my Trade Tripper column in the 29-30 April 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:
This election campaign season unfortunately neglected the family.
Distractions (some necessary, some not) prevented the nation from putting in the needed time to discuss two really important issues.
And while debates abounded on national security, crime, unemployment, and inequality, the most important issues, one that actually encompasses all others due to their fundamental nature, were never raised.
Am referring, of course, to human dignity and the traditional family.
Princeton professor Robert George famously said there are three pillars to a decent and dynamic society. The third was about having “fair and effective system of law and government.”
This is a matter commonly known to most Filipinos.
However, what we disastrously fail to realize is how important the first two pillars are to the rule of law. These are “respect for the human person” and “the family” (i.e., that based on the commitment of a husband and a wife).
Regarding the human person, George notes that a “society that does not nurture respect for the human person -- beginning with the child in the womb, and including the mentally and physically impaired and the frail elderly -- will sooner or later (probably sooner, rather than later) come to regard human beings as mere cogs in the larger social wheel whose dignity and well-being may legitimately be sacrificed for the sake of the collective.”
Measures such as euthanasia and abortion (as well as the extrajudicial killing of criminals) obviously do not help in advancing respect for the human person.
Regarding the family, without it “there is no transmission of the virtues which underpin society and which also ensure respect for human dignity. Political and legal institutions cannot function without people who respect the fundamental virtues that bind society.”
The importance of the family cannot be overestimated.
Research by Wilcox, Lerman, and Price for the Institute for Family Studies “shows that states with higher levels of married parenthood enjoy higher levels of growth, economic mobility for children growing up poor, and median family income, along with markedly lower levels of child poverty.”
The impact of the family on the economy is so strong, in fact, that it is a better predictor of economic health than the population’s “educational attainment.”
Harvard economist Raj Chetty backs this up, saying that “the strongest predictors of upward mobility are measures of family structure.”
Family Research Council’s Patrick Fagan was more direct: “No matter which way you look at it -- through the lens of income, savings, or poverty -- marriage is the great engine of the economy, with every household a building block that either contributes or takes away, millions of times over. Put all these families together, and we have the team that runs the American economy.”
Even more direct: “The foundation for a productive household begins with marriage”. “Cohabitation does not take the place of marriage, and there are very strong indications that cohabitation may rival single parenthood as the largest generator of child poverty, while divorce is the cause of most women and children entering poverty in any given year.”
Much was made this election season regarding crime. What was incredibly missed was how taking care of the traditional family structure could go a long way towards a solution.
The Atlantic’s Kay Hymowitz pointed out that 70% of youths in prison “did not grow up with both parents.” An even starker study found that only 13% of criminal juveniles “grew up with their married parents.”
Finally, referencing a study by Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan: “The bottom line is that there is a large body of literature showing that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents. This is true not just in the United States, but wherever the issue has been researched.”
The desperation caused by the breakup of the traditional family structure was famously summed up -- ironically -- by Barack Obama:
“We know the statistics -- that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.
More than corruption and more than any other issue, to protect the family is a matter of national survival.
Unfortunately, we have candidates who, unknown to many, have filed bills or advocated measures that experience taught are extremely damaging to the traditional family structure.
These involve contraceptives, euthanasia, same sex marriage, divorce, and the not so well thought through Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
In the remaining days of this campaign, Filipinos are urged to grab the opportunity to make its vote one that protects human dignity and the traditional family.
Now, more than any other time in our history, we desperately need a pro-family president.
Showing posts with label contraception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contraception. Show all posts
15.12.15
To next year’s president: Slash government
my Trade Tripper column in the 11-12 December 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:
Last Dec. 2, I spoke at the University of Asia and the Pacific’s Business Economics Club 2015 Year-end Business Economics Briefing. The theme this year was “2016: New Normal or New Mediocre.” It was apt, coming off a horrible 2015, even by merely using policy direction as sole standard.
And if public commentator Ben Kritz is to be believed, 2016 promises to be an annus horribilis. An assessment I happen to agree with.
In any event, the point I wanted to make in the Briefing was essentially threefold:
• Our foreign policy must flow from an effective domestic policy, for which experienced well trained leadership is vital;
• The traditional family institution must be protected for its vital social benefits, as well as economic significance and overall effect on the common good; and
• The need to cut back on government and put more responsibility (and choice) to the people.
Of the first, I need not dwell on, it being previously discussed in other articles for this column. What will be said is that many critical challenges will be faced by the next administration (perhaps so intended by the current one): managing a likely legal victory over China at The Hague in relation to our sea claims, a Moro Islamic Liberation Front disgruntled over perceived noncompliance of a possible implementing legislation with the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, and the ramifications of public courtship (as what happened during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Manila) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership over the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
On the second, I refer the reader to “Strong Families, Prosperous States: Do Healthy Families Affect The Wealth Of States?” (W. Bradford Wilcox, Robert I. Lerman, and Joseph Price; American Enterprise Institute, 2015):
“Higher levels of marriage, and especially higher levels of married-parent families, are strongly associated with more economic growth, more economic mobility, less child poverty, and higher median family income at the state level in the United States.”
Furthermore: “Violent crime is much less common in states with larger shares of families headed by married parents, even after controlling for a range of socio-demographic factors at the state level... This is noteworthy because high crime rates lower the quality of life and real living standards and are associated with lower levels of economic growth and mobility.”
Hence, this column urges people to vote for candidates that will do away with nonsense such as government subsidized contraceptives, gay “marriage,” divorce, and euthanasia; and instead support those that uphold the traditional marriage and the family. It’s really the socially and economically sensible thing to do.
On the last, it is really urged by this column (and will be a theme repeated throughout 2016) to move away from the paternalistic, socialistic form of government that crept over the country through the decades.
It comes with a cost: a proposed 2016 national budget ballooned to P3 trillion, representing a whopping 461% increase from 2000 and a nearly 300% from 2006. Add to that a nearly P6-trillion national debt.
And this will not be solved by better tax collection or increased personal income tax. Regarding the latter, as John Mangun pointed out, any non-insane increase would still only constitute 14% of the national budget.
The point is that whatever way our government goes regarding tax increases, a budget deficit will still result.
No. The best way for the Philippines moving forward is to really start cutting down the size of government, which now is a humongous 25% of our economy.
Right now, our welfare expenses (using the 2015 budget as benchmark) add up to 64%: this includes programs such as socialized housing, climate change, social protection such as the Conditional Cash Transfer, health care, and employment.
These are fine. But we’ll be far better off allowing the bulk of the responsibility to be shouldered by the private sector.
Cut the size of government, lower spending, lower taxes, allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money, and give them the power to choose which health care, school, business, etc., they want.
Cut the bureaucracy and allow our citizens the power to open and close up businesses as is needed, to hire and fire people, and give incentives for them to share their wealth (such as donations to charity) rather than coercively taking money through taxes.
Such policies are more democratic and empowering of Filipinos.
On the other hand (and again using the 2015 budget as benchmark), on the one job that government is really supposed to do, which is national security, we allocated only a mere 4.4%.
In a world where terrorists and secessionists abound, this is patently not enough. Increased military spending and beefing up our civilian police force should be encouraged.
Clearly, these things cannot be achieved overnight.
But those looking to vote in the next elections would do well seeking candidates that put their trust in the Filipino, encouraging personal responsibility, rather than in fat paternalistic bureaucracies.
Last Dec. 2, I spoke at the University of Asia and the Pacific’s Business Economics Club 2015 Year-end Business Economics Briefing. The theme this year was “2016: New Normal or New Mediocre.” It was apt, coming off a horrible 2015, even by merely using policy direction as sole standard.
And if public commentator Ben Kritz is to be believed, 2016 promises to be an annus horribilis. An assessment I happen to agree with.
In any event, the point I wanted to make in the Briefing was essentially threefold:
• Our foreign policy must flow from an effective domestic policy, for which experienced well trained leadership is vital;
• The traditional family institution must be protected for its vital social benefits, as well as economic significance and overall effect on the common good; and
• The need to cut back on government and put more responsibility (and choice) to the people.
