is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
Last June, the Department of Health issued
Administrative Order (AO) No. 2012-0009. The declared goal of the AO was
to reduce the “unmet need for modern family planning,” specifically the
minimization of “maternal mortality.” But the same raises more
questions than the answers it attempted to provide. Where is the need to
control our population when it’s already unquestioned that it’s
precisely that which gives the Philippines superior competitive
advantage? Reduce maternal deaths? Then why not provide better medical
facilities and services rather than contraception?
The entire thing smacks of mere ideological bias. I don’t
think anybody reasonably believes anymore today that the push for
contraception is due to economics or female health. Unfortunately, such
bias runs on several deeply flawed assumptions. The first is that
religious objections find no basis in reason. The second is that
institutions are male-imposed creations. The third is that the
empowerment of women requires detaching responsibility from sex. The first two are nonsense. It’s the third we shall focus on, not
because it has any merit but rather due to the peculiar emotional
attraction that underlies it. I would even go so far to say that the
only reason this contraception issue has the support it allegedly has is
simply because of this myth.
Because in the end, it’s just a myth. Its overall idea seems to
be is that if only women can be allowed, through contraception,
unencumbered, no-fear, responsibility-free sex, then their economic,
political, and social rights consequently will achieve absolute
fulfillment. The sense that is conveyed is that family and children
(never mind the husbands) are shackles or burdens that weigh women down.
Take away the problem of babies and the need for marriage, and women
will be happier and more accomplished.
The argument, at least in its most intelligent form, was expressed by author Hanna Rosin (in an article for the Wall Street Journal):
“the sexual revolution has deepened into a more permanent kind of power
for women. Young women in their sexual prime -- that is, their 20s and
early 30s -- are generally better off than young men. They are better
educated and earn more money on average. What made this possible is the
sexual revolution -- the ability to have temporary, intimate
relationships that don’t derail a career. Or to put it more simply, to
have sex without getting married.”
However, the popularity of wedding planners has never been
adequately explained. Furthermore, as Mary Eberstadt (also for the WSJ)
wrote, the sexual revolution wasn’t actually good for women: “What of
the fact, widely reported earlier this week, that 26% of American women
are on some kind of mental-health medication for anxiety and depression
and related problems? Or how about what is known in sociology as ‘the
paradox of declining female happiness’? Using 35 years of data from the
General Social Survey, two Wharton School economists, Betsey Stevenson
and Justin Wolfers, made the case in 2009 that women’s happiness
appeared to be declining over time despite their advances in the work
force and education.”
Thus Helen Alvaré, associate professor at George Mason University
School of Law, points out: the US sexual revolution has had “four to
five decades to prove itself. There has been a massive expansion of
‘sexual liberty’ on a nationwide scale. Consequently, by this time,
observers (and policy makers) with an objective bone in their bodies who
believe in the scientific method, would now be searching for a net
improvement in the reported happiness and freedom of women.” And yet,
“women are less happy than they were 50 years ago, but less happy
relative to men, as well over the same time period. Were increases in
sexual liberty for women a key determinant of happiness (sufficiently
key to raise birth control above even life-saving medicines for federal
favor), a simple time-series graph correlating the percentage of women
using contraception in the United States with the percentage of women
reporting themselves as ‘happy’ would show a direct relationship.
Instead, we have more women accessing birth control but less female
happiness as described above.”
This was corroborated by Arthur Brooks of the New York Times:
“Marriage and happiness go together. If two people are demographically
the same but one is married and the other is not, the married person
will be 18 percentage points more likely to say he or she is very happy
than the unmarried person.” Incidentally, Brooks also mentions that the
“story on religion is much the same. According to the Social Capital
Community Benchmark Survey, conservatives who practice a faith outnumber
religious liberals in America nearly four to one. And the link to
happiness? You guessed it. Religious participants are nearly twice as
likely to say they are very happy about their lives as are secularists
(43% to 23%).”
So can we just please stop it already with this juvenile
contraception thing? Common sense, reason, and sanity already demand
that we do.
27.7.12
19.7.12
Suing foreign governments
is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
Actually, it’s not really that difficult. Relatively speaking. Developments in international law have been such that a determined individual can sue any government that has done him wrong, whether it be in the realm of criminal or civil matters, on investments, or trade discrimination (and -- to a certain extent -- on human rights). Of course, a helpful government from the country of which one is a citizen of would also go a long way indeed. But even then, such is not a necessity.
These thoughts came up recently, what with pronouncements by World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy decrying that “there has been no slowdown in the imposition of new trade restrictions over the past seven months” and noted that “the more recent wave of trade restrictions seems no longer to be aimed at combatting the temporary effects of the global crisis, but rather at trying to stimulate recovery through national industrial planning, which is a an altogether longer-term affair.”
This has led to quite ridiculous statements by some leading Philippine businessmen condemning developed economies’ support for their local markets. Ridiculous because it’s what Philippine industries have long been demanding. One can’t exactly condemn another for doing what one has also been wanting to do. These businessmen then clangingly clamored we forge ahead with bilateral deals. Which again betrays fuzzy thinking. If the Philippines -- rightly -- decided to approach the Scarborough Shoal issue through a pacific multilateral track, what makes people think that trade matters would not benefit from a similar policy and avoid similar pitfalls.
Thus the importance of dispute settlement mechanisms, for which the WTO version is really a cut above the rest. As reported by the WTO Web site: “There is very broad confidence in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Ninety-eight members have participated in one capacity or another, which is 63% of the membership. Importantly, developing members are just as active as developed ones.” The Philippines was party recently to two big WTO cases, winning one (against Thailand, on cigarettes) and losing the other (against the European Union and the United States, on distilled spirits).
The WTO dispute procedure has been discussed in this column in past articles. But any local industry that feels it is being discriminated against by a foreign market need only approach the Department of Trade and Industry (for non-agricultural, i.e., industrial, goods) or the Department of Agriculture (for agricultural products) for assistance. For Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member-countries, there is also the ASEAN dispute settlement mechanism, which is patterned closely after the WTO dispute system.
