Counter-boycott campaign against Nike. Is this a right thing to do?

.

SAYANG UNTA KAAYO KAY ANG UBANG SAPATOS BAG-O. Pero para sa mga supporters ni Manny Pacquiao nga mi-uyon sa iyang baroganan nga supak sa pag-legalize sa same-sex union, dili nila igsapayan ang pagsunog sa ilang mga Nike nga sapatos isip pagsumbalik boycott sa Nike sa ilang gibuhat nga pagsalikway ni Manny isip usa sa ilang mga product endorser.

Ang mensahe sa mga supporters ni Manny ngadto sa kompaniya nga Nike: "Nike Burn your Sole not my Soul."

Nag-awhag sila sa uban pang mga supporters ni Manny nga mi-uyon sa iyang baroganan bahin sa same-sex union, nga unta maghimo pud kuno sila og susama niani nga kalihukan sa ilang tagsa-tagsa ka mga dapit isip kuno sumbalik boycott sa Nike ug isip pud kuno simbolo sa ilang suporta sa baroganan ni Manny. Maski kuno unsa nga produkto sa Nike pwede nga maoy ilang sunogon - sapatos, t-shirts, jackets, jogging pants, bags, caps, medyas, shorts, bands, etc.

----------
Unya ang kadtong mga walay butang nga Nike, unsa man kahay ilang sunogon? Mamalit na lang tingale sila'g ukay-ukay nga Nike products aron maoy ilang pang-tapokon ug pang-dauban. :-)

Apan basin baya ning ilang kampanya sa pagsunog og mga produkto sa Nike maka-cause hinuon simbako og sunog! Or, kung duna uroy mga labad og ulo nga mga supporters ni Manny nga mosalga'g pang-sunog sa mga Nike retailer stores or sa mga tindahan nga dunay baligyang mga Nike products? Or worse, kung pang-bumbahan uroy sa mga libog og utok ang mga retailers ug mga tindahan sa Nike?

Ngadto sa mga nag una-una og pasiugda ani nga kalihukan, gihuna-huna ba kaha pud nila daan ang posibleng mamahimong samputanan aning ilang pamaagi sa kampanya isip pag-boycott sa Nike ug pag-suporta ni Manny ug sa iyang baroganan?

          

Manny Pacquiao crossed the line[s]

.

Here is Manny Pacquiao's supposed to be punch line phrase that backfired on him like a hard uppercut: "...e mas masahol pa sa hayop ang tao." ("... then man is much worse than animal.")

This is the exact phrase which originated from Manny Pacquiao's tongue degrading human beings -- who engaged in sexual activities with same-sex partners -- down to some category of creatures that to him have sexual behaviors much worse than the natural sexual instincts of animals.

For his unneccessary additional phrase in his supposed explanatory comment which was [mis]construed by many as condemnatory, I would agree that somehow the Pacman went below the belt. He has gone just a bit too far beyond the border line of Christian respect for fellow human beings.

It must be noted that (prior to the incident, at least) in the hearts of his kababayans and fans around the globe Manny is a hero and a hero's word carries a certain weight. So when some people tried seeking for consistency of his openly-expressed passion for God's Word by asking him of his views on same-sex relationships, Manny could have just been careful with his tongue by simply and respectfully expressing his firm stand against same-sex union without including any of those unneccessary derogatory phrases that had perhaps become part of his favorite vocabulary of punch lines which he would like to use when talking about or engaging in certain issues or topics.

On another light. For remaining firm with his stand against same-sex relationship amidst the storms of condemnation he is now reaping for sowing a wind of condemnatory phrase, I think Manny has crossed one more line -- a political line that divides senatorial candidates between a list of senatoriables that voters would not vote for this coming election, and a list of senatoriables that voters would consider voting for this coming election.

For most Christian voters, the [non-]legalization of same-sex union is a major issue. In my search for and evaluation of candidate leaders in this coming election, I have made three sets of list:

1. Candidate leaders I'm not compelled to vote for
2. Candidate leaders I'm considering voting for
3. Candidate leaders I would vote for

As in the views of many of our Christian voters, Manny has crossed over from my first list to my second list: the list of candidate leaders I'm considering voting for. If Manny could show leadership competence concerning other serious pressing issues and problems of our country, and if he is able to show no-nonsense platform of government, then perhaps he might be able to finally cross over to the final list of candidate leaders: the list of candidate leaders that voters would vote for this coming election.