Of the first, I need not dwell on, it being previously discussed in other articles for this column. What will be said is that many critical challenges will be faced by the next administration (perhaps so intended by the current one): managing a likely legal victory over China at The Hague in relation to our sea claims, a Moro Islamic Liberation Front disgruntled over perceived noncompliance of a possible implementing legislation with the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, and the ramifications of public courtship (as what happened during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Manila) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership over the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
On the second, I refer the reader to “Strong Families, Prosperous States: Do Healthy Families Affect The Wealth Of States?” (W. Bradford Wilcox, Robert I. Lerman, and Joseph Price; American Enterprise Institute, 2015):
“Higher levels of marriage, and especially higher levels of married-parent families, are strongly associated with more economic growth, more economic mobility, less child poverty, and higher median family income at the state level in the United States.”
Furthermore: “Violent crime is much less common in states with larger shares of families headed by married parents, even after controlling for a range of socio-demographic factors at the state level... This is noteworthy because high crime rates lower the quality of life and real living standards and are associated with lower levels of economic growth and mobility.”
Hence, this column urges people to vote for candidates that will do away with nonsense such as government subsidized contraceptives, gay “marriage,” divorce, and euthanasia; and instead support those that uphold the traditional marriage and the family. It’s really the socially and economically sensible thing to do.
On the last, it is really urged by this column (and will be a theme repeated throughout 2016) to move away from the paternalistic, socialistic form of government that crept over the country through the decades.
It comes with a cost: a proposed 2016 national budget ballooned to P3 trillion, representing a whopping 461% increase from 2000 and a nearly 300% from 2006. Add to that a nearly P6-trillion national debt.
And this will not be solved by better tax collection or increased personal income tax. Regarding the latter, as John Mangun pointed out, any non-insane increase would still only constitute 14% of the national budget.
The point is that whatever way our government goes regarding tax increases, a budget deficit will still result.
No. The best way for the Philippines moving forward is to really start cutting down the size of government, which now is a humongous 25% of our economy.
Right now, our welfare expenses (using the 2015 budget as benchmark) add up to 64%: this includes programs such as socialized housing, climate change, social protection such as the Conditional Cash Transfer, health care, and employment.
These are fine. But we’ll be far better off allowing the bulk of the responsibility to be shouldered by the private sector.
Cut the size of government, lower spending, lower taxes, allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money, and give them the power to choose which health care, school, business, etc., they want.
Cut the bureaucracy and allow our citizens the power to open and close up businesses as is needed, to hire and fire people, and give incentives for them to share their wealth (such as donations to charity) rather than coercively taking money through taxes.
Such policies are more democratic and empowering of Filipinos.
On the other hand (and again using the 2015 budget as benchmark), on the one job that government is really supposed to do, which is national security, we allocated only a mere 4.4%.
In a world where terrorists and secessionists abound, this is patently not enough. Increased military spending and beefing up our civilian police force should be encouraged.
Clearly, these things cannot be achieved overnight.
But those looking to vote in the next elections would do well seeking candidates that put their trust in the Filipino, encouraging personal responsibility, rather than in fat paternalistic bureaucracies.
11.4.15
The Supreme Court ruling on the RH Law: One year later
my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
Last Apr. 8 marked a year to the day of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imbong vs. Ochoa, more commonly known as the “RH Law case.” Quaintly touted then as the “trial of the century,” it paved the way for a ruling with fundamental implications for social policy and jurisprudence here in the Philippines. Albeit in a manner not recognized by many. Indeed, while the RH Law case represented a victory for organized legal planning and cohesive argumentation, it at the same time saw one of the more eccentric examples of lack of focus in legal advocacy.
One has to give credit indeed to the government lawyers who defended the law -- led by then Solicitor General (now Supreme Court Justice) Francis Jardeleza and Assistant Solicitor General (now Solicitor General) Florin Hilbay -- for their well orchestrated, legally coherent, and sophisticatedly reasoned stand.
Conversely, one can only shake one’s head at the mystifying amount of attention given by the Court on “abortifacients” and “the right to life.” This becomes evident when one realizes that the question of life’s beginnings should never have been an issue in the first place. One can see this not only from the Supreme Court’s immediate affirmation that “life begins at conception” but from the very fact that RA 10354 itself (as noted by the Court in its ruling) “clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization” and “that abortion is a crime.” But to emphasize how surrealistic (or just plain baffling) the whole thing is: whenever somebody now wants to complain about alleged abortifacients, the law they run to for protection is -- you guessed it -- none other than RA 10354.
All the while, the real and true issue of artificial non-abortifacient contraception was inexplicably forgotten.
During the early days of the release of the ruling, the idea was even flouted (evidently as a face-saving measure) that contraception was not really the target of the complaint. But that is wrong. And irresponsible. The reality is that government subsidization of contraception was and has always been the point of the entire case.
Ironically, it took a foreigner to grasp the various significant parts and implications of the ruling. Brian Simboli, writing for Public Discourse, puts it this way:
It is “troubling that while the Court asserts there is no compelling state interest to justify overriding the conscientious objector rights of health providers, it does not similarly conclude that objecting taxpayers should not be burdened coercively with taxes used to purchase contraceptives.”
This is significant because the main point of the RH Law was not that it made contraceptives legal (it has always been legal and cheaply available, cheaper than bottled water), but that it provided huge amounts of tax money to subsidize it.
Think about that when you read about the Department of Health asking for an additional P1.7 billion in its budget this year for the exclusive implementation of the RH Law. Admittedly, not all of it will be used for the purchase of contraceptives.
But note: the latest Global Competitiveness Report indicated tuberculosis as one of the country’s biggest health problems, with the Philippines ranking a low 127 (out of 144 countries) in this area and with a business impact of 114. The Philippines also ranked low in primary education and infrastructure. Why not put the money there?
The foregoing is crucially within the context of another fact that Simboli points out: “[The Supreme Court] did not dismiss a petitioner claim that oral contraceptive use has been correlated with significant health risks.”
But the most damaging portion of the ruling is when the Supreme Court, to use the words of Simboli, “greatly delimits the role of natural law reasoning.”
The ruling, with all due respect, evokes a substantial misappreciation of natural law. It seemed to say that our Constitution (and all our laws) has no philosophy, without history, and has vacuum as context. Had the ruling been within the parameters of the US Constitution, the RH Law ruling may have credence. But even then, the US Supreme Court employed natural law reasoning in a number of cases.
Our Supreme Court, on the other hand, has the power to strike down laws considered done with grave abuse of discretion (a power that the US Supreme Court does not have) and itself knowingly employed the natural law (or reasoning involving or related thereto) in many of its past decisions.
The significance of this, as Simboli points out, is that it renders our Supreme Court with “quite a weak basis for responding to whatever legislative threats may emerge, not just to the pro-life cause, but also to the centrality of the family.”
In short, think about the consequences of the RH ruling the next time the issues of same-sex marriage, divorce, euthanasia, LGBT “rights,” and even abortion comes up.
Last Apr. 8 marked a year to the day of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imbong vs. Ochoa, more commonly known as the “RH Law case.” Quaintly touted then as the “trial of the century,” it paved the way for a ruling with fundamental implications for social policy and jurisprudence here in the Philippines. Albeit in a manner not recognized by many. Indeed, while the RH Law case represented a victory for organized legal planning and cohesive argumentation, it at the same time saw one of the more eccentric examples of lack of focus in legal advocacy.
One has to give credit indeed to the government lawyers who defended the law -- led by then Solicitor General (now Supreme Court Justice) Francis Jardeleza and Assistant Solicitor General (now Solicitor General) Florin Hilbay -- for their well orchestrated, legally coherent, and sophisticatedly reasoned stand.
Conversely, one can only shake one’s head at the mystifying amount of attention given by the Court on “abortifacients” and “the right to life.” This becomes evident when one realizes that the question of life’s beginnings should never have been an issue in the first place. One can see this not only from the Supreme Court’s immediate affirmation that “life begins at conception” but from the very fact that RA 10354 itself (as noted by the Court in its ruling) “clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization” and “that abortion is a crime.” But to emphasize how surrealistic (or just plain baffling) the whole thing is: whenever somebody now wants to complain about alleged abortifacients, the law they run to for protection is -- you guessed it -- none other than RA 10354.
All the while, the real and true issue of artificial non-abortifacient contraception was inexplicably forgotten.
