THE NOUVEAU RICHE PACQUIAO: How He Shocks The Sensibilities Of Many People

            [This article was requested by the Anti-Tatler Group of Katipunan Ave, (Q.C. Philippines), Daughters of the 2nd Quarter Storm (UP Bliss, Philippines), Filipinas de Pamplona (Spain) and Artists Under-the-Radar (Manhattan, NY).] 

 

 

          Is it a human phenomenon?  I sincerely hope not.  The office, the community and the country, are replete with the anecdotes of people becoming gaudy with the fruits of their jackpot or good fortune.

 

          When these anecdotes become national news, I am instantaneously reminded of my beautiful old friend, years ago.  She used to be the perennial quarry of movie talent scouts and what she told me every time the persuaders left, “… I almost died laughing.” typified the attitude of the old rich on movie offers.  Today, a mother of four teenagers, she is the epitome of matured elegance, slim and erect, unlike many movie celebrity has-beens .

 

          In contrast, the other character that comes to mind is my aunt’s gold-digging boyfriend who flaunted, in my presence, his first newly custom-tailored suit, paid for by you-know-who.  Turning around with his arms wide open he said,  “…Sweetheart, loook!…”   My dear aunt, humoured by her gigolo’s pride of ownership, gave way to a controlled laughter.  The man forgot that he was showing off his suit to a woman who grew up in a family with men who worked regularly wearing suits.

 

          Many “biglang yaman” (instantaneously rich)  become dizzy in their never-dreamed-of financial status.  Remotely different from them are subtle people like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Wladimir Klitschko, Natasha Poly and in the local scene Manny Pangilinan,  Dr. Agnes Bueno,  JB Baylon and Judy Anne Santos, just to name a few that this writer knows.

 

          What produces an ostentatious person?  Is it lack of education, low EQ, bad influence, wrong values, or is it genetics?  Please tell me after reading this.*

      

1)   Pacquiao, thanks to the rating competitions of the media, has surpassed the way political warlords throw their weight around.  “Marami bang galit sa kanya?”  (Is he hated by many?), was the question of a woman aghast by Pacquiao’s platoon of bodyguards who fully occupied the restaurant and parking lot at the Fort.  “Aba, daig pa niya ang mga business tycoons na sina Jaime Zobel de Ayala, Henry Sy at si Lucio Tan.”  (My, Pacquiao shames the security needs of business tycoons Jaime Zobel de Ayala, Henry Siy and Lucio Tan.)

 

2)  With effrontery, Manny Pacquiao brushed aside the advice of the WHO and the government to postpone their arrival in the country because of A-H1N1 concerns.

 

3)  Overheard by a well known columnist-reporter at the NAIA when Pacquiao was asked by a TV reporter,  “Totoo bang tatakbo ka para sa senado?”  (Is it true that you are running for a senate seat?)  Pacquiao answered,  “Pagod na rin ako sa pagboboksing eh, magre retiro na rin ako, kaya doon na lang ako sa senado.”  (I’m weary of boxing.  I will be retiring eventually.  That’s why I’d like to be in the senate.)  Does this remind you of former athletes and actors who occupied senate seats and whose work were forgettable, except the way they kowtowed to Malacanang?

 

          Hello?  Has the senate become a retirement village?  If the columnist-reporter  herself (who overheard) were allowed to ask further she could have inquired,  “When you retire, why don’t you become an international boxing promoter, manager, trainer-coach and a gym franchiser all-in-one, instead of becoming a politician?”

 

          Who are these people luring Pacquiao to enter politics?  What are their ulterior motives?  What is the reason of Mr. Prospero Pichay for saying that Pacquiao must not run for congress in Saranggani against a Chiongbian, and that instead he should run for the senate?  

 

4)  As of this writing, Pacquiao is rumoured to have already budgeted P350 million for his political campaign this coming 2010 election.  His party-list accreditation was granted and he is running for congress in Saranggani.  And this made Ms. Ellen Tordesillas of Malaya exclaimed,  “Takbo, Manny, takbo!”  (Run, Manny, run!).   His campaign budget will flood the district or the entire country and redistribute his wealth.  If he wins, thousands may still fall in line in congress or in Malacanang for alms.

 

5)  To be a congressman and eventually a senator or even the president of the Philippines, like the “damaged analysis” (my own repudiation of the Damaged Culture ascribed to the Filipinos) that Bob Arum predicts, Mr. Pacquiao needed educational qualifications beyond the basic requirements of the constitution.  Manny Pacquiao admitted, early on, that he was only an elementary school graduate.  After being knocked out by a pin-weight woman in the last congressional election, Pacquiao had to upgrade. Researchers found out to their dismay that student Pacquiao’s latest educational achievements via special course and accreditation, though well documented, were clearly short-cut.  “But what can you do if he was accelerated?”  was the defensive claim by DEP-ED representatives.

 

          Pacquiao’s invigorated mass appeal is a gold mine for any political party, particularly the party in power.  It was quite natural for the administration to spruce up Pacquiao, in a hurry.   

