an article on 2013 senatoriable jv ejercito caught our attention. (see below) the headline struck us like a baseball bat – it was a headline that had a contradiction in it. on one hand JV says he wants to be his own man but the lead in the headline identified him as “estrada’s son”. it’s either you are estrada’s son or you are yourself, an ejercito.
contradictions from senatoriable jv ejercito? we were not surprised. over at twitter (@wawam), we have talked about the many other contradictions from ejercito, including the name change that ejercito had done for himself.
the first paragraph in the PDI article plainly states what it also found as a contradiction:
He likes to be known as his father’s son, yet senatorial candidate Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito also says he wants to be his own man.
there were many more contradictions found in the article :
ejercito is very much swimming in contradictions in that article that it almost made us dizzy. at first we thought maybe the dizziness was caused by a poorly written news article. that has happened before. but after reading the article at least three times, we thought the dizziness was not being caused by poor newspaper article writing, it was ejercito himself that was causing it with the contradictions he was dishing out in rapid succession.
this is bad news for ejercito from a marketing and advertising standpoint – an identity crisis is always not a good thing to have in winning election campaigns. before consumers or in this case voters make a choice, they need to first know who the candidate is. ejercito seem to be using two sets of names, estrada and ejercito in different occasions and media which may put voters confused and unable to pin down who exactly is ejercito.
this identity crisis on its own is bad news but pair that with swimming in contradictions and it can be well, drowning to death. ejercito is obviously unable to adequately explain or give a good reason for the change in name.
half of ejercito thinks the name change is a good thing while the other half thinks its a bad thing, hence he goes to one end to the other like a pendulum gone crazy. ejercito seems to have one of his foot step on the other in every explanation he gives. we find it strange that senatoriable ejercito gives both good and bad things in the change of his name in the same interview.
we think poor or weak brand identification is one of the key reasons why UNA senatoriables suffered dramatic losses in rank and rating in the last SWS senatoriables poll.
is jv ejercito following in the footsteps of UNA?
(note : jv ejercito is one of the top losers in rank and rating in the last SWS senatoriables poll)
(note : knowing PDI editors, we think the contradictory headline was intentionally written by them.)
read in full here : http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/371355/estradas-son-jv-wants-to-be-his-own-man
in the news lately is the controversial poster put up by a Bacolod church – the “Team Buhay” (Team Life) and “Team Patay” (Team Dead) posters. the posters contain a list of names of election candidates who voted yes and no to the RH Bill which was recently voted into a law. the bacolod church is asking the parishioners to to vote for the Team Buhay candidates who voted against the RH Bill and consequently not to vote for the candidates who voted for the RH Bill who are listed under Team Patay.
this controversial poster has taken a lot of flak many. we agree with some of them, one is the church has transformed itself into a political party by endorsing certain candidates and not endorsing others.
this is no longer about religion or teachings about the church, this is about getting certain specific names of candidates not getting elected and elected. it does not talk about church teachings, all it talks about is names of candidates.
the COMELEC has asked the church to change this poster to which the church replied by challenging the COMELEC ruling in the supreme court.
but in the past days, activists in bacolod have fought by releasing their own list through text messages. this list is called the “Team Tatay” (Team Daddy) that has the names of priests and bishops who have fathered children.
read here : ‘Team Tatay’ lists 5 Negros priests as fathers; Ay, ‘patay’! http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/370979/team-tatay-lists-5-negros-priests-as-fathers-ay-patay#ixzz2N7a3K8uH
we think the term “Team Tatay” is an excellent case study in Messaging 101. it is a brilliant name that turns the Bacolod church’s terms of Team Buhay and Team Patay into a boomerang.
“Team Tatay” goes straight to the heart of the issue the activists are bringing up where priests have lost the moral high ground on the issue as they themselves have committed “grave sins” by fathering children themselves. aside from that, the line is brilliant as it uses essentially the same words used by the bacolod church. it even rhymes with “Team Buhay” “Team Patay”, is very easy to remember and very creative.
on strategy, clarity, on message and memorability are the key components of a brilliant messaging.
on twitter we had these questions:
read : Bacolod diocese: No to these 6 Senate bets –> http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections-2013/22321-bacolod-diocese-no-to-these-6-senate-bets
this is the statement by cynthia villar from that video that got pinoy nurses, apparently from all over the world, very angry at her.
“Ang sinasabi namin sa kanila na ‘actually, hindi naman kailangan ng nurse na matapos ang BSN (BS Nursing). Kasi itong mga nurses, gusto lang nilang maging room nurse,” Villar said, as she responded to a question posed by Winnie Monsod.
