This translation, which has been prepared by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC, Canada, is in the public domain and may be used by anyone, in whole or in part, without permission and without charge, provided the source is acknowledged, released October 2003.  For more links to Kafka e-texts in English click here]

Noynoy runs and this country’s youth in particular will be galvanized into action, a wondrous sight we have not seen since the days of love and activism. He is the one reason the youth will vote, he is the one reason the aged will vote, he is the one reason the idealistic and pessimistic, the hopeful and cynical, will vote. He is the Cory we’ve been waiting for, he is the Obama we’ve been waiting for. He is the Good that will do battle against Arroyo’s Evil.

The third is that he hasn’t done much as a senator. Well, who has among the “presidentiables”? But while at this, Noynoy hasn’t stolen, other than the heart of a young lass from Bulacan. He hasn’t lied, other than to himself when he sees himself unworthy. And he hasn’t murdered, other than the inclination to abuse that prominence he is heir to. In a time of universal deceit, said George Orwell, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. In a time of widespread wickedness, doing the right thing is a heroic act.

More than that, I’m looking at Noynoy not for what he was but what he can be. Thrust into the maelstrom of history, some people acquit themselves well. Noynoy did so when his mother died, showing grace and courage worthy of his parents. I repeat what I said the last time: He will be a good president because he has no choice. His legacy weighs on him like the Frown of God, forbidding wrongdoing on pain of hell in this life as much as the next. Who among the other “presidentiables”—Erap, Manny, Chiz, Noli, Mar and Loren—can say that?

How do you stand out among 57,000+ lawyers in the Philippines?

By going to court in a Jaguar XJ?

By posing in Playboy?

Try visiting Matthew Butterick's excellent website: Typography for Lawyers.

Yes, my dear friends, typography. Because our legal pleadings need all the help and attention they can get.

And help they shall receive. Butterick was a professional typographer before he became a lawyer. His website is a result of years of dealing with ugly-looking pleadings and typefaces. His collection of tips are superbly well-written and direct to the point. Some are common-sensical, yet important (One space between sentences. Proper use of hyphens and dashes). Some are downright sacrilegious (Never underline. Never use all-caps text for plaintiff/defendant's names, Justified text all being a matter of personal taste). All, definitely worth reading.

There is, however, one thing which I disagree with - his condemnation of Courier New in all printed documents. In my opinion, Courier New possesses a certain disarming quality and offers minimal eye strain to a reader. I use Courier New whenever I draft counter-affidavits in criminal cases. I think it makes the client look more innocent.

Somewhere in the middle of his website, you will be asked (gently) to stop using Times New Roman, Garamond, Book Antiqua or any other Operating System Font. Butterick's argument is infallible:

It bewilders me to visit big law firms who clearly spent top dollar on their websites and their Aeron chairs but that still use Times for their correspondence and internal documents. It equally bewilders me to visit small firms who don 19t have to go through twenty layers of approval that are also still using Times.

Did you make your business cards and letterhead on a photocopier at Kinko 19s? No, you didn 19t, because you didn 19t want them to look shoddy and cheap. If you cared enough to avoid Kinko 19s, then you care enough to stop using Times.

The question of course is what do you replace them with?

Butterick recommends Sabon. I recommend either Stempel Garamond Roman or New Century Schoolbook.

Note however that these fonts are not optimized for display on a computer screen. As a result, they will tend to look flat or compressed when viewed using Microsoft Word. But once you print them out, you will see the big difference.

Over and out.

This is a reaction to Prof. Solita Collas-Monsod's column in today's Inquirer.

Bayani Fernando is one of our country's greatest assets, no doubt. But he should not become our Country's 15th President.

I'll just go out and say it: If Bayani Fernando wins in the next election, he will become worse than Marcos. This is not to say that he is corrupt, far from it. I believe he is one of the more principled individuals in government.

The problem lies in his philosophy of governance. Like Marcos, Fernando believes in imposing his political will over others. He has shown his capacity to use and abuse power when power is available.