Then there is the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The ICSID short-circuits State immunity from suit obstacles by allowing private entities to protect the investments they made in a foreign country. Complaints covered could include improper expropriation of the investment or unfair treatment, either through violation of most-favored-nation or national treatment principles. Thus: “The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the Centre. When the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its consent unilaterally.”
It is also possible to sue, if such be in existence, under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The rules would normally fall under that of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. It must be noted that what qualifies as an “investment” for ICSID (thus allowing one to sue) may not qualify as such under a BIT (and vice-versa). There are, however, a couple of advantages to an ICSID suit. First is that ICSID members are duty-bound to respect ICSID awards as if they were judgments by their own national courts. Furthermore, ICSID has developed a considerable body of “case law” (relatively speaking, as there is essentially no stare decisis in international law) and this has lent a certain amount of predictability and credibility to ICSID proceedings.
One can also sue governments without resort to international tribunals. While clearly there are sovereign immunity issues that need to be resolved, this is not as impossible as one might think. In the Philippines, there are certain laws that allow individuals to sue its government, particularly if the government act questioned fall under that which is classified as jure gestionis (or commercial acts).
The US has a developed set of legislations enabling individuals to sue foreign states or governmental agencies. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides such a framework that US citizens can take advantage of. Like Philippine law, the primary basis for allowing the suit is if the act complained of against the foreign government is considered a “commercial activity.”
Suing a foreign government, one finds quite quickly, isn’t as glamorous as it sounds. Like domestic litigations, one would most likely be frustrated by the mind-numbing paperwork involved more than anything else.
Actually, it’s not really that difficult. Relatively speaking. Developments in international law have been such that a determined individual can sue any government that has done him wrong, whether it be in the realm of criminal or civil matters, on investments, or trade discrimination (and -- to a certain extent -- on human rights). Of course, a helpful government from the country of which one is a citizen of would also go a long way indeed. But even then, such is not a necessity.
These thoughts came up recently, what with pronouncements by World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy decrying that “there has been no slowdown in the imposition of new trade restrictions over the past seven months” and noted that “the more recent wave of trade restrictions seems no longer to be aimed at combatting the temporary effects of the global crisis, but rather at trying to stimulate recovery through national industrial planning, which is a an altogether longer-term affair.”
This has led to quite ridiculous statements by some leading Philippine businessmen condemning developed economies’ support for their local markets. Ridiculous because it’s what Philippine industries have long been demanding. One can’t exactly condemn another for doing what one has also been wanting to do. These businessmen then clangingly clamored we forge ahead with bilateral deals. Which again betrays fuzzy thinking. If the Philippines -- rightly -- decided to approach the Scarborough Shoal issue through a pacific multilateral track, what makes people think that trade matters would not benefit from a similar policy and avoid similar pitfalls.
Thus the importance of dispute settlement mechanisms, for which the WTO version is really a cut above the rest. As reported by the WTO Web site: “There is very broad confidence in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Ninety-eight members have participated in one capacity or another, which is 63% of the membership. Importantly, developing members are just as active as developed ones.” The Philippines was party recently to two big WTO cases, winning one (against Thailand, on cigarettes) and losing the other (against the European Union and the United States, on distilled spirits).
The WTO dispute procedure has been discussed in this column in past articles. But any local industry that feels it is being discriminated against by a foreign market need only approach the Department of Trade and Industry (for non-agricultural, i.e., industrial, goods) or the Department of Agriculture (for agricultural products) for assistance. For Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member-countries, there is also the ASEAN dispute settlement mechanism, which is patterned closely after the WTO dispute system.
Then there is the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The ICSID short-circuits State immunity from suit obstacles by allowing private entities to protect the investments they made in a foreign country. Complaints covered could include improper expropriation of the investment or unfair treatment, either through violation of most-favored-nation or national treatment principles. Thus: “The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the Centre. When the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its consent unilaterally.”
It is also possible to sue, if such be in existence, under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The rules would normally fall under that of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. It must be noted that what qualifies as an “investment” for ICSID (thus allowing one to sue) may not qualify as such under a BIT (and vice-versa). There are, however, a couple of advantages to an ICSID suit. First is that ICSID members are duty-bound to respect ICSID awards as if they were judgments by their own national courts. Furthermore, ICSID has developed a considerable body of “case law” (relatively speaking, as there is essentially no stare decisis in international law) and this has lent a certain amount of predictability and credibility to ICSID proceedings.
One can also sue governments without resort to international tribunals. While clearly there are sovereign immunity issues that need to be resolved, this is not as impossible as one might think. In the Philippines, there are certain laws that allow individuals to sue its government, particularly if the government act questioned fall under that which is classified as jure gestionis (or commercial acts).
The US has a developed set of legislations enabling individuals to sue foreign states or governmental agencies. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides such a framework that US citizens can take advantage of. Like Philippine law, the primary basis for allowing the suit is if the act complained of against the foreign government is considered a “commercial activity.”
Suing a foreign government, one finds quite quickly, isn’t as glamorous as it sounds. Like domestic litigations, one would most likely be frustrated by the mind-numbing paperwork involved more than anything else.
13.7.12
Business, trade, and foie gras
is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
One misconception people have is that the rules of international trade and public international law only have effects at the state-to-state level. While this may be true to a certain extent, considering that state actors are primarily the subjects of international law, nevertheless, what goes on, for example, in other countries or at the World Trade Organization will have repercussions not only for the large multinational but even for small businesses as well.
And this should ram home a particular reality about today’s law and business: that there are multiple norms layered or intertwining at the multilateral, regional, bilateral, and even at the domestic foreign jurisdiction level that all potentially affect Philippine companies or citizens. And this is true whether we acknowledge that fact or not.
Several notable cases illustrate this point. The first is that reported by DevelopTradeLaw.Net: “Small businesses doing business internationally need to understand their legal obligations so that they don’t become another ING, the bank recently levied with $619 million in fines. The fines penalize ING for its failure to abide by US trade laws. [ING, it was alleged] knowingly or unknowingly repeatedly violated US trade sanctions. US trade sanctions prohibit or place restrictions on individuals and companies operating under US law from doing business with embargoed countries. The countries may be embargoed because of US concerns about human rights violations, terrorist or nuclear proliferation activities, or US Government dislike of the government’s policies.”
