The Arrogance of the Righteous

Righteous Brothers

My thanks to "J" at The Nutbox for couching the Sabah conflict a while back in terms that make impeccable sense. That discussion inspired this article. Perhaps I will say much the same thing, in far less eloquent words.

My views herein are shaded by the knowledge that the Righteous Brothers, a popular singing duo in the States, oh, a couple of years ago, are neither brothers nor righteous.

The following definition from dictionary.com works fine. We need not consult Humpty Dumpty for a tailored definition.

right·eous  [rahy-chuhs]  adjective

1. characterized by uprightness or morality: a righteous observance of law.
2. morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation.
3. acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous and godly person.
4. Slang. absolutely wonderful: righteous playing by a jazz great.

Righteous is variable. One nation's view of what is morally right or virtuous may differ from another's. One religion's view of what is morally right or virtuous may differ from another's.  One man's view of what is morally right or virtuous may differ from another's.

When a circumstance arises that brings the virtues into conflict, we often get murder. Or war. Passions built upon a sense of what is right, what is virtuous, are intense and usually unbendable.

In the United States, we see this within a frozen and inept government as partisan war is waged between the political parties risking the wealth and well-being of the nation for deep and unbending principles of what is virtuous.

It is a uniquely a human condition, the tying of emotions to intellectual concepts of virtue. But it is decidedly animalistic the way we behave when caught up in righteousness, claws and fangs extended, unable to adjust our emotions and thinking to take the heat off the moment.

Indeed, our various communities ensure that we do not bend. The righteous person who bends gets assigned the worst names: betrayer, treasonous, coward. Execution is often the legalistic outcome among even the most advanced of civilized nations when the righteous judge that the offense is severe.

Alas, one man's terrorist is another's patriot.

And ten years later, the terrorist is sometimes a patriot's best friend.

Yet, given this clear sign that righteousness, and even treason, are variable trends, why do we remain so hard-headed about things?

Take the Sabah incident.

Who are the righteous players? The Sultan and his backers, the Malaysian government, the Philippine government, the peoples of both nations including Philippine Muslims and perhaps some players outside the immediate scene who have supported the Sultan.

Within the Philippine population, there are those who back President Aquino and those who hold that he is the reason for the problems, whether through historical acts (who was invited to the Mindanao peace table) or handling the Sultan after he was in Sabah (he insulted the Sultan with an order to leave).

In Sabah, there are multiple interests and senses of virtue: natives, Malaysian transplants, Filipino workers who back the Sultan, and Filipino workers who feel threatened by the Sultan's acts.

Each group of people has its unique morality, its unique virtue.

Each group is "right" in the context of their own circumstances and needs.

No group is wrong, from within the walls of their intellectual fort.

The "righteousness" is so intense that even moderate voices, such as I am trying to be, will be attacked for abridging the moral values of the righteous.

I stopped reading many discussion threads on the incident because it is obvious there is very little discussion going on. There is only the relentless announcing of different variations of the same hard-headed sets of inflexibly righteous stands.

The same thing is happening regarding the suicide of a university student. I particularly found offensive the claim of two university professors that the school's top administrators should resign because they "caused the death". That is righteous gone lunatic.

The peculiar thing is that any argument levied to condemn one party is legitimate if applied in return. The Sultan is just as guilty of taxing Mr. Aquino's "face" and insulting him as Mr. Aquino is in demeaning the Sultan. Both missed something in the translation, the communication.

The two professors are cruel to accuse the university administrators of being cruel in causing a death.

"What we've got here is a failure to communicate", said the chain gang captain to Cool Hand Luke before he slugged him.

Righteous is artificial.

But we have not the depth of intellect or the depth of character to get past it.

I suggest we strive to exceed our grasp and reach for a better understanding of what it is like to be in the other guy's shoes.

Then, perhaps then, we will be able to articulate a position that is non-confrontational, and that solves the problem to the best advantage for all.