 

6)  “How many of Pacquiao’s fanatical fans in the US, particularly those inside the Las Vegas arena, are actually illegal immigrants?” was the question thrown to me by two American friends.  One works with the federal government and the other with the US Immigration.  I told them that their question was inconvenient to answer.  After all, they are Filipinos in search of a better life.  And for as long as they don’t expose themselves in the very traceable Internet, it will take, at least, three days to trace, search and arrest each one of them, including their illegally staying relatives and friends.

 

7)   Before the three suspected fixed-fights of Pacquiao (vs. Morales1; vs. Dela Hoya; and, vs. Hatton) are to be proven true by some belated consequences, shouldn’t they be treated like scams that deserve patient and discreet sleuthing?  It is a pipe dream.  But if there were already three, won’t there be a fourth?  (This writer has previously written three articles on these.)

 

          These are some insights into the life of Manny Pacquiao viewed by the public’s eye.  There are a lot more insights into his private life that are best covered by movie and tabloid writers and the paparazzi.

 

          It is highly predictable that the same ostentation will compel those afflicted by it, and also their panderers, to say callously,  “Eat your hearts out!”

 

*Well thought of comments will be quoted in two graduate theses, to be submitted locally and abroad.

PACQUIAO’S FIGHT OPPORTUNITIES: Money Couldn’t Buy Him Sincere Friends; But He Got A Better Class Of Opponents

Why the title? …Because all reasons for the staging of a professional boxing bout ultimately gravitate towards the least understood and least publicly discussed topic: Financial Opportunity. And the ideal opportunity for a boxer is to earn big in a fight, earn bigger in the next, and the next, until he reaches his maximum.

 

This space is too short for an elaborate discussion of profound issues like ambition, dream, accomplishment, self fulfilment, prestige, pride, challenge, struggle etc. We will have to set them aside for another forum, and deal now with the practicalities and realities of the Pacquiao boxing business.

 

Certainly, the technical aspects of the sport would have to be factored in like power, stamina, durability, recuperative ability, offensive and defensive prowess, as well as, fighting intelligence, fighting heart, hunger for winning, athleticism, etc. But all these are already the “givens” before the fight contract is signed by the contending parties who are after financial opportunity. No contract agreement, no fight, no matter how superhuman and evenly matched both boxers are. All the boxing experts in the world can petition Pacquiao to fight someone most technically qualified or for somebody’s title-belt, yet nothing can prevent his camp from choosing another opponent who can surpass the others in multiplying the Pacman’s sale of stadium tickets, pay-per-view installations, and commercial sponsorships.

 

For assessing the most likely among Pacquiao’s next opponent, I will have to use the Desirability Index (DI) from Pacquiao’s management and promoters’ points of interest. They are: 1) Potential Net Profit (not only of the next fight, but also the consequential fight, as a result); 2) Effect on Pacquiao’s Career (win or lose); and, 3) Probable Wear-and-Tear Effects of the Fight on Pacquiao.

 

Each point of interest for Pacquiao’s manager and promoters are allotted a maximum of +5 to a minimum of -5 for a ranking of the most to the least desirable opponent, respectively.

 

I have limited my choices for Pacquiao’s most desirable opponents to five, namely: Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr., Floyd Mayweather, Jr., Shane Mosley, Juan Manuel Marquez, and Miguel Cotto. Welterweight/super light and light weight champions Andreas Kotelnik, Timothy Bradley, Juan Uranggo, Paulus Moses and Edwin Valero have been excluded for reasons that will be obvious after reading this article.

 

FACTORS OF INTEREST	PRIORITY OPPONENTS
	Chavez Jr.	Cotto	Marquez	Mayweather Jr.	Mosley
Projected Net Profit With	+5	+4	+5	+3.8	+4
Effect on Pacquiao’s Career:
Win Over…	+5	+5	+4	+5	+5
Loss To….	-5	-3	-5	-3	-3
Pacquiao’s Wear-and-Tear in Fight Against:	-4	-2	-5	-3	-1
Desirability Index (net)	+1	+4	-1	+2.8	+5
RANKING	4th	2nd	5th	3rd	1st

 

Qualitative Explanations:

On Chavez, Jr. — Chavez gets a positive but low DI, because he is deadly serious in his desire to stop Pacquiao’s “winning” streak. He knows he lacks the shifty footwork, as of now. But because of his yearning to equal/surpass his father, he will definitely adapt his training to Pacquiao’s hands speed and shifty footwork. He is the youngest (learner) among the potential opponents. When (not if) he does, Pacquiao will be hard pressed reaching him. It can be the replication, of sort, of the Tommy Hearns versus Roberto Duran fight. Otherwise, if Pacquiao manages to penetrate, it might become, somewhat, a replay of the Hearns versus Leonard fight.

 
Win or lose, Pacquiao will receive a pounding. A fight which his group would rather not take. It’s bad business. Quoting Bob Arum after hearing Chavez, Jr wanting to fight Pacquiao, “He’s too tall for Manny!”