However, it must be stated that this matter of foreign laws having effect on acts committed outside the territory of a state is not even a new development. This is actually a decades-old thing, the most significant one being that of the Helms-Burton Law that was applied for purposes of sanctioning Fidel Castro’s Cuba. The law has been revised through time but as present regulations stand, “all US citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically in the United states, and all branches and subsidiaries of US organizations throughout the world” are prohibited from bringing in “goods of Cuban origin, other than information or informational materials”.
Then there is the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This law prohibits “issuers, domestic concerns, and any person from making use of interstate commerce corruptly, in furtherance of an offer or payment of anything of value to a foreign official, foreign political party, or candidate for political office, for the purpose of influencing any act of that foreign official in violation of the duty of that official, or to secure any improper advantage in order to obtain or retain business.”
The US, however, is not alone in exercising jurisdiction over acts that occur outside its borders. On corruption, the United Kingdom has its own version of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which has been described as a more muscular version of the FCPA. China, for its part, has also released its own legislation on foreign corruption. A report by the law firm White & Case pointed out two instances illustrative of the reach of the new legislations: Avon Products, Inc.’s troubles last year over allegations of bribery of Chinese officials, which later led to findings of discrepancies in India, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. There was also Citigroup’s problem regarding alleged embezzlements in Indonesia.
The above rules are likely defended under the “effects” doctrine of criminal jurisdiction. The doctrine is to be distinguished from the “protective” doctrine, which the Philippine’s itself has had occasion to employ (the Philippines primarily relies on “territoriality” as the basis for its criminal jurisdiction). However, as can be gleaned from the foregoing, the effects doctrine is particularly distasteful for a number of states, considering its extraterritorial reach and -- most disconcertingly -- the acquisition of jurisdiction over non-nationals.
Having said that, the Philippines may want to explore the use of the “effects” doctrine for purposes of punishing foreigners, either through imprisonment if they travel to the Philippines or confiscation of their local Philippine assets, who have harmed or abused our workers abroad.
A further problem for small businesses is when the export market suddenly decides to ban their product, as California (and before it, Chicago) did in the case of foie gras. The ban was justified with the allegation that the production of foie gras is a cruel practice, what with the enlarging of duck’s livers through force feeding.
One may laugh at this sort of moralizing by the Californians but their logic could very well lead to “balut” or “bagoong” being banned for very arbitrary reasons. So we should welcome any action on the foie gras ban that may be taken by the French, Bulgarian, and Hungarian governments at the WTO for possible violation of trade law.
So the lesson is: while Philippine politics seem to have depreciated to a system of irrationality and the mere sucking up to the powers that be, international law is standing fast with that time-tested dictum -- knowledge is power.
One misconception people have is that the rules of international trade and public international law only have effects at the state-to-state level. While this may be true to a certain extent, considering that state actors are primarily the subjects of international law, nevertheless, what goes on, for example, in other countries or at the World Trade Organization will have repercussions not only for the large multinational but even for small businesses as well.
And this should ram home a particular reality about today’s law and business: that there are multiple norms layered or intertwining at the multilateral, regional, bilateral, and even at the domestic foreign jurisdiction level that all potentially affect Philippine companies or citizens. And this is true whether we acknowledge that fact or not.
Several notable cases illustrate this point. The first is that reported by DevelopTradeLaw.Net: “Small businesses doing business internationally need to understand their legal obligations so that they don’t become another ING, the bank recently levied with $619 million in fines. The fines penalize ING for its failure to abide by US trade laws. [ING, it was alleged] knowingly or unknowingly repeatedly violated US trade sanctions. US trade sanctions prohibit or place restrictions on individuals and companies operating under US law from doing business with embargoed countries. The countries may be embargoed because of US concerns about human rights violations, terrorist or nuclear proliferation activities, or US Government dislike of the government’s policies.”
However, it must be stated that this matter of foreign laws having effect on acts committed outside the territory of a state is not even a new development. This is actually a decades-old thing, the most significant one being that of the Helms-Burton Law that was applied for purposes of sanctioning Fidel Castro’s Cuba. The law has been revised through time but as present regulations stand, “all US citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically in the United states, and all branches and subsidiaries of US organizations throughout the world” are prohibited from bringing in “goods of Cuban origin, other than information or informational materials”.
Then there is the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This law prohibits “issuers, domestic concerns, and any person from making use of interstate commerce corruptly, in furtherance of an offer or payment of anything of value to a foreign official, foreign political party, or candidate for political office, for the purpose of influencing any act of that foreign official in violation of the duty of that official, or to secure any improper advantage in order to obtain or retain business.”
The US, however, is not alone in exercising jurisdiction over acts that occur outside its borders. On corruption, the United Kingdom has its own version of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which has been described as a more muscular version of the FCPA. China, for its part, has also released its own legislation on foreign corruption. A report by the law firm White & Case pointed out two instances illustrative of the reach of the new legislations: Avon Products, Inc.’s troubles last year over allegations of bribery of Chinese officials, which later led to findings of discrepancies in India, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. There was also Citigroup’s problem regarding alleged embezzlements in Indonesia.
The above rules are likely defended under the “effects” doctrine of criminal jurisdiction. The doctrine is to be distinguished from the “protective” doctrine, which the Philippine’s itself has had occasion to employ (the Philippines primarily relies on “territoriality” as the basis for its criminal jurisdiction). However, as can be gleaned from the foregoing, the effects doctrine is particularly distasteful for a number of states, considering its extraterritorial reach and -- most disconcertingly -- the acquisition of jurisdiction over non-nationals.
Having said that, the Philippines may want to explore the use of the “effects” doctrine for purposes of punishing foreigners, either through imprisonment if they travel to the Philippines or confiscation of their local Philippine assets, who have harmed or abused our workers abroad.
A further problem for small businesses is when the export market suddenly decides to ban their product, as California (and before it, Chicago) did in the case of foie gras. The ban was justified with the allegation that the production of foie gras is a cruel practice, what with the enlarging of duck’s livers through force feeding.