Yes, someone will have give something up. Perhaps all will have to give on one point or another.

That is what peace and harmony often require to adjust ones own sense of what is "righteous" to fit both parties in a dispute. Thus, righteous is enlarged rather than fixed in a small way.

It is better the giving up be done thoughtfully rather than at the end of a gun, or cannon.

It is better that righteous be enlarged rather than kept small. As in small-minded.

America vs Philippines: The Burdens of Women

What are the burdens unique to women, or considered traditional by social mores? Yes, these are generalizations, with lots of variations. The aim is to promote discussion, not prove anything.

The burdens and responsibilities of women:

1. Children: Bear children and nurture them through youth in good health, with good values, and with good education.

2. Kitchen: Cook and manage the kitchen. Keep the food stocks in good supply.

3. Cleaning: Clean up after the slob husband or messy kids end their thoughtless marauding about the house.

4. Clothing: Make sure the clothes are clean and in good order.

5. Values: Make sure the family has high moral values, like those taught and preached at church.

6. Recreation: Be fun in bed for the hubby and make sure social engagements, picnics, beach visits and other recreational activities bring entertainment and laughter to the family.

7. Health: Keep medicines available, whether prescription or herbal, and make sure everyone gets needed love and encouragement when sick.  Haul sick or injured family members to the doctor whether they want to go or not.

8. Presentment: Abide by the fashion standards of the time to represent the family as modern and stylish.

Did I miss anything material?

How do burdens in the Philippines differ from those in America ? I'll use the American grading mechanism and assign grades as follows to try to draw a distinction, where a high grade means that overall "delivery" on the attribute is good based on what we see around us:

• Excellent: A
• Good: B
• Fair or average: C
• Substandard: D
• Failing or really, really rotten: F

1. Children: Health care in the Philippines in outlying provinces is very weak, so kids are more susceptible to diseases, loss of teeth, and injuries. Education is not free, so is harder for the poor to get a good education. American schools are free, rigorous and attendance is mandatory. A high school degree in the Philippines is is not equivalent to a high school degree in the US.  Philippine kids don't compete well globally unless they get into private schools. Philippine values are conservative but laws are routinely ignored. Grades: America A, Philippines D

2. Kitchen: American kitchen work is often outsourced to fast food outlets, and obesity is a problem. In the Philippines, fatty foods are a problem. America has many foodstocks available, with much of it in boxes or cans or frozen, and cleanliness is closely monitored. The Philippines relies more on fresh food products because refrigeration is not a given. I personally find that I eat healthier in the Philippines than I did in America, and the flavors are more elegant and robust in the Philippines. Grades: America C, Philippines B

3. Cleaning: I discern little difference in the quality of cleaning, one nation to the other, except that waste disposal and sewerage is a problem in the Philippines. Bathrooms can be quite atrocious. Structures in the Philippines may be more rustic in outlying areas, but there is water water everywhere, so things get washed fine.  Grades: America A, Philippines C

4. Clothing: Poor Filipinos wear hand-me-downs and cheap clothing until they grow so tattered they fall off, so the condition is sometimes poor.  But clothes are generally cleaned regularly. Indeed, there is a pride taken in wearing clean clothes after a freshening shower or bath in the morning. Americans are consuming addicts and clothes are a part of the addiction; washing and drying is usually done by machine. Grades: America A, Philippines B

5. Values: The Philippines is anchored on Catholic, Christian or Muslim values with a strong cross-current of superstition. Americans believe in Christian values and hold to them with less widespread corruption and rule-breaking than is the case in the Philippines. A large cut of the American population is not engaged actively in church activities. Alas, it is deeds that count, not visits to church.  Grades: America B, Philippines C

6. Recreation: Americans live for their games, watching in the stadiums or on TV and participating in the backyard or neighborhood park. Women participate, too. And they are mad about music.  Filipino men play basketball and follow boxing, but women aren't into physical sports. Entertainment is their passion. Singers and actors rule. Karaoke is a sport in the Philippines, along with dancing. And of course, no matter where you are in the Philippines, the beach is right over there.  Grades: America A, Philippines A

7. Presentment: American women got knocked a little off the fashion stride by the women's movement of the late 20th century. It became uncool to watch beauty contests because they peddled women like packaged meat. Fashion lost its frills. Filipinas are very much into the starlet look, with the whitening creams and shampoos touted on television. Americans in public tend to dress sloppily. Filipinos are neat and tend toward a conservative look. Grades: America B, Philippines A.

