from Miss Universe: a universal message

22-year-old Mexico woman crowned Miss Universe

LAS VEGAS – A 22-year-old Mexico woman won the Miss Universe pageant Monday night after donning a flowing red gown and telling an audience it's important to teach kids family values.

Jimena Navarrete of Guadalajara was first contestant to answer an interview question onstage and the last of 83 standing in the headline-grabbing pageant on the Las Vegas Strip.

"I want to give my parents a big hug," she said at a news conference after the pageant. "There was a lot of effort and a lot of sacrifice."....

Asked by Olympic gold-medal figure skater Evan Lysacek how she felt about unsupervised Internet use, Navarrete said the Internet is important but parents need to be careful and watch over their kids. "I do believe that Internet is an indispensable, necessary tool for the present time," she said through an interpreter. "We must be sure to teach them the values that we learned as a family."... /

Hurray !
It's a good thing that all the judges appreciated the answer. These Q&A portions can sometimes create quite a stir.

Btw, our bet Maria Venus Raj, got a tough question:

"What is the one biggest mistake that you have made in your life and what did you do to make it right?"

Her answer: “You know what, sir, in my 22 years of existence I can say that there’s nothing major, major problem that I’ve done in my life because I’m very confident with my family with the love that they are giving to me. So thank you so much that I’m here. Thank you, thank you so much!”

Not so eloquently said but it is a good answer likewise. Anyway, fifth place is already a great achievement. Congrats Venus, we are proud of you too.
/

On using a leash on kids

Got this questionnaire from a friend:

Hello, It's interesting how some parents/guardians opt to use a leash when outdoors with young kids (I usually see this at the mall).

I'm doing a short article for Baby mag about this and am asking parents' their ideas on the use of a leash. Pls. feel free to give your two cents

Here are the questions on my mind:

* What do you think about using a leash on kids (toddlers specifically) when outdoors? Do you think it's helpful/horrible/a brilliant tool for parents?

* Do/did you use one on any of your kids?

* Any experiences you'd like to relate, whether your own, those of friends/relatives or of strangers you've seen, concerning the leash?
/

Here goes:

I have four kids, all boys, aged 21, 19, 15, and 4.

As the three older kids are all already grown up and prefer to go out on their own, it is now only my 4 year-old tyke who remains excited (and insistent) to tag along with us outdoors, especially to the mall. In fact, one of his favorite lines is “Punta tayo SM!”. As he is a particularly frisky, strong-willed and adventurous toddler, most of the time it is my wife and I who feel we are on a leash whenever we are with him. Quite predictably whenever we are out, we find ourselves dragged to anything remotely resembling toy stores within his sight. He has an uncanny navigation system towards where the toys are, and has very powerful persuasive skills to boot. By the time we go home, more often than not, he is gleefully clutching a fresh acquisition.

Anyway, to answer the first question, I think parents using a leash on kids are motivated more by attentive care more than anything else. Granted it does look quite ridiculous, as leashes are commonly meant for, well…dogs. However, some kids are particularly frisky, too heavy to carry, hyper-adventurous (like mine), and there is always the risk of the kid breaking things in shops, causing injury to himself or worse - getting out of sight. There is little else more horrifying than losing sight of your kid in the populous outdoor. I guess the sincere concerns outweigh the image problem. The problem really here is how other people around you look at it. As long as it won’t cause any psychological problem or any sort of injury to the child, using a leash seems proportionately reasonable.

No, it never occurred to me to use a leash on any of my kids. With respect to the 4-year old, we make it a point that there is at least 2 or 3 adult companions (my wife and I plus 1 kuya or yaya), to accompany him. At any rate, I’m sure he would strongly protest if we attempted to put a leash on him. This got me into thinking. Maybe in the future when I am too old (and forgetful) to go out on my own, then it’s the turn of my grown-up children to accompany me. I hope by then they won’t ever consider using a leash.
/

Dad and child at 13

Baby-faced boy Alfie Patten is father at 13

BOY dad Alfie Patten yesterday admitted he does not know how much nappies cost — but said: “I think it’s a lot.”

Well, the 13-year old father has to think a lot more than how much nappies cost.

Daddy Alfie added:

“I didn’t know what it would be like to be a dad. I will be good, though, and care for it.”