One may laugh at this sort of moralizing by the Californians but their logic could very well lead to “balut” or “bagoong” being banned for very arbitrary reasons. So we should welcome any action on the foie gras ban that may be taken by the French, Bulgarian, and Hungarian governments at the WTO for possible violation of trade law.
So the lesson is: while Philippine politics seem to have depreciated to a system of irrationality and the mere sucking up to the powers that be, international law is standing fast with that time-tested dictum -- knowledge is power.
5.7.12
Obama's health care
is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
To the dismay of many, the US Supreme Court (well, actually Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts) dealt an apparently huge blow to the conservative movement by upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA was a flagship program of US President Barack Obama’s administration (pretty much like the impeachment case engineered by Noynoy Aquino’s administration). The implications of that complex ruling (particularly as to how it will affect this November’s US presidential elections) will keep people perplexed and analyzing for months and years on end.
The impact of the ruling on the personal economies of ordinary US citizens (not to mention health care providers) is substantial enough. As reported by the Wall Street Journal (Court Backs Obama on Health Law, 29 June 2012): “The court’s decision leaves intact hundreds of provisions in the sweeping overhaul, with major changes to the US health system set to take effect by 2014. That is the year when individuals and employers will face their coverage mandates. Insurance companies will have to accept all customers regardless of medical history and won’t be able to charge more to those who are sick.”
The issue, however, goes far deeper than that, essentially dealing with a citizen’s right to choose. People who don’t want health care or need a different type of health care will now be forced to pay for other people’s health care. Bottom line is: people’s medical costs will go up regardless if they’re going to be using them or not. Even health care providers are up in arms because their capacity to be reimbursed under the ACA is dependent not necessarily on the needs of any particular patient but rather as what will be dictated by Washington. Noticeably, the effectivity of all this is 2014, which is past the presidential elections. The Obama camp hopes that any political fallout won’t have any effect on his (possible) re-election.
Disappointment was most expressed against Chief Justice John Roberts, who at one time was called by the New Yorker as the “Supreme Court’s stealth hard-liner.” It was he who was expected to ram down the nail on the ACA’s coffin. Instead, he ruled in its favor by bafflingly declaring in his ponente that the ACA was constitutional, not on the perspective of it violating the “commerce clause” of the US constitution but on the fact that it properly fell within Congress’s taxation powers. Baffling because the Obama administration had always denied the ACA to be a tax measure (which it promised it wouldn’t do). It now leaves the Democrats with the dilemma of how to support and explain the ruling without making them look confused or lying.
One thing is certain though: the suits filed by Catholic and faith-based institutions on the health care laws’ health and human services (HHS) contraception mandate will continue, if not invigorated. It has to be clarified that the ACA case heard and eventually ruled by the Supreme Court is separate from that of the HHS case (although had the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA was unconstitutional, then the HHS mandate case would be rendered technically “moot”). The EWTN Global Catholic Network, which filed suit last February to stop the implementation of the HHS mandate, immediately issued this statement upon release of the Supreme Court’s decision: “the US Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act in its entirety ensures that the Network and many other entities must continue the battle for religious liberty in this country.”
[For purposes of full disclosure, I am the legal counsel for the EWTN Foundation, Philippines.] The rationale for EWTN’s suit, filed not at the US Supreme Court but at the US District Court in Birmingham, Alabama, is that the HHS mandate “requires employee health plans to provide coverage for morally objectionable services like contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.” Accordingly, the same violates religious and conscience rights of affected institutions and individuals (regardless of whether they are Catholic or not).
For their part, the Becket Fund also came out with a statement declaring that their own suit against the HHS mandate will be vigorously pursued: “The court’s opinion today did not decide the issues in our cases. We are challenging the Health and Human Services mandate on religious liberty grounds which are not part of today’s decision. We will move forward seeking vindication of our client’s First Amendment rights. The Becket Fund’s religious liberty lawsuits against the unconstitutional HHS mandate will continue. Never in history has there been a mandate forcing individuals to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.”
The parallels between the suits against the HHS mandate and the current debate happening in the Philippines in relation to the RH Bill is interesting, to say the least. At the heart of the issue is the matter of religious rights, with the US in a huge struggle to recover religious convictions in its public life and the Philippines in the fight of its life to retain it.
To the dismay of many, the US Supreme Court (well, actually Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts) dealt an apparently huge blow to the conservative movement by upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA was a flagship program of US President Barack Obama’s administration (pretty much like the impeachment case engineered by Noynoy Aquino’s administration). The implications of that complex ruling (particularly as to how it will affect this November’s US presidential elections) will keep people perplexed and analyzing for months and years on end.
The impact of the ruling on the personal economies of ordinary US citizens (not to mention health care providers) is substantial enough. As reported by the Wall Street Journal (Court Backs Obama on Health Law, 29 June 2012): “The court’s decision leaves intact hundreds of provisions in the sweeping overhaul, with major changes to the US health system set to take effect by 2014. That is the year when individuals and employers will face their coverage mandates. Insurance companies will have to accept all customers regardless of medical history and won’t be able to charge more to those who are sick.”
The issue, however, goes far deeper than that, essentially dealing with a citizen’s right to choose. People who don’t want health care or need a different type of health care will now be forced to pay for other people’s health care. Bottom line is: people’s medical costs will go up regardless if they’re going to be using them or not. Even health care providers are up in arms because their capacity to be reimbursed under the ACA is dependent not necessarily on the needs of any particular patient but rather as what will be dictated by Washington. Noticeably, the effectivity of all this is 2014, which is past the presidential elections. The Obama camp hopes that any political fallout won’t have any effect on his (possible) re-election.
Disappointment was most expressed against Chief Justice John Roberts, who at one time was called by the New Yorker as the “Supreme Court’s stealth hard-liner.” It was he who was expected to ram down the nail on the ACA’s coffin. Instead, he ruled in its favor by bafflingly declaring in his ponente that the ACA was constitutional, not on the perspective of it violating the “commerce clause” of the US constitution but on the fact that it properly fell within Congress’s taxation powers. Baffling because the Obama administration had always denied the ACA to be a tax measure (which it promised it wouldn’t do). It now leaves the Democrats with the dilemma of how to support and explain the ruling without making them look confused or lying.