During the early days of the release of the ruling, the idea was even flouted (evidently as a face-saving measure) that contraception was not really the target of the complaint. But that is wrong. And irresponsible. The reality is that government subsidization of contraception was and has always been the point of the entire case.
Ironically, it took a foreigner to grasp the various significant parts and implications of the ruling. Brian Simboli, writing for Public Discourse, puts it this way:
It is “troubling that while the Court asserts there is no compelling state interest to justify overriding the conscientious objector rights of health providers, it does not similarly conclude that objecting taxpayers should not be burdened coercively with taxes used to purchase contraceptives.”
This is significant because the main point of the RH Law was not that it made contraceptives legal (it has always been legal and cheaply available, cheaper than bottled water), but that it provided huge amounts of tax money to subsidize it.
Think about that when you read about the Department of Health asking for an additional P1.7 billion in its budget this year for the exclusive implementation of the RH Law. Admittedly, not all of it will be used for the purchase of contraceptives.
But note: the latest Global Competitiveness Report indicated tuberculosis as one of the country’s biggest health problems, with the Philippines ranking a low 127 (out of 144 countries) in this area and with a business impact of 114. The Philippines also ranked low in primary education and infrastructure. Why not put the money there?
The foregoing is crucially within the context of another fact that Simboli points out: “[The Supreme Court] did not dismiss a petitioner claim that oral contraceptive use has been correlated with significant health risks.”
But the most damaging portion of the ruling is when the Supreme Court, to use the words of Simboli, “greatly delimits the role of natural law reasoning.”
The ruling, with all due respect, evokes a substantial misappreciation of natural law. It seemed to say that our Constitution (and all our laws) has no philosophy, without history, and has vacuum as context. Had the ruling been within the parameters of the US Constitution, the RH Law ruling may have credence. But even then, the US Supreme Court employed natural law reasoning in a number of cases.
Our Supreme Court, on the other hand, has the power to strike down laws considered done with grave abuse of discretion (a power that the US Supreme Court does not have) and itself knowingly employed the natural law (or reasoning involving or related thereto) in many of its past decisions.
The significance of this, as Simboli points out, is that it renders our Supreme Court with “quite a weak basis for responding to whatever legislative threats may emerge, not just to the pro-life cause, but also to the centrality of the family.”
In short, think about the consequences of the RH ruling the next time the issues of same-sex marriage, divorce, euthanasia, LGBT “rights,” and even abortion comes up.
10.1.15
Want inequality? Wreck the traditional family.
my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
Amid the discussions regarding 2015’s ASEAN integration, certain data had been consistently ignored by the general academe and policy makers: Filipinos 30 years old and below comprise around 70% of the population (with those below 14 years at 35%, with the median age at 22.9 years old). Those at 65 years old comprise only about 4.1%.
Quite simply, beyond economics, the very future of this country depends on how well that 70% is educated, developed, and formed.
But even just narrowing the discussion in economic terms, to state the obvious: a lot is dependent on people. A huge portion of our output or trade has to do with services, yes, but even then, manufacturing and agriculture would need people to run them. Nevertheless, despite the demographic potential that the Philippines has compared to the ageing populations of our trading partners, all of that would be meaningless if that youth would not grow up as responsible adults.
Unfortunately, our education system needs a lot of improvement. The “Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015” show no Philippine university included.
That is compounded by the fact that of the almost three million Filipinos currently unemployed, 48.2% are within the 15-24 age group, with 29.9% from those in the 25-34 age group. Most of them are high school graduates.
All these are not contributing to the proper formation of the youth. And yet, nothing could be more devastating to them than the weakening of the traditional family institution.
But unfortunately, teenage pregnancy in this country rose by 70% in the past 10-year period (114,205 in 1999 to 195,662 in 2009). Figures for 2010 show 206,574 of such pregnancies. Data from the National Youth Commission show that the Philippines is third highest in Southeast Asia and among the highest in the ASEAN region and the only country where that number is increasing.
Also disconcertingly, 13-14% of all registered marriages are among teenagers. On the other hand, perhaps not coincidentally, there is also a rise in annulment cases (records indicate a 100% increase in the past 10 years). Add to that the increasing incidences of rape.
However, not only is economic development retarded by the diminution of the traditional family institution, economic inequality is fostered as well.
According to Jeff Jacoby in a November 2014 article, “One report, aptly titled ‘For Richer, For Poorer,’ is by sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox of the American Enterprise Institute and economist Robert I. Lerman of the Urban Institute. It documents the profound links that connect family structure and financial well-being and underscores what decades of empirical data have shown: Families headed by married couples tend to be stronger economically than those headed by unwed single parents.”
“‘Anyone concerned about family inequality, men’s declining labor-force participation, and the vitality of the American dream should worry about the nation’s retreat from marriage,’ the authors write. The steady fall in the percentage of married two-parent households -- from 78% in 1980 to 66 % in 2012 -- goes a long way toward explaining why so many ordinary families have trouble climbing beyond the lower rungs on the economic ladder. Correlation isn’t proof of causation, of course. But there is no refuting the strong association between growing up with both parents in an intact family and achieving higher levels of education, work, and income as young adults.”
“To be sure, not all families headed by married parents are stable or successful, and not all children raised by single parents struggle economically or professionally. Barack Obama, who was two years old when he was abandoned by his father, is dramatic evidence of that. But as Obama himself says, the data aren’t in question. ‘Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They’re more likely to drop out of school. They’re more likely to wind up in prison.’”
The message was emphasized further by Aparna Mathur: “Wilcox and Lerman document how the shift away from marriage and traditional family structures has had important consequences for family incomes, and has been correlated with rising family-income inequality and declines in men’s labor force participation rates. Using data from the Current Population Survey, the authors find that between 1980 and 2012, median family income rose 30% for married parent families, for unmarried parents, family incomes rose only 14%.”
With such scientific and researched backing, then the media’s, academe’s, and policy makers’ wholesale effort to look the other way is truly the height of irresponsibility.
Dominated as they are by left-leaning “progressive” thought, the only thing that matters to them is to further ideologically driven policy initiatives such as divorce, same-sex marriage, the Reproductive Health Law, and euthanasia. Any evidence that shows the necessity to strengthen the traditional family institution simply does not fit their narrative.
18.10.14
The new face of conservatism
my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
Conservatism has had a bad rap. The cartoon stereotype made by mainstream or social media is of a humorless old man or spinsterish woman, angry at others’ happiness -- misogynistic, homophobic haters more concerned with lecturing people about rules than about people themselves, sitting alone in a darkened room. But times change.
Poll results released last September by the Pew Forum indicated possible changes in US citizens’ beliefs about religion and the role it plays in politics. But as described by Maggie Gallagher (for National Review), “the poll was also remarkable for showing a rather dramatic drop in support for gay marriage in one year, after years of uninterrupted rises. Do you favor ‘allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally’ is an imperfect question, but it does allow tracking across time. Overall support for gay marriage dropped from 54% to 49%.”
Also, “white Evangelical support for gay marriage dropped 4 percentage points, from 22% to 18%; Catholic support dropped 9 percentage points, from 61% to 52%. (White mainline Protestant opinion was virtually unchanged, rising from 56% support to 57% support.)”
Reasons have been given for this perceptible shift in attitudes. Whatever it may be, it is also undeniable that the conservative movement is gaining a lot from the coming into prominence of younger and brasher conservatives, giving a fresh, funny, articulate, intelligent, even sexier approach to political discourse. And while their conservatism may vary on social or economic issues, nevertheless it still boils down to personal freedom and self-responsibility.
We start with one of Filipino roots: 43-year-old Michelle Malkin. Born in Philadelphia after her parents immigrated from the Philippines, Malkin (originally Maglalang until she married Jesse Malkin in 1993) got started in her career while studying in Oberlin, a college known for strong progressive views. It was when she got exposed to the viciousness of liberal response to her personal conservative views that she realized her true calling. As she recalled in one interview: “It was seeing the violent paroxysms it caused on the Left that really put me on my way to a career in opinion journalism. I really just came into being as a political journalist toward the end of my campus experience, and it was really after I had left and started, you know, writing on my own. It was really more social conservatism than economic conservatism that I started with for my column-writing.”