         

Less preferential option for the least of our SSS pensioners

Story at: Aquino to receive DBM recommendation for gov’t workers’ pay hike—Drilon

This move of the administration may perhaps be good, but if only they have also considered and not dis-prioritized the lowly senior citizens SSS pensioners who are merely receiving P1,200/month pension which is far below the cost of living. If you were in the shoes of an SSS pensioner, what would you feel about this increase in salary of government workers?

Are the SSS pensioners low class people such that they are least in the priority of this current administration? After the vetoed pension increase, what has the administration done to help them? Where is our sense of social justice here? What happened to our value of preferential option for the least of our bretheren?

          

Poor public utilities service; Economy can't wait; PPP an alternative

Colmenares to Senate: Don't pass private-public partnership bill
By: Lira Dalangin-Fernandez, InterAksyon.com
February 2, 2016 12:51 PM

The Supreme Court could be the last resort to thwart the implementation of the Public-Partnership (PPP) bill if it becomes a law, a partylist lawmaker said.

“I hope the Senate will not allow this horrible law to pass otherwise the people will be constrained to go to the Supreme Court to stop the PPP bill,” Bayan Muna partylist Representative Neri Colmenares said.

The measure, which institutionalizes and strengthens the public-private partnership (PPP) scheme, was approved on third and final reading at the House of Representatives Monday.

It is still in the period of interpellation at the Senate, but approval on second and third reading could come within the two remaining days of session because it was certified as an urgent measure by Malacanang.

Colmenares was one of the lawmakers who voted against the bill, saying it will be inimical to public interest and increase the cost of public service.

“The PPP law will institutionalize sovereign guarantee through the viability gap fund and billions of public funds will be given to private companies to ensure their super profits,” he said.

“This will privatize government services and will result in expensive rates in toll ways, MRT and LRT fares, even hospitals which are subject to the government’s private-partnership program. It will also exempt private corporations from taxes including local taxes and will take away much needed funds from the people’s needs,” he added.

The partylist lawmaker also warned that the measure would “castrate” the local government units and regulatory bodies because they are mandated to approve all PPP projects, grant all administrative franchise, permits, and licenses, taking away the checks and balance required in big projects of private companies.

“The bill centralizes authority in Malacanang through the automatic grant of permits licenses and franchises deemed important by the President. It even grants tax exemptions and deprive both the national government and LGUs of taxes, fees and charges,” Colmenares said.

“This bill will deprive the people of accessible public service and take away billions in public funds from our people’s needs,” he added.

The proposed law institutionalizes the PPP Center, which now oversees the government infrastructure program, along with the procedure for awarding PPP contracts.

The PPP Center was formed through Executive Order 8 in 2010 and beefed up by EO 136 in 2013.

----------

Colmenares has very valid points. But, if only our Philippine government could deliver better public utilities services to the people, then perhaps PPP should just be an obsolete option. Therefore until then, PPP could serve as a short-term solution to this decades-old problem of poor public utilities service. Our country cannot afford to continue wasting more precious time waiting and "praying" for a really competent administration with firm political will to do whatever are necessary to really improve our various public service utilities.

A country's economic growth is very much dependent on the efficiency of its key public service utilities, and our country's economic momentum cannot be held hostage to the level of [in]competence of whoever/whatever administration is in power.

The public can and will tolerate higher cost of public utilities services as long as they are efficient and reasonably and fairly priced.

         

Show the people how you can really help them

It's a big waste of time and resources for candidates and their political supporters to engage in political demolition schemes. Among many ugly things it shows, it mainly demonstrates political immaturity. And what could the nation expect from a politically immature leader?

At the grass roots level, people are not looking at great credentials. They are simply searching for leaders who can really help them on their pressing needs and concerns. They will support leaders who can practicaly demonstrate to them real concrete solutions to their problems.

Focusing on helping others is what makes people want you to succeed -- not the striving to make yourself stand out among the rest by highlighting your credentials, or worse, by debasing or destroying your rivals' credentials and reputation.