Bayani doesn't believe in consensus-building. The consensus should build around him. Bayani didn't ask permission to paint pictures on our fair city's walls. He didn't ask for aesthetic advice when he chose to impose pedestrian overpasses on several intersections. He certainly didn't ask for our opinion when he started going around the Metro clearing sidewalks and esteros. In many ways, this impulsiveness has made him incredibly efficient. However, the same impulsiveness makes him very, very dangerous. On the one hand, he is able to make tough, practical decisions that work. On the other hand, it leads to a failure to understand the roots of complex problems such as poverty.

As the eminent Prof. Randy David has said:

"You expect this lack of empathy to come from a disengaged technocrat who cannot see beyond his theory. It is shocking to find it in a practical man like BF who has lived among the masses. Is it possible that he thinks he knows the poor so well that he actually believes there is no way of dealing with them except by acts of toughness?

It is difficult not to appreciate BF’s stubborn ideas about how to make the city livable. To him it is all a matter of teaching people how to live in a modern society. There is a lot of truth in this, but it is not the whole story. It omits the one crucial element that determines the character of most of our social problems as a nation: mass poverty.

You cannot have a well-ordered city if nearly one-half of your residents have no regular jobs, no decent homes, and no bright future to look forward to no matter how hard they try. Law-abiding citizens will not thrive in a society in which the very structure of opportunity has collapsed for the many. They will be forced to improvise in order to survive. They will put up their homes wherever they can so they can be close to schools, hospitals and places of work.

You cannot tell people constantly on the verge of starvation to stay away from garbage heaps. You cannot tell them that scavenging is an unworthy way to earn a living. You have to show them that a better way is within their reach. BF knows this. He was irked by the sight of grown men stopping in the middle of the streets to urinate behind the doors of their taxis or on the tires of their jeepneys. He tried shaming them for acting like stray animals, but to no avail. What finally put a stop to this uncivilized habit were the pink urinals he put up on Metro Manila’s sidewalks. If you build public toilets, people will relieve themselves decently. If you build them proper homes, they will voluntarily leave the esteros.

People in general are not unreasonable. They may stall, negotiate and try to assert the primacy of their interest -- but such behavior is pretty much distributed across social classes. Poverty is certainly no excuse for recalcitrance. But even under a rule of law, the MMDA’s forcible demolition of poor people’s shanties, leaving them without a roof over their heads, constitutes an unspeakable atrocity."

Barack Obama won the presidency not only due to his oratorical efficiency, but also because he succesfully mobilized and empowered disenfranchised citizens, whether it be through a meticulous webiste, or a ground-breaking organizational structure where every person was given a leadership position. As president, he continues to make waves by showing even-handedness and a sincere desire to listen rather than to talk, to consider your solution. Americans are better people because of him.

More than anything, it is not traffic-free roads, 100% garbage collection, or even clean rivers which this country needs, but a unifying leader who inspires each and every Filipino to be more than he or she can be.

Bayani himself is the symbol of the]is great divide between the country's rich and poor.

Prof. Monsod has obviously never been hit by a wet rag in the face while waiting for a ride home to Fairview. She has never had her life savings doused by kerosene or broken on the floor. I've personally witnessed the MMDA sidewalk clearing operations, all in the comfort of a nearby Starbucks. It's truly brutal, and any sane human being would have balked at the sight.

Note that these are not even leftist remarks. Let's move closer to home.

I wonder how Prof. Monsod would feel if her exclusive Zambales subdivision were to be opened to the public in order to ease traffic, as Bayani has often contemplated. How she would feel if her son was arrested for buying pirated DVDs and sentenced to life imprisonment? Or her property confiscated arbitrarily for the sake of land or urban reform?

All these scenarios are very likely under a Bayani presidency. But I guess it was the furthest thing from our efficiency-driven minds. After all, why should we bother when we can arrive home in 30 instead of 45 minutes? Or when someone can take our garbage away everyday?Why not let everyone else do the dirty work?

When you vote for Bayani Fernando, you vote for the direct, lazy solution. You vote because you think the poor are too stupid to change on their own.

You're not voting for "Yes we can!". You're voting for "Yes, you will!"

As Prof. Monsod aptly puts it, truly, we get the government we deserve.

If you could have imitated the entire book, why didn't you?

Quentin Tarantino divided Kill Bill into two movies, because he wouldn't compromise on his vision. Watchmen should have followed a similar path, if only to give justice to the source material.