“(Kasi) sa Amerika or sa other countries, ano lang sila parang mag-aalaga… Hindi naman kailangan silang maging ganong kagaling,” she told Pagsubok sa mga Kandidato aired over GMA News TV.
pinoy social media was abuzz for two days now about it.
for us, the crucial question was – what did she mean by “room nurse”? is there such a classification or job as “room nurse”? we had tweeted the question to cynthia villar but we have had no answer from her yet.
we are not a nurse nor from the medical field, so we do not know anything about nurses and nursing. how is a “room nurse” different from the other nurses? we know of emergency room nurses, operating room nurses and pediatric nurses but we have not heard of the “room nurse”.
we assume the nurses who go to our hospital rooms are fully trained and experienced on medicine and science, not just fixing bed sheets. they do give us medicine, injections and IVs so we think that demands medical training.
villar seem to regard the “room nurse’ as similar to a hotel’s chambermaid whose job function is to clean and keep the hotel room in order from linens and everything else in the room. with that thinking, villar seem to be saying “room nurse” students will not need “technical” training or schooling on medicine and science.
to us the role of the “room nurse” who go to our hospital rooms is as important as the doctors who see us in keeping us healthy. in fact the nurse is on duty 24/7 while the doctor visits their patients at most twice a day for a few minutes to half an hour at the most on each visit. the nurse who is available 24/7 will need to make judgement calls when something happens to the patient, so we think her knowledge and skills go beyond bed sheets.
both cannot make mistakes and both need to be good at their jobs. they perform different jobs but their success or failure have the same impact on the patients they take care of. we also think both need training although not in the same degree on medicine and science.
but we are guessing that is what villar meant. the question goes back to what we said – is there a real job category such as a “room nurse” in the context that villar meant?
this was the explanation of villar after her statement became viral in social media.
Villar issued a statement after her answer went viral on social networking sites.
“The issue was really beyond me. I just interceded as chairperson of the House Committee on Higher and Technical Education. I have no power neither over CHED nor the nursing schools. As I said, my conciliatory efforts were overtaken by events—the charges filed by the schools against CHED officials,” she said
. “The 30-second limit for me to answer the question posed on the news program was too short to give the complete details surrounding the issue. I hope that this statement will clarify the issue. I am sorry if it has created confusion. Thank you,” Villar added.
we do not think her statement actually answered anything, specially the things that got many pinoy nurses angry about or got insulted from. some are even wondering whether villar thought ”RN” meant “room nurse” instead of “registered nurse”. the answer is way off and did not seem to have an understanding of what the issues are and what were insulting in her statement. she seemed to have explained and apologized for the wrong thing.
this is an unfortunate statement from cynthia villar specially that she has positioned herself as the “job creation” senator. in fact, her advertising calls her as “mrs. hanepbuhay”. she is so serious on it that she even went through the trouble of asking the COMELEC to agree to include “hanepbuhay” as her “alias” on the official ballots we will be using for the election. we will be reading that alias beside her name.
this episode though shows a huge disconnect (same word winnie monsod used in that interview) in that a senatoriable who positions herself as the “job creation” senator is unable to appreciate the job and profession called “nursing” and laborers called “nurses”.
we wanted to get to the bottom of what a “room nurse” is. we think the used of that term is the crux of the matter. thanks to @alvindakis. here is what we got:
this morning, march 4, 2013, @cynthia_villar issued this apology:
Palace to Mitos: Thanks, but no thanksBy Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN News
MANILA – Malacañang doubts that United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) senatorial candidate Mitos Magsaysay wants President Aquino to “succeed,” disputing her statement that UNA senatorial candidates give constructive criticisms to help the administration “to be the best that it could be.”
“Thank you Rep. Mitos but the President and his Cabinet do not need a US Army slogan to excel. The President has been doing good governance for the past three years, much admired by both the local and international communities, notwithstanding your ‘friendly’ help,” presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said in a text message.
Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte described Magsaysay’s statement as a “turnaround” from the critical statements that Magsaysay has issued about President Aquino.
Valte pointed out the Magsaysay has called Aquino several names.
Magsaysay once described Aquino as “the most amateur, stubborn, laid back, lazy, immature, and least knowledgeable president we ever had.”
“That is certainly a turnaround from the two-and-a-half years worth of statements that Representative Magsaysay has been issuing against the President. Very early on, she had already let loose of several names about the President… With friends like that, who needs enemies?” Valte said.
“She’s not in the slate of the President. That speaks volumes for itself,” Valte added.
