The Office of the Eye of the Bull

Originally published March 5, 2013; republished March 17, 2013. This has been one of JoeAm's most popular blogs. It was withdrawn due to potential violations of COMELEC rules for engagement in elections by a foreigner. Comments pertaining to political parties and their principals or candidates have been removed. Support of the President is non-political. It advocates for a strong, unified nation.

_____________________________________

I'm not sure why the classic circular target for archery or darts has a small red or black dot in the middle called a "bull's eye". Maybe in the American wild west that was the best way to shoot a crazed bull, I dunno. Or Robin Hood's comrades had a good imagination or sense of humor.

But the bull's eye is the place where everyone aims this weapon or that.

And I suggest that President Aquino give a name to his office at the Palace, rather like Obama works in the "Oval Office". President Aquino can call his office "The Eye of the Bull". 

This idea struck me as I watched people criticize President Aquino for the deaths of Sutan Kiram's people in Mindanao rather than criticize the Sultan.

How in God's great and glorious green earth people could lay this outcome on the President is beyond me. I suppose there exists a need to find culprits for anything gone wrong. And he is the catch-all culprit. If he had done something different the deaths would not have occurred.

Am I the only guy in the Philippines that believes that if the Sultan had done something different, the deaths would not have occurred?

By my reckoning, the deaths occurred BECAUSE PRESIDENT ACQUINO WORKED HARD to get an agreement structured to stop the murder and mayhem in Mindanao. In so doing, he generated jealousy among those not invited to the peace table.

The Sultan could not wait for the peace progress. He had to push it, because he was not at the table. He waited all his life, some 74 years, most of them in strife, and then, as peace was on the horizon, he took it upon himself to insert himself and assert his claim with an unwanted physical presence in the contested land of Sabah.

Let me tell you, that peace table would have to be as big as my island of Biliran to host all the various Sultans, Emirs, Governors, Mayors, Rabbis (a little humor there) and Clan Leaders who were jealous because they did not get to sit down to carve out their piece of the peace.

I've popped off a few comments on Rappler news reports regarding this incident and I am considered a foreign and unsympathetic - and unwanted - critic of the Sultan's acts by Muslims and their sympathizers, as well as a lot of "normal" Filipinos (a little more humor there) who seem to have an uberpatriotic bent.

I admit to having some measure of cynicism about the incident.

• The Sultan claims it is his homeland, which is why he is there. He is passionate about it. Yet he would be willing to entertain offers to leave if the rent he receives from Malaysia were increased. I guess his passion is really with his wallet. And for that, people have died.

• The Mindanao Peace Agreement would provide the unified Filipino negotiating framework for deciding what to do about Sabah. It is a complex situation, and Malaysia has a lot to say about it. Short of outright war, the Philippines is in no position to dictate to Malaysia EVEN IF the Sultan' claim is completely legitimate. The agreement is on track to be finalized next month. Why, then, did the Sultan pick now to provoke an incident?

So the President's great success in Mindanao offends people. Just as his crackdown on the corrupt offends the corrupt.

Because he orchestrated a huge diplomatic breakthrough in Mindanao, President Aquino has evidently aroused jealousy, not only from the Sultan and other wanna be Muslim leaders, but from former President Arroyo's backers, who could not claim this achievement. President Aquino showed them up. Read this interesting article at ellen tordesillas' blog: "Aquino fell into saboteurs' trap".

In the Philippines, that is grievance number one. Doing something better than someone else. It is the cause for vengeance. Never mind what is good for the Philippines.

What counts is what is good for ME!!

Do you want to know why President Aquino works in the Office of the Eye of the Bull? Because, by working to develop a clean, honest, productive Philippines, he is offending people who are corrupt and jealous and angry that their sacred cows are being targeted for reform:

• The Catholic Church
• President Arroyo's Cronies
• Smugglers , Tax Cheats, Kick-Back Scammers and Bribe Experts like LTO, PNP, Customs, and DENR Officials
• Generals, Governors and Mayors Indicted for Corruption
• The Monopolists and Oligarchs Preserving their Easy Road to Riches
• Muslims Not at the Table

You know, about the only friend the President seems to have most days is the People.

And when the noise gets so loud, the critical arrows whizzing toward the bull's eye, even the people lose confidence. They join the ranks of the critics, unable to say "I support President Aquino as the leader of my nation" because peer pressure is like envy pressure, a huge power to conform. They can't stand firm in the face of fire and say, "I am for my country, and the leader of my country".