I'll probably never watch it again.

5. 99 Luftballons

Every movie should be accompanied by great music.  Watchmen is no exception. But for every good song placement in the movie ( Murder Scene - "Unforgettable", Introductory Credits Scene - "The Times They Are A-Changing", Funeral Scene - "The Sound of Silence"), there are at least two horrible ones which mar the overall result ( Riot Scene - "I'm Your Boogie Man" Makeout scene -"Hallelujah", To The Final Battle Scene - "All Along The Watchtower"). 

99 Luftballons however, takes it to a different level.  The song is played when Dan meets Laurie for dinner. It does absolutely nothing for that scene, except maybe to emphasize that Laurie's last name is Juspeczyk and has relatives somewhere near Germany. It was played at the wrong time. It was TOO LOUD. It was cut abruptly. It made no sense. 99 LuftBallons is the 80s song you probably play when your 18 year old daughter finally arrives for her big debutante ball. It is not the 80s song you're supposed to play at a somber yet romantic meeting between two adults (who are former superheroes).

4. Matthew Goode playing Adrian Veidt.

Folks on the internet claim that he looks like a high school kid on crack. I would have to agree. How in the world did he kill The Comedian? I want to tear my eyeballs out every time he appears on screen. When he speaks, my ears bleed.

I don't understand how they can perfectly recreate Dr. Manhattan and yet fail so miserably with Ozymandias. I mean, how do they make their casting decisions?

Producer: Oh yeah, in this scene, Ozymandias talks to some oil company executives. These executives are in their late 50's with white hair. The most successful people in the world.
Casting Director: So what does he do?
Producer: He basically tells them to stop giving him bullshit and that he wants to save the world. Later on, these executives will apologize to him.
Casting Director: So Ozymandias needs to look like a person with definite authority,  someone whom these executives will pay some respect to?
Producer: Exactly. He's also an incredible fighter with a great physique. AAANND, he is the world's smartest man.
Casting Director: Wow, that's a tall order. This might take a few months.
Producer: Oh, he's also the villain, so he should look villain-y.
Casting Director: *lightbulb*  I know just the guy.

3. Richard Nixon.

There are two exceptionally brilliant scenes in Watchmen. The first starts with the Comedian's death up to the opening credits. The second starts on Mars, when Dr. Manhattan starts narrating his life. Both of these exceptionally brilliant scenes are ended by cutting to a shot of Richard Nixon's nose. What is the effect?  A constant reminder that this movie is actually a comedy.

2. Rorscharch killing a man in cold blood.

I was under the impression that Rorscharch was brutal, but not a killer.
In the book, Rorscharch handcuffs the murderer to the furnace, BUT he throws him a hacksaw. Then he burns the house. He tells the man "Don't bother cutting the chains, there's not enough time". He gives the man a choice.

Snyder's version changes the very nature of Rorscharch.

Rorscharch always says "Never compromise."
But killing a villain is just that, a compromise. You kill a child murderer today. Tomorrow, it could be just a plain old murderer. Then someone who mutilates. Then someone who tortures. Then someone who just wants to beat people up badly. It's a continuing compromise.
Once you kill, you cross the line between heroes and villains.

During the final scene, Rorscharch leaves the Antarctic retreat and says "Never compromise."
But he doesn't kill Veidt. He doesn't kill a mass murderer worse than Hitler. Even at the end, his recourse was to reveal Veidt's plot to the world.

In the movie, he says "It was Walter Kovaks who closed his eyes and said 'Mother'. It was Rorscharch who opened them."
You might as well have replaced "Rorscharch" with "Killer", because that's the implication of the Snyder scene.

1. The "new" ending.

The original ending involved the killing of half the people in New York through a Psy Wave emitted by a biological organism. The purpose was to unite the world against a common threat - aliens. In the new version, intrinsic field bombs are detonated in every major city in the entire world. The purpose is to unite the world against a common threat - Dr. Manhattan. I understand the reasons for changing the ending, but it has led to two significant problems.

First, how then did The Comedian learn of the plot? In the graphic novel, he encountered the island where the organism was being created through sheer luck. In the movie, it's even more obscure. I've asked several people the same question, and no one can give me a straight answer. I think the movie merely assumed that he discovered the plot through sheer luck. Is he somehow, more intelligent than Dr. Manhattan, to whom the world's smartest man is merely equal to its smartest termite?