 
Win or lose, this is a credible fight for Pacquiao.

 

On Cotto — For all his strengths and terrifying advantages against Pacquiao, he ranks high in the priority list simply because he is hungry for his first million dollar fight. He is susceptible to a fixed loss. I have the opinion that Cotto will not be that expensive to entice, next to Mosley. A controversial loss to Pacquiao won’t ruin a prospective rematch with the man he beat. The same man who mauled Margarito, his vanquisher. The paying public wants the three of them to settle their pairing contradictions.

 
A Pacquiao win in a dubious fight.

 

On Marquez — He is the lowest priority among the Pacman’s opponents. Filipinos and Mexicans know the real score. Marquez is the “contrapelo” (natural antidote) for Pacquiao. No boxer in the world (excluding those who fought Pacquiao before training with Roach) could recuperate faster from bombs and then lacerate Pacquiao’s face the way Marquez did. This extremely talented “guerrero” (warrior), despite being the only potential opponent having a natural weight like that of Pacquiao, is legitimately the worst business prospect for the Philippines’ pride.

 
Win or lose, a credible fight for Pacquiao.

 

On Mayweather — This poetry in motion is, beyond argument, another fighter that over-matches Pacquiao. Hatton and Dela Hoya being the two others, but who were too shrewd to pass up their respective multimillion dollar “incentives.” (For an iconoclastic revelation about this, please read my previous two articles.)

 
It is utter nonsense that Pacquiao can win over Pretty Boy unless, like my previous opinions on the Dela Hoya and Hatton fights, he accepts a fix to lose the fight. He might, for a minimum of $12 million but it might also leave the match makers holding a half-empty bag or worse, make the bout unviable. That’s my reason for giving him the lowest DI on Projected Net Profit. However, a big promotional extravaganza that has never been seen before coupled with a record-breaking ticket sales, PPV frenzy and gargantuan commercial sponsorships that can offset Pretty Boy’s asking price will make this latest collusion a reality.

A Pacquiao win in a dubious fight.

 

On Mosley — He is the oldest in line but has the highest priority. Mayweather will fight Marquez. Meantime, Pacquiao can fight Mosley. The Sugar Shane, unlike the second renowned Sugar (Ray Leonard), hasn’t been named in Forbes Magazine Top Celebrity Earners. I find him the least costly for contract budgeting. He will not yet be retirable after an “upset” loss to Pacquiao because of the need to settle matters in his triumvirate with Cotto and Margarito. Just like after Muhammad Ali’s losses to Ken Norton (1972) and Leon Spinks (1978), Mosley can continue to fight the younger big names after a loss to Pacquiao.

 
Pacquiao “winning” over Mosley, and without a scratch like in his Dela Hoya charade, is the best business for Pacquiao in the interim.

A Pacquiao win in a dubious fight.

 

The table above does not predict, with certainty, what Business Group– Pacquiao would eventually adopt.  After all, business is 80% science and 20% art. Many say, this is also true in championship boxing — 80% physical and 20% mental.

 

The assigned DI values in the table are based on the writer’s own value judgement that had been formed by his personal insights. Readers can also role-play as Pacquiao’s manager and promoters. They may extend the list of potential opponents and assign corresponding DI to the additional boxers using their own analytical training, experience and level of expertise in boxing, as this writer has done above.

 

Please remember: Strategic planning is a forgotten tool of those who shift from one business-line analysis to another. It is a mystery, even a heresy, for many sports lovers, just like me. We feel that our territorial boundary is trespassed, our exclusive knowledge of the sport eroded by military and management concepts that are being introduced. So what’s new? Resistance to change and innovation has always been a hindrance to acquiring more knowledge and better understanding. Perhaps that is the biggest reason why most have been looking at the previous three questionable fights of Pacquiao with rose-colored glasses.

 

(As previously featured on page 1 of thefightcountdown, June 8, 2009)

Pacquiao-Hatton Fight: A Much Improved Fight-Choreography by Two Elite Boxing Stuntmen

 

My personal belief as the title conveys, is the continuation of the article in my blog about Pacquiao vs. Dela Hoya. This time Manny Pacquiao surpassed Batista’s greatest performance in the WWE while Ricky Hatton outdid the memorable capers of the British Bulldog tag-team wrestlers, decades ago, in the forerunner wrestling organization.

 

Pacquiao’s career has been discreetly reconfigured from purely boxing competition to sports-entertainment. But who’s complaining? Everybody is happy! Except, perhaps, Hatton’s fans who are thinking without malice that, “…The lad did all he could. Never mind that although he was the defending champion, he came up to the stage ahead of Pacquiao because Pacquiao is the pound-for-pound title holder. The poor chap earned his biggest, which might be his retirement pay too. It doesn’t matter now to keep on wondering… 1) ’Was he that weak? 2) How could his defense be that open, very uncharacteristic of him. The way Ricky held his fists way down low during the exchanges, seemed almost expecting something. 3) He tried to bulldoze into the ropes the hefty Mayweather in almost every round but not the Pacman. 4) On the 10th round versus Mayweather, Ricky got up to his feet, every time, after one knockdown and one knockout from the stronger punches (than Pacquiao’s) of Mayweather. Against Pacquiao, why couldn’t he stand up after the third knockdown on the second round, when he has just rested for one minute before that round? Was it convenient for him to remain lying down?’ ” Barrera and JM Marquez remained standing. All of Pacquiao’s pommelled opponents from Ledwaba to David Diaz, immediately sat/stood up after being counted out.