She appears on the Fox News Channel, particularly for Hannity and Fox and Friends. But it is her founding of Hot Air, an internet broadcast network, and Twitchy.com, “a ground-breaking Twitter curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies,” that made her a major player in the conservative movement.
Then there is 25-year-old writer, commentator and comedian Katherine Timpf. Currently working for the National Review, she has also guested on the popular Red Eye.
Known for her witty, sometimes sarcastic Facebook rants, her articles on the National Review sparkles with humor, self-deprecation and insight on the recent comedies (or tragedies) of the Left. A recent profile on her had a former teacher saying of Timpf: “Kat is genius. Certainly, she’s the leading wit of her generation. But I also think she’s one of those unique folks America produces only every once in a while.”
Characteristically, it is Timpf who explains her appeal best: “I feel like I’m able to explain things in a different way, especially in the conservative movement, because so many of the voices -- even the young ones -- sound like they’re 50 and cautious. It needs some spice. The message of freedom should be cool, and that’s what I want to do.”
Cool may not be the adjective normally given to 27-year-old Matt Walsh. But he's certainly fast becoming a leading voice in the conservative movement. Intense, direct, articulate and incredibly frighteningly smart, Walsh writes about everything: same-sex marriage, suicide, dating and family, plus a marvelous extended rant on why the saying “if you can’t accept me at my worst, then you don’t deserve me at my best” is one of the most idiotic things ever said. Although he said the same about “don’t judge.” But rightly so.
Walsh has a blog (which gets around 2 million hits a month) but his conservative writings can also be found in TheBlaze.com. Joel Cheatwood, president and chief content officer of TheBlaze, says it this way: “Matt Walsh stands out from other voices online in that he has cracked the code to writing unique content that people want to share with their friends.”
Finally, today’s leader of the pack: cigarette-smoking, alcohol-drinking, heavy-metal-listening Greg Gutfeld. Catch him on Red Eye or The Five. Or read his books Joy of Hate and Not cool. I am running out of space so I’ll just say this: he’s better, smarter, funnier than Jon Stewart. ‘Nuff said.
Conservatism has had a bad rap. The cartoon stereotype made by mainstream or social media is of a humorless old man or spinsterish woman, angry at others’ happiness -- misogynistic, homophobic haters more concerned with lecturing people about rules than about people themselves, sitting alone in a darkened room. But times change.
Michelle Malkin / Katherine Timpf / Matt Walsh / Greg Gutfeld
Also, “white Evangelical support for gay marriage dropped 4 percentage points, from 22% to 18%; Catholic support dropped 9 percentage points, from 61% to 52%. (White mainline Protestant opinion was virtually unchanged, rising from 56% support to 57% support.)”
Reasons have been given for this perceptible shift in attitudes. Whatever it may be, it is also undeniable that the conservative movement is gaining a lot from the coming into prominence of younger and brasher conservatives, giving a fresh, funny, articulate, intelligent, even sexier approach to political discourse. And while their conservatism may vary on social or economic issues, nevertheless it still boils down to personal freedom and self-responsibility.
We start with one of Filipino roots: 43-year-old Michelle Malkin. Born in Philadelphia after her parents immigrated from the Philippines, Malkin (originally Maglalang until she married Jesse Malkin in 1993) got started in her career while studying in Oberlin, a college known for strong progressive views. It was when she got exposed to the viciousness of liberal response to her personal conservative views that she realized her true calling. As she recalled in one interview: “It was seeing the violent paroxysms it caused on the Left that really put me on my way to a career in opinion journalism. I really just came into being as a political journalist toward the end of my campus experience, and it was really after I had left and started, you know, writing on my own. It was really more social conservatism than economic conservatism that I started with for my column-writing.”
She appears on the Fox News Channel, particularly for Hannity and Fox and Friends. But it is her founding of Hot Air, an internet broadcast network, and Twitchy.com, “a ground-breaking Twitter curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies,” that made her a major player in the conservative movement.
Then there is 25-year-old writer, commentator and comedian Katherine Timpf. Currently working for the National Review, she has also guested on the popular Red Eye.
Known for her witty, sometimes sarcastic Facebook rants, her articles on the National Review sparkles with humor, self-deprecation and insight on the recent comedies (or tragedies) of the Left. A recent profile on her had a former teacher saying of Timpf: “Kat is genius. Certainly, she’s the leading wit of her generation. But I also think she’s one of those unique folks America produces only every once in a while.”
Characteristically, it is Timpf who explains her appeal best: “I feel like I’m able to explain things in a different way, especially in the conservative movement, because so many of the voices -- even the young ones -- sound like they’re 50 and cautious. It needs some spice. The message of freedom should be cool, and that’s what I want to do.”
Cool may not be the adjective normally given to 27-year-old Matt Walsh. But he's certainly fast becoming a leading voice in the conservative movement. Intense, direct, articulate and incredibly frighteningly smart, Walsh writes about everything: same-sex marriage, suicide, dating and family, plus a marvelous extended rant on why the saying “if you can’t accept me at my worst, then you don’t deserve me at my best” is one of the most idiotic things ever said. Although he said the same about “don’t judge.” But rightly so.
Walsh has a blog (which gets around 2 million hits a month) but his conservative writings can also be found in TheBlaze.com. Joel Cheatwood, president and chief content officer of TheBlaze, says it this way: “Matt Walsh stands out from other voices online in that he has cracked the code to writing unique content that people want to share with their friends.”
Finally, today’s leader of the pack: cigarette-smoking, alcohol-drinking, heavy-metal-listening Greg Gutfeld. Catch him on Red Eye or The Five. Or read his books Joy of Hate and Not cool. I am running out of space so I’ll just say this: he’s better, smarter, funnier than Jon Stewart. ‘Nuff said.
30.9.14
Better thinking on poverty and development
my Trade Tripper column in the recent weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
The Philippines today is a country of contradictions: it proclaims economic growth with rising unemployment, good governance with deteriorating infrastructure and broken transportations systems, progress with worsening traffic, and pleas for tolerance and gender equality with increased incidents of rape, teenage pregnancies and marriage annulments. But then, this is what happens when one wants all for nothing.
Unfortunately, this government’s vision (if it has one) does not seem to work for the simple reason that it cannot align with reality and common sense.
Consider that even though Filipinos are taxed the highest in ASEAN but with the lowest of wages (P5,500 a month will get you classified as middle class), it also has the highest unemployment rate. But what’s really disturbing is that almost 80% of our unemployed are from below 35 years old, the age considered most productive and yet formative. And 20% of the unemployed are college graduates.
The foregoing is within the context of the Filipino working among the longest hours. And those work hours do not include the two- to four-hour commute to and from work that many Filipinos go through every day, commuting hours that could get longer (according to the government itself).
Our people pay one of the most expensive rice in Asia, we have water scarcity among floods, and constant threats of power shortage.
The government’s solution, which is to throw money at the poor (via the Conditional Cash Transfer, or CCT), has not worked. And it doesn’t apply to our unemployed but educated population. Not only is there work scarcity, the disincentive to work is even greater.
I’ve long railed at the government’s progressive policy mind-set that, as David Brooks puts it, “aims to place individuals in unmediated dependency on a government” and encourages an entitlement culture. The President’s characterization of himself as the “father of the country” is indicative of that. But this has reached the level of ridiculousness: why make people dependent on the government when it can’t be depended on?
Because from the beginning, it can’t. Our society was constructed along the lines of self-governance and personal accountability, not “progressivism.”
But, in words that are applicable here, Paul Ryan (in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece) aptly describes the pitfalls of such thinking: “Over the years, we’ve slowly been adding to the number of benefits that government provides to an increasing number of our citizens. Some of those benefits are worthy, laudable commitments, but others aren’t really the responsibility of government or the kind of thing we can afford. If we keep on this way, we’ll reach a tipping point where there are too many people receiving government benefits and not enough people to pay for those benefits. That’s an untenable problem.”
There are severe limits to what the government can do, despite its propensity to think otherwise: “the tipping point we’re approaching is the result of a liberal progressive mind-set that seeks a larger, more active government and lets bureaucrats decide what’s best for everyone instead of allowing citizens to govern themselves. Its response to every social problem is more government, more bureaucracy and more taxpayer money.”
