DEBT SERVICING OF PHILIPPINE DEBT

Press Release
29 May 2006

The government has also guaranteed P575.247 billion of the debt, including P48.146 billion in foreign debts and P527.101 billion in domestic debts.

BROADCAST POLICY

Martin Preparing Must-Carry Push

New Republican Majority Boosts Agency Chief’s Clout

SEND EMAIL TO HILMAN1108@YAHOO.COM

My blog has high traffic so if your email to my i.ph mail bounces then send the email to hilman1108@yahoo.com

thanks to all you readers and visitors

Adrian

MARRIAGE

>PARTNERS AND MARRIAGE
>
>By Eduardo Jose E. Calasanz
>
>I have never met a man who didn’t want to be loved. But I have seldom
met a
>man who didn’t fear marriage. Something about the closure seems
>constricting, not enabling. Marriage seems easier to understand for
what it
>cuts out of our lives than for what it makes possible within our
lives.
>
>When I was younger this fear immobilized me. I did not want to make a
>mistake. I saw my friends get married for reasons of social
acceptability,
>or sexual fever, or just because they thought it was the logical thing
to
>do. Then I watched, as they and their partners became embittered and
petty
>in their dealings with each other. I looked at older couples and saw,
at
>be!st, mutual toleration of each other. I imagined a lifetime of
loveless
>nights and bickering days and could not imagine subjecting myself or
someone
>else to such a fate.
>
>And yet, on rare occasions, I would see old couples who somehow seemed
to
>glow in each other’s presence. They seemed really in love, not just
>dependent upon each other and tolerant of each other’s foibles.
>
>It was an astounding sight, and it seemed impossible. How, I asked
myself,
>can they have survived so many years of sameness, so much irritation
at the
>others habits? What keeps love alive in them, when most of us seem
unable to
>even stay together, much less love each other?
>
>The central secret seems to be in choosing well. There is something to
the
>claim of fundamental compatibility. Good people can create a bad
>relationship, even though they both dearly want the relationship to
succeed.
>It is important to find someone with whom you can create a good
relati!
onship
>from the outset. Unfortunately, it is hard to see clearly in the early
>stages.
>
>Sexual hunger draws you to each other and colors the way you see
yourselves
>together. It blinds you to the thousands of little things by which
>relationships eventually survive or fail. You need to find a way to
see
>beyond this initial overwhelming sexual fascination. Some people
choose to
>involve themselves sexually and ride out the most heated period of
sexual
>attraction in order to see what is on the other side.
>
>This can work, but it can also leave a trail of wounded hearts. Others
deny
>the sexual side altogether in an attempt to get to know each other
apart
>from their sexuality. But they cannot see clearly, because the
presence of
>unfulfilled sexual desire looms so large that it keeps them from
having any
>normal perception of what life would be like together.
>
>The truly lucky people are the ones who manage to become long-time
>friendsbefore they realize they are attracted to each other. They get
to
>know each
>other’s laughs, passions, sadness, and fears. They see each other at
their
>worst and at their best. They share time together before they get
swept up
>into the entangling intimacy of their sexuality.
>
>This is the ideal, but not often possible. If you fall under the spell
of
>your sexual attraction immediately, you need to look beyond it for
other
>keys to compatibility. One of these is laughter. Laughter tells you
how much
>you will enjoy each others company over the long term.
>
>If your laughter together is good and healthy, and not at the expense
of
>others, then you have a healthy relationship to the world. Laughter is
the
>child of surprise. If you can make each other laugh, you can always
surprise
>each other. And if you can always surprise each other, you can always
keep
>the world around you new.
>
>Beware of a relationship in which there is no laughter. ! Even the
most
>intimate relationships based only on seriousness have a tendency to
turn
>sour. Over time, sharing a common serious viewpoint on the world tends
to
>turn you against those who do not share the same viewpoint, and your
>relationship can become based on being critical together.
>
>After laughter, look for a partner who deals with the world in a way
you
>respect. When two people first get together, they tend to see their
>relationship as existing only in the space between the two of them.
They
>find each other endlessly fascinating, and the overwhelming power of
the
>emotions they are sharing obscures the outside world. As the
relationship
>ages and grows, the outside world becomes important again. If your
partner
>treats people or circumstances in a way you can’t accept, you will
