jump to navigation

The Country’s Worst Jackasses October 7, 2009

Posted by Maddog in Politics and Law, Religion and Social Issues.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Along with the good things in life, there are the bad. And then there are the really rotten eggs. So here’s a list guaranteed to ruin any ice cream you’ve got: The Five Worst Jackasses in the Philippines.

Just one thing before we get started. If you don’t agree with my choices, then make your own. Just don’t put me on it. I deserve a list all to myself.

1. Congressman Edcel Lagman

The principal author and most prominent congressional pusher of the RH/abortion Bill (aka HB 5043), this unscrupulous Trapo (traditional politician) got his sick “reproductive health” (RH) Bill from radical NGOs that are funded by foreign abortion rights groups. As expected, the draconian Bill will sneak abortion into the country by funding the distribution of abortifacient contraceptives all over the country. What’s worse is that he wants to force others to assist him in his dirty work by threatening doctors and health workers who refuse to dispense these or to make referrals with imprisonment and heavy fines. To top it off, his Bill even seeks to punish those who speak out against it! So much for choice and free speech. How anti-democracy can you get?

Of course, he’ll never admit the real agenda behind the RH advocacy, which is eventual legalization of some form of abortion in the Philippines. He will continue to sugar-coat it for public consumption. This guy takes the cake. He is a danger to all unborn children. Vote him out of Congress! My song for this two-faced, despot wannabe: “Dirty Work,” by The Rolling Stones.

2. and 3. Erap and Gloria Arroyo

Among the biggest mistakes made by Filipinos were giving these two their chances to run our government: the former for only a mercifully short but brain-dead period; the latter for way too long. Both have shafted the Filipino people royally.

More bad news: Erap may be running for President again — I can see the dark clouds gathering! Come on, people! Do we really want a convicted plunderer running the country again? We replaced him with GMA, but she was more than a disappointment. GMA pardoned him out of political expediency. Her principles sure went out the window with that one. And she is still ruining our political and judicial institutions. Can’t we find a way to jail her too?

Erap and his lapdogs don’t even understand what decent governance is; GMA and her sycophants couldn’t care less. Both will take whatever power and money they can get their grubby hands on if given half a chance. They deserve each other. No way should they — or their accomplices — ever be allowed to get anywhere close to holding a government position ever again.

A pox on both their houses! My song for this gang of thieves: “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” by The Who.

(more…)

A Position Paper Against HB 5043 December 6, 2008

Posted by Maddog in Catholicism, Politics and Law, Prolife Issues, Religion and Social Issues.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

Position Paper: Catholic Alumni United for Life

http://www.phnix.net/Position_Paper_Against_HB_5043.pdf

We, concerned alumni of Catholic Universities, have united to express our stand against the anti-life, abortion-promoting Reproductive Health Bill authored by Edcel Lagman et al, now also known as HB (House Bill) 5043.

As graduates of Catholic universities well-known for their spiritual and moral values and academic excellence, we are also deeply dismayed that certain faculty members in some of our own respective alma maters have aired support for the said Bill despite the clear guidelines of our Catholic Faith.

We have therefore chosen to release this position paper in response to the confusion and scandal caused by the actions of those who have made the false claim that one can support HB 5043 and still be consistent with the teachings of our Faith.

HB 5043 uses wrong means to achieve questionable ends

Not all means to an end are justified. HB 5043’s supporters may think it has admirable, good ends, such as lowering the incidence of “unwanted” pregnancies, abortion, maternal death, and poverty, but they are mistaken. HB 5043 will not achieve these; and even if it could, there are more acceptable — and more effective — means of achieving these ends.

HB 5043 has provisions that will have morally questionable consequences. Some of these are as follows.

HB 5043 promotes abortion through abortifacients

The proponents of HB 5043 have ignored the fact that it promotes abortifacient contraceptives. The Position Paper of the 14 Ateneo faculty members, for example, dismisses this possibility, assuming that health authorities have declared modern contraceptives as non-abortifacient. Yet many studies show that such a dismissal is unjustified, and that these contraceptives can prevent the implantation of a newly- conceived human being.[1]

We also note that other contraceptives, like the IUD, are even more abortifacient than oral contraceptives, especially when used as “emergency” contraceptives. Their abortifacient mechanism of action is well-known and documented.[2]

Any contraceptive that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, or otherwise causing it to be eventually destroyed, is an abortifacient. HB 5043, however, explicitly promotes and funds such abortifacients.[3]

It may be argued that the abortifacient mechanism of some oral contraceptives has not been conclusively proven to occur in human beings, or that if it does occur then this occurrence is very rare. To the first argument we would reply that even if there really were any doubt that a contraceptive is abortifacient, the grave stakes involved (the death of a human being) means that the burden of proof is on those who would deny that these are abortifacients. In other words, they must prove that these contraceptives are in fact non-abortifacient. Until such a conclusive determination is achieved we must err on the side of caution and not place the lives of the unborn at risk.

We also note that this imperative to avoid the questionable methods promoted by HB 5043 becomes especially more compelling since there is a safe, modern, and effective alternative: Natural Family Planning.

(more…)

The Deceptive SWS Survey October 18, 2008

Posted by Maddog in Politics and Law, Prolife Issues, Religion and Social Issues.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
8 comments

The Social Weather Stations (SWS) has weighed in on the debate over the anti-life Bill pending in Congress, and now known as HB 5043. Its latest survey, which received wide media coverage, is touted to be fair and free of bias. Sadly, in my opinion, the truth is otherwise.

