Sometimes Work Does Get In The Way...

..... of blogging and bloghopping. :D

My apologies dear online buddies because save for a few, I really haven't had the chance to stop by your blogs lately. I've been swamped with quite a bit of work these past few weeks that except for the occasional blog entry, I haven't really been able to visit your respective sites.

I had tight deadlines to meet that in fact, my recent blog entries were drafted and developed while I was on train rides home. Thus, an entry that would normally take a few hours to develop and complete took quite a number of days to conclude. In addition, a case of writer's block didn't make writing any easier.

Since my mind was tied up with work-related stuff, I decided to skip on the bloghopping for some time just to get a number of things off my desk. In addition, I didn't want to post half-ass comments (please pardon the expression) on your blogs knowing that I simply breezed through something that you took the time and effort to write and post.

Take care of yourselves, dear folks. My load at work is starting to lighten at this point. Thus, I should be able to visit your sites soon. I look forward to again reading the stories you wish to tell. I wish everyone well.

Playing Things Safe at San Miguel

I was reading the Business Section of yesterday's issue (October 29) of the Inquirer when I was struck by an event that was reported in this article. The article reported on the UK-based investment firm Ashmore Group's move to increase its control over Petron. I have no problem with foreigners increasing their level of investment in Filipino companies as long as the investment would lead to the creation of more jobs and better incomes for our countrymen.

However, I was not too happy to find in the same article that San Miguel Corporation, that long-time food and beverage conglomerate, has plans to buy into Petron too. In fact, reading further, I found that San Miguel was seeking more than 50% control of Petron, this planned move was announced right after acquiring a 27% stake in Meralco last Monday.

I am no strategic genius or business whiz but San Miguel's foray into power distribution and its planned entry into the oil refining business should not impress any serious student of Philippine business. This company has been able to lord it over the Philippines for many decades due to its sheer size and lack of true competition. Given its reputation and the resources at its disposal, I expect a lot more from a multi-billion dollar corporation who has been around since 1890. But aside from the Philippines, its premier product, San Miguel Beer, still does not have a significant presence in any foreign market save for Hongkong.

I love San Miguel's beer and I strongly believe that the product has the potential to compete with the world's best. But San Miguel's management hasn't done a very good job of introducing and marketing its premier product into different foreign markets. It seems content playing a conservative game of marketing San Miguel Beer only in places marked by a large Filipino presence. Instead of trying to compete in the global market against foreign brands, San Miguel's management seems content to just play it safe within its home grounds.

In my humble opinion, this is the problem when a company the size of San Miguel has never operated in an environment where it had to seriously compete to either maintain or expand its share of the market. Although the security afforded by a protected business environment may seem reassuring to a company's investors, the lack or absence of challenges or fights from a serious competitor never truly forced San Miguel to seek greater efficiency in resource allocation to lower its costs and boost its market share. It never had to mount a serious counterthrust to any competitor's moves. In short, it has a management that by international standards has never been truly battle-tested.

Instead of growing the company's revenues organically by expanding the market share of its products locally or by expanding into foreign markets either through strategic acquisitions or strategic alliances, San Miguel's management decided to pursue the path of least resistance by growing the company through investments into other industries WITHIN the Philippines even if these companies are in businesses outside of San Miguel's core competency. Even its selection of industries to invest in (power distribution and oil refining) are "safe" industries in the Philippine context. Both are practically cash cows and both are environments with limited or no competition.

In a previous job many years ago, I had the chance to be part of teams that analyzed parts of San Miguel's operations in a couple of its divisions. Typical of problems in a virtual monopoly, we found bloated bureaucracies, operational inefficiencies, waste, and even corruption. Due to the absence of competitive market pressures, we sensed no urgency on the part of both management and employees to fix their problems. I don't mean to paint a broad brush but a culture of complacency certainly prevailed. The place ran like a government office. I have no reason to believe that such mediocrities and problems have gone away because the environment San Miguel operates in remains virtually unchanged.

San Miguel is a company that can do more and achieve more. A lot of foreigners I know who have tasted its beer love it. Aside from beer, it has a wide array of products that are of high quality that competing in foreign markets and gaining the acceptance of foreign customers should not be deemed an insurmountable challenge. Instead of pouring its resources into businesses it knows next to nothing about, the company ought to focus its energies on its core competency. Instead of focusing on protecting its local market share and stifling local competition, San Miguel's management owes it to the country, the Filipino people, and themselves to prove that the people behind San Miguel are made of sterner stuff. The only way to do so is to unleash the competitive spirit within them and do competitive battles on foreign shores.