 

I am truly sorry my British friends. It will be so easy to brush it all aside by saying, Pacquiao is faster, stronger and more durable than Mayweather. He is slicker too. That’s it. It’s water under the bridge. Oh, really?

 

THE BIG PICTURE

 

It’s all about money. A) Ricky Hatton received a mere $400,000 in his fight with Mayweather. Against Pacquiao, $6 million. The question that, “…Why must Hatton agree to a sell out if he could really win, collect the money and become more highly priced thereafter?…” again, as mentioned in my previous article, deserves an interrogative answer: Do you think Pacquiao could have risked suffering liver and kidney injuries as Jose Luis Castillo and Kostya Tszyu did? Pacquiao’s manager and promoters successfully stage-managed the Pacquiao-Morales 1 and the Pacquiao-Dela Hoya fight. Hatton had to agree or they could have simply selected from a list of veteran contenders who, have big following and, are out to earn their first million by hook or by crook. It has become a promoter’s market with the ingenuity of interspersing dubious fights with credible bouts, depending on the strategic potential of a fight.

 

B) The three knockdowns “imposed” on Hitman Hatton could be willingly absorbed and be recovered from within a few minutes by millions of males on the planet, for much less than his contract price . Many athletes in the UFC (like Randy Couture, Chuck Ledell, Rich Franklin and Vanderley Silva, just to name a few) and sports-entertainers in the WWE (e.g. Batista, the Undertaker, John Cena and Kurt Angle, among others) suffer graver injuries and recover after lengthier periods for low six figure contracts. The Hitman is still young. If he can win another bout convincingly, he’s back in business or he can retire comfortably. Only a chronic griper would not accept Hatton’s “conditional” contract.

 

If I were Manny Pacquiao who’s twenty-nine, grew up in poverty and was given the same once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, I would have succumbed. Was it not practical to fight Morales three times than knocking him out only once and earning a single prize of $400,000? If friend Oscar Dela Hoya couldn’t make more money as the sole promoter of Pacman because of Bob Arum, then the Golden Boy could earn the bigger money as the opponent of Pacquiao. Manny would surely agree in fighting him, his biggest opponent, “under certain conditions.” Thereafter, it’s Hatton’s turn.

 

Most Filipinos came to the US, not for advocacies but, for a better life. The fanatical fans of Pacquiao serve as the greener pasture of their idol’s manager and promoters. The business group’s cash cow is Manny. Before one can become a cash cow, one must be justifiably world class and build an impressive stat. Many world class boxers with impressive records fell on the way side unlike Pacquiao, because Filipino fans are quite a big market and unique.

 

The country is in dire need of a hero, at least, of a one-day uniter. We may be hungry but we will be happy, as our national pride is stoked by Manny’s victories. That’s why we all love Manny.

 

Ricky’s well deserved bounty could be an additional financial stimulus for the UK. Needless to say, I would have also done what he did. Was there a crime? Is this not the equivalent case, in boxing, of the regulators’ negligence on and ignorance of the credit and financial malfeasance? Those so called financial genius claimed they were merely being creative. Understandably ahead, the professional boxing world has become very creative since the heyday of Sugar Ray Leonard.

 

A Subic rape victim settled for much less; many local and national voters sell their right of suffrage for the equivalent value of their next meal; congressional voters against impeachment complaints, allegedly, sell theirs for peso six figures. Do these money matters make the moral high ground adjustable? We’re only human. God will understand. Give to charity after raking it in.

 

“Do you want me to lose to Pacquiao….How much”? Mayweather’s first loss against Pacquiao will cost the boxing patrons a lot more.

 

Marquez, obstinately, doesn’t want a piece of it. He wants all of it. He wants to replace Pacman as the undisputed Best Pound-for-Pound. He recently flattened Casa Mayor, following it up with a hard fought KO of Juan “baby bull” Diaz. He said that Pacquiao is avoiding him, and rightly so. To overtake the Pacman, he has challenged Mayweather and his challenge was accepted. Filipinos aren’t weary of watching Pacquiao fight Mexicans, are we?

 

At this stage of Pacquiao’s career, he needs a credible bout against   *an opponent who is not susceptible to an “incentive”, or   **someone who will only accept a deliberate defeat at a very exorbitant price. That price must be a lot higher than Dela Hoya’s $10 million, hopefully rendering the incentivized fight unviable. Under the first option, Julio Cesar Chavez is the hungriest in making a name for himself. He wants to outdo his legendary father. But, judging from his recent unimpressive (no shifty footwork) win over Cuello, he might be slaughtered by the Pacman. So far, only Mayweather and J.M. Marquez fit the second option.

