Overheard on the news vol. 2: RP Bill

On Umagang Kay Ganda,Alex Santos reports on the state of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, now called the Responsible Parenthood (RP) Bill:

"...ang Simbahang Katoliko ay rinerespeto ang opinyon ng ibang mga relihiyon ukol sa Reproductive Parenthood Bill..."

...ano daw?

Penitensiya

Photo by Jay Jacome for Flickr

Semana Santa nanaman. Ibig sabihin, wala nanamang pasok. Ang Pilipinas ay isa sa mga mapapalad na bansa na walang pasok tuwing Semana Santa o Holy Week, kahit hindi opisyal na relihiyon ang Katolisismo. Samantalang nagpaplano ng mga outing ang marami, meron namang iba na itinuturing na magandang pagkakataon ang mga araw na ito para mapalapit uli sa Diyos. Bakit? Siguro kasi pag hindi Semana Santa, puro kasalanan ginagawa nila.

Maraming mga tradisyon ang Pilipino sa pag-gunita sa Semana Santa. Nandiyan ang palaspas, ang pabasa ng pasyon, Visita Iglesia, at marami pang iba. Pero pinakatampok sa mga rituwal na ito ay ang pagpuprusisyon ng mga nagpepenitensiya, na habang naglalakad ay sinasaktan ang kanilang mga sarili, at kung minsa'y nagpapapako pa sa krus. Ginagawa nila ito upang magpakita ng pagsisisi sa mga kasalanan nila o para matupad ang kanilang hiling.

Wala nang bago dito dahil taon-taon nang naging tradisyon ito sa mga probinsya. Nagulat nalang ako ngayong taon nang makakita ako ng mga nagpepenitensiya sa Maynila, Huwebes Santo pa lang. Hindi ko alam kung bagong bagay ito o ngayon lang talaga ako nakalabas ng bahay ng Huwebes Santo, pero ayun sila, linalatigo ang mga sarili, naglalakad ng naka-paa, sa gilid ng mga lansangan ng Maynila.

Samantalang nakakatuwa isipin na mayroon tayong mga tradisyon na sariling atin, na hindi natin minana lamang sa mga Kastila o ginaya sa mga Amerikano (kahit base ito sa relihiyon na ipinilit sa atin ng mga Kastila), hindi ako sang-ayon sa pagpapahirap sa sarili para ipakita ang pagsisisi. Una, wala namang iniutos ang simbahan o ang Bibliya na gawin ito, kaya mahirap paniwalaan na may epekto ang rituwal na ito kung ang mismong nagtuturo ng doktrina ay hindi naniniwala dito. Pangalawa, bakit naman kailangan pang sa kalsada gawin ang pagpapahirap sa sarili? Dahil nakakahiya para sa kanila? Oo, dapat talaga mahiya sila, dahil lumalala ang trapik dahil sa kanila. Pangatlo, dapat bang ikaw ang magpataw ng parusa sa sarili mo para sa kasalanan mo sa iba? Parang hindi naman yata tama yun. Kung sa Diyos ka nagkasala, dapat siya ang magpataw ng nararapat na parusa. At hindi ba kung manghihingi ka ng tawad, ang iisipin mo ay kung paano makakabawi sa kasalanan na ginawa mo? Kung may utang ka, babayaran mo. Kung may nasira ka, gagawin o papalitan mo. Kung binastos mo syota mo, gagastos ka ng malaki para sa regalo o bonggang date, at ipapangako na hindi mo na gagawin ito uli. Ano kaya magiging reaksyon nya kung imbes na humingi ka ng tawad ay sugatan mo nalang bigla ang iyong sarili? Iisipin siguro nya emo ka. Baka ipasok ka pa sa mental.

Eh pano naman ang mga nagpepenitensiya? Bukod sa mga sugat na tinamo nila, ano pa ang ginawa nila para mapatawad sila? Baka naman pagkababa nila sa krus, sa beer house ang deretso. O dahil ba nahirapan sila, ibig sabihin kailangan ibigay ang hinihiling nila? Genie ba ang Diyos!? Baka nga Mahal na Araw lang nagsisimba ang mga yan eh.