Oh Well....

A week from today, people in this part of the world will be exercising their right to vote for the man who will occupy the most powerful office in the world for the next four years.

National polls and trends point to an Obama victory. They may very well be proven right.

But as a lot of these electoral exercises go, different motivations and situations will drive people to prefer one candidate over another. The motivations could be any of the following: economic, political, social, or emotional.

Some people will base their decision on which candidate's campaign proposals would better address the nation's economic problems. Some people will vote upon due consideration of each candidate's resume and professional track record. Some people will vote because they share the same social experience and history with one candidate. Some people will exercise their right of suffrage and vote for the candidate simply on the strength of the endorsement of celebrities and other pop culture figures. Some people will vote for one candidate simply because his election will make history.

Regardless of who wins, the next President and Presidency will be consequential for the world if it isn't so already. The next President will either be one who was a celebrated war hero who served with distinction in the US Senate or one who has become a favorite among glitzy Hollywood celebrities and the media elite because his campaign style has been nothing short of "cool". But for many people in this world, things boil down to how a President's decision would impact their economic well-being.

For all the people's talk of how much they care for their lives; of how much they love the things that they get to enjoy in life that became possible as a result of either their job or business; of how much it means to them that future generations grow up in a morally upright environment; and of how much it means to people to have a goverment that would continue creating economic opportunities for those who seek them, it bothers me that from all indications, they will vote into office the one candidate who stands for social and economic policies that go against the very things they care about.

Oh well, as the say, "Be careful of what you wish for."

W Endorses Mac and Palin

McCain finally got a much needed campaign "boost" from the President last night.

Enjoy. :)

Satirists often provide a good gauge of the public mood. Senator McCain has indeed tried his very best to distance himself from the President Bush since the beginning of the year. However, except for a few good weeks for him in late August through early September largely brought about by "Palin Mania", his awful handling of his campaign, the Palin candidacy, and his continued failure to sell his tax proposals are all helping to pave the road for an Obama landslide victory in less than a couple of weeks.

Sorry, Mr. McCain.

A Presidential Inauguration in 1935

This event was a first in Asia. This event marked a crucial milestone for a region that was lorded by Western powers at the time. Some of the colonial powers even expressed their concern over the event's impact on the peoples of the region. Time Magazine reported that the British voiced displeasure over this development because it could signal the demise of the white man's rule over that part of the world. The event I'm referring to is the subject of the following newsreel from 1935 that reported on the inauguration of Manuel Luis Quezon as President of the new Philippine Commonwealth.

President Quezon's inauguration was held at the steps of the neoclassic Legislative Building on November 15, 1935. As can be seen from the video, the occasion was graced by then US Vice President John Nance Garner (1868-1967) who served under Franklin Delano Roosevelt from 1933 to 1941. According to Time, Mr. Garner led a party of 17 senators, 26 representatives, and 34 American newspapermen. Secretary of War George Henry Dern (1872-1936) also attended the event as President Roosevelt's personal representative. It was estimated that about 15,000 official guests were on hand to witness history being made.

Mr. Quezon was sworn in to a six-year term by Justice Ramon Avancena (1872-1957) who was then Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court. The 1935 Constitution, which the Filipino people had approved in a plebiscite held in May that same year, called for the election of a President to a single six-year term with no reelection. It also called for a unicameral National Assembly. These provisions were however changed later that same decade (1939-40) when the Constitution was amended to allow for a bicameral Congress and to allow a President to govern for a maximum of two four-year terms.

One can see from the video that it was a very well attended affair. It was estimated that about a quarter of a million people attended the ceremonies marking the inauguration of the President and the birth of the Commonwealth. It is to be noted too that President Quezon's inaugural ceremonies were held on the steps of the Legislative Building and not at the Luneta Grandstand as succeeding Presidents have done since 1946. I am assuming that the decision to hold the inaugural ceremonies at the steps of the Legislative Building was patterned after the American tradition of holding Presidential inaugurations at the steps of the US Capitol Building.

The Legislative Building stands at the corner of Taft Avenue and P. Burgos Street. Thus, I'm assuming that the impressive military parades shown on the newsreel were held on P. Burgos Street. It can also be seen from the joyous and excited attitude of the crowd that the move towards independence enjoyed broad popular support.

The newsreel also briefly showed President Quezon's son, Manuel L. Quezon, Jr. (1926-1998), standing attentively and smartly dressed in an aide-de-camp's uniform. Unfortunately, due to the age of the film, it was quite difficult for me to identify the elegantly dressed couple MLQ Jr. stood next to.