It's good the young (a bit of an understatement) father has declared his commitment to care for the child (come to think of it, he's also a child). I empathize with him. After being a father myself to 4 kids these past 21 years, I could also say I'm still learning on how to be a dad myself. It's a real challenge that we can only pray that the child succeeds, I mean both children - father and son. I hope the time won't come that they will be fighting over toys. I myself have this continuing struggle with my own children on who gets to use our home computer first. Again I can only empathize with the boy-father. That's because I usually lose out to my kids in these types of struggles.

Which brings attention to Britain’s hugely expensive sex education programme in schools. I have this earlier post relating that Britain ponders about intensifying its already intensified sex education program. At this point I guess they really have to improve that sex education program for kids. The best approach now is to include an intensified program to teach young children on how to rear children.
/

On the Magna Carta for Women

(Ms Feny Tatad says it all. H/T sunnyday).
----
Subject: Anti-Life, Anti Family Agenda in the Proposed Magna Carta of Women

Greetings of Peace!

On Tuesday, February 17, 2009, a Bicameral Conference Committee will begin to work on the final version of the proposed Act Providing for the Magna Carta of Women. This committee will try to reconcile disagreeing provisions of the two versions of the bill from the House of Representatives and the Senate, and craft a common version which will be submitted to the two Houses for final approval. Thereafter, the bill goes to the President for her signature.

The two versions of the bill contain numerous provisions that are completely anti-life and anti-family, and thus immoral, unconstitutional, and unacceptable. They need to be expunged from the bill to make it constitutional and acceptable.. We need to pray that the members of the committee will be sufficiently enlightened to see this, and do their duty to the Filipino family as honest legislators. As of today, Feb. 9, 2009, these are the designated members:

For the Senate:
Senator Jamby Madrigal – Chair of the Committee on Women Women
Senator Loren Legarda
Senator Ping Lacson
Senator Pia Cayetano
Senator Allan Cayetano
For the House of Representatives:
Cong. Nanette Castelo-Daza - Chair Committee on Women
Deputy Speaker Amelita Villarosa
Deputy Speaker Raul del Mar
Majority Leader Arthur Defensor
Cong. Eduardo Zialcita
Cong. Juan Edgardo Angara
Cong. Isabelle Climaco
Cong. Lorna Silverio
Cong. Edcel Lagman
Cong. Liza Masa
Cong. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel
Cong. Luzviminda Ilagan

Most of them are listed as “members” of the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), the foreign-funded NGO, which has been one of the most active campaigners of the bill and the still-pending Reproductive Health bill in the House. PLCPD works with CEDAW Watch Philippines (Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which is the frontline organization for this bill. Some of the most toxic provisions of the RH bill have found their way, in some altered form, into the proposed Magna Carta, with virtually nobody in both Houses noticing before the approval of the two bills on second reading.

You will recall how the simultaneous approval of the bill in both Houses caught everyone by surprise. It was a Pearl Harbor attack against the family and human life just before Christmas. To our greater surprise, an appallingly large number of the members of Congress were not completely aware that the bills had breezed through second reading and that what remained was the pro-forma approval on third reading on the printed version of the bill. The Senate reconsidered its approval on second reading to accommodate new amendments, but some of these amendments merely aggravated the assault on the family and the Constitution. The buzz is that the bill is being fast-tracked to become a centerpiece of the Women’s Day celebration in March this year.

We have not relented in our efforts to purge the final version of the bill of its unconstitutional and anti-life and anti-family provisions, but we need to accompany these efforts with intense and unceasing prayer. And action.

We have learned from highly reliable sources that at a pre-bicam meeting in the House on Feb. 9, Congressman Lagman, the principal author of the RH bill, suggested the removal of proposed provisions that would assure the bill’s conformity to the Constitution and existing laws, and anchor it solely on its adherence to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other international instruments. These instruments contain provisions which are in direct collision with our Constitution and existing laws. Lagman also reportedly suggested the retention of all the unacceptable provisions, objections to which the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life and the CBCP Office on Women have already formally communicated to the two Houses. Please note that majority of the members of the House of Representatives Bicam panel agreed with him, I was told.

Here is a short list of the patently unacceptable provisions:

1. In the Senate version :

In the Declaration of Policy:

a) “No one shall invoke religious beliefs or customary norms as a means of
evading compliance with this Act or preventing another person from exercising her rights (as introduced by Sen. M. Santiago); Provided, That each individual shall make their own decision based on their respective religious, moral and cultural beliefs (as introduced by Sen. Pia Cayetano).