So if you look at the sum of the grades, you see that women in the Philippines carry particularly heavy burdens in the raising of children and development of values. The social infrastructure and educational platform work against their kids. Sanitation is also a challenge, particularly in poor areas. So health is troublesome.

Face it, unless you are middle class or above, the Philippine infrastructure supporting the family is weak. The married woman's job is much harder in the Philippines than in America. Heath care, weak. Public education with 45 kids to a classroom, weak. Social acceptance of subsistence crime and rule-breaking, high. Sanitary infrastructure, weak.

As for single women, again the opportunities are limited unless you are connected, or can get a slot at an Americanized firm like a call center that has a career track. The horizon for the underclass woman is a lifetime of hard work for precious little pay. Making babies looks good in that light, married or not . . .

Where am I going with this?

I read a comment on a Rappler article that was very profound.  The article pertains to the level of foreign direct investment in the Philippines. Here's the comment and a link to the article:

• trevor.evans62

  The Current Constitution states that the Filipino family is the foundation of the Nation, so how does it justify breaking up the families of OFWs by sending the breadwinners abroad for jobs? ARTICLE XV THE FAMILY Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

It is a very good insight. And it applies as well to the INFRASTRUCTURE supporting families: health, education, good values, sanitation.

Infrastructure is not just roads and trains and airports and docks.

It is hospitals and doctors and schools and values (leading by example in the Philippines seems very weak to these Western-trained eyes) and utilities.

RH is infrastructure for the family. Investment in schools, new ways of teaching (internet) and new curriculums is infrastructure for the family. Sanitation is infrastructure for the family. Upgrading medical care is infrastructure for the family. These elements provide the platform that make a woman's burdens lighter, and achievement of good results more likely.

The Constitution is fundamentally a good document.

Implementing it is the challenge.

I can only offer my admiration for Filipinas who work with determination to overcome the challenges set before them, those who tend to the many needs of the family in good cheer and raise kids who are healthy, happy, bright and well-directed. These women are clearly very determined, strong and iron-willed of heart.

They are heroes in my book.

"I'm Better Than You Are!"

This is a free-think exploration to sort through the matter of elitism and standards of what is "better" as a way of life. Particularly if you are a woman. 

Take the case of Senator Sotto. Here is a man who drips with arrogance and condescension toward the lessers who insist upon cluttering  his distinguished life. You know, like bloggers and academicians and now an award-winning book writer who is demanding he be held to account for ethics violations.

Or take the case of Joseph August America who pens blog after blog fairly dripping with haughty intellectual superiority as he parses Philippine culture for all its eccentricities as viewed through a westerner's prism that refracts behavior into good and bad colors.

Joe points toward ignorance as the reason for a lot of bad behavior, and he sorts ignorance into three buckets: (1) innocent, as with poor people who are trapped in a poor educational and family situation, (2) negligent, as with people who could and should read and think, but do not, or (3) intentional, where people pose as lacking knowledge because it gets them something, as Senator Sotto would utter, "Wha? I didn't plagiarize. I don't know what that means."

"Ignorance of the law" is generally not accepted as a good defensive argument in American courts. It appears acceptable in the Philippines when a guy who MAKES the laws holds it up as justification for shamelessly stealing the original work of another.

So I ask the question, "Are some people better than others?"

• Is a smart person better than a dumb person?

• Is a rich person better than a poor person?

• Is a senator better than a citizen?