They bend, they break, they start criticizing their President.

Do you want to know why the Philippines self-destructs every few years?

Envy. Greed.  And people who are unable to give of themselves to make a community.

I'm an outsider, from a land where patriotism means sacrifice. On some days there seem to be precious few patriots in the Philippines. From the Humpty Dumpty New World Dictionary:

• Patriot: A citizen who is so committed to the well being of his fellow citizens that he will give of his heart, his mind, and his body to preserve national unity.

Well, if the nation cannot rally around its President, who does it rally around?

Sultan Karim? Senator Enrile? Manny Pacquiao?

Then there are those who argue it is patriotic to criticize.

I answer, "yes, if that criticism is constructive, not personal." If it is solution-oriented, not destruction oriented. It is not patriotic to undermine and divide. That is the opposite of preserving national unity.

And, of course, the guy with the bull's eye on his desk is President Aquino, who catches it all.

Well, it's a free world, a free nation, so all you archers and dart throwers fire away.

But I support President Aquino. I personally don't expect some unrealistic Jesus ideal. The gap between the unpredictable, error prone, imperfectly informed realities of day to day living and that idealistic, unreachable perfection is the easy space into which critics write or speak sometimes divisive, destructive words.

It is a choice to go into that gap, or not go there.

On days when I have this urge to take the man to task about what he says about China or a certain skulking sultan in Malaysia, I think about what a different impression the Philippines makes to outsiders when people see her as unified, versus bickering and divided and one general away from a coup. And I chew up and swallow the critical words I might otherwise write. And I pen support.

Because I am for the Philippines, and I am for her earnest, decent President.

Bemoan or Build; a Choice

I've noticed there is a natural drive toward negativity in most blogging commentaries. We editors and commenters all seem to drift inexorably toward the anti-agenda of complaint and criticism.

Even this blog, this editor.

I was smacked upside the head about this in reading a fine testimonial to Kim Henares  by Filomeno S. Sta Ana III the other day on Pro-Pinoy. It was refreshing to read such an upbeat commentary and to understand that Jesse Robredo was an example of good Filipino professionalism, not its sole proponent.

Sometimes we paint such dire portraits that we forget that the huge core of effort within the President's cabinet is purposeful and well-grounded. The Judiciary also appears to be getting into reasoned and constructive acts, as well. That leaves only the Legislature stuck in the mire of self-indulgence and questionable competence.

But back to the point. What causes this natural drift toward negativism?

Why Do We Go Negative?

I suppose it is largely reflective of the fact that we sit back and observe. Watch, follow, see, get upset, and complain.

We see warts or pimples and we want perfection, a glowing complexion, like those angelic ladies who inhabit commercials for shampoos, creams and other chemicals and poisons.

Because we don't have a place  to sit on the Senate floor or Presidential conference room, we find our chairs apart from the acts and deeds of government. We live in a kind of fantasy ideal land devoid of the risk and pressure and swearing and tough choices that are behind real decisions.

We only see the decisions emerge, nice and clean and sanitized from the dirt of debate. And we figure they were made without thought, without fist pounding or equivocation or stress. Easily. Quickly.

Our apartness relegates us to the armchair where we quarterback with all the other observers. Sometimes sipping a San Mig or jug of Kickapoo Joy Juice. If we were down on the field, it would be different. We don't have to be in the lineup slamming heads or kicking the pig or whacking the ball like the other athletes. We only need be close enough to the action to hear the contact, hear the grunts, smell the sweat, understand the drama of the plays, slap a comrade athlete's back, offer a bit of advice, and sip the Gatorade.

When on the field, we can SEE the huge defensive back crunch our halfback when he slips on loose sod. Hear the crack. Hear the yelp of pain. Watch the stretcher come onto the field.

So we would be more honest and honorable participants in our democracy if we were players. If we were closer to the action. Then we'd have a better understanding of the FORCES in play that make perfection impossible.

Alas, we have lives to lead, kids to feed or fish to catch, flowers to grow, jobs to work at. We can't be everywhere.

What Do We Do about It?

Well, I have this idea that we can do more than we do. I have this idea we can actually participate in activities and thereby avoid slipping into the depressing world of bemoaning negativism, the whining, grousing, and complaining that is so WEARING on humor and confidence and good heart.

Here's my thinking .

The real JoeAm?

•  I look at Raissa Robles' blog site and I know she is getting right to the heart of some very important issues. She gets to the facts and meaty issues in her articles, and her readers' commentary enriches them. The comments takes the article out of isolation and makes it powerful. People of importance read her blogs. In large part because the commentary is active.