One thing is certain though: the suits filed by Catholic and faith-based institutions on the health care laws’ health and human services (HHS) contraception mandate will continue, if not invigorated. It has to be clarified that the ACA case heard and eventually ruled by the Supreme Court is separate from that of the HHS case (although had the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA was unconstitutional, then the HHS mandate case would be rendered technically “moot”). The EWTN Global Catholic Network, which filed suit last February to stop the implementation of the HHS mandate, immediately issued this statement upon release of the Supreme Court’s decision: “the US Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act in its entirety ensures that the Network and many other entities must continue the battle for religious liberty in this country.”
[For purposes of full disclosure, I am the legal counsel for the EWTN Foundation, Philippines.] The rationale for EWTN’s suit, filed not at the US Supreme Court but at the US District Court in Birmingham, Alabama, is that the HHS mandate “requires employee health plans to provide coverage for morally objectionable services like contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.” Accordingly, the same violates religious and conscience rights of affected institutions and individuals (regardless of whether they are Catholic or not).
For their part, the Becket Fund also came out with a statement declaring that their own suit against the HHS mandate will be vigorously pursued: “The court’s opinion today did not decide the issues in our cases. We are challenging the Health and Human Services mandate on religious liberty grounds which are not part of today’s decision. We will move forward seeking vindication of our client’s First Amendment rights. The Becket Fund’s religious liberty lawsuits against the unconstitutional HHS mandate will continue. Never in history has there been a mandate forcing individuals to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.”
The parallels between the suits against the HHS mandate and the current debate happening in the Philippines in relation to the RH Bill is interesting, to say the least. At the heart of the issue is the matter of religious rights, with the US in a huge struggle to recover religious convictions in its public life and the Philippines in the fight of its life to retain it.
29.6.12
Attack of the killer robots
is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
Nowadays, to talk about morality is a bad thing. It speaks to many, particularly the young, of suppression of freedom, self-expression, and creativity. To the simplistic-minded, morality is synonymous to the repression of sexuality. And to ask that morality be applied in public life is taken as alternatively a demand sprung from naivety or, worse, to dictate the imposition of one’s beliefs on what is supposedly a pluralistic society.
But what is morality except to refer to the behavior of human beings? It doesn’t necessarily refer per se to determinations of good or bad. Morality was derived from the French "moral", which in turn was taken from the Latin "moralis". Moralis simply denotes "manners" and is also related to the Latin word "mos", which means manner or custom.
Today, of course, when one speaks of morality it generally is taken to mean discussions of good or bad. But the reason why "morality" has presently taken such a meaning is precisely because in discussing morality it actually refers to acts of human beings. Assuming you are somebody who thinks that human beings are not merely "ideas" (i.e., that reality are all only thoughts or imaginations) or merely bodies (i.e., without intellect, that we are ruled by passions or compulsions; for the religious, they’d make reference to a "soul"), then you would have to agree that we have the ability (or the freedom) to make choices (i.e., a free will) on how we are to act.
Assuming you further believe that human beings have a purpose (or an "end", which is logically so because we are moving, only the dead are static), whether it be the Aristotelian or Platonic belief that we are meant to be "happy" (which is taken to mean us truly fulfilling our humanity; the religious, of course, would say heaven), then the acts we do will now take a categorization of whether such makes us achieve that happiness. In which case, that act is considered "good". If that act does not allow us to achieve that happiness or if it’s a happiness that is at the cost of greater happiness, then that act is considered "bad". Since man has an intellect (and free will), the reasonable thing for him to do is to choose "good" (which allows him to be really "happy", really human and not a mere animal ruled by compulsions) and avoid the bad (which makes us unhappy, less human). By the way, "ethics" simply refers to the formal study of morality.
That, in a reasoned logical nutshell, is what morality is (no references to religious scriptures here). Morality takes significance simply because we are human beings possessed of an intellect and the freedom to make reasonable choices as we are not mere animals ruled by instinct, passion, compulsions, or hormones.
The problem is that: robots are apparently becoming… like us.
This The Economist (Morals and the Machine, 2 June 2012) pointed out: "As robots become more autonomous, the notion of computer-controlled machines facing ethical decisions is moving out of the realm of science fiction and into the real world. Society needs to find ways to ensure that they are better equipped to make moral judgments…"
With robots (and computers) becoming more "intelligent" and their immersion in our lives get all pervasive, they have now come into positions whereby their calculations become a matter of life or death for humans on a daily basis: "Should a drone fire on a house where a target is known to be hiding, which may also be sheltering civilians? Should a driverless car swerve to avoid pedestrians if that means hitting other vehicles or endangering its occupants? Should a robot involved in disaster recovery tell people the truth about what is happening if that risks causing a panic? Such questions have led to the emergence of the field of ‘machine ethics’, which aims to give machines the ability to make such choices appropriately -- in other words, to tell right from wrong."
One remedy is to not use robots. However, the problem is that, even in warfare, between having the risk of using robots and having thousands of soldiers in harm’s way, the advantage of resorting to robots is clear.
International law has certainly not been remiss in examining this new reality. As Dave Go of the Ateneo Law School wrote (in his 2012 paper Weathering the Electric Storm: Analyzing the Consequences of Cyber Warfare in Light of the Principles of International Humanitarian Law): "Cyber warfare is a new kind of warfare. As such, the present principles of war laid down in International Law should apply -- much more specifically the principles of International Humanitarian Law. In conducting war, participants must ensure that humanitarian rights are still upheld."
The irony of it all is: while we are now worrying on how to make robots moral, some people are still obsessing in removing morality from our so-called pluralistic society.
Nowadays, to talk about morality is a bad thing. It speaks to many, particularly the young, of suppression of freedom, self-expression, and creativity. To the simplistic-minded, morality is synonymous to the repression of sexuality. And to ask that morality be applied in public life is taken as alternatively a demand sprung from naivety or, worse, to dictate the imposition of one’s beliefs on what is supposedly a pluralistic society.