 

I knew I would be swimming against the current when I previously opined on the Pacquiao-Dela Hoya fixed fight. I am now determined to scuba dive beneath a tidal wave because of my firm belief about this recent Pacquiao-Hatton charade.

 

It cannot be overemphasized that the lives of our national heroes are subjected to scrutiny. Are the exploits of the “pambansang kamao” (national fist) exempted? Please remember that the truth is not a matter of popular opinion. Truth has always been a function of time. Let’s see whose belief will pass the test of time.

(As previously featured in thefightcountdown, June 5, 2009)

The Linchpin-Solution to Our Country’s Economic Problems

A wheel may have the compatible mechanical parts like a lubricated bearing, a well-fitted hub, and lengthy and sturdy spokes (rods) connected to a perfect circular rim. Yet these are quite useless without a linchpin inserted in the end of the axle to prevent the same wheel from slipping off.

The economic wheel, likewise, may have the efficient components like an ideal GDP, a desirable standard of education, a physically and mentally healthy population, a minimized level of graft and corruption, political stability, and a peaceful, pollution-free and a well-protected environment, but all will eventually come to naught without an effective population management policy serving as its linchpin.

A country must, in a given decade, have an optimum level of population. For this country, the objective is to urgently decrease the national birth rate, subject to periodic reviews to forestall population aging. The target is the 50% reduction of the national birth rate within five years.

There is no longer a need to debate on which method of population management is most desirable. The method that brings about the desired outcome of 12.7% reduction per year in the national birth rate is preferred. Let all methods cancel out each other as their effectiveness will be appraised on their attainment of the target.

Government subsidy for and foreign grants or aids on the most effective, practical and cost efficient method must also focus on the corresponding safety nets for hygiene, emotional or psychological concerns, and on the abuse of usage by minors particularly in pre-marital sex.

The other analogy is the representation of the economy as a person running on a treadmill, exerting much effort and striding fast without actually moving forward. The forecasts for 2009 by The Economist Intelligence Unit of London indicates that the Philippines will have a 94.3 million population with a corresponding GDP/capita of $1,690, lower than Indonesia’s $2,130, Sri Lanka’s $2,340, China’s $3,600, Thailand’s $4,280, Malaysia’s P8,020, Kazakhstan’s $10,100, South Korea’s $18,070, Taiwan’s $19,080, New Zealand’s $26,630, Hong Kong’s $34,020, Australia’s $36,250, Japan’s $42,310, and Singapore’s $45,430.

The countries forecasted that will have GDP/capita lower than the Philippines are: India $1,190 (population 1.14 billion); Vietnam $1,180 (population 88.1 million); Uzbekistan $1,120 (population 27.5 million); and Pakistan $900 (population 169.2 million).

The sales pitch that a big population means a big market, hence a robust economy, is a delusion. Even granting that the sales pitch is only half true, which one is preferable, a big impoverished market or a smaller market with a larger spending power? The answer is starkly obvious.

A holier-than-thou attitude in helping the poor might be perceived as a sinister mission when the act of helping increases, rather than decreases, the magnitude of poverty. The more babies the bigger the flock of the poor. When economic opportunity becomes unbearably limited, the flock works abroad or immigrates bringing with them their customs, traditions, and their religious beliefs. They not only become refugees but also constructors of religious edifices. And they ensure religious propagation by converting infants (who have not yet reached the statutory age of consent).

An optimum population level means: a higher GDP per capita; less shortage of classrooms, books, and teachers; a smaller class-size in every school; a bigger national health budget per capita, decreasing abortion; an arrest of the spread of STD; less requirement for energy and transportation resulting to a drop in gas emissions; lighter road traffic; lower demand for lumber; forestalled excessive exploitation of marine resources; reduced crime-rate; highly diminished waste management problems; a rationalized bureaucracy that is potently deterred from selling discretion; etc. There is less of everything that burdens the economy and negates its momentum.

Manny Pacquiao: The emperor has no clothes.

(The irreverent buildup for his Hatton fight)
By Jake Salcedo

Manny Pacquiao’s popularity blinds a lot of people. He could have beaten Mike Tyson and his fanatic fans would believe he actually won.

I ceased to be a fan of Manny Pacquiao after the Morales-Pacquiao 1, even if he convinced me of his enormous boxing prowess thereafter. The Morales-Pacquiao 1 was the market test for the Pacman’s opponent-selection charade. Two days before that fight, the not so secret contention in the Bob Arum promotions and Shelly Finkle management was that, “Morales is retirable. Why should Morales and Pacquiao fight only once? They should fight three times!”

The Dela Hoya-Pacquiao fight was the validation of that previous opponent-selection charade. And the big picture of this second charade was that, Dela Hoya was moving heaven and earth (read: arranging deals) to make money out of Pacquiao’s crowd-drawing power. He could not make money as a promoter of Pacman because of Bob Arum. But, he could make more money as a ring opponent.