• I also note that Pro-Pinoy has stepped up its action with more articles that are starting to draw comments.  Maybe Cocoy has decided to be a player.

• The Society of Honor is a good place to go to energize one's conceptual thinking.  Important people read this out-of-the- box blog, too. Those who aren't afraid of a foreigner's perspective. President Aquino knows who Joe America is.

• BlogWatch.ph and Ellen Tordesillas do steady and often very striking work.

• Some other blogs may not be as active, but they pop out excellent articles from time to time. Articles worth a bigger audience than what they are getting.

But they all are fairly isolated blogs. Raissa's is perhaps the exception because it has a huge audience. The rest of us stand alone. And without robust comments, we are too often lonely as well as alone.

If blogging is a community in the Philippines, it is an accidental collection. Not aimed at anything.

I'm saying, let's make blogging a force within the Philippines. Even more so than it is now.

Each of us, as an individual, can help meld these blogs into a game-changing force. We can do our part to support them. To energize them. And to add our own thinking on the issues.

Here's my personal goal:

• Make a commitment to building blogging as a political force in the Philippines.

Some of you are doing this already, I know. I see Edgar popping up here and there, and Cha and baycas, and the inimitable Mariano.

What if more of us do this, in a dedicated determined way, as a personal commitment to building a blogging force? It doesn't mean to swarm all over blog sites and dull them by over-attention and trolling. I mean simply participate sincerely, but actively. With the goal.

Of course, the blog editors must do their part and keep cranking out pertinent work. Work that means something to opinion leaders in the Philippines.

But commenters can build depth to the blog. I know that for a fact based on what gets added to my articles.

So working to build a more powerful blogging force in the Philippines, from the role of commenter, is fairly straightforward. You can go to the Philippine Blog Center and find who has published a blog recently. Then cue up new articles and participate in the discussion.

You may wish to focus on a few blogs that you'd like to give dedicated attention to. I recommend those that are politically oriented because, in the end, that's the audience we can influence to bring change to the Philippines. Plus, I'd throw in Rappler, because it rich with news and perspective and deserves our backing as the number one on-line news source.

The four sites that get my everyday attention are Society of Honor (duh), Rappler, Raissa Robles and Pro-Pinoy. I spot check the other blogs for new articles and comment if I have something meaningful to say.

But I have another idea, too. A bit harder, perhaps, both to REMEMBER and to do:

• To every complaint, attach a way forward.

Get beyond the gripe for griping sake.

Build.

• Build a community of bloggers.

• Build solutions to obstacles.

Forget bemoaning, grousing, complaining, griping, bitching and snarling.

Unless you are dealing with Sentor Sotto, of course.

Philippine Patriotism: The Absence of Humility

I will write two blogs as follow-up to the article I wrote a few days ago entitled " A Philippine Ethical Value: Subservience". This one will deal with the absence of humility in Philippine-style democracy and a subsequent article will deal with aspects of living called "grace, wisdom and confidence".

I've often struggled to discern how patriotism in the Philippines differs from that in the United States. I've moved a step closer to clarity on the matter thanks to the noodling I was forced to do to understand why no one in government is championing a woman (Perling Garcia) who is acting for good purposes, preservation of the Philippine ecology. Rather, they are filing libel cases and accusing her of foul deeds. You can skim through that other article to get a sense of this.

As often occurs, I run the risk of offending patriotic Filipinos, some of whom I might refer to as Pacquiao patriots and others who have traveled the world, and still relish coming home. I'm looking for a deep meaning to patriotism. One that is rich and caring, where the reason for being patriotic is not "me", but "us", the nation Philippines. For example, people with the kind of patriotism I'm talking about would have no patience for corruption because corruption undermines the nation's well-being.

When America declared her independence from Great Britain, she was blessed to have a group of well-educated, good-minded people taking charge of the rebel cause and forming it into a new government. Jefferson, Adams, Madison and many others.

Because these intelligent people were smarting from the thuggish, over-bearing, over-taxing authority of the British monarchy, they knew they wanted to give life to  two new ideals: (1) that people matter; that citizens matter. And (2) that to raise your voice in protest is good, not bad. They understood that it is the tension of opposing advocacies, the natural checks and balances that occur during (sometimes  heated) dialogue, that keeps a democracy centered. Stifle the voices, and you have a government that tends toward authoritative extremes.