• Is a columnist better than the person he criticizes?

• Is a healthy person with two arms better than a sick person with one arm?

• Is a white person better than a black person, or a brown one?

• Is a Muslim person better than an atheist, or a Christian?

The possible answers are "yes" or "no" or "damnifiknow".

The answer is "yes" if there are standards available to measure the quality of "goodness" or "betterness". Some are better than others.

The answer is "no" if we are talking about an individual's place on earth where we each play our part as king or amoebae, as assigned by God or the fates or chaos or whatever orders our disorder and imposes a seemingly unfair lot in life upon so many. We all stand equal, all largely ignorant of what was, is and will be.

The answer is "damnifiknow" most of the time, or maybe more accurately, "idon'tgivearatspatootie".

"Yes": When people are better

If there is a goal attached to behavior, then the quality of person counts. If we want to hire a lawyer, we want one who is not ignorant of case law. If we run a business, we want to hire people who work hard and well. If we run a college, we want to enroll kids who have done well in high school.

• So, in given settings, a smart person is better than a dumb person.

• And a rich person is better than a poor one if we are selling something.

• And a senator is better than a citizen if we need a new law.

• And two-armed people make better firemen.

But a senator is not better than the common good, or public interest. And a senator who deludes himself into thinking he is superior over his critics is just that: delusional. His critics represent voices of people the senator is charged with serving and protecting. And if he won't listen to those voices, and respect them, then he is negligent and ought to be punished. For in the hierarchy of importance, he is the lesser of the two, senator and public well-being.

Interestingly, in the Philippines, hiring a friend or family member is better than hiring a skilled person. So by the value standards of the Philippines, power and advantage are more important than productivity or fairness. Pity. The Philippines is what the Philippines always will be until the standard of "betterness" switches to competence. Honest is a part of competence.

"No": When we all stand equal

Everyone has an important place on this earth. It is sacrosanct, the place we each occupy, belonging only to us and God. What we make of it, the burdens we carry, the joys we feel, the decisions and acts and results: they are real, and they are ours, and they are meaningful. No one is better than us at that. No one.

It is when people intrude into this realm that problems arise. When one man tells another man that he is worthless if he does not believe in the right God. Or if a woman is told she cannot go to school. Or if a woman is told she must remain in a marriage to an abusive deadbeat husband. Then our rightful claim to equality is abused.

Freedom is nothing more than an unequivocal insistence that we all stand equal, under God, under the law, under nature's order.

Well, too much freedom and things get a little crazy. Loud, dangerous, unhealthy. Murderous.

So we need some order, and there are two kinds:

1. Morality, the rules of faith. These are rules based on a vision that may or may not be factually true. If the vision is overlaid on people who don't hold it as true, then we have trouble. Freedom conflicts with faith. Morality is the root of much evil on earth.

2. Laws, the common-sense rules of community, are troublesome to the devious or undisciplined, and inconvenient for a lot of us most of the time. They are the rules that allow different people to live together in harmony. Their foundation is not in an imaginary vision, but in the honorable assessment of what is best for the most people, or injures the fewest. Laws respect our differences and preserve them by protecting the community.

Laws based on faith are troublesome. When the rule is something like the kind of cloth we must wear as a head covering, a reason that derives from God rather than community well-being, we have a problem.

When the "properness" of one's sexual desires is defined by faith rather than science, then we have a problem.  Homosexuality was not understood when the Bible was crafted. It still today is not understood by a large segment of the population . . . the learned population . . . people who insist it is like smoking and can be stopped.

But scientists understand it.

And scientists understand the differences between men and women. The differences have precious little relevance to an individual's ability to think and perform a given task.

When laws demand we behave opposite the laws of nature, then we are asking for trouble.

In that situation, laws are trying to take some within the community and declare them "unequal" to the rest.  As many Philippine laws declare women to be unequal to men today. Well, when we were in the caves, yes, man was the hunter and the aggressor in seeking a mate. Today we are not in the caves.

