The greater public good

The greater good for the greater mass. The discussion over sacrificing the individual for the “greater public good” has been a heated one during my journalism studies. The “greater good for society” was always considered an indicator to weigh in ethically "challenging" situations. When, for example, the violation of an individual’s privacy is “permissible" if the information gathered will be for the “greater public good”.

I’ve always had a problem with the equation of sacrificing the individual for the mass. Which standards are we applying when making such a decision? The journalists? The news channel's audience rating? The advertiser's agenda? The media consumer's standard?

These days I see a similar debate in a completely different context. Which individuals will safe the world from potential nuclear devastation coming from the Fukushima plant?

The standard applied to answer this question is obviously defined by the Japanese government. Last week we saw how quickly standards can change. The Japanese government increased the radiation exposure level for workers at the plant to 250 millisieverts. This is five times higher than the maximum exposure level for nuclear rescue workers recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. However, the Commission "offers no restriction in a crisis when the benefit to others clearly outweighs the rescuer's risk."

The rules changed while the game was on. I find this development very disturbing. Every worker who had signed up to work at the plant based his or her decision on conditions which now suddenly changed. I do understand that somebody has to do the dirty job. However, to work under an increased threat to health and life should be a voluntary decision in my opinion.

Earth Hour

"A dark hour for a brighter future" was the slogan to celebrate Earth Hour at Cebu's Ayala Mall.

Close to 8:30PM the MC of the Earth Hour event announced: "Let us all switch of the lights for Earth Hour and send out this powerful global message!"

Which message? That we all found the light switches? That, collectively, we can make an insignificant difference on global power consumption by switching of the lights for an hour (while leaving the aircon running)?

I consciously choose to miss the symbolic character of Earth Hour because for me there is none. A "global call for action on global warming" by switching off the lights for an hour?

The message is that: sit in the dark and you don't consume energy. That's true. How about a more practical approach to leading an energy efficient life? Our societies and technologies are developed enough to consume while to preserve. And while a candle is very romantic indeed, I prefer a more sufficient light source to read a book in the evening.

In comparison, lights consume the least energy in my house. The spike in my electricity bill is obviously connected to the (very limited) use of the aircon. My stove is "plug"-powered, so is my fridge, mylaptop, my radio, my TV, my washing machine...

The message I would like to have heard during Earth Hour is ways on how to consume less energy or how to identify the high energy consuming appliances in my house. I don't think I needed a lesson on how to turn my light switch to OFF.

NGOs and Social Media

The current events in Japan prove how timely (or timeless?) the subject of my Master Thesis is. Almost exactly one year ago I researched on how Web 2.0 applications influenced the way we gather information, communicate, and interact with each other.

Social media, citizen journalism, interactivity and instant feedback channels are just a few keywords describing today's web-based communication. Beyond its intuitive and easy use, Web 2.0 fundamentally changed our communication structure. Through the internet we communicate on a broadcast platform formerly "owned" by media outlets. Today, it's all at our finger tips.

I looked more closely into the opportunities social media holds for NGOs to drum up support and document their work. A year ago the Haiti earthquake and Oxfam's online response to immediate disaster relief was my research topic.

Facebook, Twitter, Google Person Finder, live blogs, NGOs coordinating donations and relief efforts - all of the above is again maximized in the wake of Japan's earthquake and tsunami.

Public Hearing

There was no way I could have missed a public hearing on the increasingly controversial City Ordinance 01-2011!

The gates of La Salle University were flush with women in yellow shirts, reporters with cameras and notepads, and interested bystanders like me on Saturday morning.

Yellow balloons with "No to B.O. 01" (No to Barangay Ordinance 01-2011) colored the entrance to university. Buttons with the same message decorated T-Shirts and bags.

The registration process divided the crowd into "Pro" and "Anti". Pro meaning pro City Ordinance and Anti meaning opposing it. The "Pro" section helplessly tried to pull visitors to their empty registration table. The "Antis" had a good head start right from the beginning: the better cookies and later the better arguments.

Upon registration the audience was channeled into the auditorium through different doors labeled "Pro" and "Anti" again. This left no room for a private or a neutral opinion. I took my stand and walked through the Anti door.