Well, malay ko ba. Hindi ko naman kilala yang mga yan. Siguro ang gusto ko lang talagang sabihin, kung gusto nyo sugatan ang sarili nyo, wag naman sa kalsada. Trapik na nga eh, isasara nyo pa yung kalahati ng kalsada. O baka naman pag mag-isa lang kayo sa bahay na nagpapakahirap, hindi na pagpepenitensiya ang tawag dun; emo na.

Life, death, and beauty

Photo by Don Farrall for Getty Images

Think your wedding is the most important day in your life? I think not. This may sound morbid, but I'm excited about my funeral. Not because I want to die, but because funerals are where your loved ones look back and echo "he was such a great person". At funerals people can only say good things about the dead, either out of respect, or out of fear of offending the bereaved. Funerals are the ultimate reflection of who you were: the more people show up and cry, the higher the value of your life. At least that's how I see it.

But really, how do we measure the value of each life? And don't give me that "all life is equal" crap. That's just not true. Some people were born with the skills to reach the top, while most people find solace in mediocrity. Some people become presidents, CEO's, actors, astrophysicists, and some people become waiters, construction workers, vendors, or call center agents. You can bet more people will grieve at the first list of people's funerals, with people remarking how "there will never be another" or how the deceased's "contributions to society will never be forgotten". You won't hear a eulogy like that for a janitor.

Which leads me to my main point of contention. What makes AJ Perez's death so newsworthy? Sure, he was way too young to die. He was a good kid. It's sad. It's tragic. But are the daily news updates really necessary? A lot of young, good people die unexpectedly every day. Well, I guess the difference is, they don't have the same fresh, innocent, well-proportioned face, and they don't usually have shows on one of the country's leading TV networks. My point is, AJ Perez wasn't special simply because he had a great personality, or that he had great potential as an actor. Even if those were true, at the heart of it all, AJ Perez was special because he looked good. That was what made him a star in the first place.

This unfortunate event has led me to wonder: just how much do people value physical appearance? Do people think less of us if we aren't aesthetically pleasing? Are we perceived as less intelligent or less capable simply because we don't look the part? And if we were more attractive, would we have better chances? If AJ's death is any indication, we probably would. He's practically a national hero, the way his death is being covered by the media.

I don't think it's wrong to judge people based on how they look. Hell, I do it all the time. It's just amazing to see just how much of our judgment is based on physical appearance, where it could mean the difference between a common high school kid and a well-loved actor. Sure, AJ may have been talented, and from what I hear on the news, was a very good-natured young man. But would the country have given him the same chance if his face was crooked?

Should we condemn beautiful people and rally to raise awareness for ugly people's rights? No, of course not. It's human nature to appreciate beauty. It may not be fair, but very few things in life are fair anyway. I guess it's just something we all have to deal with. So don't judge me if you see me lined up at Watson's holding a basket full of personal care products.

Hope of the poor? Hindi rin.

Photo taken from Manila Bulletin

Willie Revillame, revered game show host of the Philippines, is in the midst of controversy yet again, this time for allowing a 6-year old boy to do a "macho dance" multiple times in his new show, Willing Willie. While I do feel strongly about what happened, a lot of people have already expressed their views on it and I don't think that I can add anything more substantial than what has already been said. What I am more disturbed about, however, is how people still continue to support the show and the embattled host.

Going against the overwhelming number of people denouncing Revillame for what happened on the show, fans of Revillame continue to staunchly defend their hero, saying he gives hope to the masses, that through the show he gets to help the poor by giving away huge prizes. What's sad is these people don't seem to have any idea of how TV shows like Willing Willie work.

Money and TV


First, we have to understand the broadcasting industry, particularly TV. Shows produced by TV networks need a lot of money. From the talents to the production equipment to the actual broadcasting of the shows to homes: it takes a whole lot of money to do. Now, they don't really charge viewers for enjoying these shows, even though they receive the benefit of watching TV. So who pays for everything? Advertisers. That's why there are a lot of commercials in local networks.

Now, how do TV networks attract advertisers to pay for airtime? The answer is ratings. Ratings are measurements of how many people tune in to a particular network at a particular time. Basically, higher ratings=higher demand for airtime=higher prices. These prices can go as low as tens of thousands of pesos, especially for early morning shows like Umagang Kay Ganda or Unang Hirit, or as high as close to a million for primetime shows like Willing Willie. Hence, networks are always battling for higher ratings, especially during primetime (around 6:30-9:00 PM), where they can demand higher prices.