This column has warned repeatedly about the dangers of such an entitlement culture. But now, scientific data may even show that welfare entitlements like the CCT, no matter how huge the allotment, are futile at best.
The Economist reported a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry that found that “families which had started poor and got richer, the younger children -- those born into relative affluence -- were just as likely to misbehave when they were teenagers as their elder siblings had been. Family income was not, per se, the determining factor.
“That suggests two, not mutually exclusive, possibilities. One is that a family’s culture, once established, is ‘sticky’ -- that you can, to put it crudely, take the kid out of the neighborhood, but not the neighborhood out of the kid. Given, for example, children’s propensity to emulate elder siblings whom they admire, that sounds perfectly plausible. The other possibility is that genes which predispose to criminal behavior (several studies suggest such genes exist) are more common at the bottom of society than at the top, perhaps because the lack of impulse-control they engender also tends to reduce someone’s earning capacity.
“Neither of these conclusions is likely to be welcome to social reformers. The first suggests that merely topping up people’s incomes, though it may well be a good idea for other reasons, will not by itself address questions of bad behavior. The second raises the possibility that the problem of intergenerational poverty may be self-reinforcing.”
Our constitutional system espouses the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity, virtue, strong traditional families, self-responsibility, and the common good. All of these have specific meanings that have centuries of thought and experience behind them. Perhaps the government would like to acquaint itself with these before tinkering around with progressive social programs that do nothing but throw away huge amounts of the people’s money.
The Philippines today is a country of contradictions: it proclaims economic growth with rising unemployment, good governance with deteriorating infrastructure and broken transportations systems, progress with worsening traffic, and pleas for tolerance and gender equality with increased incidents of rape, teenage pregnancies and marriage annulments. But then, this is what happens when one wants all for nothing.
Unfortunately, this government’s vision (if it has one) does not seem to work for the simple reason that it cannot align with reality and common sense.
Consider that even though Filipinos are taxed the highest in ASEAN but with the lowest of wages (P5,500 a month will get you classified as middle class), it also has the highest unemployment rate. But what’s really disturbing is that almost 80% of our unemployed are from below 35 years old, the age considered most productive and yet formative. And 20% of the unemployed are college graduates.
The foregoing is within the context of the Filipino working among the longest hours. And those work hours do not include the two- to four-hour commute to and from work that many Filipinos go through every day, commuting hours that could get longer (according to the government itself).
Our people pay one of the most expensive rice in Asia, we have water scarcity among floods, and constant threats of power shortage.
The government’s solution, which is to throw money at the poor (via the Conditional Cash Transfer, or CCT), has not worked. And it doesn’t apply to our unemployed but educated population. Not only is there work scarcity, the disincentive to work is even greater.
I’ve long railed at the government’s progressive policy mind-set that, as David Brooks puts it, “aims to place individuals in unmediated dependency on a government” and encourages an entitlement culture. The President’s characterization of himself as the “father of the country” is indicative of that. But this has reached the level of ridiculousness: why make people dependent on the government when it can’t be depended on?
Because from the beginning, it can’t. Our society was constructed along the lines of self-governance and personal accountability, not “progressivism.”
But, in words that are applicable here, Paul Ryan (in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece) aptly describes the pitfalls of such thinking: “Over the years, we’ve slowly been adding to the number of benefits that government provides to an increasing number of our citizens. Some of those benefits are worthy, laudable commitments, but others aren’t really the responsibility of government or the kind of thing we can afford. If we keep on this way, we’ll reach a tipping point where there are too many people receiving government benefits and not enough people to pay for those benefits. That’s an untenable problem.”
There are severe limits to what the government can do, despite its propensity to think otherwise: “the tipping point we’re approaching is the result of a liberal progressive mind-set that seeks a larger, more active government and lets bureaucrats decide what’s best for everyone instead of allowing citizens to govern themselves. Its response to every social problem is more government, more bureaucracy and more taxpayer money.”
This column has warned repeatedly about the dangers of such an entitlement culture. But now, scientific data may even show that welfare entitlements like the CCT, no matter how huge the allotment, are futile at best.
The Economist reported a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry that found that “families which had started poor and got richer, the younger children -- those born into relative affluence -- were just as likely to misbehave when they were teenagers as their elder siblings had been. Family income was not, per se, the determining factor.
“That suggests two, not mutually exclusive, possibilities. One is that a family’s culture, once established, is ‘sticky’ -- that you can, to put it crudely, take the kid out of the neighborhood, but not the neighborhood out of the kid. Given, for example, children’s propensity to emulate elder siblings whom they admire, that sounds perfectly plausible. The other possibility is that genes which predispose to criminal behavior (several studies suggest such genes exist) are more common at the bottom of society than at the top, perhaps because the lack of impulse-control they engender also tends to reduce someone’s earning capacity.
“Neither of these conclusions is likely to be welcome to social reformers. The first suggests that merely topping up people’s incomes, though it may well be a good idea for other reasons, will not by itself address questions of bad behavior. The second raises the possibility that the problem of intergenerational poverty may be self-reinforcing.”
Our constitutional system espouses the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity, virtue, strong traditional families, self-responsibility, and the common good. All of these have specific meanings that have centuries of thought and experience behind them. Perhaps the government would like to acquaint itself with these before tinkering around with progressive social programs that do nothing but throw away huge amounts of the people’s money.
24.8.14
Our natural Constitution
is my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
To my mind, what ironically went below many people’s radar are the most damaging portions of the April 8 Reproductive Health (RH) Law decision penned by Justice Jose Mendoza: “With respect to the argument that the RH Law violates natural law, suffice it to say that the Court does not duly recognize it as a legal basis for upholding or invalidating a law. Our only guidepost is the Constitution.”
It then goes on to say: “While every law enacted by man emanated from what is perceived as natural law, the Court is not obliged to see if a statute, executive issuance or ordinance is in conformity to it. To begin with, it is not enacted by an acceptable legitimate body. Moreover, natural laws are mere thoughts and notions on inherent rights espoused by theorists, philosophers and theologists. The jurists of the philosophical school are interested in the law as an abstraction, rather than in the actual law of the past or present.”
“Unless, a natural right has been transformed into a written law, it cannot serve as a basis to strike down a law. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the very case cited by the petitioners, it was explained that the Court is not duty-bound to examine every law or action and whether it conforms with both the Constitution and natural law. Rather, natural law is to be used sparingly only in the most peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is applicable.”
The foregoing, with all due respect, evokes a substantial misappreciation of natural law. To say that “natural law is to be used sparingly only in the most peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is applicable” is itself contradicted by the ruling. Setting aside precisely the fact that the Constitution is silent on the subject of contraception, Justice Mendoza himself declares: “Even if not formally established, the right to life, being grounded on natural law, is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent upon a particular law, custom, or belief. It precedes and transcends any authority or the laws of men.“
The ruling also seems to be saying that our Constitution has no philosophy, without history, and has vacuum as context.
Had the ruling been within the parameters of the US Constitution, the above statements would be correct. US constitutional law places strict boundaries on the US Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the US SC employed natural law in a number of cases.
Our Supreme Court, on the other hand, has the power to strike down laws considered done with grave abuse of discretion. This serves as basis for our Supreme Court to examine the wisdom of a law (a power not normally given to judicial bodies of other countries), whether the law is in conformity with reason, and complies with the overall objectives of the Constitution.
Our Supreme Court itself knowingly employed the natural law (or reasoning involving or related to it) in many past decisions. Our domestic laws, such as the Civil Code, in fact contain provisions in which the natural law is expressly mentioned. The international law system, which the Philippines is part of, considers natural law as basis for determining whether other international law norms (such as treaties) are valid, a fact constantly recognized by previous Supreme Courts.
Instead, the present Supreme Court seemed to have mixed natural law with a religious freedom argument, a point which Hugo Grotius (the father of international law) sought to dispel: “Natural law would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs.”
The saving grace in all this is found in the dissenting opinion of Justice Mariano Del Castillo: the statements in the ruling quoted earlier “are not necessary in the disposition of this case and appear to be an inaccurate description of natural law. The Court need not foreclose the usefulness of natural law in resolving future cases.”