Inside, a rope divided the auditorium seats right in the middle. This rope alone spoke volumes! I was pleased to see both sides packed with people caring enough about the ordinance to attend public hearing on a Saturday morning.

This second public hearing (the first hearing passed by quite unheard it seems) was initiated by the "Anti" ordinance group, the real "pro-life" crowd. Their goal was not to pass moral judgment over the emotionally and religiously charged topic. The objective was to objectively assess the legality of the ordinance, more specifically:

1. The alleged conflict of the ordinance with the Family Planning Program promoted by the Department of Health (DoH).

2. The assumed right of any individual to access contraceptives allowed by the DoH.

3. Possible infringement of the right of pharmaceutical firms to sell contraceptives not deemed illegal.

Each party was represented by 3 speakers. Each speaker was given 3 minutes to bring forward his or her facts on each issue. The Barangay Council, seated in between the two parties, spelled out the rules for the session. He reminded the audience to refrain from clapping, cheering or passing any inflammatory comments. However, he had to call the audience to "order!" more than once.

The Anti-ordinance representatives stated, in clear terms and supported by facts, that the City Ordinance in question violates the Philippine constitution and several national laws, and summarized that the Barangay has by far exceeded its legal authority by approving this ordinance.

The Pro-ordinance representatives stated... well... cited... no... wait... let me recollect... It's hard to argue without arguments and facts! Chronically exceeding their time limits, they talked about life 2,000 years ago, cited American text books on the use of the pill, and reminded the audience to "not get emotional". At the same time they used the most emotional adjectives to illustrate the effect of a condom on humanity.

A covered "Bu%*l Sh#@t" cough in the "Anti" audience summed it up correctly even if not in the nicest manner.

The "facts" I conclude (since there were no facts stated) from the "Pro-Ordinance" representatives are:

1. They challenge the Philippine constitution.

2. They question the ability and authority of several ministries appointed by the presidential office (including the Food and Drug Administration which among others classifies drugs and devices into contraceptives and abortifacients).

3. They should be given a Merriam-Webster Dictionary to look up the definition of key words, including LIFE (to avoid future confusion between the meaning of "life" and the state of "pre-conception"), EQUALITY (as they claimed the rights of the unborn child are "more equal" than the rights of the mother), and RIGHT (to better grasp the concept of who can claim rights and who cannot).

The Barangay Council turned the floor over to the Anti-Ordinance representatives again, seated on the right hand side of the auditorium, for their closing remarks. The group thanked him to be considered "on the right side". This play of words got the audience cheering again and the Council helplessly tried to call for order.

For their final statements and closing remarks, each side was given the opportunity to call on resource speakers to support their respective cases. The Anti-Ordinance side had an impressive list of supporters, including representatives from:

The Food and Drug Administration, ensuring that "contradictory to what was mentioned here we do base our assessment on state of the art, science-based scientific data. And this is very well validated, in line with our counterpart regulatory agencies all over the world and the WHO."

The Commission on Human Rights, stating the "Commission strongly condemns the enactment of the Barangay Ordinance 01-2011 of Ayala Alabang for endangering the life, health, liberty, education and access to information of its residents."

The Board of Pharmacy stating, that "Pharmacists recognize the Food and Drug Administration to be the only administration mandated an empowered through Republic Act 97-11 (the FDA law) to regulate food, drugs and other devices [..] that will impact public health and safety."

A law professor, reminding the Barangay Council that "what we are talking about are very evident violations of constitutional provisions."

She concluded her speech with a string of logic arguments. Addressing the "Pro" side she said:

"Your title is so wrong! You talk about the protection of the unborn when, what you want to regulate, and in fact what the ordinance talks about, is the requirement for a prescription to buy contraceptives. I think you do not understand the difference between an abortifacient and a contraceptive. An abortifacient terminates pregnancy. That's when you talk about protection of the unborn. A contraceptive device prevents pregnancy. I do not, by any stretch of my imagination, see how regulation of the buying of condoms does anything to the unborn! There is no unborn!"

I wanted to get up and hug her! She voiced what I think. Thank you!

With this, the floor was left to the Pro-Ordinance resource speakers. Who got up was a prepubescent boy, resident of Ayala Alabang, delivering a fabricated speech without facts but with plenty of rhetoric questions such as: "If the constitution is not about life, why was it written?" and "Would you want your children to be doing these acts? (He was referring to the acts of buying condoms without the parents knowing.)