It's a problem when the rules flowing from faith do not change but science changes knowledge. When knowledge points out that we are abusing the God-given right of each individual to claim his place on the planet. Then discrimination and harm occur.

Damnifiknow

Idontgivearatspatootie right now.

Implications

It is insane that the old men of the Senate, bound to rules based on faith, withhold education from women. It is a great shame that the poorest women of the Philippines are denied the ability to manage their lives as independent, free beings on God's good green earth.

These men are telling women "I'm better than you are" at deciding what is in your best interest.

I don't know why Filipinas so graciously concede their place on the planet to narrow-minded, ethics deficient cave men.

When Obscenity is a Virtue

Those of you who comment on this blog site are doing your job exceptionally well. Thank you. You inspire good thinking. And you give me ideas for new article topics.

This one will be a little difficult because I am going to deal with obscenity head on. If you would rather not have your values scraped raw by bad words or bad ideas, you might wish to skip the read.

If you choose to skip the blog, maybe you can help Joe work on his slate of presidential candidates. Go to the latest edition of the 2016 Presidential preview and let me know if you have reservations about any of the people listed. Or if you have additions to make to the list of First Class candidates, either for President or other roles.

 Obscenity.

What is it? When is it bad? When is it good?

What is it?

When I think of obscenity, I can't help but think of the late George Carlin and his word lists. Carlin was one of the edgiest comedians of his time, the 70's through 2008 when he died. In 1972, he launched into a monologue about  the seven words that you can never say on television. Then he said them. They were:  "shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits". Later, he built the list into 100 words.

 But it is not just individual words that are deemed obscene. Jonathan Swift, Irish satirist most popularly known for his story Gulliver's Travels, a story frequently adapted for children, wrote an essay called "A Modest Proposal." In this essay, Swift proposed that the Irish eat their extra babies to help solve the extreme poverty problem. The outrage was like nothing heard then or since.

And we have a recent contribution to this blog site from the inimitable Mariano Renato:

• The Church do not need women. They need men and children to fill their sexual appetite. That is why hunchbacks can be found only in the church because The Priests do it in the back.

Obscenity according to the Humpty Dumpty New World Dictionary is "any expression that undermines the values of the nation". It is a legal term, in its ultimate application, because laws ban obscenity in certain circumstances. Indeed, this blog may be seen by some as pressing against the recently passed "Cybercrime" bill because it is done on computer, published on the internet, and uses words associated with sex.

But I tend to think, if a courtroom addresses the words frankly, as it must to rule on their obscenity, why would I not be permitted to address them frankly here? I am not advocating their use or using them in a derogatory context. I am talking about them.

But I digress.

Most of our values in both America and the Philippines are founded on Christian morality. Using bad words is a sin. Accumulate enough sin and you go to Hell. Directly. No hand basket required.

When is obscenity bad?

Obscenity is bad when it causes behavior destructive to the well-being of the community.

Obscenity is a variable, which is why it is difficult to define when it exists. Public nudity is not allowed in the U.S. It is more common in Europe.

Almost everyone agrees that one ought not present "adult" material to children who are too young to weigh its meaning. But "adult" material is not of itself obscene if presented to adults who have the ability to sort out fact from fiction and right from wrong.

Churches and other morality based institutions that do not trust in the ability of adults to discern fact from fiction and right from wrong have a narrower range of acceptance as to what is allowed than a rationalist. You would not find many priests appreciating this blog.

When is obscenity good?

That is the odd thing. George Carlin's seven words were pounced on by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the regulator of radio and television stations in the U.S. A station that broadcast Carlin and his words was threatened with sanctions by the FCC. The station took the matter to court and, after several switches in court decisions, it finally reached the Supreme Court, which sided with the FCC. But the Court also pointed out the variability of obscenity and this led to the rule whereby language deemed "indecent" (but not "obscene") could be broadcast between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am.