The SWS released its third quarter 2008 Social Weather Survey, which was fielded between September 24-27. Acording to Mahar Mangahas, president and co-founder of SWS, in his article in the Inquirer (New Polls on reproductive health), had two modules relevant to the issue: “one module of three items done on SWS’ own initiative, and a second module of three items commissioned by the Forum for Family Planning and Development (FFPD), a non-government advocacy group.”

Mangahas goes on to say:

The SWS survey asked six questions on the RH topic, the first three of which were FFPD, and the second three being SWS’ own items. The first four items were a battery of Agree/Disagree (A/D) statements, with two of them phrased in opposition to the Reproductive Health and Population Development (RHPD) bill currently being debated in Congress, and with the two others phrased as affirmative to it. The fifth item asked whether the respondent already knew of the RHPD bill. The sixth item asked if the respondent favored it or not. I believe that the A/D battery, being evenly divided in slant, did not introduce affirmation bias to the succeeding items.

Mangahas notes that the first and third test statements of the A/D battery had “anti-RHPD” assertions, while the second and fourth were phrased as “pro-RHPD”. The fifth question consisted of informing the respondents of HB 5043 and asking them if they knew about it. The final question asked respondents their opinion of the Bill.

Dirty Tricks 101: Slanted Questions

I wish to take issue with the way Mangahas characterizes the questions in this survey. He imagines that the A/D battery of questions did not introduce any bias because two were slanted against the Bill and two were slanted for the Bill.

Why not look at the actual questions then? It will become apparent that overall the survey was not neutral at all and its questions and statements definitely introduced bias.

(more…)

Kill Bill 5043 October 11, 2008

Posted by Maddog in Prolife Issues, Religion and Social Issues.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

Congressman Lagman’s anti-life Bill pending in Congress is now known as consolidated House Bill 5043. Sadly, it contains the same abortion-promoting and coercive provisions as previous versions.

Couples for Christ has launched an online campaign against this monstrosity posing as a “health” Bill.

Kill Bill 5043
http://www.prolife.cfcinternationalmissions.com/

There’s another petition against HB 5043, this time created by an individual. Please sign this too!

No to Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/petition.html

Be counted and kill this murderous Bill! We have to stand and protect the rights of unborn children and the right of each of person to follow his conscience, free of government coercion. Online petitions may not have the force of written petitions with real signatures, but they do have some moral force. If you wish to register your opposition to this Bill online, you may do so using those petitions.

If you have time, you may also wish to write a letter to your favorite newspaper, your local government officials, and to your Congressman and any Senator. Let them know you are against this coercive and dangerous Bill.

And in 2010, make sure you DON’T vote for Lagman and his accomplices in Congress.

Resources (update to this post)

Time for Integrity July 20, 2008

Posted by Maddog in Politics and Law, Prolife Issues, Religion and Social Issues.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The newspapers, and especially their columnists, are having a field day writing about Ozamis Archbishop Jesus A. Dosado’s decision to deny Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion and pro-artificial contraception the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Some writers caution of a backlash, warning that decision appears too confrontational, and others seem sympathetic to the affected legislators, as if they were the underdogs. Some would even praise them for taking a principled stand.

But just how principled a stand is that of these politicians? And are the other considerations even relevant? Let’s examine the situation at hand.

Integrity

We are all sinners and are guilty of not living up to all our beliefs. It would seem, however, that these Catholic politicians have radically disconnected their faith from their actions. They claim membership in a Church that emphatically teaches one very fundamental tenet, and then openly announce their support for — and will work to bring about — the opposite. It’s one thing to be privately inconsistent with one’s beliefs, but to do so repeatedly, publicly, without remorse, and to claim that it is right, is another thing altogether. It’s a scandal.

What does that say about their integrity?

Here are the definitions of “integrity” from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

1: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values
2: an unimpaired condition
3: the quality or state of being complete or undivided

“Firm adherence” and “complete or undivided” all imply consistency in belief, word, and deed, don’t they? To have integrity means to behave in accordance with declared and freely held belief.

It’s obvious that these arrogant politicians want to have their cake and it it too. They want to advocate and pass coercive laws that promote and condone abortion and abortifacient contraceptives, while at the same time demand that they be considered Catholics in good standing!

What kind of chicanery is this? A Catholic “in good standing” is one who tries his best to follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church. What kind a Catholic is someone who refuses to believe in Catholic doctrine? Can such a person even be a Catholic except in name only? A How then, can one be in “good standing” with the Church when one promotes laws that are directly contrary to the Catholic doctrine?

Atty. Jose C. Sison, in his article “A bishop’s courageous stand” (July 18, Philippine Star) hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

So Catholic politicians in Congress or in city councils who sponsored and supported these pro abortion measures should not complain if they are denied the Sacraments; or try to sway public opinion against the Church for their predicament. They “should have the integrity to acknowledge” that their stand is contrary to their Faith, and voluntarily refrain from receiving the Sacraments “until they have a change of heart”, as Archbishop Dosado admonished.

Can we expect integrity from these politicians? If we cannot expect such, then why elect them? They will have their day of reckoning.

(more…)