The first part of the sentence is in direct collision with Art. III, Section 5 of the Constitution on religious freedom, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The second part of the sentence is irreconcilable and contradictory with the first part. Art. III, Sec.5 of the Constitution provides:
“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.” Under the Senate provision, religious belief and practice will now have to bend to the Magna Carta; the State will now decide what religious beliefs the people can practice, which are not in conflict with this proposed Act. This is unconstitutional. The provision must be deleted.

b) “.Consequently, all human rights have equal status and cannot be positioned in a hierarchical order.”

The right to life precedes other human rights, since without life, there is no human being to possess and exercise any other human right. It must be deleted.

c) “Expulsion, non-readmission, prohibiting enrollment, and other related discrimination of women students and faculty due to pregnancy out of marriage shall be outlawed.”

This collides with the constitutional provision on academic freedom, which empowers the schools to decide whom to admit and retain, and who will teach the students, as well as the constitutional mandate that schools shall strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline among students and teachers. The provision suggests that getting pregnant outside of marriage is a woman’s right which everyone must respect. It must be deleted or replaced with something like this:

“No school shall turn out or refuse admission to a female student or faculty member solely on account of her having contracted a pregnancy outside of marriage during her term in school, except after due process as provided for by the appropriate school authorities.”

d) On comprehensive health services:

Item 6 – “Prevention of abortion and management of abortion complications”

Deletion of “and management of abortion complications” had been proposed but disregarded. Since abortion is a criminal offense, the State would be sending conflicting signals with such a clause. Omission of this clause will not deprive women who are victims of accidental abortions of medical care. In fact, it will not deprive women who have contracted abortion willfully from medical care. Judging by the fact that no woman, or even abortionist doctor, appears to have been prosecuted for abortion, the only logical conclusion is that women do get medical care without any hassle after an abortion. This constitutionally untenable language has to be deleted.

Item 3. “Family collaboration in youth sexuality education and health services”

Under the Constitution and moral law, parents have the primary right and duty to educate their children. This is especially so in the matter of sexuality. Parents may seek the assistance of the Church or the State in the exercise of this right and duty, but it would be wrong to let the State assume this primary right, and the parents merely “collaborate.” This has to be deleted.

e) On equal rights relating to Marriage and Family Relations:

“The same rights to enter into and leave partnerships or relationships without prejudice to personal or religious beliefs”

The bill does not define “partnership” or “relationships.” It is a blind alley. Neither the Constitution nor the Family Code recognizes such terms, and a homosexual or even heterosexual “partnership” that claims to have all the rights of marriage cannot have such rights. Art. XV of the Constitution provides: “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.” The family, in turn, is the foundation of the nation. The above-quoted provision of the bill must be deleted to protect the family as the Constitution wills it.

2. In the House Version:

a) Gender defined: “Gender refers to the socially differentiated roles, characteristics and expectations attributed by culture to women and men”

A person’s sex has always been determined by nature; a person is either male or female, according to that nature. The new concept of gender, according to United Nations documents and other international instruments, argues that a person’s sexual identity is not limited to male or female, but may be expanded by personal choice and social construction. Thus, one could be either a male or a female heterosexual, a homosexual, a lesbian, a bisexual, or a transgendered individual, depending on one’s sexual preference or orientation. This provision seeks to replace a person’s divinely and nature- ordained identity with a self-constructed gender arising from one’s sexual preference or orientation. This has no place in our laws.

b) On Human Rights of Women

“All rights of women shall include all rights recognized under international instruments duly signed and ratified by the Philippines which are not violative or in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution and other existing laws.”

Our information is, Cong. Lagman wants to delete the clause “which are not violative or in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution and other existing laws”in the pre-Bicam House meeting. He also reportedly wants to delete the words,“in consonance with Philippine law” in the Senate version on the same subject. The clause must stay.

c) On comprehensive health services:…”following services shall be ensured:

Item 3 – Legal, ethical, medically safe and effective methods of family planning.

Cong. Lagman reportedly wants to strike out the word “ethical” from this provision, obviously to bring it fully in line with his RH bill. Ethical must stay. He also wants “management of abortion complications” to remain in the bill. This must be deleted.

This list is not exhaustive, but it gives you an indication of the many bad things some legislators have succeeded in inflicting upon an otherwise badly needed bill.