I don't mean to deviate from the historical significance of this newsreel but there is one last observation regarding its content. It can be observed from the video that as President Quezon took his oath of office, one of the microphones that stood before him prominently showed the call letters KZRM. Quite a bit of historic information can be derived from the call letters on that microphone stand.

Note that this was the 1930s, a period before the birth of television broadcasting. Thus, all events of historic or national importance were broadcast over radio. Unlike today where call letters of radio stations in the Philippines begin with the letter "D", it is to be noted that during the pre-war years, specifically from 1924 through 1947, the call letters of radio stations in the Philippines began with the letters "KZ". This designation was in accordance with the radio broadcast laws of the US which applied to our country being an American colony.

KZRM was one of six major radio stations that operated in Manila during the pre-war years. The others were KZEG, KZIB, KZRC, KZRF, and KZRH. KZRM was owned and operated by the Radio Corporation of the Philippines (which later became known as RCPI) and began broadcasting in 1928. The Radio Corporation of the Philippines was then a fully-owned subsidiary of the Radio Corporation of America, or more popularly known to radio and music enthusiasts as RCA.

Of the six stations mentioned, KZRH, owned and operated by the Manila Broadcasting Company is the only one that is still around to this day. This radio station began operations in 1939 atop the Heacock Building in Escolta and is now known to Filipino listeners by its call letters DZRH.

It was at a 1947 International Telecommunications Union conference held in Atlantic City, New Jersey where the radio call letters for the Philippines were changed to begin with the letter "D". Radio stations that broadcast from Manila were assigned call letters that begin with "DZ"; radio stations in Luzon were assigned the letters "DW"; Visayan stations got "DY"; and Mindanao stations were assigned "DX".

Anyway, I hope you enjoy this newsreel. Though it runs for less than a minute, it still manages to provide us with a wealth of historical information about our beloved country.

Live From New York.... It's Sarah Palin!

Well, it was just a matter of time before the real Sarah Palin made an appearance on Saturday Night Live and last night, she did just that. This was the opening skit:

Though both Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey have both expressed support for Senator Obama, everyone deserves a lot of credit for being such a good sport. It's obvious that everyone still had a good time. Third World politicos can learn a lot from these people in terms of civility.

Anyway, it wasn't the only skit for Ms. Palin. About 45 minutes into the show, she again appeared on the Weekend Update skit and danced to a hilarious rap tune the folks at SNL wrote up for her:

Enjoy. :)

True Freedom Denied

The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.
- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) "On Liberty"

I will keep this post brief but in the Philippine context, it is pretty obvious that my country has failed to live up to Mr. Mill's definition of what true Freedom means.

As a people, we have been denied for so long the right to pursue a life of happiness and good on our own terms. We have always been denied the right to decide what would be positive or negative for us individually. Certain sectors within our society such as the Catholic Church and its lackeys in government, along with the oligarchs, have taken it upon themselves to decide what would be good or bad for all of us.

The examples are all around us and come in various forms: press and movie censorship; the absence of a divorce law; the absence of a comprehensive reproductive health bill; a "cheap labor" economy; systemic graft and corruption; the absence of strong anti-discrimination and anti-sexual harassment laws in the workplace; dirty and violent elections; and the unfair and unequal administration of justice. These are but to name a few.

The absence of true freedom has set our country back. In my humble opinion, denying the people the chance to decide what makes them happy and what is good for their own well-being tends to demoralize them and kill individual initiative.

The country has so many structural problems that require immediate attention and meaningful solutions. I've often wondered if we will ever see the day when these problems will finally get resolved. Millions of our countrymen have already lost all hope that they're now leaving the country in droves to fulfill their dreams elsewhere. People will always go where they feel their skills are needed and where they know they will be fairly compensated for their contributions.

We will never be able to fix our nation's problems for as long as we fail to conduct intelligent and open-minded discussions in an environment that's free from fear and intolerance. It is only through open, honest and thoughtful discussion of issues will many brilliant ideas see the light of day. But until then, our nation's problems will remain simply because certain powerful sectors of our society have decided that what's good for them ought to be good for the rest of us.

The Latest McCain-Obama and Hall & Oates Debates

As they've done in previous Presidential campaigns, the people behind Saturday Night Live (SNL) launched the first of their Update Thursday Specials this week to tap on the wealth of comedic material both campaigns have been providing.