The real reason


From there, we go back to Willing Willie. If anyone thinks that the goal of Willing Willie's existence is to give hope and uplift the lives of the poor, you are sadly mistaken. Just like any other show, the goal of Willing Willie is to gain the highest rating possible at its timeslot, so they can gain more advertisers. If Willing Willie genuinely wants to help the poor, then Revillame should just give away money to whoever needs it. But who would watch that? The show's goal is to get higher ratings by capturing a larger audience. Hence, they make their contestants do embarrassing things, people would laugh, and people would tune in.

Hope of the poor? I think not. First of all, how many people do these shows actually help, relative to the general population? Not that many, I would guess. Very few from the provinces I assume, and poverty is definitely worse there. And since we touched on the topic, does the money even go to who deserves it the most? Does it go to the poorest contestant, or even the one that has the biggest problems? Of course not. Then how can this show ever be called hope of the poor?

The sad reality


In the end, it's all about ratings. Using the poor as makeshift entertainers, so more people would tune in, and more advertising income for the network and the people who work there.

I am not against game shows, and I don't dispute the entertainment value of these shows. They definitely are fun to watch, and I guess to a certain extent, they do help the poor. But don't think for one second that these networks genuinely want to help. It's all theatrics. They give away big prizes and make a big show, not for the poor, but for the advertisers who pay for everything. In the end, it's just another way of making more money for the network. Do you think TV5 would continue airing Willing Willie if it got poor ratings? They'd probably replace it with another show, something that would bring in larger audiences.

I'm not saying game shows should go off the air. What I'm saying is that Filipinos shouldn't defend the shows on the basis of "it gives hope to the poor." All it is really, is a show that's meant to be entertaining, so more people would watch, and more advertisers reeled in. If you want to help the poor, look for a charity that doesn't need theatrics to alleviate poverty.

ADRANTS vol. 2: Luky Me! Lomi

Now this is a commercial that's definitely targeted to women. Despite the obvious attempt at portraying Derek Ramsey as man's man (few words, gray apartment, rock music), his moans of pleasure right before his "few words" are a little disturbing for the male audience. Also, Derek Ramsey eating instant noodles? Not convincing. With that body I imagine he eats very little outside of protein shakes and probably dumbbells. In fact, in some shots, you can clearly see he's angry at the crew who forced him to eat instant noodles. Or is his face also too ripped to smile?

ADRANTS vol. 1: Greenwich

Note to all marketing and advertising people: Slapping on a "for men" label on your product does not automatically make your product more appealing for men. Especially on food. I would understand when shampoo or lotion or adult diapers have variants which say "for men" (along with "manly" colors like gray and dark blue), because these products don't normally appeal to men, and it may be considered unmanly if you buy these products. But food? Man hungry, man eat meat. The qualifier isn't necessary, and may cause the brand to be perceived as trying too hard, especially after showing scenes of men who like embracing other men, who also apparently likes pizza "for men". Using "cheesy" is actually a good idea, using it both figuratively and literally. Unfortunately it was ruined because someone in the marketing department had the brilliant idea of selling pizza using a strategy also used by beauty products.

The price tag of an image

(originally published in the August 2009 issue of The LaSallian, the Official Student Publication of De La Salle University)

Photo taken from tonyocruz.com

“Anak, itabi mo”

Roughly translated to “son, pull over”, these are the now-famous words of Senator Mar Roxas in one of his TV commercials. It would seem like the campaign period started early for the May 2010 elections, as the Filipino public is already being bombarded with political ads since October 2008. Disguised as infomercials, those who have announced their plans to run for office next year can be seen everywhere – in TV, in print, on the radio, even on the web. Of course, judging by how long their faces are shown in these commercials, no one would think these are to “promote advocacies”.

In Mar Roxas’ commercials, it is very clear that he is trying to say that he cares about the poor. The senator even talks to them about the communities’ problems, and how no other politician seemed to care except for Roxas. In Senator Manny Villar’s case, the commercials would make it clear that his family used to be poor, and because of that, he’s more likely to help other poverty-stricken Filipinos. Another presidential hopeful, Makati City Mayor Jejomar Binay’s commercial shows how life is in Makati – free education, higher wages for government employees, free health care. A logo states that the ad is for the foundation anniversary of the city, but the line at the end of the commercial reveals its true intentions: “Ganito kami sa Makati, ganito sana sa buong bayan” (This is how we are in Makati. I wish that this is how we will be for the whole country).