We need to reach out with sure purpose and speed to the members of the bicam conference and all members of Congress to persuade them to be faithful to the Constitution and to our Christian culture. To reject fidelity and service to both, for any reason whatsoever, is a serious form of moral and intellectual corruption, which should not come from legislators who are so eager to denounce the economic corruption of other people.

We have to reach out to all our legislators in the next 6 days. It is a Herculean task but with system and efficient distribution of labor it can be done. Visits to the legislators to present concerns are always effective. So let us all move!

Attached is a directory of Congress for your use. It has their office numbers and their email addresses. The Senators can be reached through the Senate trunkline – 02 5526601. You may also check the Philippine Senate Website for their individual office numbers and email addresses.

There is no time to waste. Let us consecrate this effort to our Lady of Lourdes, whose feast day falls on February 11, so that she may help us turn the hearts of all our friends in Congress.

Thanks and God bless!

Very sincerely yours,

Ma. Fenny C. Tatad
Executive Director
Bishops- Legislators Caucus of the Philippines
/
Thank you Ma'm Feny.
God help us.

'Queen' enthroned for helping Maranao poor

The inquirer report details the story of this Muslim lady who devotes her life to looking after thousands of poor in Lanao, and the victims of war that flared up in the region and other neighboring provinces eight years ago. Now she is being honored by those she has helped by being “queened” in her province.

36-year-old Baicon Macaraya set aside the glitter of the law profession in favor of a life of service to her war-weary province in Mindanao. She became the founding chair of the youth organization, Bangsamoro Youth-Ranao Center for Peace and Development. She oversaw the daily needs of thousands of evacuees staying in schools. Her group handled the reconstruction of about 500 houses, six mosques and five schools destroyed by the fighting in Maguindanao and Lanao del Sur. She helped launch the advocacy group, Mothers for Peace, to push for an end to the conflict in Mindanao because women and children are the greatest casualties of war. Macaraya is now involved with the United Nations World Food Program, touring schools to distribute rice, to make sure children stay in school and to address the food security needs of people living in conflict-affected areas.

Towards the end of the story we get a glimpse of how this remarkable lady developed a golden heart for the poor and oppressed. She simply learned from her parents the value of charity and compassion. She vividly recalls an incident when one night her father returned home from work with a bag of rotten tomatoes he had bought from an old vendor. "I asked him why he did not buy the good ones. He told me that if he did not buy them, the old man would have stayed longer out on the streets selling tomatoes," she said. Her mother, on the other hand, believes in simple acts of charity. Her mother would always cook extra food for unexpected visitors. "She would also always eat last to make sure everybody has enough. Those simple things really instilled in us the value of helping others," she said.

This is a refreshing story amidst all the depressing news nowadays. Today’s Filipino Christians should learn a thing or two here, most especially the lasting mark of parents - the very thing that struck me most in this moving story.

Practicality vs Morality

Yesterday, my wife and I attended this parenting talk sponsored by my son’s high school PTA, where a well-known ad agency was sharing some of its findings regarding a 2005 study they made on Teen Attitudes and Trends in the Philippines. The ad agency made the study purportedly to help them devise strategies in selling soft drinks and other consumer goods, but found some revealing data which they decided to share with academe for educational purposes. My hat tip to this ad agency. They promised to issue a public copy of the survey, and I will be more specific when I get to that.

Their study revolved around a survey of various age groups about many areas of preferences, which were garnered by posing these two questions:

1. Which ones are right or wrong?

2. Which ones are acceptable to society?

Among the areas surveyed were the following:

- Casual Sex

- Hazing

- Gambling

- Pornography

- Abortion

- Taking something without paying

As of the year 2005, around 50% of the teen group (aged 20 and below) generally found the above items more “right” than “wrong”, and found these items more acceptable to society. That is certainly a revealing insight into our teen group’s perceptions. What is more revealing though is that the next age group (21-30) were even more - shall we say liberal, in that more numbers in this age group thought the items in question were “more right than wrong”. This led the presenter to surmise that, contrary to common views, older people tend to be more liberal than their teen-aged counterparts, and that as we grow older, we tend to loosen up on personal values.

It was surmised further that young people increasingly go for what they deem are “practical”. For instance, it was noted that abortion might be deemed more practical for a teenager with an unplanned pregnancy, considering in large part the practical avoidance of consequent disruption in studies and preparations for a career.