The Philippines was not blessed with its founding on such ideologically sound terms. The Americans who took over shortly after Aguinaldo declared independence DID NOT EMPLOY American ideals of open expression, but declared opposing thought "subversive" and "treasonous". And with each new iteration of yet another "independent" Philippine state since them, we have witnessed the same authoritarianism at the top. The same closed-mindedness and defensiveness.

Leaders have been members of the social elite who do not receive opposition kindly. It represents a challenge to their "station".

Oh, the structure of the government has been democratic, for sure. In its current version, it has a Constitution and the same three branches of government that the U.S. has. It touts the same freedoms, of speech and right of assembly. And boy, does the Philippines bear arms well. Elections are held. The Congress has both a House and a Senate. There are provinces like the U.S. states, each with a governor and set of independent authorities.

It is democracy in action, republic in form.

But not so much democratic in style. In heart.

As the prior article illustrated, the President today, a kind and well-meaning gentleman named Noynoy Aquino, does not appear to grasp the fundamental principle of the Philippines as the PEOPLE'S democracy. He seems to be busy defending his "station" rather than protecting the freedoms that, at least in America, are so cherished.

Oh, he says the right words. "The people are the boss" he said in his 2012 SONA.

But it appears he does not quite grasp what this means.

As with so many leaders of the Philippines since Aguinaldo, missing from the leadership equation is a quality I will term "patriotic humility".

The Humpty Dumpty New World Dictionary defines these important terms thusly:

• Patriotic. Adj. The quality of being loyal to one's country.

• Humility. Noun. An emotional feeling of satisfaction that is gained by relegating well-being of self to a lesser position compared to the well-being of others.

Humility that PRETENDS to favor others is not humility. It is fakery. Deceit. Hubris in disguise.

So what do you see from the nation's leaders, from the President and the Cabinet and the Congress and the Judiciary?

You see certitude. And exercise of authority.

You rarely see the kind of patriotic humility that puts the state of the nation above the well-being of the leadership of that nation. Leader's bristle at criticism. Their inclination is to strike out. The State's decisions are their PERSONAL decisions. To critique a State decision is to criticize them personally.

It erupts in incidents like President Aquino's caddish criticism of ABS-CBN at the network's birthday party. Or his spokesman's defense of the legal act of attacking Ms. Garcia for "Facebook libel". Or sometimes it occurs among peers, as when Senators Enrile and Trillianes make like fighting chickens and play loose with the term "treason".

Lost is the humility that says "our nation is great because we NEED our people to be engaged and active and vibrant advocates for things we disagree with".

No, what we get is oppressive Cybersex Laws that make internet libel a CRIME with double punishment. We get people at each other's throats, no mercy. Well, if you are among the class of lesser power, that's a downright dangerous place to be.

Rather than leaders understanding that a vibrant Philippines NEEDS the good thinking that invariably emerges from opposing ideas rubbing against one another, the leadership takes criticism as an affront to honor. Just about any criticism can, with that attitude, becomes grist for the libel mills.

So the most profound freedom of American democracy, the freedom to have ideas or opinions and state them, even if they are wrong, is cherished. In America.

In the Philippines, contrary ideas are condemned or suppressed or ridiculed. Powerful people don't like them.

The richness of patriotism that comes from knowing that we are all in it together is missing. Because WE ARE NOT all in it together. We are endlessly defending against the angers of others.

Not debating and learning and RESPECTING and growing.

Until the Philippines can master the HEART of democracy, which cherishes each voice, it will be a democracy in form only.

President Aquino appears not to grasp the concept. Nor does Senator Sotto. Some do, I think. Teo "The Fist" Guingona possibly grasps it.

Missing in action is the simple notion that "I matter less than the well-being of the Philippines." Or the well-being of my province, if I'm a governor. Or the well being of my city, if I'm a mayor.

As long as the emphasis is on authority rather than respect for differences, patriotism in the Philippines will always be a little bit hollow. And shallow.

It takes patriotic humility to allow those who disagree with us to be free to disagree. To be respected for having a different perspective and being willing to share it.

• When Martin Nevera can sing the Philippine National Anthem in any artistic, expressive style he chooses . . . rather than as the mandated march . . . and not be called before Congress for it, then we will know that enlightenment is arriving.

• When Perling Garcia can rip the Mayor while complaining about the mining that is cutting into the precious rocks of Cagayan, and be respected for it BY THE MAYOR, then we will know enlightenment is arriving.