Don’t be mislead by a (resident-foreigner) sportscaster’s question, “What will Dela Hoya get from being beaten by Pacquiao?” Declarative answer: Only $10 million. Another sportscaster’s question, “…But Dela Hoya could have earned the same $10 million by beating Pacquiao, if he really could?” Interrogative answer: Do you really think Pacquiao would have signed the contract without such a fixed outcome? Dela Hoya declared that he would pulverize Mayweather and everybody saw his effort during that fight. But against Paquiao, the gullible readily accepted that the Golden Boy “just couldn’t pull the trigger.”

Another begging-the-question defense by pandering sportscasters/writers/analysts: It’s unfair to Pacquiao to suspect and say that those two fights were charades. Excuse me! Is it now unpatriotic to swim against the current? The question is, are those two fights fixed or not? This is not about Pacquiao’s rags-to-riches story, nor about his political gambits. The lives of our national heroes are subject to scrutiny. Are the dubious fights of the “pambansang kamao’” exempted?

Many world-rated boxers are now queuing to fight Manny Pacquiao. These are the ones hungry or those willing to post one inconsequential loss in their fight-record for the biggest payday, yet, of their careers, e.g. Casa Mayor, Shane Mosley, Miguel Cotto, Baby Bull Diaz, Guzman, etc. Don’t forget JM Marquez and Chavez Jr. Everybody wants Pacquiao. Muuucho dinero! Many believe that the prevailing acceptance condition is, “…You want me to lose to Pacquiao?…How much?”

Historically, fight fixing was widely suspected in the Leonard-Hagler fight, the two fights between Lewis & Holyfield, the trilogy between Morales & Barrera, even some fights of Flash Elorde were suspected of being prolonged because his fight coverage were paid for by the round. The more rounds it took per fight, the bigger the money paid by film sponsors. All these were of course aside from the convenient arrangements in building up the careers of potential champions by pitting them early against cannon fodders like what happened to Floyd Paterson, and what’s being done to the career of Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr.

The bittersweet development in Philippine boxing as a result of the Pacquiao phenomenon is that Filipino boxers have freed themselves from the stranglehold of Jose Sulaiman, the president of the WBC. Our boxers now can forget about title belts for as long as they can command a big following like the Pacman does. Title belts have become passé in the acquisition of a multimillion prize-money, particularly between Filipino and Mexican fighters. Furthermore, our boxers have mostly avoided becoming the ladders of Japanese boxers and promoters like they did to Joselito Espinoza, Randy Suico and Gerry Penalosa.

For as long as Pacquiao packs the stadium, remains a pay-per-view TV attraction, and a sought-after product endorser, the free loaders, the riders of his popularity, and those who gain nothing from doubting him would either continue to defend him loudly or simply remain silent. After all, he wears the most beautiful mantle in the country’s sports history. He is the emperor.

A Bloody Catharsis Shortens Human Suffering. It Is Cost Efficient. Its Effects Last Longer.

The above can be proven arithmetically.  What makes such a proposition unacceptable to many is its danger to life and property, as well as its severe disruptions of everybody’s daily routine.

It is like a woman’s plan to separate from a husband who, not only cheats sexually and regularly pilfers the family income but also, beats and threatens her with murder if she leaves him.  Every time she packs her suitcase, she sabotages her own plan by asking herself, “What would happen to me if I leave him?  If I strive to reform him, I’ll still have my walk-in closet of expensive clothes, continue to live in a big house, drive my own car, and maintain my present lifestyle.”  With that mentality, the wife can never separate from her husband.

Instituting reforms peacefully as the only solution to the national malady is a big myth.  The deeply rooted and widespread corruption, the dismal implementation of development policies because of their being scuttled by vested interests, the deteriorating standards of education, the rotten political system and institutions, the mistrusted judiciary being mocked as the “proper forum”, the highly politicized police and military, and a proudly religious population that could not internalize the teachings of their God, are only some of the gargantuan problems that we hopelessly try to solve by reforms.

Peace becomes a restriction if it is the arena of wrongdoers.  The wrongdoers control the bureaucracy, influence the media, cloak themselves with spirituality, distort business concepts and ethics to swindle the marginally larcenous investors, and take advantage of our longing for progress by manipulating us with their sloganeering for peaceful reforms.

Every effort and every million pesos aimed at reforming our systems and institutions are countered continuously by the self-righteous and people with dissimulated malice.  Because of this, not even 50% of the total much-needed reforms can be implemented within our (the baby boomers’) lifetime.  Make that “not within the life-time of our children.”  When people want reforms as the ultimate mechanism to solve the intertwined problems of the country, they actually confuse the word “hope” with “wishful thinking.”

Whatever insignificant reforms we are able to implement peacefully will never last for five years.  People severely affected and even those benefited by the same reforms will inevitably backslide within five years.  This backsliding happened after EDSA 1 and 2.  The wrongdoers were not eliminated.  They were allowed to blend with and adapt to the new dispensations.  Compare the durability of the reforms after these so-called peaceful revolutions with the reforms after the two revolutions for independence.  No contest.