I guess this is a proper display of democracy: Everybody has the right to speak. We will listen patiently and come to our own conclusions.

My observation is this: There are many progressive and informed opinions about reproductive health issues out there. It actually makes me wonder how this ordinance got that far in the first place. The outcome of this "ordinance battle" will show if Ayala Alabang is governed by logic reasoning or if true facts are confined to a university auditorium during a public hearing.

Stone Temple Pilots

"Good evening, Manila! Or is it morning?" Scott Weiland, lead singer of the Stone Temple Pilots, was obviously still in jetlag delirium when he conquered the stage and later the audience at the Araneta Coliseum for the band's only concert in Manila.

Jetlag or not, Weiland remembered his manners and thanked the crowd by saying "It is an honor to be the invited guest to your party!" The honor is ours! For about an hour the band rocked its Pinoy audience (including us). It was my first time to see them life. I was impressed with Weiland's charismatic and unique voice!

The stage design was rather simple with a huge flower ornament on a dark red backdrop behind the stage. Scott Weiland's funky dance moves (a mixture of Tai Chi and Moonwalk) surely made up for it. So did the megaphone, amplifying his microphone-amplified brilliant voice. Apparently, the megaphone is a common feature on stage (looking at other STP videos posted on youtube).

After less than three songs he started peeling off his cool shades and "corporate suit" outfit, exposing various tattoos. Google didn't leave me wonder for long after the concert who the lady on his lower left arm is: his ex-wife and the mother of his two children.

The massive stage lights struggled to compete with the thousands of flashing camera and beaming LCD monitors of recording devices aimed at the band. Picture, picture tayo, as we say in the Philippines.

With a cheering crowd screaming "STP, STP, STP" the band came back on stage for an additional three or four songs. Soon after the stage was being dismantled already... Good by Manila!

Barangay Ordinance 01-2011

The discussion about the Barangay Ordinance No. 01-2011, entitled "An Ordinance Providing for the Safety and Protection of the Unborn Child within the territorial jurisdiction of Barangay Ayala Alabang; Fixing Penalties for its Violations, and for Other Purposes" goes on and on. The ordinance stipulates residents of Ayala Alabang can buy condoms only on prescription. The ordinance is so controversial and contradicting that its implementation is still pending.

The words "contraceptive" and "abortion" are mentioned in one breath, almost interchangeably in the debate.

I'm trying hard to comprehend the similarities between preventing an unwanted pregnancy and aborting an unwanted pregnancy. What is there to abort if there is no pregnancy yet?

If I engage in sexual intercourse using a condom the only thing I might "abort" is the chance of a pregnancy. To call prevention abortion is like canceling a flight I haven't booked yet, like returning a pair of shoes I haven't bought yet, like breaking up with someone I haven't even started dating.

In other words, the city ordinance does not protect the right of an unborn child (which you may or may not claim as united egg and sperm) but the chance of conception. If that is the case, we should call it as medically and scientifically as it is. What the ordinance wants to protect is the sperm's and egg's rights to unite.

Let's switch from condoms and oral contraceptives to natural family planning methods (promoted by the Department of Health (DoH)). Natural Family Planning (NFP) means "limiting sexual intercourse to naturally infertile periods: portions of the menstrual cycle, during pregnancy, or after menopause."

For this method to be effective women need to have an understanding of how their reproductive organs work. It also requires reliably monitoring the monthly cycle to identify fertile and non-fertile days. I'd say this alone is quite a challenge in the Philippines. If there is no sex education in school how is a Filipina to know what's happening inside of her? This is exhibit number 1 that Natural Family Planning in the Philippines is as effective as the skyrocketing population growth statistics prove.

Apart from the question of the reliability of Natural Family Planning methods let's compare it to condoms and contraceptives. NFP basically teaches: if you want to get pregnant, have intercourse during your fertile days (don't use a condom). If you don't want to get pregnant have intercourse during your non-fertile days (use a condom). The DoH does not promote abstinence!

Let's apply the logic of "prevention equals abortion" to NFP. In other words, every couple engaging in not-for-procreation sex during non-fertile days "commits" abortion! If prevention is abortion, and abortion is murder then what exactly does Natural Family Planning promote? Murder?!