>inevitably come to grief.Look ! at the way she cares for others and
deals
>with the daily affairs of life. If that makes you love her more, your
love
>wil! l grow. If it does not, be careful. If you do not respect the way
you
>each deal with the world around you, eventually the two of you will
not
>respect each other.
>
>Look also at how your partner confronts the mysteries of life. We live
on
>the cusp of poetry and practicality, and the real life of the heart
resides
>in the poetic. If one of you is deeply affected by the mystery of the
unseen
>in life and relationships, while the other is drawn only to the
literal and
>the practical, you must take care that the distance does not become an
>unbridgeable gap that leaves you each feeling isolated and
misunderstood.
>
>There are many other keys, but you must find them by yourself. We all
have
>unchangeable parts of our hearts that we will not betray and private
>commitments to a vision of life that we will not deny. If you fall in
love
>with someone who cannot nourish those inviolable parts of you, or if
you
>cannot nourish them in her, you will fin! d yourselves growing further
apart
>until you live in separate worlds where you share the business of
life, but
>never touch each other where the heart lives and dreams. From there it
is
>only a small leap to the cataloging of petty hurts a! nd daily
failures that
>leaves so many couples bitter and unsatisfied with their mates.
>
>So choose carefully and well. If you do, you will have chosen a
partner with
>whom you can grow, and then the real miracle of marriage cantake place
in
>your hearts. I pick my words carefully when I speak of a miracle. But
I
>think it is not too strong a word. There is a miracle in marriage. It
is
>called transformation. Transformation is one of the most common events
of
>nature. The seed becomes the flower. The cocoon becomes the butterfly.
>Winter becomes spring and love becomes a child. We never question
these,
>because we see them around us every day. To us they are not miracles,
though
>if we did not know them they ! would be impossible to believe.
>
>Marriage is a transformation we choose to make. Our love is planted
like a
>seed, and in time it begins to flower. We cannot know the flower that
will
>blossom, but we can be sure that a bloom will come.
>
>  If you
>have chosen poorly or for the wrong reason, the bloom will be flawed.
>
>We are quite willing to accept the reality of negative transformation
in a
>marriage. It was negative transformation that always had me terrified
of the
>bitter marriages that I feared when I was younger. It never occurred
to me
>to question the dark miracle that transformed love into harshness and
>bitterness. Yet I was unable to accept the possibility that the first
heat
>of love could be transformed into something positive that was actually
>deeper and more meaningful than the heat of fresh passion. All I could
>believe in was the power of this passion a! nd the fear that when it
cooled I
>would be left with something lesser and bitter.
>
>But there is positive transformation as well. Like negative
transformation,
>it results from a slow accretion of little things. But instead of
death by a
>thousand blows, it is growth by a thousand touches of love. Two
histories
>intermingle. Two separate beings, two separate presence, two separate
>consciousness come together and share a view of life that passes
before
>them. They remain separate, but they also become one. There is an
expansion
>of awareness, not a closure! and a constriction, as I had once feared.
This
>is not to say that there is not tension and there are not traps.
Tension and
>traps are part of every choice of life, from celibate to monogamous to
>having multiple lovers. Each choice contains within it the lingering
doubt
>that the road not taken somehow more fruitful and exciting, and each
becomes
>dulled to the richness that it alone contai! ns.
>
>But only marriage allows life to deepen and expand and be leavened by
the
>knowledge that two have chosen, against all odds, to become one. Those
who
>live together without marriage can know the pleasure of shared
company, but
>there is a specific gravity in the marriage commitment that deepens
that
>experience into something richer and more complex.
>
>So do not fear marriage, just as you should not rush into it for the
wrong
>reasons. It is an act of faith and it contains within it the power of
>transformation. If you believe in your heart that you have found
someone
>with whom you are able to grow, if you have sufficient faith that you
can
>resist the endless attraction of the road not taken and the partner
not
>chosen, if you have the strength of heart to embrace the cycles and
seasons
>that your love will experience, then you may be ready to seek the
miracle
>that marriage offers. If not, then wait. The easy grace ! of a
marriage
wel! l
>made is worth your patience. When the time comes, a thousand flowers
will
>