Let us assume that older people, like myself, have less to lose than younger men and women.  After all, we older people have shorter time to live.  So that makes us, older people, less afraid to die.  Right?  Then the foremost question in the people’s mind is, “What will happen to my children if there will be a bloody catharsis?”  I could not answer this question until one day a brother Moslem said, “Mabubuhay din yan.”  They will survive.

If our forebears, who revolted against the Spaniards and the Americans, and those who fought the Japanese, undermined their own determination to shed blood and chose to be worried-sick of the dangers to their children, then there would not have been these glorious episodes in our country’s history.  We, as a people, will never be able to reconstruct the decayed society we all deplore.  Like the sabotaging wife, we will remain in our comfort zones minus our self-respect.

When a group has two peaceful solutions to the national malady, it is simply beaten by another group that, aside from having the same two peaceful solutions, has a non-peaceful solution in reserve.  This latter solution has effects that are more immediate, last longer and, consequently, more cost efficient compared to the former two.

Our society is suffering from many malignancies.  Its self-healing mechanisms are vastly obsolete.  We have given peace a chance for so long.  Persistently enduring one frustration after another is masochistic.  Let us stop dreaming that these malignancies can be cured nicely.

What is the linchpin solution to the country’s economic problems?

   

I am using the word “linchpin” figuratively.  Since there are so many well intentioned solutions to our country’s economic problems, let us identify a particular solution which when implemented would move the other well intentioned solutions toward the desired direction—- economic progress.

         

To illustrate, if the big reduction in graft and corruption is the proposed linchpin, will it also reduce the population explosion?  Or is it the other way around?  To simplify the identification of the linchpin, let me confine the choices to:  1) Decrease the national birth rate,  2) Reduce graft and corruption,  3) Reduce unemployment or produce more job opportunities,  4) Improve investment  opportunities,  5) Raise the standard of education,  6) Improve health and sanitation, and  7) Reduce politicking or change the political system.

         

Obviously, there are profound solutions like  upliftment of moral values; let’s have more love than hate; there should be less greed and more charity; be real Christians or there should more fear of God; or we must have a better national leadership, etc..  They would sidetrack our thinking towards motherhood solutions that are not technically relevant to our socio-economic discussion.  Let’s reserve those solutions in another forum.

         

This must be a very brief analysis why your particular choice is the linchpin.             

 

The Basic Cause Of The Mindanao Rebellion

 

 The first requirement being imposed by the Philippine government’s negotiating panel on the Moslem rebels “…that the government must deal only with one group of representatives or voice from the rebels…”  has long been a cause of the recurrence of the rebellion.

The rebels come from different tribal groups.  Each tribe has its own issues to settle against the predominantly Christian government.  These ethnic tribes have been raiding and warring against each other even before the Spanish conquistadores set foot on Mindanao, 300 years ago.  Some tribes were bigger than others.  A tribe that had been continously beaten by another, of course, was willing to be reinforced by the Spaniards and, also centuries later, by the Americans who had superior weaponry.

These strategic alliances had been the tactic of colonizers throughout history.  In the Americas, the Mohicans, Mohawks, Commanches, Apaches, among others, have used the whiteman’s (weaponry) against each other.

Eventually, the indigenous people of North America surrendered their arms and ended in reservation camps, their ancestral lands all usurped.  Surely, our Moslem brothers would not want to suffer the same fate as the American Indians, with their ancestral lands all declared as government property.

 One must remember the past rebellion of the Tausug-led MNLF of Nur Misuari against the Marcos regime.  The MNLF rebellion was neutralized by the collaboration of influential Maranaos with Marcos.  Inter-tribal animosities manifest in instinctive antipathy between individual Moslems in Mindanao.

Even here in the commercial centers of Manila,  it is not an advantage to tell a Moslem merchant that you are also a Moslem, to be able to get a discount, if you belong to an opposing tribe.  A lot of Christians do not know this.  Any agreement between the Christian government and a rebelling Moslem tribe is viewed with great suspicion by the other tribes, because the others know that the government largesse will be monopolized.  A tribe will naturally succumb to its own tribalistic agenda.  This is not to mention that within each tribe the mass of followers rarely, if at all, gets to receive the “shower” of the government largesse.  The result is intra-tribe disgruntlement.

 More importantly, within each tribe there are those who truly differ in their intensity of religious expression and on their stand on the urgency of political autonomy–hence the breakaway factions like the MILF.

 Further complicating the scenario is the desperation of smaller Moslem tribes who have deeply-rooted resentments against bigger tribes.  And the same resentments, if not more aggravated, of these smaller tribes, are also directed toward the Christian settlers who have acquired their lands, not from the ancestral Moslem owners but from the Manila-based government.

 The government nationalized Mindanao tribal lands with its “Land for the Landless Policy” during the 1950s under the Magsaysay administration.