Hopefully, Justice Del Castillo’s more considered statements could serve as an opening for natural law to be considered in future cases, particularly on legislation involving same-sex marriage, divorce, stem cells, and euthanasia -- all of which the Constitution is silent on and for which only the natural law and the invocation of the “common good” (found in the Preamble) stand as reasonable standards.
And, since natural law has been a part of our constitutional system, resort to it by the Supreme Court can in no way be considered as “judicial activism.”
Finally, this also tells us that our political system is dominated almost exclusively by “positivists” that ignore the culture, history, and philosophy upon which Philippine society is based. There is therefore a need to work harder in correcting this imbalance that has resulted in so much inconsistency in our legal system.
To my mind, what ironically went below many people’s radar are the most damaging portions of the April 8 Reproductive Health (RH) Law decision penned by Justice Jose Mendoza: “With respect to the argument that the RH Law violates natural law, suffice it to say that the Court does not duly recognize it as a legal basis for upholding or invalidating a law. Our only guidepost is the Constitution.”
It then goes on to say: “While every law enacted by man emanated from what is perceived as natural law, the Court is not obliged to see if a statute, executive issuance or ordinance is in conformity to it. To begin with, it is not enacted by an acceptable legitimate body. Moreover, natural laws are mere thoughts and notions on inherent rights espoused by theorists, philosophers and theologists. The jurists of the philosophical school are interested in the law as an abstraction, rather than in the actual law of the past or present.”
“Unless, a natural right has been transformed into a written law, it cannot serve as a basis to strike down a law. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the very case cited by the petitioners, it was explained that the Court is not duty-bound to examine every law or action and whether it conforms with both the Constitution and natural law. Rather, natural law is to be used sparingly only in the most peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is applicable.”
The foregoing, with all due respect, evokes a substantial misappreciation of natural law. To say that “natural law is to be used sparingly only in the most peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is applicable” is itself contradicted by the ruling. Setting aside precisely the fact that the Constitution is silent on the subject of contraception, Justice Mendoza himself declares: “Even if not formally established, the right to life, being grounded on natural law, is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent upon a particular law, custom, or belief. It precedes and transcends any authority or the laws of men.“
The ruling also seems to be saying that our Constitution has no philosophy, without history, and has vacuum as context.
Had the ruling been within the parameters of the US Constitution, the above statements would be correct. US constitutional law places strict boundaries on the US Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the US SC employed natural law in a number of cases.
Our Supreme Court, on the other hand, has the power to strike down laws considered done with grave abuse of discretion. This serves as basis for our Supreme Court to examine the wisdom of a law (a power not normally given to judicial bodies of other countries), whether the law is in conformity with reason, and complies with the overall objectives of the Constitution.
Our Supreme Court itself knowingly employed the natural law (or reasoning involving or related to it) in many past decisions. Our domestic laws, such as the Civil Code, in fact contain provisions in which the natural law is expressly mentioned. The international law system, which the Philippines is part of, considers natural law as basis for determining whether other international law norms (such as treaties) are valid, a fact constantly recognized by previous Supreme Courts.
Instead, the present Supreme Court seemed to have mixed natural law with a religious freedom argument, a point which Hugo Grotius (the father of international law) sought to dispel: “Natural law would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs.”
The saving grace in all this is found in the dissenting opinion of Justice Mariano Del Castillo: the statements in the ruling quoted earlier “are not necessary in the disposition of this case and appear to be an inaccurate description of natural law. The Court need not foreclose the usefulness of natural law in resolving future cases.”
Hopefully, Justice Del Castillo’s more considered statements could serve as an opening for natural law to be considered in future cases, particularly on legislation involving same-sex marriage, divorce, stem cells, and euthanasia -- all of which the Constitution is silent on and for which only the natural law and the invocation of the “common good” (found in the Preamble) stand as reasonable standards.
And, since natural law has been a part of our constitutional system, resort to it by the Supreme Court can in no way be considered as “judicial activism.”
Finally, this also tells us that our political system is dominated almost exclusively by “positivists” that ignore the culture, history, and philosophy upon which Philippine society is based. There is therefore a need to work harder in correcting this imbalance that has resulted in so much inconsistency in our legal system.
13.4.14
Virtues, families, and the economy
was the subject of my Trade Tripper column in the recent weekend's issue of BusinessWorld:
Looking at various studies related to the upcoming ASEAN 2015 integration, one would be struck by the amount of data compiled by our policy makers but at the same time disappointed at the seeming non-interest on their part on one particular set of numbers: the rise in teenage pregnancy and the seeming dissolution of the institution of marriage.
Recent figures indicated that teenage pregnancy in this country rose by 70% in the past 10-year period (114,205 in 1999 to 195,662 in 2009). The 2010 figures show 206,574 such pregnancies, with more than half of that number of girls below 14 years of age. Data from the National Youth Commission show that the Philippines has the third highest number of teen pregnancies in Southeast Asia and among the highest in the ASEAN region and the only country where such a number is increasing.
Also disconcertingly, 13-14% of all registered marriages are among those below 20 years old. Meanwhile, there is also a rise in annulment cases. The number of annulled marriages has steadily increased in the past decade or so, with a daily average of 28 couples reportedly filing annulment cases (as per the records of the Office of the Solicitor General). In 2012 alone, it was reported that 10,528 annulment cases were filed, representing a 100% increase in just 10 years.
Why are these numbers important in relation to our economy? Because the basic economic unit and source of productivity are people.
As pointed out by Henry Potrykus and Patrick Fagan (in their study “The Divorce Revolution Perpetually Reduces US Economic Growth: Divorce Removes a Fourth of Head-of-Household Productivity Growth,” March 8, 2012): “It is worth emphasizing that though economic production generally, and growth particularly involve three components, economic enterprise is a human activity. Human beings, by the measure of growth accounting, contribute over half of what is valuable to production. Only one third of growth may be attributed to non-human, physical capital. Domestic production is affected massively by the human component’s contribution.”
Also, because it must be pointed out that despite the ASEAN integration being packaged as turning ASEAN into one big “production base,” the Philippines nevertheless is also hinging its strategy on expanding our services industry. But services require people. And people need to be educated and trained.
Connect that with the recent presentation at National Economic and Development Authority and Philippine Institute for Development Studies (NEDA PIDS) (Jobs, Expansion, and Development; by Paqueo, Orbeta, Lanzona, and Dulay; April 3, 2013) which talked about the “positive correlation of open unemployment with income and education.” More tellingly, they spoke of the fact that “income of households headed by high school graduates is more than double that of households with only elementary education.” In short, “the rate of return to investment in education is relatively high.”
Or put another way: the longer you stay in school, the higher your income and the greater the productivity, which then leads to overall national economic gain. But how can kids stay in school longer if they can’t control their hormones (urged on by a sexed up media) and keep getting pregnant?
Thusly, of the almost 3 million Filipinos currently unemployed, 48.2% are within the 15-24 age group, with 29.9% those 25-34 years old. Most of them are high school graduates.
The government’s solution is to pour condoms on them, which isn’t a solution at all. It’s like throwing band-aids at an accident-prone person but not teaching that person how to avoid accidents.
It’s common sense that is no longer common. As Tara Culp-Ressler writes (“Teen Pregnancy Negatively Impacts The National Economy”, June 8, 2012), albeit in the US setting, “Because teenage pregnancy deters increased education, it leads to significant amounts of lost earnings, which negatively effect the economy as a whole.”
In any event, the foregoing has to be understood within this context: at present, Filipinos 30 years old and below comprise around 70% of the population (with those below 14 years at 35%, with the median age at 22.9 years old). Those 65 years old comprise only about 4.1%.
Where our young go, literally so will our country.
And it takes no stretch of the imagination to connect the rise in teenage marriages to the rise in annulments. In which event, Potrykus and Fagan had this to say (albeit about marriage, divorce, and the economy): “Marriage is a causal agent of economic growth. It constitutes one third to one fourth of the human capital contribution of household heads to macroeconomic growth. The total contribution of human capital to growth of domestic product in turn is large, being of equal proportion to the other two contributing factors: size of the labor pool and physical capital. Divorce removes this agent of economic growth.”
The point of all this is: economics is not just about numbers and graphs. In the end, it’s about people. If we don’t care for our people well, molding their character properly and inculcating in them proper virtues, then all that economic planning is useless.