ASK OTHER COUNTRIES TO REIMBURSE US FOR TRAINING OUR NURSES ETC.

  Rising Wages for Nurses? Nanny State to the Rescue
    By Dean Baker
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Wednesday 24 May 2006

    The New York Times had an article today that inadvertently revealed a huge amount about how wages are set in the US economy ("US Plan to Lure Nurses May Hurt Poor Nations," 5-24-06; A1). We all know the official story - wages are supposed to be set by the market, our old friends supply and demand. When certain skills are in short supply, the wages for workers with these skills are bid up. This leads more people to acquire the skills and may also reduce the demand. Eventually, supply increases and demand falls by enough to establish a balance in the market.

    In this wonderful market world, the people who end up with high wages (e.g. doctors, lawyers, accountants, economists) have skills that are in high demand and difficult to master. The people with low pay (e.g. custodians, retail clerks, child care workers, dishwashers, etc.) are ones who have skills that are relatively plentiful.

    That is a nice fairy tale. It has about as much relationship to the real world as the tooth fairy, as the Times article showed.

    The article reports on a provision in the Senate immigration bill that removes the cap on the number of nurses who can enter the country each year. The problem, as described in the article, is that the country faces a large and growing shortage of nurses. In a market economy, a shortage means that wages should rise. This will cause more students to enter nursing schools (presumably creating more incentive to establish nursing schools), and will induce many part-time or retired nurses to work more hours as nurses. It may also curtail the demand somewhat, as some tasks that are performed by nurses can presumably be performed by less-skilled workers.

    But, that is not the way things work in the world of the conservative nanny state. The people who set economic policy in this country donít want to pay nurses higher wages. They have a different solution - bring more nurses from developing countries into the United States. These nurses will be very happy to work for the current wages received by nurses in the United States, which are far higher than what nurses in places like the Philippines or India earn. (Never mind the impact that this drain of nurses has on developing countries.)

    Before anyone claims that free immigration is part of a free market, it is important to remember that the United States does not have free immigration in general, it only allows free immigration in occupations where it is trying to depress wages. While it is far cheaper to educate nurses in developing countries than in the United States, it is also far cheaper to educate doctors, lawyers, accountants and economists. The gains from having free immigration for people working in these professions would be enormous. We could even share these gains by reimbursing the countries of origin.

    This would be an enormous win-win scenario. By making our education and licensing requirements fully transparent and opening the door to foreigners in the most highly paid professions, we would be able to drastically reduce the cost of health care, college education and many other goods and services. This would mean higher living standards and more jobs for people in the United States. This is the gains-from-trade story that economists like to tell in other contexts. We could share these gains with developing countries, paying them 3 or 4 times the costs of educating these professionals, so that they can educate more professionals for their own countries, and also redistribute some of this income.

    Incidentally, this form of free trade would also lead to a more equal distribution of income, improving the situation of those at the middle and the bottom and the expense of those at the top. Of course this is the reason why Congress is not about to remove the barriers that protect our highly paid professionals from foreign competition.

    The key to the story is that our political leaders think that free trade and competition are good only for manufacturing workers, nurses, and other workers lower down the social ladder. They want the nanny state to protect the highest-paid workers from international competition. The huge gap in wages between those at the top and those at the bottom is not because of the market, itís because those at the top got Congress to rig the game.