• When the President addresses a press conference on libel laws and starts by making  clear that Freedom of Expression is cherished in the Philippines, and is what makes democracy work, then we will know that enlightenment is arriving.

And when enlightenment comes, and the Filipino people understand what this nation is, a place that cherishes THEM and their ideas, then patriotism will move to a deeper level.

Patriotism will be more deeply felt. And the Philippine "way" will be held more precious.

I'm not seeing a lot of patriotic humility right now. Hubris, yes. Hard-headedness masking for confidence, yes. Fake humility, yes. Words around the issues, but missing the mark, yes. Concern about "station", yes.

Respect for criticism?

No.

Respect for the principle that free speech keeps a nation free and balanced?

No.

Libel and Onion Skin

This is not a legal forum. It is just a guy full of opinions trying to figure out how the Philippines works.

This whole episode about the libel provision of the Cybercrime Act is fascinating. Libel is one of those crimes that is extraordinarily difficult to prove because the prosecution must show intent to harm.

If you want a quick study on libel laws in the Philippines, please refer to this article, from which the following paragraph was extracted: Libel Laws of the Philippines, abogadomo.com.

• Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.  [Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67]

Reader GabbyD challenged my thinking on libel a couple of days ago by stating the challenging question:

• "oh, then you are against the core logic of libel -- that words have REAL effects. "

It is a powerful challenge because I had previously acknowledged that words have effects, but are properly countered with words. A libel charge counters words with acts . . . like 12 years in jail or somesuch.

My response to GabbyD was, in part:

• Words do have real effect, but sometimes words that person A finds negative are positive in a different context. I can call Senator Sotto a scoundrel, which he finds harmful, with the aim of encouraging other senators not to repeat his acts, or readers not to live according to his standards. So my words make him a personal sacrifice to a higher cause.

What is the point of free speech? It is that we ought to have the right to protest that with which we disagree, and not be punished for it. It envisions an open state where ideas put out in the public arena can help shape the values and institutions of democracy.

As I reflect on that, I would use a technology term and peg America as an "open-sourced" nation. Opinions are a part of the fabric that drives social values ever forward and upward.

The Philippines appears to want to be open-sourced, too, but some of the totalitarian players in government are having a hard time letting go of their own sensitivities, their own thin onion skin, to get there. I am quite confident that Senator Sotto does not have Thomas Jefferson's grasp of what a government free of totalitarian influence would look like, and act like.

We live in a world of gray. Not black and white.

To protest something is always an attack on somebody or something, and it is hard to know who is right or wrong. People seeking complete independence for the Philippines protest American troops on Philippine soil. So America is thrown out of Clark and Subic. The result is that the Philippines is more vulnerable to intimidation by China 25 years later. And independence is more at risk. What is right or wrong is murky gray.

Believe me, during those arguments, a lot of people were attacked for their views. Even called treasonous.  Just like Senator Enrile and Senator Trillanes have both accused other loyal Filipinos of treason during the recent dust-up over Trillanes engagement with China.

• Does Senator Trillanes really believe Foreign Affairs Secretary Del Rosario should be thrown into prison for life?

• Does Senator Enrile, a rehabilitated coup plotter himself, really believe Senator Trillanes should be thrown into prison for life?

Words mean what the speaker intends, not what the hearer hears. The speaker means "you are hurting the Philippines", the hearer hears "you want me in jail when I am innocent; that is malice."

Libel is difficult to prove, but it doesn't stop those who perceive an injury from  seeking redress and a few million pesos in the courts.

Libel does not mean words can't be hurtful or offensive. But hurt is one thing and malice another. Hurtful words are often descriptions with a punch, nothing more than protests. Admirable qualities in light of what the Constitution says about free speech and freedom to assemble.

Libel is something different. Something deeper. Something more harmful and intentional.  It is the point where the intent upon uttering the words is damage, not argument. Libel would be if Senator Enrile knows Senator Trillanes is not treasonous, but claims he is with the intent that he would be thrown into jail. It would take a hypnotist or psychic to plumb Senator Enrile's brain to find out what he really thinks.

Onion skin. Was it James Fallows of the Atlantic who coined this attribute of Filipinos in his commentary on the Philippines several years ago?  I referred to the Humpty Dumpty New World Dictionary on "onion skin" and came up with two definitions:

(1) a kind of paper that is so thin you can see through it; ideal for tracing, and

(2) a condition in which human emotions that are so sensitive that every perceived criticism is taken as deeply personal, rendering candid dialogue impossible.