George Carlin's words resulted in moral clarity: obscenity is a variable. And practical rules: save the dirty stuff for late at night. George Carlin's words were in effect declared "indecent but not obscene" if uttered late at night.

Most U.S. broadcast stations keep themselves within the rules to avoid problems with their audience and their sponsors.

Carlin's words were good in the sense that they provoked a robust legal discussion that led to rational laws protecting the most vulnerable citizens, children.  Plus he entertained millions, made them laugh. That's good, too.

Similarly, Jonathan Swift's outrageous proposal resulted in enactment of new laws to fight poverty in Ireland.

What about Mariano's comment? Where is the good in that.

It requires a bit of a stretch, I suppose. It is beneficial for the Catholic Church to understand the anger that her doctrines provoke. If the Church were to ask "why" rather than simply condemn Mariano's remark, maybe something beneficial could come out of it. Just as Ireland would have not implemented anti-poverty programs had legislators not reached to understand exactly what it was that Swift was saying. Short of that, maybe Mariano makes a few people laugh.

If we can determine that an expression has value to its audience, then by definition, it is no longer obscene. At least to that audience.

Condemning Obscenity Can Be Damaging

Based on the Swift and Carlin examples, if obscenity has good outcomes, then I suppose condemning obscenity may be damaging. 

The proper audience for harsh and shocking language is adults who are rationalists rather than moralists, and who understand the difference between fact and fiction, and between right and wrong.

George Carlin was popular because his audience was smart (usually college campuses) and his audience considered his pushing of boundaries enlightening and entertaining rather than obscene. The general American prudishness about bad words made Carlin's jokes work.

Jonathan Swift had a huge audience of well-read people who looked forward to the next excerpt from one of his stories the way we look forward to next week's edition of American Idol. They welcomed his strange but enlightening ideas.

Mariano's views have to be taken in the context of all of his comments. They are blunt, they are insulting to many, they are insensitive to the people attacked. But the entire range of his comments is worth reading. JoeAm welcomes them whereas other blog sites routinely ban Mariano. Here is an excerpt from JoeAm's response to a complaint about Mariano's hunchback comment:

• Mariano and I go back a few years. He writes in attack mode, outrageously sometimes. But beneath what I would call his "literary venom" are ideas that are important. I often don't agree with him or his ideas. For instance, I like President Aquino but he calls the President benigno-the-Turd. But more often, I find within them striking truths. So, if I delete the part I don't like, but leave in the part I do, what kind of honor is there to that? On balance, he contributes to the marketplace of ideas in a good way, even if the medicine sometimes tastes worse than cod liver oil.

As Humpty Dumpty opines, "a word means what I choose it to mean". And if Humpty says a proper contextual expression of "fuck" is beneficial, the listener should seek to understand the speaker's context, and why his intent just might be good. We ought not simply bounce an offensive remark off our moral mirror and not consider why it was made.

So we are back to the definition. Obscenity is a variable, and the greater argument is not about a particular expression, but about the variable morality by which it is judged. And, in the end, this comes down to the question of is it good, in certain circumstances, to be closed minded?

I personally think that the less closed-minded we are, the more we grow.

One more look at Mariano:

• Vatican is against stem cells harvesting. So, people, stop talking about tweaking Filipino DNAs. When I get married, I will have my children marry a white foreigner so MY corrupt genes will be diluted by goot genes and have them live abroad. Because living in the Philippines overwhelms the goot genes and made it into bad genes.

There is a style to this kind of perspective, from the satirical taunt of Filipino values to the intentional use of bad Engliches ("goot"). Mariano is rather a JoeAm on steroids. He can say things that I would not dare. And that is why his comments are not deleted. He pushes all the way.

If he pushes to far, I reserve the right . . . etc.etc.  But right now, he offers a sharp and extreme counterpoint to the Catholic morality that has brought the Philippines to its present condition. And he rejects the enduring cultural traditions that are holding the Philippines back. Read him as you would read JoeAm, with healthy elasticity of reasoning that says "don't always take this guy too seriously" but reflect on what he is saying.