Last night, they showed their parody of Tuesday night's debate between Senators McCain and Obama. The parody focuses on the rather awful way Mr. Tom Brokaw (former NBC News anchor) selected the questions and moderated the debate. The parody was based on the fact that right after the debate, a lot of news and political analysts complained that the questions Mr. Brokaw picked were predictable and that the candidates' answers to the questions revealed no new information about their personalities and their campaign proposals. In addition, Mr. Brokaw was rather strict with the time he allowed for each candidate to speak. Anyway, here's the SNL skit:

It seems that the pop duo of Daryl Hall and John Oates also got into a little musical debate about their respective choices for President:

Two more Update Thursday Specials are planned for the next two weeks. (Oct. 16 and 23)

Enjoy. :)

Mr. McCain Failed To Connect

In the debate Tuesday night in Nashville, Tennessee, one that he desperately needed to win in order to turn back the Barack Obama tide, Senator John McCain utterly failed.

In a debate that was set in a townhall type of meeting where the presidential candidates fielded questions from an audience of undecided voters, Mr. McCain failed to deliver. The knockout blow he needed to assure Americans that he would be the right President to deal with the nation's economic problems eluded him. It was ironic because the debate's townhall format was supposed to play to Mr. McCain's strength.

But unlike Senator Obama who was able to articulate the economic issues down to the level of how such issues affect family's budgets, their access to credit, their retirement funds and everyday lives of millions of Americans, Mr. McCain pretty much stayed within his comfort zone. He stuck to his favorite talking point that freezing government spending would lead to lower deficits and therefore, lower taxes.

However, McCain's line did not and still does not resonate well with the average American. In a time when people are gravely concerned about the impact of the financial crisis on their family budgets, their access to credit, their purchasing power, and their ability to save for retirement, education, and health care, Mr. McCain failed to directly address such concerns. The impact of reduced government spending on the lives of taxpayers are not immediately felt when compared to reduced witholding (or payroll) taxes that people will immediately see on their paychecks.

There's a lot of anxiety and worry over the financial crisis. People are cutting back on spending. I take the train to work and I noticed recently that there are a lot more cars on my train station's parking lot these days, a sign that more people now commute than drive themselves to work. Last week, a report came out that car sales in the US which normally average about 1.3 million units a month registered September sales of 965,000, roughly a 26% drop. All carmakers, even the Japanese, reported double-digit drops in sales figures. ABC News recently reported that more than 500 car dealerships have closed since the start of the year. The lower sales was attributed to customers cutting back on spending and tighter access to car loans. Restaurants, department stores, airlines, jewelry stores have all reported drops in revenues.

Mr. McCain was correct when he stated that there was too much anger out there at Wall Street and at Washington because by failing to prevent the financial crisis, both institutions failed the country. However, as in the first debate, Mr. McCain failed to strongly explain to the people how his proposals to reduce taxes and government spending would benefit them. He failed to raise people's doubts on how Mr. Obama's proposals, specifically on how his (Obama's) plans to increase government spending on social programs while simultaneously reducing taxes would not further increase a trillion-dollar budget deficit.

Mr. Obama's plan to reduce taxes on 95% of the population, specifically the ones who make less than $250,000 a year, hopes to stimulate spending among the middle and lower classes. The plan is also aimed at helping small businesses expand and create jobs. It's true but only up to a certain point.

The problem with the Obama tax proposal, as Mr. McCain has correctly and repeatedly pointed out, is that to make up for the tax cuts on the middle class, Mr. obama will increase taxes on the 5% of the population, that segment of society we used to call "rich" but are now known as the "investor class".

It is correct that small businesses generate many jobs. However, it is outdated and folly to think that a nation's economy will significantly progress if one sector is awarded at the expense of another. That, for me, is divisive politics. One also needs to see the big picture here. It is the large corporations that create the better-paying jobs and consequently, higher quality and quantity-type of demand that help make a lot of small businesses thrive and grow. It is the large corporations, with their big-ticket capital expenditures in facilities, people and equipment, that contribute to a significant portion of a nation's wealth. In addition, that 5% of the population Mr. Obama plans to raise taxes on are already shouldering, according to some estimates, roughly 80% of the nation's tax burden. The plan to further increase their share of the country's tax burden could prove to be a disincentive to infusing more capital into the economy at a time when such investments are badly needed.

I do agree with Mr. Obama that in order for a capitalist economy like the United States to continue to thrive and maintain its standing as the world's most trusted financial system, that a certain degree of industry regulation should be put in place. I strongly agree that the trend towards deregulation that began roughly in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration has led to spectacular abuses of power among corporate executives and to a decline in certain industries such as the US airline industry. The current financial crisis ought to change a lot of people's views about deregulation. Every game needs a referee.