But what is morality except to refer to the behavior of human beings? It doesn’t necessarily refer per se to determinations of good or bad. Morality was derived from the French "moral", which in turn was taken from the Latin "moralis". Moralis simply denotes "manners" and is also related to the Latin word "mos", which means manner or custom.
Today, of course, when one speaks of morality it generally is taken to mean discussions of good or bad. But the reason why "morality" has presently taken such a meaning is precisely because in discussing morality it actually refers to acts of human beings. Assuming you are somebody who thinks that human beings are not merely "ideas" (i.e., that reality are all only thoughts or imaginations) or merely bodies (i.e., without intellect, that we are ruled by passions or compulsions; for the religious, they’d make reference to a "soul"), then you would have to agree that we have the ability (or the freedom) to make choices (i.e., a free will) on how we are to act.
Assuming you further believe that human beings have a purpose (or an "end", which is logically so because we are moving, only the dead are static), whether it be the Aristotelian or Platonic belief that we are meant to be "happy" (which is taken to mean us truly fulfilling our humanity; the religious, of course, would say heaven), then the acts we do will now take a categorization of whether such makes us achieve that happiness. In which case, that act is considered "good". If that act does not allow us to achieve that happiness or if it’s a happiness that is at the cost of greater happiness, then that act is considered "bad". Since man has an intellect (and free will), the reasonable thing for him to do is to choose "good" (which allows him to be really "happy", really human and not a mere animal ruled by compulsions) and avoid the bad (which makes us unhappy, less human). By the way, "ethics" simply refers to the formal study of morality.
That, in a reasoned logical nutshell, is what morality is (no references to religious scriptures here). Morality takes significance simply because we are human beings possessed of an intellect and the freedom to make reasonable choices as we are not mere animals ruled by instinct, passion, compulsions, or hormones.
The problem is that: robots are apparently becoming… like us.
This The Economist (Morals and the Machine, 2 June 2012) pointed out: "As robots become more autonomous, the notion of computer-controlled machines facing ethical decisions is moving out of the realm of science fiction and into the real world. Society needs to find ways to ensure that they are better equipped to make moral judgments…"
With robots (and computers) becoming more "intelligent" and their immersion in our lives get all pervasive, they have now come into positions whereby their calculations become a matter of life or death for humans on a daily basis: "Should a drone fire on a house where a target is known to be hiding, which may also be sheltering civilians? Should a driverless car swerve to avoid pedestrians if that means hitting other vehicles or endangering its occupants? Should a robot involved in disaster recovery tell people the truth about what is happening if that risks causing a panic? Such questions have led to the emergence of the field of ‘machine ethics’, which aims to give machines the ability to make such choices appropriately -- in other words, to tell right from wrong."
One remedy is to not use robots. However, the problem is that, even in warfare, between having the risk of using robots and having thousands of soldiers in harm’s way, the advantage of resorting to robots is clear.
International law has certainly not been remiss in examining this new reality. As Dave Go of the Ateneo Law School wrote (in his 2012 paper Weathering the Electric Storm: Analyzing the Consequences of Cyber Warfare in Light of the Principles of International Humanitarian Law): "Cyber warfare is a new kind of warfare. As such, the present principles of war laid down in International Law should apply -- much more specifically the principles of International Humanitarian Law. In conducting war, participants must ensure that humanitarian rights are still upheld."
The irony of it all is: while we are now worrying on how to make robots moral, some people are still obsessing in removing morality from our so-called pluralistic society.
21.6.12
No court for old men (only)
is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
Amid heightened public awareness of the search for the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, now would be an opportune time to examine the merit of one of its more cherished traditions: that of the "seniority rule." By such, the succeeding chief justice is always the one that previously served longer as member of the high tribunal regardless of the comparative merit of the contenders.
Many lawyer commentators have come out supporting such a return to "tradition." The usual argument cited is that by resorting to seniority, the politicization of the appointment of chief justice would be minimized. However, whether such reasoning holds water is another matter.
The fact is, to become a member of the Supreme Court, whether as Chief Justice or as Associate Justice, one follows the same route -- nomination by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and then appointment by the President. It has been assumed that the JBC process is a far less political affair than the previous one which passed through the Commission on Appointments (as was the case prior to the 1987 Constitution). So, technically, each of the 15 members of the Supreme Court is qualified to become Chief Justice. The only question remaining is: who does the President believes is actually the most qualified?
As Chief Justice, he would have to function quite differently than the Associate Justices. Aside from deciding cases, he is also in charge of a large bureaucracy, as well as managing the egos of 14 other lawyers that make up the collegial body that is the Supreme Court. Skill sets other than legal scholarship now come as requirements. Energy, creativity, organizational skills, and the ability to clearly communicate goals -- all the characteristics necessary for one leading an organization -- very clearly matter.
His qualifications, therefore, are somewhat akin to that of the President: representing the need to function as leader. It must be remembered that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is essentially the judiciary’s equivalent of the Executive Branch’s President of the Philippines. If it was deemed wise to elect a 50-something year old to the presidency rather than the most senior official of the Executive Branch, then the reason to demand seniority in the Supreme Court finds no basis.
There is also one important factor that we must consider. As we previously pointed out, the power of the Supreme Court is extremely fragile. Freshman law school teaches that the Court is the most passive of the three co-equal branches of government. Perhaps that is why alone among the top of the three branches of government, it’s only the members of the Supreme Court that are required to possess "proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence." Maturity, self-restraint and being psychologically able to work collegially are what’s needed in a Supreme Court justice. Being the weakest among the three branches of government, the Supreme Court’s authority rests delicately on its unified voice, dignity, and prestige.
Arguments have therefore also been made that by appointing based on seniority, harmony within the Supreme Court would be encouraged. But that is to belittle its members, who are not children. Assuming that a less senior member of the Supreme Court, or even somebody outside it, is appointed Chief Justice, one would think that the remaining venerable Justices possess the selflessness and sense of duty to support the President’s decision. If they’re the type who will just whine about "loss of face," then they’d better just resign because the country would be better off without such crybabies.
Contrary to popular belief, the seniority rule has not done well for the Philippines. It has actually been disregarded quite rarely, with fairly even results. On the other hand, the scandals that surfaced about the Supreme Court (as can be seen, for instance, in the books Shadow of Doubt or Res Gestae) took place under the reigns of chief justices appointed through seniority.
