On travelling

"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of earth all one's lifetime." -- Mark Twain

The Law of the Garbage Truck

here's another of those forwarded emails worth sharing...

------------------
How often do you let other people's nonsense change your mood?

Do you let a bad driver, rude waiter, curt boss, or an insensitive employee ruin your day?

Unless you're the Terminator, for an instant you're probably set back on your heels. However, the mark of a successful person is how quickly he/she can get back her focus on what's important.

Sixteen years ago I learned this lesson. I learned it in the back of a New York City taxi cab. Here's what happened.

I hopped in a taxi, and we took off for Grand Central Station. We were driving in the right lane when, all of a sudden, a black car jumped out of a parking space right in front of us. My taxi driver slammed on his breaks, skidded, and missed the other car's back end by just inches!

The driver of the other car, the guy who almost caused a big accident, whipped his head around
and he started yelling bad words at us. My taxi driver just smiled and waved at the guy. And I mean, he was friendly.

So, I said, 'Why did you just do that? This guy almost ruined your car and sent us to the hospital!'

And this is when my taxi driver told me, what I now call, 'The Law of the Garbage Truck.'

Many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they need a place to dump it. And if you let them, they'll dump it on you.

When someone wants to dump on you, don't take it personally. You just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. You'll be happy you did.

So this was it: The 'Law of the Garbage Truck.'

I started thinking, how often do I let Garbage Trucks run right over me? And how often do I take their garbage and spread it to other people: at work, at home, on the streets?

It was that day I said, 'I'm not going to do it anymore.'

I began to see garbage trucks. I see the load they're carrying. I see them coming to drop it off. And like my Taxi Driver, I don't make it a personal thing; I just smile, wave, wish them well, and I move on.

One of my favorite football players of all time, Walter Payton, did this every day on the football field.He would jump up as quickly as he hit the ground after being tackled. He never dwelled on a hit. Payton was ready to make the next play his best.

Good leaders know they have to be ready for their next meeting.

Good parents know that they have to welcome their children home from school with hugs and kisses.

Teachers and parents know that they have to be fully present, and at their best for the people they care about.

The bottom line is that successful people do not let Garbage Trucks take over their day.

What about you?

What would happen in your life, starting today, if you let more garbage trucks pass you by?

Here's my bet. You'll be happier =)

So...

Love the people who treat you right.
Forget about the ones who don't.
Believe that everything happens for a reason.
If you get a chance , TAKE IT!
If it changes your life , LET IT!
Nobody said it would be easy...
They just promised it would be worth it!

The New Fish Tank!

Here's the new set up of our fish tank/aquarium. I am so into these things nowadays. There used to be goldfishes here but we placed them in the fish pond and decided to set up this tank anew with "Red Caps" and an "Albino Head Hammer".

There's the toy fish "Nemo" welcoming viewers of the aquarium.... hehehe =)

On Anger Management

Got this email and it made me laugh I had to blog it!

--------------------

When you're mad at someone, it's good to sit for awhile and think things over....

Point to Ponder:

Don't keep forever on the public road, going only where others have gone. Leave the beaten track occasionally and dive into the woods. You will be certain to find something you have never seen before. Of course it will be a little thing, but do not ignore it. One discovery will lead to another, and before you know it, you will have something worth thinking about to occupy your mind, and really big discoveries are the result of thought.--Alexander Graham Bell

chillin' out at starbucks

Went to starbucks with my cousins and their kids to chill out. It was pretty cool. I actually enjoyed seeing my nephew run around the coffee shop, shouting. And disturbing some people there trying to review. hehehe.... My niece, on the other hand, sat quietly as she observed the new surroundings. =)

Starbucks - it's my third place. Definitely.

thought for the day

One ought, everyday, to hear a song, read a fine poem, and, if possible, to speak a few reasonable words.--Goethe

Desperate Housewives hullaballoo

When I learned about this issue, about Teri Hatcher's character mocking doctors from the Philippines, I was confused. It's not something we are known for and so really, we can't take it as a joke. It's a popular show and a lot of people watch it. To make a mockery of one of the professions practiced "BEST"by Filipinos is insulting and degrading. ABC Netwrok's apology will not suffice. It was LIBELOUS.

Other overt acts should be done by the show to directly rectify their utter disrespect to our Filipino doctors, and to our country in general. I am not a doctor, but my sister is. And she's one of the best in her field, working as Programme Officer for the World Health Organization (WHO). In life, there are things to ignore and there are things you pursue. This is one of those you pursue. We can't let this go. It was unfair and maliciously done. And it must be corrected. Otherwise, making "us" their punchline will be a habit.

The High Court--- reigning supreme

Another article worth blogging.

When I was still a law student, Supreme Court pronouncements and of course, its decisions are part and parcel of our life. Their decisions form part of the law of the land. But cutting it short, I have never seen the Supreme Court as aggressive and as true to its mandate, even taking things to the next level, as it is now --- Holding a summit re: the extrajudicial killings in pursuit of upholding human rights and coming up with the rules on the writ of amparo. (Which is, by the way, a very popular bar question sometime in the '90s. I believe it was the number one question in political which made barristers scratch their heads.).

The Supreme Court is an entity in itself but like I always say, it is the people behind any institution/organization that breathes meaning into its being. It feels good seeing the High Court live up to the essence of its very existence. Truly unprecedented.

EDITORIAL
Protect us

Inquirer
Last updated 00:31am (Mla time) 10/01/2007


MANILA, Philippines -- Last week, while the country was absorbed in the latest twists of the National Broadband Network telenovela, the Supreme Court issued the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The new package of protections will become effective on Oct. 24—just a little over three months after the high court convened an extraordinary “national consultative summit” on political killings and politically motivated disappearances.