While political advertising is perfectly legal thanks to the Fair Elections Act of 2001, it should be done during the campaign period or ninety days before the polls open. Advertising spending also has a limit, to somehow ensure fairness and prevent politicians from staling public funds. These early “advocacy” campaigns clearly undermine the purpose of the law, making it hard for other candidates who are not as wealthy to get the same amount of recognition from the public.

No one is being fooled, except maybe for the Commission on Elections, which has taken no action against these ads. The public, however, is probably sick of these repetitive ads. A more immediate concern is how much these commercials cost. Production of a high-quality commercial could easily reach seven figures, and airing them on national television costs another several hundred thousands of pesos, multiplied by how many times it would air. Villar and Roxas have already spent close to 400 million pesos on these commercials. While they were apparently paid for by either themselves or their friends, it is still a massive waste of money, especially in a country which desperately needs it.

What’s so wrong about Philippine politics is that the personalities are overemphasized. Very little has been said about candidates’ platforms. Instead, they take the role of products being advertised, establishing a strong unique selling point to the voters. That is why a lot of celebrities and media personalities successfully transition into politics. Filipinos are more interested in who they are voting, not what the candidates will do when they get elected. In turn, hundreds of millions of pesos are being spent on advertising: money which could have gone to actually helping the poor instead of trying to publicize themselves and the values they supposedly hold.

Filipino voters are getting smarter. The effects of these ads are waning, according to surveys by the Social Weather Station (SWS). If politicians want votes, they need to take actual action, and not just after they announce their intentions to run after the elections. If they already have a position in the government, they should make the most of what they have before aspiring for a higher position. They should take advantage of their terms and do good for the people, instead of trying to put up an image that is obviously contrived. Moreover, they should stop wasting resources on advertisements. Voting shouldn’t be about choosing who has the best image, but determining who is most qualified. Expressing good intentions through advertisements is alright, but actually living up to that image that was created by these ads is infinitely better.

Death Penalty: The solution to nothing

(originally published in the January 2009 issue of The LaSallian, the Official Student Publication of De La Salle University)

Photo by Andrejs Zemdega for Getty Images

With the recent buzz on certain drug pushers from wealthy families dubbed the “Alabang Boys”, talks about the death penalty are scurrying about. Senator and majority floor leader Juan Miguel Zubiri attributes the alarming criminal activity in the country to the abolishment of capital punishment back in 2006. While it might be true that some criminals only did what they are convicted of because they didn’t deem squeezing into a tightly-packed prison as threatening, is the number significant enough to justify the reinstatement of a penalty which is essentially legalized killing?

The death penalty was repealed by the 1987 constitution, after the Marcos regime. It was brought back by former President Fidel Ramos in 1996, reportedly in response to rising crime rates. A decade later, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo once again removed it. Was the national crime rate affected significantly? Not exactly. In the years of the Ramos Administration, crime rates were steadily declining, regardless of whether the death penalty was enacted or not. Starting from 1993’s 145.7 crime incidence per 100,000 of the population, it went down to 112.8 in 1995, just before Ramos brought back capital punishment. It continued to decline steadily, only slightly rising in some years. The lowest crime rate reported in the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB) website was in 2006, 81.9, even after the current president removed the death penalty. It rose significantly in 2007, but is mainly attributed to political turmoil. In fact, it seems that a more direct antecedent of high crime rates is the political and economic conditions of the country.

The highest crime rate in recent history was recorded in 1984 to 1986, which, according to the CIA Factbook, was approximately 310 per 100,000 people. Any Filipino would know that this was the time former president Ferdinand Marcos was losing the support of the people, inciting civil unrest. In 2007, there was a large number of politically-motivated killings all over the country. All of these lead to a very simple fact: crime rates are not significantly affected by the death penalty.