Looking at various studies related to the upcoming ASEAN 2015 integration, one would be struck by the amount of data compiled by our policy makers but at the same time disappointed at the seeming non-interest on their part on one particular set of numbers: the rise in teenage pregnancy and the seeming dissolution of the institution of marriage.
Recent figures indicated that teenage pregnancy in this country rose by 70% in the past 10-year period (114,205 in 1999 to 195,662 in 2009). The 2010 figures show 206,574 such pregnancies, with more than half of that number of girls below 14 years of age. Data from the National Youth Commission show that the Philippines has the third highest number of teen pregnancies in Southeast Asia and among the highest in the ASEAN region and the only country where such a number is increasing.
Also disconcertingly, 13-14% of all registered marriages are among those below 20 years old. Meanwhile, there is also a rise in annulment cases. The number of annulled marriages has steadily increased in the past decade or so, with a daily average of 28 couples reportedly filing annulment cases (as per the records of the Office of the Solicitor General). In 2012 alone, it was reported that 10,528 annulment cases were filed, representing a 100% increase in just 10 years.
Why are these numbers important in relation to our economy? Because the basic economic unit and source of productivity are people.
As pointed out by Henry Potrykus and Patrick Fagan (in their study “The Divorce Revolution Perpetually Reduces US Economic Growth: Divorce Removes a Fourth of Head-of-Household Productivity Growth,” March 8, 2012): “It is worth emphasizing that though economic production generally, and growth particularly involve three components, economic enterprise is a human activity. Human beings, by the measure of growth accounting, contribute over half of what is valuable to production. Only one third of growth may be attributed to non-human, physical capital. Domestic production is affected massively by the human component’s contribution.”
Also, because it must be pointed out that despite the ASEAN integration being packaged as turning ASEAN into one big “production base,” the Philippines nevertheless is also hinging its strategy on expanding our services industry. But services require people. And people need to be educated and trained.
Connect that with the recent presentation at National Economic and Development Authority and Philippine Institute for Development Studies (NEDA PIDS) (Jobs, Expansion, and Development; by Paqueo, Orbeta, Lanzona, and Dulay; April 3, 2013) which talked about the “positive correlation of open unemployment with income and education.” More tellingly, they spoke of the fact that “income of households headed by high school graduates is more than double that of households with only elementary education.” In short, “the rate of return to investment in education is relatively high.”
Or put another way: the longer you stay in school, the higher your income and the greater the productivity, which then leads to overall national economic gain. But how can kids stay in school longer if they can’t control their hormones (urged on by a sexed up media) and keep getting pregnant?
Thusly, of the almost 3 million Filipinos currently unemployed, 48.2% are within the 15-24 age group, with 29.9% those 25-34 years old. Most of them are high school graduates.
The government’s solution is to pour condoms on them, which isn’t a solution at all. It’s like throwing band-aids at an accident-prone person but not teaching that person how to avoid accidents.
It’s common sense that is no longer common. As Tara Culp-Ressler writes (“Teen Pregnancy Negatively Impacts The National Economy”, June 8, 2012), albeit in the US setting, “Because teenage pregnancy deters increased education, it leads to significant amounts of lost earnings, which negatively effect the economy as a whole.”
In any event, the foregoing has to be understood within this context: at present, Filipinos 30 years old and below comprise around 70% of the population (with those below 14 years at 35%, with the median age at 22.9 years old). Those 65 years old comprise only about 4.1%.
Where our young go, literally so will our country.
And it takes no stretch of the imagination to connect the rise in teenage marriages to the rise in annulments. In which event, Potrykus and Fagan had this to say (albeit about marriage, divorce, and the economy): “Marriage is a causal agent of economic growth. It constitutes one third to one fourth of the human capital contribution of household heads to macroeconomic growth. The total contribution of human capital to growth of domestic product in turn is large, being of equal proportion to the other two contributing factors: size of the labor pool and physical capital. Divorce removes this agent of economic growth.”
The point of all this is: economics is not just about numbers and graphs. In the end, it’s about people. If we don’t care for our people well, molding their character properly and inculcating in them proper virtues, then all that economic planning is useless.
8.4.14
SC decides on the RH Law
The Supreme Court gave its decision on the RH Law yesterday (08 April 2014).
It was a big victory for the pro-RH advocates. Obviously disappointing but the ruling essentially held no surprises: the core provisions were upheld by a unanimous SC vote, allowing for government subsidization and the free distribution of contraceptives in the country, as well as sex education.
The SC definitely did not 'water down' the RH Law. For text of the decision and various separate opinions, click here. Summary of the decision can be found here.
The only portion declared unconstitutional was practically, as expected, the minor provision on health care workers on the matter of referrals, as well as on spousal consent. People still make a big deal about a non-issue: the matter of abortifacients, a non-issue because the text of the RH Law itself prohibited abortifacients.
For a rundown on the various commentaries related to this SC case, from the oral arguments leading up to the decision today, read here. My commentary on religious freedom arguments, here.
News accounts on the decision here, here, and here.
I doff my hat to the government lawyers, particularly SolGen Francis Jardeleza and Asst. SolGen (and constitutional law expert) Florin Hilbay for a well orchestrated, legally coherent, and sophisticatedly reasoned defense.
Pro-lifers definitely have their work cut out for them in the coming days, years. They have a choice: they can repeat their mistakes, go about their disorganized, unfocused, personality driven way of doing things. Or they can pull themselves together, study harder, think better, and learn to allow their best guns to go forward.
It was a big victory for the pro-RH advocates. Obviously disappointing but the ruling essentially held no surprises: the core provisions were upheld by a unanimous SC vote, allowing for government subsidization and the free distribution of contraceptives in the country, as well as sex education.
The SC definitely did not 'water down' the RH Law. For text of the decision and various separate opinions, click here. Summary of the decision can be found here.
The only portion declared unconstitutional was practically, as expected, the minor provision on health care workers on the matter of referrals, as well as on spousal consent. People still make a big deal about a non-issue: the matter of abortifacients, a non-issue because the text of the RH Law itself prohibited abortifacients.
For a rundown on the various commentaries related to this SC case, from the oral arguments leading up to the decision today, read here. My commentary on religious freedom arguments, here.
News accounts on the decision here, here, and here.
I doff my hat to the government lawyers, particularly SolGen Francis Jardeleza and Asst. SolGen (and constitutional law expert) Florin Hilbay for a well orchestrated, legally coherent, and sophisticatedly reasoned defense.
Pro-lifers definitely have their work cut out for them in the coming days, years. They have a choice: they can repeat their mistakes, go about their disorganized, unfocused, personality driven way of doing things. Or they can pull themselves together, study harder, think better, and learn to allow their best guns to go forward.
10.2.13
Natural law and contraception
The following are draft notes made for the show Naturang Batas (episode on "Natural Law and Contraception) by Fr. Ces Magsino. However, the 'drafts' are so instructive that I asked the permission of Fr. Ces to share it to my readers. And here it is:
What is meant by contraception?
Contraception is a kind of behavior whose
context is the conjugal life of a married couple. So we are not talking about
sexual relations of two unmarried persons because then we would talking instead
of fornication or adultery.
Contraception is any action by which the
married couple intentionally renders their conjugal act unfruitful by any means
whatsoever. It involves the decision to do the marital act but also the
decision to intentionally deprive it of its capacity to transmit life. The
method that is used does not make any difference: the couple might use the
pill, a diaphragm, a condom, spermicide, IUD, or withdrawal and in all these
cases the marital act will be contraceptive.
A special case of contraception can
happen in the case of a couple who intentionally exclude having children from
their married life without any serious reason for doing so and have marital
relations only during the infertile periods of the wife. Apparently this kind
of behavior is natural family planning; but it really is another form of
contraception.
Contraception is a moral evil. We can
understand contraception better if we contrast it to the true human good to
which it is opposed. It is really opposed to two human goods: responsible
parenthood and marital chastity. The two are related to each other. Responsible
parenthood demands the practice of marital chastity and this latter facilitates
very much the practice of the former.
In the case of the couple that excludes
having children for no serious reason these persons are not practicing
responsible parenthood. Even if they use natural family planning they will
still be doing something evil because their actions go against a true human
good.