Since the Barangay Ordinance "condemns the use of contraceptives" and "denounces the use of condoms" but "promotes Natural Family Planning services" it promotes murder!

How quickly an effort for "Safety and Protection of the Unborn Child" can turn into a call for murder! Black on white. Passed and approved on January 3, 2011.

Japan's nuclear concerns explained

CNN did a great job explaining and visualizing what happens inside a reactor while at the same time giving an update on what we are facing to date at the Fukushima nuclear plant.

The News Flow Paradox

It seems the closer you are to a disaster the longer it takes for the news to get to you. A ferry sinks in the Philippines and my parents in Germany are the first to tell me about it. The current disaster in Japan is again a perfect example to defy the logic of "near" is "close".

Friday
I was oblivious to any news of the disaster until my sister from Germany sent me a worrying text message. That was at around 3:30pm (Manila time) and I was headed for a meeting. She must have heard the news in the morning radio show. Germany is 6 hours behind Philippine time.

I immediately texted a Manila-based friend forwarding my sister's text reading “I just heard about the earthquake and tsunami! Hope you are okay!” Earthquake? Tsunami?? Here in the Philippines??? My sister obviously assumed I was already informed and therefore dropped 'in Japan'. My friend testified: business as usual in Makati.

The people I met had heard and seen pictures and videos of the 9.0 earthquake and the tsunami wave flattening whole cities in northern Japan. I finally got my verbal news update!

Saturday
Early Saturday morning I was finally able to browse the Internet for news. I watched videos on youtube of waves washing away cars, houses, boats, and people. I clicked away on endless articles on CNN.com, blogs, and links. The expected death toll was at 1,000 then.

Before I left Manila for the weekend I updated my Facebook status confirming: I'm okay and there is no immediate threat for the West coast of the Philippines. A tsunami warning had been issued for the East coast, triggering a flood of e-mails and text messages from family and friends in Germany.

At the hotel outside Manila, TV was my main source of information. The last update I registered before calling it a night was the overheating of the nuclear reactors and the possible threat of a melt down.

Sunday
Upon waking up I read another alarming text message from my sister. One of the reactors did blow up and the plume might affect the Philippines. I switched on the TV and saw steam escaping a torn reactor building. I made my way to the hotel lobby to find a newspaper. While chewing on my breakfast I read some articles explaining in more detail what exactly happened and what the risks are.

It wasn't until Sunday night, internet access, and Wikipedia that I fully understood about the physics of a melt down, containment chambers, and the doses of health damaging and 'acceptable' radiation. Isn't it incredible how fast a lay(wo)man can gain at least some technical understanding to put news into better perspective? I just love the Internet! I just wished it were more positive news to research on…

Powered by leftovers

My new apple green Preserve cutting board is "powered by leftovers". The company's theme "Nothing wasted. Everything gained."appeals to me.

Call me a tree-hugger, an environmentalist or a hypocrite - I do care for our planet. While my unavoidable travel-carbon-footprint might be high, I try my best to limit my negative impact on the environment whenever I can.

I bring my tumbler to Starbucks or order my coffee in a mug. I take only one (recycle paper) napkin. I bring my cotton bags to the grocery store (in fact, one of my first Tagalog statements was "Wag na plastic!" - No plastic! since every item bought is wrapped in too much plastic here). I try to minimize (or maximize the efficiency of) washing machine loads to save energy and reduce waste water and washing detergent. I shut off the car engine while parking (not as common sense as it might seem... I see way too many drivers waiting in their cars for hours with the engine running to enjoy the aircon).

I do not switch off the light for an hour during "Earth Day". I don't believe in impractical approaches to saving energy for an hour... while the aircon is running at full blast.

But what is really behind Preserve's claim "One day a food storage container, the next day a cutting board."? A quick check at the company's website explains, in layman's terms, how much a difference my new cutting board makes on the environment. Quite an educational read!

I'm impressed. Not just by the company's cool products and environmental stewardship, but by the economic viability the process of reduce, reuse, recycle holds according the Preserve's president Eric Hudson.

Two green thumbs up for smart people like him who make 'going green' a great business model!