What then is the effect of the death penalty? Aside from a miniscule decrease in the population and a heightened sense of fear of committing “heinous crimes” for a number of people, there is hardly any benefit derived from killing criminals. What then is the solution to the banes of modern Philippine society? A better justice system: one that cannot be bribed. Let us not forget that the “Alabang Boys” didn’t gain notoriety just because of the gravity of their crime or their elite families. It is mainly because of allegations of bribery against the Department of Justice and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

Even if the law reverts to the barbaric penalties of the pre-Hispanic period, crime will still continue to thrive if the courts can easily be paid to get offenders off the hook. Only those who can not afford the prices will be put to death. In other words, the poor, who ironically are seldom the masterminds of the crimes they’ve committed, especially when it comes to drug trafficking. This reveals the real culprit that all Filipinos know so painfully well: corruption.

What the Philippines, not just the government, should focus on is trying to eliminate this cancer of society. And it doesn’t just entail running anti-corruption commercials on primetime TV. While there is a specific agency, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, that focuses on the elimination of corruption in the government, these efforts are clearly not enough. Every single citizen should do their part in this fight. It might seem too idealistic to be realized in this modern world, but this is the only way to reverse the culture of corruption in the country. We are all victims, but what we don’t see is that we also contribute in cultivating this mindset in our own little ways. And no, the death penalty won’t help this cause.

While most reasonable people are afraid of death, especially if it’s in a prison, the death penalty would not improve the conditions of the country. If anything, it would only further dehumanize our already-downtrodden people. Before thinking about what punishment is fit for a crime, offenders should be caught effectively, and shouldn’t be able to bribe his way out. Senator Francis Pangilinan says in a statement published by Inquirer.net, "It isn't the harshness or severity of punishment but the certainty of punishment that will make would be criminals think twice before committing illegal acts."

Pro-abortion or pro-choice?

(unpublished article for the October 2008 issue of The LaSallian, the Official Student Publication of De La Salle University)

Illustration from quierosaber.wordpress.com/

In the September 2008 editorial of The Varsitarian (the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas), which is titled “Lagman bill is Stalinist,” Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay, the primary author of the Reproductive Health Bill (RH Bill), was condemned for reasons ranging from unproven economic theories to comparisons with China’s one-child policy and the Marcos regime. They even blatantly insulted the position of 27 Economics professors from the University of the Philippines, calling it inane and dishonest. Amidst all these allegations however, it doesn’t seem like the editorial board of The Varsitarian did their own research.

House Bill No. 5043, better known as the RH Bill, is a law drafted by six representatives (led by Lagman) that seeks to promote the well-being of women and their children. An Economics degree shouldn’t be necessary to say that population has a direct relationship with poverty. It’s very basic: more people in the country equals more mouths to feed which leads to more people seeking jobs which the country can’t provide. To prove this point further, the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB) report that as family size increases, poverty worsens. In 2003, poverty incidence for a family of four is at 17.05 percent, compared to 46.55 for a family of eight. This is the reason why a lot of developing countries are seeking to control rapid population growth rates. Estimates for the Philippines’ population growth rate are at 1.95 percent, above the 1.5 percent average of ASEAN members.

This is why the RH Bill has been drafted. In order to assist economic growth and raise the standards of living of the Filipino people, population control is necessary. However, because of the Philippines’ strong Christian values, abortion is not an option, and artificial birth control is frowned upon. The solution: a softer bill that would educate women on how to achieve the desired number of children, and at the same time, not contradict the teachings of the Church, even though the state is separated from it. The Catholic Church still doesn’t seem to be pleased though.

The Church strongly opposes the bill, repeatedly saying that it is pro-abortion and anti-life, even anti-Christ. This is because some contraceptive methods are believed to cause abortion. Some representatives of the Church also claim that the bill denies the freedom of religious belief, because it imposes penalties to those who don’t comply with the law.

If you take a close look at the proposal, however, you would know that these claims are not founded solidly. First of all, it does not compel all constituents to use contraceptives. It merely wants to inform the people about their choices, and making those choices available to all. Section 12 provides for reproductive health education, which encompasses responsible parenthood, reproductive health care, family planning, and responsible sexuality, among others. It does not, however, state that all who receive this education should apply it in their daily lives. The choice is implicitly given to the individuals. Even the much-debated Section 16, which designates two as the ideal number of children, explicitly state that it is neither mandatory nor compulsory, and reassures that no punitive action shall be imposed on parents who decide to have more children.

From my standpoint, no right is violated and no morals have been downgraded. The people have the right to know what these methods of contraception are, so that they can make an informed choice. By blocking this bill, women will continue to conceive unwanted children which they won’t be able to provide for properly, all because they didn’t know that there are more effective ways of contraception.