Second, the original ending was grand in scope and ambition. Scientists, writers and artists were kidnapped and transported to a secluded island. They were made to work on alien genetics, psychological disruptors and teleportation technology. It was an epic scheme which
required all the intelligence, cunning and resources of the World's Smartest Man. It didn't insult the readers, it was a promise fulfilled.

On the other hand. the new ending is just plain stupid. It didn't do justice to the book at all. Dr. Manhattan did all the work and all Veidt had to do was teleport the reactors into every main city. Even with Tachyons blocking the future, it should have been obvious to Dr. Manhattan. A plot truly worthy of the World's Most Highly Paid Movie Producer.

Also, in the comic, the tradeoff was pretty clear. Half the people in New York VS. nuclear war. In the new version, I'm less sure of the outcome. Is it really better to destroy every major city in the entire world? Why not just the Russia or the United States? Again, this is what happens when you mess with perfection.

In a nutshell, the Rule requires all lawyers to render free legal aid to the poor. It takes effect on July 1, 2009 and threatens to shake the foundations of the profession as we know it.

In the past, pauper litigants were lucky to get quality "Pro Bono" lawyers. Now it's the lawyers who'll be running after them, haha.

There are a few minor quibbles that need to be ironed out (first thing which comes to mind - I thought lawyers aren't allowed to litigate small claims cases) but I'm sure they will be addressed when the implementing regulations come out. 

The Rule can be found in its entirety on page A21, Metro Section of the Feb. 14 edition of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. It's not yet available online, but I made a small faq for those interested.

What is the purpose of the rule?

It seeks to enhance the duty of lawyers to society as agents of social change and to the courts as judicial officers thereof by helping to improve access to justice by the less privileged members of society and expedite the resolution of cases involving them.   (Sec. 2)

What does the rule require?

Every practicing lawyer is now required to render a minimum of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent litigants in a year, with a minimum of five (5) hours per month.

Excess hours during the month shall be credited to the yearly total.   (Sec. 5)

Who are covered by the rule?

All practicing lawyers are covered by the rule.

“Practicing lawyers” are defined as members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies

The following are excluded from compliance:

1)      Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice

2)      Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court

3)      Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in daily accredited legal clinics of law schools

4)      Lawyers  of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and people’s organizations (POs)

5)      Lawyers who do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies   (Sec. 4(a))

What constitutes free legal aid service?

It refers to appearance in a court or quasi-judicial body for and in behalf of an indigent or pauper litigant. It also includes the preparation of pleadings or motions, as well as court-annexed mediation and other modes of alternative dispute resolution.   (Sec. 4(d))

A pleading or a motion is equivalent to one (1) hour.   (Sec. 5(b(ii)))

What are the procedural requirements?

1.       A practicing lawyer must obtain a certificate from the Clerk of Court (or equivalent position for quasi-judicial bodies) after he has rendered free legal services.

2.       The lawyer must submit a compliance report together with the attached certificates to the Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP chapter within the court or quasi-judicial body’s jurisdiction. He must report compliance within ten (10) days of the last month of each quarter of the year.

3.      The IBP chapter, after verification, shall issue a compliance certificate to the concerned lawyer.

4.       All lawyers are now required to indicate the number and date of their certificate of compliance  in ALL their pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies with this rule.

Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleading from the records.   (Sec. 5)

What is the penalty for failing to render the minimum number of hours in a year?

If there is no satisfactory explanation to the IBP, the lawyer shall be ordered to pay a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000).

In addition, he will be prohibited from appearing in any court or quasi-judicial agency as counsel for a period of three (3) months.

If the lawyer fails to comply for three (3) consecutive years, he will be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.  (Sec. 7)

Also,  all lawyers are now required to indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies the number and date of their certificate of compliance with this rule. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleading from the records.  (Sec. 5(e))

Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances warrant.

Canon 20 - A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.

Rule 20.1 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved
c) The importance of the subject matter
d) The skill demanded
e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proferred case
f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service
h) The contingency or certainty of compensation
i) The character of the employment whether occasional or established
j) The professional standing of the lawyer