In the case of the couple that uses
artificial means of contraception, they are deciding to have marital relations
instead of the possibility of abstaining since they have used certain means to
make the act unfruitful and so they consider it “safe”. Here aside from not
practicing responsible parenthood there is also typically the choice of not
practicing self-discipline over the sexual urges and hence the lack of
chastity.
What again is the natural law?
It has been the claim of the Catholic
Church that its teaching that contraception is evil is part of the natural law.
And so, it will make sense to ask what this natural law is when we talk about
contraception.
Natural law is nothing else than our very
same reason that tells us what acts or kinds of behavior are good or evil.
Then, moreover, it tells us that good must be done and evil must be avoided. It
is our reason that tells us that lying, killing persons, hurting others,
disrespecting people are evil actions and that we should not do such actions.
And it is also our reason that tells us that truthfulness, honesty, working
well, respecting others, helping others are all good actions and we must do
such actions. We come to have these ideas spontaneously, meaning that no formal
syllogism is needed to arrive at such a conclusion as to kill an innocent
person is evil. But even if we do not perform any syllogistic reasoning to know
this idea, our practical reason can see the reasonableness of such proposition.
What again is human nature?
Natural law is said to be based upon human
nature. The typical understanding is this: our human nature is what tells us
the principles of the natural law. This will need a little explanation because
this point is not as clear as it seems at first sight.
We can understand human nature in the
physical sense: a man is made of flesh and bones, organs and tissues, nerves
and brain, bodily systems and functions. This is what the medical doctors
study. Of course, knowing how the body functions will make us know what is good
for our health and what is harmful. And so we avoid certain foods or handling
certain contaminated materials because they are not good for our health. This
is a kind of law we follow but this is not yet the natural law we are talking
about here.
The human nature we are talking about as
the basis of the natural law is man’s nature as being a person, a rational
individual. Being a person he has a specific dignity, a quality that demands
that he be respected. Being a person, he is reasonable, that is he tends to act
according to reason. And so the natural law we are referring to is what is
reasonable for man, what accords with his reason. In the end, what is
reasonable for a person is what contributes to his full development and his happiness.
Why is contraception said to violate natural law?
Contraception as we defined it goes against
two human goods as we have said. By saying this we are also saying that it goes
against reason and reasonableness. And whatever goes against reason and reasonableness
will go against the true good for man and against the natural law.
By choosing contraception, a married
couple purposely renders their marital act unfruitful. Presumably the couple
wants the benefit of sexual pleasure without the supposed burden of having a
child. By any reasonable standard this way of acting is irresponsible. Our
actions have natural consequences. If we eat fatty foods we raise our
cholesterol levels. If we give in to laziness and don’t do our jobs, then we
can get laid off. Any person will agree that someone who does something or
omits doing something should be responsible and face the consequences. To have
a sense of responsibility is a basic quality of any normal and upright person.
Irresponsibility harms persons and society. Contraception promotes
irresponsibility in parenthood. In fact it is the denial of parenthood.
Very much related to irresponsibility
involved in contraception is the lack of chastity. By choosing to do
contraception the couple chooses not to abstain from having
marital relations so as to avoid a conception. The choice of not abstaining has
its roots in the decision not to control one’s sexual urges when there is a
reason for doing so. This is the lack of chastity.
Chastity is a very important personal good.
Its absence has tremendous repercussions not only for one’s personal life but
also for the life of a family and the society in general. One just has to
realize that at the root of crimes like rape and adultery, and social maladies
like broken families, separation, divorce, juvenile delinquency is precisely
the lack of chastity.
Are there any exceptions? Dangerous pregnancies? Too many children already? Gays using condoms?
Contraception is said to be intrinsically
evil. This means that the principle “contraception is evil” does not admit of
exceptions. In a similar way other principles of the natural law like “killing
an innocent person is evil”, “lying is evil”, “fraud is evil” do not admit of
exceptions. Imagine if these principles of the natural law admitted exceptions,
there would be chaos in our society.
The problem of spacing the births of
children, assuming the couple has good reasons for doing so will not constitute
a reason for admitting the practice of contraception because there is a
reasonable way of proceeding if the goal of the couple is to space the next
birth. The reasonable way of acting is to practice periodic continence.
Many years ago, it was claimed that the
methods available for the practice of periodic continence were so unreliable and
unpredictable that these methods placed an onerous burden and strain on
conjugal relations. Those days are over since the current scientific and
medical knowledge about female fertility makes determination of the wife’s
fertile days very accurate.
The question of homosexual relations is a
different issue altogether. Their practices cannot be classified as
contraceptive because they are naturally unnatural and unfruitful.
Why can’t it be sex for the sake of sex? Can’t married couples enjoy sex just for the sake of sex?
If we reflect is a little bit about the
differences between the male and female person especially as regards their
sexual organs, we come to the conclusion they are configured excellently for
the transmission of life. Any person who learns about the intricacies of the
union of the sexual gametes and the ensuing conception of life will be awed at
the tremendous complementarity and complexity involved in the entire process.
And so it is reasonable to conclude that the sexual union has for its purpose
the transmission of life.
But since man is not just an animal but a
person, the sexual union for him and her is not just a physical and biological
event. It is also expressive of the married love of husband and wife. It is the
sign of their love and self-giving. From the personal point of view, the
conjugal act is an act of total self-giving, where each person gives the other
the totality of his personhood. Now part of that personhood is the husband’s
masculinity and the wife’s femininity and this includes one’s fertility. A
silent sign and witness of this exchange is the husband’s seed being left in
the womb of the wife. Naturally a concomitant of the exchange is the intense
sexual pleasure that is given and received.
From this standpoint, we can see that
contraception makes the conjugal act cease to be an expression of total
self-giving because each one’s fertility is not given because of a deliberate
choice of the will. The act in fact ceases to be a conjugal act. Both parties
are aware that they have chosen to enjoy the marital act but deliberately
depriving it of its relation to fruitfulness. This is what happens when they
perform sex for the sake of sex.
What is difference of contraception with NFP?
I have asked married couples that same
question: what difference would it make for you if you took pills or if you
practiced NFP. They always answer the same way: oh, there’s a whole world of
difference. With pills you don’t have to practice abstinence or self-control.
With NFP you have to practice self-control. I think that answers the question.
It comes from the couples themselves.
Although it might seem that there is no
difference between contraception and NFP because the premises are the same (the
marital act is performed) and the conclusions are the same (there is no
conception), the difference does not lie in the mechanics of the entire process
but in the choice of the will of the couple. The couples that practice NFP have
decided to practice a virtue: marital chastity.
But we also have to remember that aside
from chastity the other virtue demanded by natural law for married persons is
responsible parenthood. If a couple decide to use NFP but with the purpose of
not practicing responsible parenthood (meaning they do not want to have
children without serious reasons) then their choice will also go against the
natural law. It will also be evil.
But isn’t it true that NFP is merely last resort? Please explain.
NFP is the only naturally viable option for
married couples who want to space the birth of their children. It is the only
option that is morally sound.
Some critiques of this idea claim that
NFP is evil because it inhibits the “spontaneity” of the couples and introduces
a “wedge” in their relations which is the calendar.
This criticism equates evil with the lack
of spontaneity and so we can say it equates goodness with spontaneity.
Furthermore, the assumption here is that what is spontaneous is what is
natural. It is easy to realize that not all spontaneous acts in a person are
reasonable and good for the person. Any spontaneous action in a person will
still have to be subject to the governance of reason for the action to be truly
good. One’s emotions or feelings, for example, are spontaneous events. People
say: I could not help fall in love with her. We know of many cases where people
have regretted being carried away by their emotions or feelings.
As to NFP putting a wedge between
couples, this claim is denied by many couples who bear witness to living very
satisfied married lives while practicing periodic continence.
What would be possible sanctions for violating natural law with contraception?
The sanctions for the practice of
contraception are what we can call the “natural sanctions” for contraception
and these are patent to all.
Because contraception goes against life
at its beginnings, its natural offspring is the certain attitude or mentality
that does not respect life and so we have the so-called culture of death. This
is the culture that has gripped the old world: Europe and North America. When
people do not see anymore that abortion is clearly murder then you have the
culture of death in full force.
We already said that contraception also
promotes the lack of responsibility and chastity among persons. The social
consequences of these vices are also obvious to any reasonable person.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)