 Consequently, these smaller tribes have been pushed higher unto the mountains and hinterlands. They see their ancestral domains being exploited by Christians and foreign capitalists who have made arrangements, not with the ancestral owners but, with the national government.  These land exploitations have come about after bloody confrontations that were usually ended by the government’s offer of economic development programs.  These development programs, however, have always come at the expense of the true aspirations of the ethnic tribes.  One such irreconcilable difference is the urgent plan of the government to convert Mindanao into an economic zone versus the ethic tribes’ destined longing to inhabit their territory as pristine forests, or as an Islamic kingdom, like Brunei, with its natives as sole and direct beneficiaries of their land’s richness.  These are the bottom line causes of  the ethnic vengeance manifested through banditry and perpetual rage of extremists like the Abu Sayyaf.

 

The government’s use of the Machiavellian tactic of divide-and-rule in dealing with the Moslem rebels has, time and again, backfired.  It has never brought about lasting peace nor solved the centuries-old cultural and political turmoil in the region.  It never will.

 

 

We Shouldn’t Be Helpless Against Terrible Gasoline Prices

International banks, & other financial institutions directly benefit from terrible gasoline prices.  While a lot of commercial companies, including your employer, indirectly benefit from it too.  The government and politicians tolerate it so as not to antagonize both the direct and indirect beneficiaries of terrible gasoline prices.

 

Let’s start from the bottom.  The big banks and financial institutions that got burned in the US home mortgage scandal are busy recouping their losses with their investments in Hedge Funds. These Hedge Funds have bulk investment instruments in the form of commodity (oil) futures.  Commodity futures are simply supply contracts bought in advance, in anticipation of price increases of the targeted commodity.  Since these supply contracts are hurriedly bought in bulk by previous loss recoupers, there is an artificial high demand for them creating a spiral of price increases.  Of course, the unprecedented consumption levels of growing economies, like China, can be easily blamed.  But the big demand of China for oil is not artificial, unlike those of investors in oil futures.

 

Before gasoline prices terribly went galloping, the US economy was on the brink of depression mainly due to the gargantuan home mortgage scandal.  The US government was in a quandary on how to save its economy.  Various schemes were considered:  government bailout, private initiative, or variations thereof.  Private ingenuity was fast.  It relieved the US government of bailing out greedy financial institutions with the people’s money, so we thought.

                                       

“Enlarge your, or shift to, Commodity (oil) Futures investment, buddies,” became the mantra of big losing banks and financial institutions.  And the US government, fearful of a recession and wanting to avoid the bailing out of greedy banks with its domestic political backlash, became a co-conspirator in the oil price spiral.  The bailing out using US taxpayer’s money was avoided but, the world’s oil consumers became the funders of the bailout  with their payments for oil whose exorbitant prices were designed to offset the losses of those involved in the US subprime home mortgage debacle.

 

International finance is globally inter-connected.  They overlap.  Middle East money, the EU, investments in the world Stock Exchanges, Asian , including Australian and Bruneian investments, Latin American, and Northern and Southern African placements in the US were all badly affected, in varying degrees, by the US debacle.  No wonder all affected parties make only token protestations against the horrible oil prices.  Even the stockholders of the international media, who have investments in subprime home mortgage, are restrained in taking up the issues.  They all want to recoup their losses from oil consumers.  If greedy banks and financiers lost  big-time, they will recoup their losses big-time and in no time.           

 

If you think your employers are too naïve to be willing recipients of the indirect benefits of the oil price spiral and you are so sure they prefer the old lower oil prices, then just ask them which would they prefer, a price spiral of gasoline or the collapse of the US economy.  It would be a lot expedient to stabilize the world’s economy at a higher price index than to allow the worldwide domino effect of a collapsed US economy.

 

What about you and me?  The same thing.  We are all expected to stabilize at new and more costly lifestyles, if we all evolve or adapt fast enough.  We know it deep inside us.  That’s why we all “…lead lives of quiet desperation.”  Do we really?

 

If we know what’s happening, we may be capable of thwarting the on-going schemes of these speculators, if we’ve got  what it  takes:  1) Postpone your purchases of oil powered assets for at  least a month;  2) Stay away from the stock market for 15 days;  3) Limit  your consumption to the most basic needs (food, shelter & medicines);  4) Postpone buying of new clothes for four weeks;  5) Reduce your energy bills by, at least, 10% for a month;  6)  Eat  less for a month;  7) Agitate against and be vocal about what’s happening among your friends and relatives; and  Encourage them to replicate what your doing.

 

Of course, the objective is to contract the economy a few percentage points from fifteen to thirty days.  Merely reducing our gasoline consumption will have a very slow effect on the commodity (gasoline) futures speculators. They have other investments too.  Besides, the idea is not only to isolate them, an impossibility, but more urgently to goad all businesses to tow the line.  If only 40% of the total world population does all of the above, simultaneously, starting today, we will see consumer justice prevail.  Remember, the struggle must be enjoyed more than the triumph.