But going back to the debate, I was quite disappointed in Mr. McCain's performance because his proposal to cut taxes for all Americans to create more jobs and generate investment and his plan to curb government spending to address the growing budget deficit stand on solid ground. In addition, Mr. McCain has long been an advocate of regulation, much to the chagrin of his colleagues in the Republican Party who believe otherwise. He has also gone against his party numerous times on critical issues such as the waste of government money on pork-barrel spending. The campaign finance reform law that carry his name and that of Democratic Senator Russ Feingold aims to reduce the corrupting influence of lobbyists in Washington DC. He successfully fought for the passage of this law in spite of opposition from the Republicans, including President George W. Bush.

In contrast, Mr. Obama's track record in the US Senate in his four years there does not show a man who has gone against his party to address issues of corruption and excess. He has not authored or even co-authored a single law of national significance. In addition, in his four years as Senator, he spent the last two years running for President. As a result, among all the men who have run for US President, he has the thinnest resume. But thanks to Mr. McCain's failure on Tuesday night to strongly argue the merits of his (McCain's) economic proposals, it seems a certainty now that Mr. Obama will become the 44th President of the United States.

That's not to say that Mr. Obama does not have the intelligence to hold the most powerful office in the country and in the world. His Harvard law degree and his cool and poised demeanor during the debates showed unassailable evidence of it. Like all the Presidents that have come before him, he will certainly tap the best minds within the Democratic Party to advice him on domestic and foreign policy. He will certainly make history once he gets elected as the first African-American President. However, due to the absence of a defining professional track record that reveals his thought and decisionmaking processes, he is leaving millions of voters no choice but to simply rely on his promise of change not only in the US but also in the world. That would truly be the Audacity of Hope.

The Biden-Palin Debate

Just to share last night's Saturday Night Live (SNL) parody of the Biden-Palin debates that were held this past Thursday, October 2.

In addition, the show also presented a parody of last Friday's announcement that the US Congress has finally passed the bailout (or rescue) package which President Bush signed into law immediately thereafter.

Enjoy. :-)

Fire and Rain

"I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend,
But I always thought that I'd see you again."

A sad one but this is my favorite James Taylor song.

It's an introspective song that speaks of heartache, personal loss, and broken dreams. This is one of the songs I love to listen to whenever I find myself in a reflective mood. I was already a student in college when I got to know and love this song. I was working on recovering from a relationship that had ended much too soon. I found comfort and, eventually, strength in the song's words.

To this day, I still listen to this beautiful song whenever life's troubles decide to spend time with me. The song's words help me face down the challenges that come my way. A lot of times, I look to its words like a prayer that will help get me through the rough times.

Won't you look down upon me, Jesus.
You've got to help me make a stand.
You've just got to see me through another day.
My body's aching and my time is at hand
And I won't make it any other way.

However, it is not only during such moments that I listen to this tune. There are also times when I turn to it to simply enjoy a quiet moment.

Fire and Rain was James Taylor's first hit. Released in February 1970, the song was released as a single from his second album, Sweet Baby James. It peaked at #3 on the Billboard charts that same year. The clip above was from a live performance of the song that Mr. Taylor did back in 1970 on British TV.

I like live performances done in intimate settings such as the one in this clip. I chose it because Mr. Taylor's fine live performance was complemented by an appreciative and yet very respectful audience. The words, music, and the emotion expressed resonated with the audience.

Just yesterday morning, they let me know you were gone.
Susanne, the plans they made put an end to you.
I walked out this morning and I wrote down this song;
I just can't remember who to send it to.

I've seen fire and I've seen rain,
I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end;
I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend,
But I always thought that I'd see you again.

Won't you look down upon me, Jesus.
You've got to help me make a stand.
You've just got to see me through another day.
My body's aching and my time is at hand
And I won't make it any other way.

Oh, I've seen fire and I've seen rain,
I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end;
I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend,
But I always thought that I'd see you again.

Been walking my mind to an easy time my back turned towards the sun,
Lord knows when the cold wind blows it'll turn your head around;
Well, there's hours of time on the telephone line to talk about things
to come,
Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground.

Oh, I've seen fire and I've seen rain,
I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end;
I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend,
But I always thought that I'd see you, baby, one more time again, now.

Thought I'd see you one more time again....
There's just a few things coming my way this time around, now....
Thought I'd see you, thought I'd see you fire and rain, now....