A comedian who uses swear words is not using the swear words to insult. But to get a laugh.

A blogger who uses shocking ideas is not using the ideas to swear. But to make a nuclear intellectual point.

The Anchor for Morality

Morality = manner, character, proper behavior.

Joe Am doesn't like statistics, but he'll deal with the little rascals from time to time.

• “For simple replacement of the population to keep up with deaths, most people assume that the average family size should be 2 children, or perhaps 2.1 or 2.2 to make up for human error. But these figures are too low, as has been shown by Prof. Hubert Campbell of the Department of Medical Statistics, University of Wales. Campbell came to the conclusion that the figure should be over 2.4 children per family. His reasoning was based on the premise that every woman should leave behind her at least one fertile daughter. To achieve this, allowance must be made for the fact that at birth there is a 1-percent preponderance of boys; there is a high infant death rate in the first year or two; about 10 percent of the girls will not marry; and of those who do, some 10 percent will prove to be sterile. These figures add up to about 2.43 children per family. If this is the figure needed for replacement, that for healthy growth must be about 4.0.” Fr. Desmond Morrison, Missionary Society of St. Columban, as reported in the Inquirer

So the good Father is arguing that the current Philippine growth rate of 4.0 is healthy. Never mind that he got from his "sustainable" number of 2.43 to the "ideal" number of 4.00 on a huge wing and a prayer. His moral statement is based on "the sanctity of unborn life" and he shapes his statistics accordingly.

World Population Growth - Historical

Fr. Morrison brings the population argument into the RH debate even though politicians want it out. That is akin to bringing the abortion debate into the argument about contraceptives. Fight reason with fire and brimstone, an commonly Catholic way of arguing. Ask Tito Sotto about that. 

The RH Bill has been sanitized to remove any kind of population planning goals in order to focus strictly on women's health. This is the result of political game-playing, the challenge of what a Congress must do to pass responsible legislation when a loud voice of moral outrage from the Catholic Church inserts itself into the legislative process. Bop and weave, duck and cover, sanitize and pray.

• An estimated 350 million women in the poorest countries of the world either did not want their last child, do not want another child or want to space their pregnancies, but they lack access to information, affordable means and services to determine the size and spacing of their families. wikipedia

That suggests a moral imperative based on "the sanctity of  a woman's life". You either want to end this condition  of suffering or you accept it. The Catholic Church has no suggestions as to how to end it other than natural birth control, which creates the condition. In other words, no workable suggestions.

We can get dizzy on statistics, eh? Link up to that wikipedia article and you will read the most elaborate review on overpopulation imaginable. You like facts, go there. Or go here.

I want to discuss the foundations of morality. What should we use to anchor our values?

• The bible, and what the Catholic Church says? Or a competing religion, Islam? Or Mormonism like U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The religion anchor.

• The suffering of the poor? The suffering of women, burdened with ignorance and babies they can't feed or teach? Or the suffering of the disadvantaged in Africa, in insane asylum, or in Topeka, Kansas? The Mother Teresa anchor.

• The macro-view of a planet being eaten alive and slopped full of pollution by its people-rodents? Ecology and sustaining our miserable little lives? The eco-anchor.

We get to choose, so what is the best anchor of our values?

Well, I choose the family as the foundation of my moral initiatives going forward. And emphatically, specifically, the kids alive today.

Not the sperm or the hatchling that endangers a mother's health or will be raised as an object of hatred and resentment destined to become terror on earth.  I don't like abortions. I like even less presuming I know better than others what hard choices they need to make. And I detest when the State steps in to shove its morality into mine, thereby giving Friars or communists or idiots the right to make decisions that I have to live with.

I choose the family - the mother, the father and the children - as the foundation of my moral initiatives.

The two important facets of family life that need to be built and preserved and even held precious are. (1) health, which encompasses safety, security, sanitation, and means (money), and (2) enlightenment, which encompasses education and good living.