Big egos, thin skins. Put the legal tool of "libel' on the table in a culture of onion skin and suddenly the democratic premises of lawful protest and free speech stand at risk.  That's where we are today, in the Philippines, in dealing with characters like Senator Sotto.

They are trying to shift the definition of words to the hearer rather than the speaker. The words hurt; they must be libelous.

No, not if the overriding aim was to protest perceived wrongful deeds or achieve some greater good. Like encourage other senators to be ethical.

It is important, in looking for tomorrow's leaders, to find those who are confident of their own knowledge, and the limits of their own knowledge. Those who are open to contrary views without taking them personally.

I think the term "libel" should be stricken from all law books, and certainly from the Cybercrime Act. The word is itself a libel to the concept of free speech and right of protest. It is an intimidating word, seeking to suppress expression.

Look at the result. Actual injury. Not the use of words that are sometimes painful to an individual, but meant for good purpose.

Words can be countered with words. They need not be countered with jail time because someone with thin skin can't stand the heat.

So yes, GabbyD, I believe words have REAL effects. Most of the time, well intended, even if spoken in anger. We should legislate to a standard of thick skin, able to withstand aggressive protest and rabid free speech. Not thin skin, crying and running to Mommy Law at every perceived slight.

To Readers: "I double dog dare you!"

A reader had the following comment regarding my April blog about Filipino ego:

• "From my 3 year experience here in the Philippines, I completely agree with you. I'm surprised you were [not] flooded with hate mail. Because that always happens to me if I speak up about certain issues."

The ego article link is here.

The comment caused me to muse about why that might be, that I do not get a lot of hate mail.

Now when I was commenting on Get Real Post, the GRP thugs would come at me relentlessly, like bees from a hive I had knocked about. And way back on Filipino Voices, I'd be told to go back  to America. One attorney repeated the call often. 

Yet, on my own site, the criticism is fairly thin and isolated. Mostly people agree or reinforce my ideas with observations of their own. Certainly very, very few people come at me with the venom of those GRP thugs, Parallelaxe, trosp, dude and a few others.

So I got to thinking about the matter of courage and numbers. Like, when I pass one guy on the sidewalk, he ignores me. If I pass two, one may mutter something to the other. If I pass three, one is very likely to yell "Hey Joe", or crack a joke to his buddies about my height (6'4"). If I pass four or more, I can be assured that one in the bunch will turn the monkey, prancing about to amuse his buddies at my expense.

So did I get a lot of crap at GRP because people knew they were in the presence of their supporting thugs? They'd get some help if they  got into a pissing match?

And are readers silent or polite here at the Society of Honor because it is one on one? Or are they simply not that confident of their English and don't want to mix it up with a guy who wields his words like a finely honed stiletto? Or are they polite visitors to my "house", refraining from tracking mud onto the tiles?

I'd like to think my readership is not shy or humble or fearful. Some of my articles get good readership but few comments. Even when the articles are shrill and certainly open to criticism. So I have no idea what mental mischief is going on in the silence. I can't help thinking I am missing some good ideas, even if they are opposed to my own.

And if someone doesn't do English well, how hard is it to type: "You're full of it on this one, JoeAm"? Or they can read me the riot act in Tagalog and I'll get my sweet translator to unwind it for me.

Well, I don't know why people aren't harder on me here, but I do have a "self-improvement" exercise for you. To prove to yourself and me that this is not a matter of "courage", but a matter of choice.

Sometime during the month of July, I'd like you to read what I write, find something you think is not accurate or could be stated better, and tell me so.

Yes, I'm asking for criticism.

Let it fly.

It is good practice for me, you know, to figure out how to respond constructively to a comment that I might easily take non-constructively. That, too, is choice. When criticized, a person can take the criticism as negative or positive, rejecting it or reflecting on it.

And it will be good for you to be frank, forward, direct. Don't let sleeping dogs lie. Kick one now and then. Be a man!

Unless, of course, you are a woman.

And if I respond badly, the ball is in your court. You can take my remark and try to wend it down a constructive path instead of embark on one of those win/lose esteem battles you see so much of hereabouts.

We can both practice being direct and constructive , yet considerate, instead of defensive and emotional.

That's my idea. That's the reason I issue this challenge:

I double dog dare you to pick my writing apart. To tell me I'm wrong, to tell me I only have a small part of a big picture, to tell me my thinkin' is stinkin'. Whatever.

July is "Jaw at Joe" Month.

Let'er rip!