In the end, it all comes down to a choice between morality and prosperity. The Church obviously advocates the former, opposing even the slightest hint of immorality in all laws that are passed. On the other hand, the Filipino people have long been suffering from poverty and all its related problems. While it may be argued that graft and corruption are the tyrants that rob the people of their hard-earned money, the high population growth rate certainly doesn’t help either. Are we willing to give one up in favor of the other? The individual should be free to choose; not the Church, not the State.

As for The Varsitarian, I suggest a brush-up on current economic development theories is in order. Simon Kuznets died in 1985 and certainly didn’t have the power of foresight to predict current trends in economics. Economics professors in UP, however, do. If indeed their research was funded by the government, then I applaud them for putting the taxes we pay to good use. Or would the editors of The Varsitarian rather have it channeled to political campaigns? Do not question other people’s credibility without establishing your own.

(The Varsitarian's September 2008 editorial can be read here.)

A Nation of Liars

(originally published in the July 2008 issue of The LaSallian, the Official Student Publication of De La Salle University)

Photo taken from Wikipedia

Boarding the southbound Light Rail Transit (LRT) at Blumentritt station, I overheard a barong-clad man (the type of barong that lawyers usually wear) talking on his cell phone. He was really loud and everyone could hear him, but what caught my attention was not just the way he talked, but more so what he said. “Nasa MoA na po ako” (I’m already at the Mall of Asia). He said this while on the train in Blumentritt, Sta. Cruz, Manila, ten stations and a passenger van ride away from the mall at the south end of EDSA in Pasay City, more or less an hour-long commute. He said it so naturally, as if he really was there, not even thinking twice before saying it. He didn’t even mind the other people who were there. As I was hearing his end of the conversation, I remembered a hundred other similar instances – my relatives, my friends, my classmates – a lot of them do the same thing. This led me to ask myself: how many Filipinos casually lie about where they actually are? What else do we lie about? Does truth have any value at all these days? Does anyone ever feel guilty anymore?

It’s shocking how casually we lie, even to the closest of people. It doesn’t even seem wrong anymore. Of course, in the case I cited above, it simply means that our punctual friends are going to have to wait a lot longer than they expected. But everyone knows that the lying doesn’t stop there. It trickles down, or should I say up, to lying to your parents about where you went last night, to lying to the traffic enforcer about connections with high-ranking officers, to the top government officials denying they got a cut from a shady deal. Yes, indeed, we are a nation of liars, and no one seems to mind.

It would seem that we already forgot the all time best policy – honesty. What’s so sad about it is that we metaphorically crucify our leaders for doing the exact same thing, when really, we are all guilty. One person may have a bigger sphere of influence than the other, but it’s all the same. Each time we tell something contrary or a deviation of the truth, we contribute to this twisted culture. It all adds up until each one becomes a veteran. Suddenly, it’s no surprise that politicians can tell the people untruths with a straight face. Lying permeated our culture and it became as much a part of it as adobo.

We complain left and right about the government, about all the money they have stolen, about all the lies they used to cover them up, but in the end, how different are we civilians? Yes, they steal, yes they leave a massive trail of evidence, and yes, they still have the audacity to deny it. What we can’t deny however is the fact that this happens practically anywhere in one form or the other. Whether it’s treating your professor to his favorite restaurant for a higher grade, manipulating income statements, using substandard raw materials for manufacturing, we are all corrupt in one way or the other. We do it as openly as they do, even talking about it as if there’s nothing wrong with it.

Now, how can we blame others for lying upfront when we do it ourselves? We can’t. If we want them to stop, we must stop ourselves as well from lying, and its dark derivative: corruption. While some may argue that this is merely a case of moral degradation which is happening all over the world, it affects the country to a much greater extent. The nation’s poverty is worsening, and the line separating them from the rich is broader than ever. Those who have nothing continue to have nothing while the chosen few at the top of the social pyramid do little to alleviate it. We all want things to change, but only a few, if anyone at all, seems to be taking the initiative. We all want our country to progress, but we are the ones hindering it.

While a revolution is not likely to arise from reading this column, at least we can take a few little steps towards it: maybe you can start telling your friend who’s waiting for you he’s going to have to occupy himself for a while.