All of which says that a significant portion of our population is taking on a more amoral stance - something of a variance in a country comprised of 85% or so Catholics. It may be said here that objective morality does not hold sway over notions of practicality. This is certainly something that psychologists, sociologists, educators, religious moralists, and of course –soft drinks and other consumer goods manufacturers, should further look into. I am not sure how it goes, but somehow I am seeing the connection with the corruption scandals we are seeing in our country right now.

Abstaining from Meat (2)

My response on the subject elicited a rejoinder, here goes:

"Good to hear from you again, Willy.

During the old testament, the law only prescribed fasting on the Day of Atonement, that's once a year. All other fasts were supposed to be voluntary, for specific reasons such as penitence and earnest prayer. Fasting is good, but when required, it becomes legalistic. People tend to do the law by the letter and not by the spirit. Jesus rebuked the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-18) who did more than is required by any biblical standard. Legalism is commanding what should be voluntary. Not even the Holy Spirit forces one to be spiritual let alone the church with its own canon laws. The passage in First Timothy should put this pagan practice to rest.

Regards,
xxxx"

My reply:

xxxx,

How I wish people learned laws by themselves without anyone commanding them, that they learn to assume doing what is right voluntarily - "by the spirit and not by the letter". This reminds me of the time when I was a kid. My father (now deceased) used to enact a lot of strict rules around the house. I never fully understood most of these rules and so I deliberately disobeyed some of them. After a few run-ins with those rules my father made me understand he meant business, and I toed the line grudgingly. With respect to discipline, he left no rooms for options and volunteerism. I resented some of them, although initially, I followed most of them anyway in fear of consequences. One gets used to rules later on in life, and eventually I followed all of my father's rules out of understanding, respect, and love. I realized those rules were meant to protect me and to mold my character as a person, in preparation to being a responsible individual in the larger sphere of society. Now, being a parent myself, I have enacted similar rules for my own kids. The family is where one first learns to interact, to love, to know God, and yes - to recognize authority and follow rules. Now I know why the family, the basic unit of society, is also called a Domestic Church.

Regards,
- Willy

on OFWs

Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) calling Int'l Direct Dial (IDD) from abroad:

HUSBAND: Hon kumusta ang tindahan? (Honey, how's our small store business going?)
WIFE: Department istor na! (It's already a department store!)
HUSBAND: Ang Tricycle?
WIFE: It's now a Taxi business!
HUSBAND: Ayos! e ang dalawa nating anak? (Great! and how's our TWO kids?)
WIFE: eh..LIMA na!... (oh...there's FIVE now!...)

Jokes circulating on the OFWs such as these would be quite funny until the ring of reality hits. Carlo Osi in his column today over at the the Inquirer sees the Filipino diaspora as a form of revolt on the frustrating political-economic conditions. Meanwhile, Hubert D'Aboville in his ABS-CBN opinion piece, laments the brain-drain and hits the button on the social costs, saying:

"An average household has five members. The Philippines has a population of 90 million souls, including 10 million abroad. You do the math on how many Filipinos are living dysfunctional lives. What is the true cost of those broken families?"

But the government does not seem to be interested in counting the social costs with as much alacrity as counting the dollar remittances ($15B in 2007). Whenever one of the parents are physically separated from the family for whatever reason, it becomes dysfunctional outright. A family is meant to be together. Of course there's the long-distance call (like IDD - see above) , email, internet and maybe even PC video-conferencing. But nothing beats live, warm interaction. For how can you hug, kiss, wipe tears, pat backs, and give your shoulder to cry on - if you are thousands of miles apart?

An OFW's contract goes for anywhere from 2 to 6 years. Most of them renew contracts as often as possible. Once an OFW, most likely they remain OFWs all their lives, as the local job market won't take them. Due to the urge to save more money to send home, home country visits are very limited and far in between, saving the plane fare costs. Thus it is fairly expected that a lot of things may change in those many years that they are in a faraway land earning keep for the family (and extended family) back home.

But that's the price you pay. You just can't make up for the lost time that you were away for example, in your children's formative years. Parenting is hard enough even with the husband and wife joining forces, and each does have unique gender roles in parenting. Children grow fast in your absence, you may not recognize them, they may not recognize you when you come back after a long while. You miss them and you miss your spouse a lot too, but hopefully, absence makes the heart grow fonder. Otherwise the joke may be on you.

Lets pray for the OFWs and their families.