deserving of such unregulated public exposure and pressure at that age? I’m not sure. It is easy to get angry at them, but I’m afraid this is the sort of situation that strongly reaffirms their need for rebellion.

The more I think about it, the more I begin to feel that open parties are less of an issue than people believe they are.

Still, I won’t ask for parents to go back to when they were young and did stupid things.

They were probably told off by their parents, too.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 11 March 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

---

What if we lived in a society where no one is allowed to tell anyone else that he is wrong?

Suppose, for example, that in this sort of a society, we study in a particular school. In this school, we are classmates. I am your bully. I take your food, drink from your jug, and copy your homework. I am the vampire of your school life, sucking your blood, and you are sick of it.

Suppose that you decide to speak up and complain. While you know that this is against the law, you are fed up. You tell me anyway, in direct violation of this law.

Suppose further that by violating this law, you incur a penalty. By telling me that I am wrong, your penalty is that I get—by the power of the state and the school—a free shot at your face, at that same instant.

By way of analogy, this is the situation our journalists would be in if the right of reply bill were passed. In this scenario, the journalist is the student. The public official is the bully. And the painful punch delivered to the face of the poor student is the equivalent of the painful repercussions that would result from trying to expose social wrongs.

While the right of reply is an accepted and necessary principle in any democratic society, as it is an extension of freedom of speech, it is not the principle that is put to question here. A person who is subjected to criticism may, of course, respond to accusations directed towards him. Celebrity talk shows do this all the time.

What is in question here is how the right of reply is to be implemented.

Under Senate Bill No. 2150, the reply of the person accused or criticized must be published or broadcast in the same publication, radio/television show, or website. For each failure of the said establishments to broadcast these replies, free of charge, in a period of three days after the slanderous comments were printed or aired, they shall be fined amounts ranging from P10 000 to P50 000. What motivation would any journalist have to write about what’s wrong, or who’s wrong?

It isn’t even the reply itself that is being criticized: public officials may say anything they want to defend their reputations, as far as media is concerned. What they do fear, however, is the impingement on their medium of communication. Every reply published comes at the expense of the publishers. Guilty individuals who are now provided with a cost-free weapon: legally-hijacked space or airtime.

But more fundamentally, it is important to remember that like any one of us, the media are entitled to what they are saying. They may not be forced into saying what they do not want to. In the words of Fr. Bernas, SJ, they have a “freedom not to speak.” Yet the bill comandeers the vehicles of the media for the thoughts of others, with or without their consent.

On the other hand, however, proponents of the bill validly argue that the media should perhaps exercise more control. Their advantage, after all, is the prerogative to shoot first, and this advantage should not be absolute. In effect, the bill strikes a balance between the media’s right to publish critical comments and the right of the accused to defend his or her honor.

But if we are to speak about balance, then the bill simply tips things in favor of the powerful. We cannot continue to ignore the fact that in this country, even the elite can put the law in their hands. As things stand, society’s only weapon against the oppressive elite are our words: the expositions that media publishes. All we really have is the knowledge of their wrongs, and for this journalists pay a heavy price, from death threats to actual deaths. We can expect that those with ill intent will use this leverage to exact a heavier tax from those who point out they are wrong.

It is sad to think that we now live in a society where no good deed goes unpunished. And even more so when lawmakers have the audacity to suggest that journalists get killed because they don’t have a right of reply.

But if no one else will tell anyone else that they’re wrong, who will?

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 4 March 2009 Issue (Page F-2)

---

Starting at 10:30am today, March 4, a 24-hour hunger strike will be launched in Ateneo de Manila University by members of the student community, faculty, and staff. It is part of a bigger, overall effort called “The Final Stand”, a multi-sectoral initiative which aims to forward, raise awareness on and show support for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Plan with Extension and Reforms (CARPER).

This is following following a series of movements initiated by the Church, civil society and the farmers themselves to push for agrarian reform.

Last Feb. 12, some 300 farmers from Negros Occidental and Leyte staged a peaceful rally at Mendiola Bridge, seeking the distribution of some promised portions of the Hacienda Bacan land in Isabela owned by the First Gentleman. After camping out for eight hours, waiting for the President’s reply, the farmers were forcefully dispersed by the police, leaving 21 farmers injured.

The next day, these same farmers, along with other societal sectors, tried to march back to Mendiola to await an answer, but were prevented from getting there.

Yesterday, a massive mobilization was organized by farmers and members of the clergy to once again push for the welfare of farmers, beginning with a mass at Quiapo Church and ending with a Candlelight Vigil in Mendiola following a procession.

You have got to wonder what keeps them coming back despite the deaf ears and the forceful arms that push them away.

To me, this is more than just a trend. Exactly one year and three months ago, when the Sumilao farmers first arrived in Metro Manila after three-month pilgrimage on foot, they created such a hype for the cause of agrarian reform—which created enough pressure for Malacanang to respond to their calls. While it is true that this has given birth to similar movements by other farmers from other regions, it has not necessarily resulted in success. For the most part, the plight of the farmers has still been left unheeded.

But I believe these farmers are motivated by something else. They are not just fighting for legal reforms, or the support of the masses, or even parcels of land. They are fighting for something entirely different.

They are fighting for their lives.

When June 2009 arrives and CARP expires after a so-far fruitless 6 month extension, these farmers will not get the lands that are entitled to them. And with no land to farm on, they will have nothing left to themselves, no future to give to their children. In a very real sense, the hunger that these farmers experience goes beyond mere physical sensations. It is a hunger that reflects the very real possibility of failure: a failure that will result in a physical, moral and spiritual death.

These famished farmers have everything to lose. No wonder they are fighting as if their lives depended on this. They starve for justice as a hungry man starves for food. In fact, what astonishes me more is that they have continued to keep their heads.

Consider this quality of patience against that of the land-owning elite, who have continually lost theirs and have violently suppressed the farmers’ voices, despite the fact that they have little, if anything, to lose. Theirs is not a hunger that comes from genuine need. It is one that comes from genuinely self-interested desire.

Yet the fate of these farmers is in the hands of those same self-interested individuals. All the farmers can do is to ask for their mercy and consideration. At this point, it is hard to believe that they are capable of giving either. You have got to wonder whether these farmers have even a tiny shot at achieving their goals.

In the same way, it makes me wonder whether the school’s hunger strike will have even a tiny shot at helping the farmers achieve theirs. It seems to me that reality is convincing us otherwise. And it is this sort of terrible realization that makes us all old men before we reach maturity.

But what I try to remember is that these farmers are struggling with their hungry backs against the wall. And if there isn’t anything else for them, at least my symbolic act of hunger gives them a little more hope.