This is, in truth, remarkable. The pace of judicial innovation is virtually unprecedented, a reflection of the judiciary’s sense of urgency over the crisis of political violence that continues to disturb the country. At the same time, it cannot be said that the high court threw all caution to the wind; a study of the process and the Rule it produced soothes our concerns. The court made haste, but slowly.

Patterned after a legal remedy born out of the constitutional struggles of Latin American democracies, the writ takes its name after the Spanish “amparar,” meaning “to protect.” But as the Supreme Court itself took pains to point out, the scope of protection offered by the Philippine writ is wider than those it had been modeled after.

“The petition for a writ of amparo,” Section 1 of the new Rule states, “is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.”

Under the writ, the family of, say, a peasant leader believed to have been abducted by a military unit or a private army can petition the judiciary to compel the unit or the private group to undergo a legal undertaking that will force them to account for their actions. No more blanket denials. As the last provision of Section 9 declares: “A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.”

Some concerns have been raised, about the new Rule’s seeming lack of sympathy for or even outright hostility to public officials, in particular the members of the country’s armed services. We understand these concerns, but we cannot agree with the view they reflect, because it is based on a lack of understanding of the dual nature of all laws.

The Constitution itself bears witness to this duality. It grants enormous powers to the government and its instrumentalities; at the same time, it grants ample protection to the citizenry, precisely against the possibility of governmental intervention. What, for instance, is the Bill of Rights, if not the primary package of protections for citizens, citizens who may need to fight either the encroachments or the blandishments of the State?

The new Rule, therefore, does not discriminate against public authorities; instead, it recognizes the dignity of their office as well as the nature of public service. Thus, the standard the new Rule requires of public officials or employees, that they must render “extraordinary diligence” in performing their duties (contrasted with the “ordinary diligence” required of private persons), is not an added burden—it is a necessary corollary of their work.

The new Rule also includes four virtually new legal remedies: the temporary protection order, the inspection order, the production order and the witness protection order. Together, they make the new Rule a true landmark—one that entirely alters the legal landscape.

To be sure, some infelicities or imprecisions have found their way into the new Rule. The second provision of Section 1, which states that “The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof,” raises the question whether coverage here is meant exclusively—thus narrowing the scope of the writ (as outlined in the fourth paragraph of this editorial, above).

Section 5 requires the petitioner to provide “The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission”—an unfortunate phrasing that may be understood to mean that the respondent perceived to be responsible and the person actually responsible are the same.

Section 16, which punishes respondents who fail to respond to the writ, is vague on the actual penalty.

But taken all together, and in the light of key provisions that, for instance, waive docket fees and allow the filing of a petition “on any day and at any time,” the new Rule gives actual and potential victims of political violence both legal relief and real hope.

A 'religion of secrecy'

I have been surfing the net, mostly inquirer.net for relevant news, and couldn't help but blog the article of Fr. Bernas here. He is a known constitutionalist from Ateneo de Manila, and back in law school, his book is one of the "reliable" books in political law. His opinion and thoughts on certain issues that requires determination of its constitutionality and unconstitutionality has always been sought.

In his recent article, he talked about the use and abuse of the so-called "executive priviledge", as recently invoked by Secretary Neri in a hearing conducted by the Senate re: the NBN Deal. His finale should make people think - long and hard and very deeply.

here's an excerpt:


In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court agreed: "The valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties ... is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process.... [T]he confidentiality of Presidential communications has ... constitutional underpinnings.... The privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution."

Like any good thing, however, executive privilege can be misused and abused. It has been. Observers give numerous examples, especially after the post-Watergate period. As one scholar noted, such examples give executive privilege a bad reputation. For this reason Presidents Ford, Carter and the older Bush avoided using the words executive privilege and protected secrecy through other means.

The current administration's aggressive use of executive privilege through EO 464 calls for a serious examination of the legitimacy of its uses. No amount of exorcism, however, will drive away executive privilege. After all, it has its legitimate place. What is needed is a proper balance. Toward this end there are certain basic guidelines that must be kept in mind.

First, in a constitutional regime that is predicated on official accountability, executive privilege must be the exception and executive transparency the rule.

Second, since executive privilege is not an unfettered power, Congress has the right and sometimes the duty to challenge presidential claims of privilege. This is especially true when the presidential claim is not based on the need to protect national security or to protect the privacy of Cabinet deliberations when needed in the public interest.

Third, both sides of the debate must recognize that there are no precise boundary lines that divide transparency and secrecy. The precise demarcation lines cannot be determined in advance. The lines must be determined through the political dynamics of separation of powers. In the end, the Court must draw the line, if need be, after an in camera hearing.

For that matter, the limits on the often abused power of legislative inquiry in aid of legislation or the oversight function of Congress are not clear either.

It is in this light that we should measure what is expected of Neri. But my sense is that he is hiding something that is illicit and explosive. If the controversy turns out to be a case of an irresistible force facing an immovable wall, Congress is not without weapons to batter the wall. Aside from its subpoena and contempt powers, Congress can also withhold support for the presidential agenda or tighten its control of government purse strings. The ultimate weapon, of course, is impeachment, or the threat thereof.



Read the full article here.

Busy Me

I have new pets - fighting fishes. They're so easy to maintain as they don't require oxygen. Just place them in containers and they're good to go... =) It makes me relax for a minute or two just by staring at them.

It's a busy weekend... rather It's a busy week! I actually find it hard maintaning two (2) houses even if there is help. But, I do like cleaning and keeping things neat around here. I have been really busy with household/family affairs, doing groceries, paying bills etc. etc. that I failed to attend a forum. Tsk tsk tsk. To reward myself, I indulge in a Grande Mocha Frap every other night...

Anyway, I am getting a new line this week as my two-year contract with Globe expires on October 8, which means I can get a new line with a new phone. Yipee! hehehe...