Lacierda earlier said that UNA senatorial candidates are confusing the public by wanting to be associated with President Aquino to increase their chances of winning but have been very critical of the administration.
mitos magsaysay since noynoy aquino became president had nothing but criticism and disdain on aquino on every any topic, with or without an issue. for some reason, mitos is always interviewed by media and for some reason she has given some comment, or the other on anything aquino does. and more than always, she would give a negative comment.
this reaction on malacanang to mitos is understandable and certainly deserving of mitos magsaysay.
nitos is on the 21-22nd spot in the latest SWS senatoriables, a long way off from making it to the top 12.
this is the court’s official judgement on the case convicting carlos celdran as guilty of ’notoriously offending religious feelings”:
we are not a lawyer and these are the points we like to raise on the decision of the court:
- how did the court measure and define “religious feelings”? it’s hard enough to measure and define “feelings” on its own, it gets much harder to define “religious feelings”
- the plaintiff presented a total of 4 witnesses, is 4 enough to define “religious feelings”? and do these feelings represent the whole catholic church? 4 does not make a whole church
- since this concerns feelings of the religious, why did the plaintiff not present the head of the catholic church for the court to measure and define feelings?
here is a brilliant answer to the court’s decision:
full text :
i believe you are still quite incensed about today’s verdict on comrade carlos celdran’s case. i can certainly understand how you feel.
while reading the decision of judge bermejo, i searched for justification for carlos’ conviction. remember that he was prosecuted for the crime of offending the religious feelings under article 133 of the revised penal code. art. 133 states that the penalty shall be imposed “upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” there has been a lot of back and forth on social media about how backward and stupid this law is. regardless, the fact is that this law exists and can correctly be the basis for conviction if it should be proven that a person was indeed guilty of it.
question is, is carlos celdran guilty? as i said, i think judge bermejo failed to establish a basis for the conviction. note that the law does not criminalize any instance of offending religious feeling. the law requires that the act should be notoriously offensive. what does this mean?
in the case of people vs. reyes, et al. (gr no. l-40577), the supreme court held that “the construction of a fence, even though irritating and vexatious under the circumstances to those present, is not such an act as can be designated as ‘notoriously offensive to the faithful’ as normally such an act would b a matter of complete indifference to those not present, no matter how religious a turn of mind they might be.” note that in this instance, the accused arrived at a venue for pabasa, “carrying bolos and crowbars, and started to construct a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel. xxx a verbal altercation ensued. when the people attending the pabasa in the chapel xxx, they became excited and left the place hurriedly and in such confusion that dishes and saucers were broken and benches toppled over.” the supreme court instead convicted the accused under art. 287 for unjust vexation.
in the case people vs baes (gr no. l-46000), justice laurel, in his dissent, explained how an act could be considered as notoriously offensive: “i believe that an act, in order to be considered as notoriously offensive to the religious feelings, must be one directed against a religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule; the offender, for instance, mocks, scoffs at or attempts to damage an object of religious veneration; it must be abusive, insulting and obnoxious.” bear in mind that carlos was actually making fun of damaso, a fictional character. his act was not directed against religious practice or dogma. neither was it directed at a religious ritual since mass was not being celebrated at the time that he staged his protest. and even if he were making fun of priests, an act that is not unequivocally shown by the mere raising up of a damaso sign, the test set by justice laurel is still not met considering that priests are not objects of religious veneration (unless the priests present at the time actually think they are).
finally, in the case people vs. nosce (gr no. l-41757), where the accused went so far as to slap a priest in front of a large congregation, the supreme court held that such act did not merit a conviction under art. 133 but is more properly punished under art. 359 for slander by deed.
in the case carlos celdran, judge bermejo characterized the instances of “notorious offenses” to religious feelings thus:
for witness no. 1: “however, it did not take long when she realized that such was not part of the activity, and proceeded in front to find out what happened. she then saw somebody taking the accused and there was already a commotion since he started shouting inside the church. witness was offended and was angryof what happened, since it was a solemn activity which was disrupted and disrespected by accused.”
for witness no. 2: “witness cacal explained that the word ‘damaso’ pertains to a priest, who committed something against the church. although she admitted that she did not know the meaning of the word, however, she claimed that every timeshe hears the word ‘damaso’ it is very traumatic for her.”
for witness no. 3: “he was surprised, offended and angry, since he did not expect such incident will happen, considering it was a solemn celebration.”
comrades, obviously they are a bunch of ultra-sensitive nitwits. it is obvious as well that judge bermejo is either unacquainted with the definition of “notorious” or he has an extremely low treshhold for offense. unfortunately, judge bermejo, under such cognitive and emotional challenges, now proposes to send a man to jail.
it is painfully obvious that the notoriety of offense warranted by art. 133 is not present in this case. this only goes to show, comrades, that we must renew our efforts toward the revolution. we must be ever watchful, especially when the religious are just as happy to lend an invisible cloak to tyranny just so they can vindicate their petty grievances.
charity. indeed. viva la revolucion! and off with their heads!
dear great leader