Health

I believe that the health of Filipino families is connected directly to having readily available supplies of food, water and jobs. The planet and the nation are slow-moving ships, difficult to turn, and they are on a course where resource limits slam into the bow like an ice berg. That's dangerous.

We have a lot of people living in an increasingly risky climate with untold disasters awaiting the unprepared. Water shortages already abound with sometimes violent competition, farmers versus cities. We encounter more and more food shortages with whole crops placed at risk by violent and sustained swings in weather.

Other nations have adjusted direction, pulling population growth down to levels they can support. The Philippines has only now recognized that it has a steering wheel and ought to be using it. The RH Bill and the dialogue around it are already helping the Philippines. Passing the Bill would help it more.

I am confident that a great enlightenment is slowly spreading across the Philippines, and the population explosion will start to moderate. I'm taking this off of my carping agenda because I think responsible people will get the ship to turn.

Projected population growth rates

However, there is so much more to do to assure the health of Philippine families. To get kids off the trash dumps scrapping for food, to get them bathed, to give them clean water and soap, to get them to competent doctors when they are sick.

If you put the child's health at the center point of your morality, and look around the Philippines, you stand aghast, absolutely agape, at the enormous failings of Philippine values. Young girls sold for sex. Kids age nine sent to the cane fields. Homes on the mud banks, filled with kids. Kids packed 45 to a room in open air school buildings then released into the civilized world, still ignorant about the finer details of obeying laws, being courteous and living responsibly.

It does no good to complain, to accuse, to excuse.

It only does good to get to work to do a better job of fending for the kids.

The goal: health of the family.

Enlightenment

This is difficult. The opposite of enlightenment, ignorance, occurs at two planes. One is among the wealthiest of Filipino citizens, the oligarchs and political families, the politicians, the movers and shakers. The other is among the poorest of Filipino citizens, the squatters and day workers who can barely make ends meet.

• Ignorance of the elite. I consider the oligarchs and their brothers of ego ignorant because they prize a harmful value, the value of self-interest over community. They fail to grasp that their kind of achievement, wealth and good living, is done on the backs of a lot of good people. It is a short-term achievement, the glory and satisfaction they personally get during their lifetime. It is a long term disaster for the nation's well-being, a well-being long suffering, long ignored. Favors and cheating and who-you-know become the blanket that suffocates good deeds. How do you infuse an oligarch with the compassion and generosity and patriotism that brings progress to a hidebound nation? It is, after all, a hidebound nation. ("hidebound" = stubborn, narrow minded; as in unable to change)

• Ignorance of the poor. How do you break the cycle? Poor uneducated parents setting poor examples for kids who have to compete in a world that gives few breaks. Poor education. No reading. Superstition ruling medicine and faith. Kids 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 getting precious little nurturing. What kind of self esteem, what kind of psychological composition, do we expect from this family? Achievement or anger? Giving or taking? Thinking or thoughtlessness?

One thing I know is that you cannot remain the same and change. You can't hang onto the ignorance and become enlightened.

There is a huge mandate for the Department of Education to do more, and do it better. Not just build buildings and hire teachers or bicker about English vs. Tagalog. To CHANGE what is taught and how it is taught.

And there needs to be a mandate for laws that separate oligarchs from governance, and the Church from governance. And to break up the goliath corporations that block wholesome competition. To break up the cozy self-serving patronage of the society of good old boys. There also needs to be a way to impose responsibility on legislators and judges.

But how?

These institutions are burdening Filipino families in ways we can't easily see. In time, and given a few blogs, I'll point out some of the connections.

The goal: enlightenment of the family.

The Family as the Center of Morality

You'll start to see some new themes in Joe Am's articles. I'll set aside over-birthing and population growth, and even my ragging on the Catholic Church, for a different set of priorities.

I've already done a lot of writing about education. And will do more.

But I really want to attack some of the roots of the failure of the Philippines to change. To progress.

To take care of its kids.