An added reason for disregarding the seniority rule is that the Philippines scores poorly in the Power Distance Index (a standard mentioned in Malcolm Gladwell’s The Outliers). The Index "measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. It suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders." Socially and economically developed countries score well, while the Philippines posted the fourth worse score (amongst the company of the likes of Panama and Guatemala). This says a lot about what our penchant for undue deference and sentiment has gotten us.
So we must get the habit of appointing the best for the job. Perhaps those who stand purely on their seniority will resent the fact of them playing second fiddle but they’ll just have to suck it up. Between massaging their feelings and upholding the interests of the country, surely there’s no need to think upon where our priority must lie.
Amid heightened public awareness of the search for the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, now would be an opportune time to examine the merit of one of its more cherished traditions: that of the "seniority rule." By such, the succeeding chief justice is always the one that previously served longer as member of the high tribunal regardless of the comparative merit of the contenders.
Many lawyer commentators have come out supporting such a return to "tradition." The usual argument cited is that by resorting to seniority, the politicization of the appointment of chief justice would be minimized. However, whether such reasoning holds water is another matter.
The fact is, to become a member of the Supreme Court, whether as Chief Justice or as Associate Justice, one follows the same route -- nomination by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and then appointment by the President. It has been assumed that the JBC process is a far less political affair than the previous one which passed through the Commission on Appointments (as was the case prior to the 1987 Constitution). So, technically, each of the 15 members of the Supreme Court is qualified to become Chief Justice. The only question remaining is: who does the President believes is actually the most qualified?
As Chief Justice, he would have to function quite differently than the Associate Justices. Aside from deciding cases, he is also in charge of a large bureaucracy, as well as managing the egos of 14 other lawyers that make up the collegial body that is the Supreme Court. Skill sets other than legal scholarship now come as requirements. Energy, creativity, organizational skills, and the ability to clearly communicate goals -- all the characteristics necessary for one leading an organization -- very clearly matter.
His qualifications, therefore, are somewhat akin to that of the President: representing the need to function as leader. It must be remembered that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is essentially the judiciary’s equivalent of the Executive Branch’s President of the Philippines. If it was deemed wise to elect a 50-something year old to the presidency rather than the most senior official of the Executive Branch, then the reason to demand seniority in the Supreme Court finds no basis.
There is also one important factor that we must consider. As we previously pointed out, the power of the Supreme Court is extremely fragile. Freshman law school teaches that the Court is the most passive of the three co-equal branches of government. Perhaps that is why alone among the top of the three branches of government, it’s only the members of the Supreme Court that are required to possess "proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence." Maturity, self-restraint and being psychologically able to work collegially are what’s needed in a Supreme Court justice. Being the weakest among the three branches of government, the Supreme Court’s authority rests delicately on its unified voice, dignity, and prestige.
Arguments have therefore also been made that by appointing based on seniority, harmony within the Supreme Court would be encouraged. But that is to belittle its members, who are not children. Assuming that a less senior member of the Supreme Court, or even somebody outside it, is appointed Chief Justice, one would think that the remaining venerable Justices possess the selflessness and sense of duty to support the President’s decision. If they’re the type who will just whine about "loss of face," then they’d better just resign because the country would be better off without such crybabies.
Contrary to popular belief, the seniority rule has not done well for the Philippines. It has actually been disregarded quite rarely, with fairly even results. On the other hand, the scandals that surfaced about the Supreme Court (as can be seen, for instance, in the books Shadow of Doubt or Res Gestae) took place under the reigns of chief justices appointed through seniority.
An added reason for disregarding the seniority rule is that the Philippines scores poorly in the Power Distance Index (a standard mentioned in Malcolm Gladwell’s The Outliers). The Index "measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. It suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders." Socially and economically developed countries score well, while the Philippines posted the fourth worse score (amongst the company of the likes of Panama and Guatemala). This says a lot about what our penchant for undue deference and sentiment has gotten us.
So we must get the habit of appointing the best for the job. Perhaps those who stand purely on their seniority will resent the fact of them playing second fiddle but they’ll just have to suck it up. Between massaging their feelings and upholding the interests of the country, surely there’s no need to think upon where our priority must lie.
14.6.12
Father should know better
is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
It being Father’s Day weekend, there was this radio commentator saying that we should take the time to reflect on the value of dads. The point was: fathers need to know that they are special and important in our lives. That all the work they do is appreciated and will never be forgotten. We should make the effort therefore to listen to fathers’ needs, of their struggles and concerns, of their dreams and frustrations, of their longing to connect with us, finding themselves, and being accepted for who they are.
Which led me to ask this question: since when have fathers become women?
Really, is it just me? There are fundamental differences between men and women we should respect. And I cannot get the need of today’s men to spill their guts out to every person within social media or cable TV range. Men are silent (particularly about themselves), control their emotions, and do rather than talk. John Wayne puts it best: talk low, talk slow, and don’t say too much. Though actually an advice on acting, the Duke might as well be giving a master class on how to be a man.
One of my favorite lines was from the movie The English Patient. Ralph Fiennes’ character Almasy on a past expedition: "I once traveled with a guide who was taking me to Faya. He didn’t speak for nine hours. At the end of it he pointed at the horizon and said, ‘Faya!’ That was a good day."
Now that may be very un-PC, but screw that. A grunt and a squint is enough. We don’t spend time trying to empathize or share feelings. No. We get things done. Or get wasted. And if we can do both simultaneously so much the better. Feelings are to be shared, privately, with wives; under the constitutional proviso that the wives do not divulge such confidences to their girlfriends. At least, not within embarrassing hearing range.
So, regardless of what Oprah says, men shouldn’t shed tears in front of others or exchange emotional issues with other guys. Or use facial cleansers in public. In fact, don’t even give a damn what a TV host says. Period. We don’t, as Al Pacino spat out in Heat, share our feelings so that we could "somehow cathartically dispel all that heinous shit." (By the way, if you can’t tell what the central friendship in that movie is, you’re a girl).
Because, really, who needs a man (a father at that) with issues? What would the world have become if Arnold Schwarzeneger in the Terminator movies, instead of the confident declaration "Come with me if you want to live," had gingerly asked: "So, what do you think? We don’t want to offend anyone." Or remember Gregory Peck in Twelve O’clock High? Doggedly carrying out the mission, defiantly alone in command. Instead of issues (or tattoos and washboard abs), real men have a moral compass, inner strength, commitment to purpose, self-mastery. It may and will hurt inside sometimes but the trick for a man, as Lawrence of Arabia would say, is "not minding that it hurts."
Guys today need comfort and hugs. But the fact is, the last thing we need is a mechanic or plumber who suddenly breaks down weeping because he suddenly felt inadequate upon seeing an exhaust pipe or piece of plumbing. Men don’t despair. They have a drink and then saddle back up. Think of Rick in Casablanca. Or Frank Sinatra. Of Steve McQueen in Bullitt: no speeches, no apologies. Just easy cool, the quick-draw shoulder holster, and the 1968 390 CID V8 Ford Mustang. Think Lee Marvin’s effortless riff in the Dirty Dozen. Or Denzel Washington in the Book of Eli wordlessly going west to preserve the Bible. Of Jordan or Kobe.
Undoubtedly, the Beatles (the 50th year of their assembling is being commemorated this year) exemplified all this. As writer Martin Lewis said: "Unlike vast legions of entertainers before and since, The Beatles’ objective in forming a group was not to become famous or rich or have their pick of the opposite sex…They were motivated by the love of music. It colors your approach. How many kids today make a record on their Mac with Pro Tools and expect it to be No. 1 in 10 minutes? From 1957 to 1962, The Beatles played hundreds of live shows in front of very few people, making no money, sleeping in disgusting locales. They had no sense of entitlement. Just drive and commitment."
In short, as Lewis would emphasize: The Beatles had "skill, personality," and -- most importantly -- "grit." Troubles, worries, drama? That’s to be hidden backstage. Onstage, it was purely to deliver and deliver with a grin and a smart alecky line. In fact, that’s what we remember of The Beatles: able to come through without the effort showing that they simply seemed preternatural.
And that's how fathers should remain.
It being Father’s Day weekend, there was this radio commentator saying that we should take the time to reflect on the value of dads. The point was: fathers need to know that they are special and important in our lives. That all the work they do is appreciated and will never be forgotten. We should make the effort therefore to listen to fathers’ needs, of their struggles and concerns, of their dreams and frustrations, of their longing to connect with us, finding themselves, and being accepted for who they are.
Which led me to ask this question: since when have fathers become women?
Really, is it just me? There are fundamental differences between men and women we should respect. And I cannot get the need of today’s men to spill their guts out to every person within social media or cable TV range. Men are silent (particularly about themselves), control their emotions, and do rather than talk. John Wayne puts it best: talk low, talk slow, and don’t say too much. Though actually an advice on acting, the Duke might as well be giving a master class on how to be a man.
One of my favorite lines was from the movie The English Patient. Ralph Fiennes’ character Almasy on a past expedition: "I once traveled with a guide who was taking me to Faya. He didn’t speak for nine hours. At the end of it he pointed at the horizon and said, ‘Faya!’ That was a good day."
Now that may be very un-PC, but screw that. A grunt and a squint is enough. We don’t spend time trying to empathize or share feelings. No. We get things done. Or get wasted. And if we can do both simultaneously so much the better. Feelings are to be shared, privately, with wives; under the constitutional proviso that the wives do not divulge such confidences to their girlfriends. At least, not within embarrassing hearing range.
So, regardless of what Oprah says, men shouldn’t shed tears in front of others or exchange emotional issues with other guys. Or use facial cleansers in public. In fact, don’t even give a damn what a TV host says. Period. We don’t, as Al Pacino spat out in Heat, share our feelings so that we could "somehow cathartically dispel all that heinous shit." (By the way, if you can’t tell what the central friendship in that movie is, you’re a girl).
Because, really, who needs a man (a father at that) with issues? What would the world have become if Arnold Schwarzeneger in the Terminator movies, instead of the confident declaration "Come with me if you want to live," had gingerly asked: "So, what do you think? We don’t want to offend anyone." Or remember Gregory Peck in Twelve O’clock High? Doggedly carrying out the mission, defiantly alone in command. Instead of issues (or tattoos and washboard abs), real men have a moral compass, inner strength, commitment to purpose, self-mastery. It may and will hurt inside sometimes but the trick for a man, as Lawrence of Arabia would say, is "not minding that it hurts."
Guys today need comfort and hugs. But the fact is, the last thing we need is a mechanic or plumber who suddenly breaks down weeping because he suddenly felt inadequate upon seeing an exhaust pipe or piece of plumbing. Men don’t despair. They have a drink and then saddle back up. Think of Rick in Casablanca. Or Frank Sinatra. Of Steve McQueen in Bullitt: no speeches, no apologies. Just easy cool, the quick-draw shoulder holster, and the 1968 390 CID V8 Ford Mustang. Think Lee Marvin’s effortless riff in the Dirty Dozen. Or Denzel Washington in the Book of Eli wordlessly going west to preserve the Bible. Of Jordan or Kobe.
Undoubtedly, the Beatles (the 50th year of their assembling is being commemorated this year) exemplified all this. As writer Martin Lewis said: "Unlike vast legions of entertainers before and since, The Beatles’ objective in forming a group was not to become famous or rich or have their pick of the opposite sex…They were motivated by the love of music. It colors your approach. How many kids today make a record on their Mac with Pro Tools and expect it to be No. 1 in 10 minutes? From 1957 to 1962, The Beatles played hundreds of live shows in front of very few people, making no money, sleeping in disgusting locales. They had no sense of entitlement. Just drive and commitment."
In short, as Lewis would emphasize: The Beatles had "skill, personality," and -- most importantly -- "grit." Troubles, worries, drama? That’s to be hidden backstage. Onstage, it was purely to deliver and deliver with a grin and a smart alecky line. In fact, that’s what we remember of The Beatles: able to come through without the effort showing that they simply seemed preternatural.
And that's how fathers should remain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)