Contemportary Developments in Management Free Essay Example, 2500 words

Firms tend to outsource the non-core and repetitive functions while keeping the core functions within their control. Pai and Basu (2007) refer to contracting of tactical non-core functions as process level outsourcing and the clients expect end-to-end packaged services that require little customization. The chart below demonstrates the amount of outsourcing that takes place across different functions: The shortage of qualified labor in US and Europe was directly related to outsourcing. This shortage was partly caused by the IT boom of the 1990s and the need for technicians for the new e-business (Gonsalez, Gasco, Llopis, 2006). The problem of fixing the Y2K bugs was another strong reason that increased outsourcing to India (Sourirajan, 2004). The US-born engineers that entered the workforce were not trained in this age-old technology. Besides it was considered low-wage, low-prestige job to work on COBOL and FORTRAN when technologies from Microsoft, Oracle, and Apple were available. The Y2K conversion required well educated, computer literate English speaking programmers. This need led to the practice of outsourcing. Due to the economic situation in the US, the high technology firms like Microsoft, Dell, Cisco, PeopleSoft, Oracle, Accenture, Ernst Young and IBM, were under pressure to reduce costs. We will write a custom essay sample on Contemportary Developments in Management or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now In the beginning of the 21st century, the labor market was relatively poor. The business success of the large and medium corporations in the US is largely dependent on the consumer. Thus because of the poor labor market, there was a downturn in the stock market. Investor sentiments were low and firms experienced the reduction in trading volume. This affected the demand for computers and ultimately put pressure on the high technology companies to reduce costs. This is how offshoring increased during this period which was considered to be exporting good American jobs to low-wage nations (Sourirajan, 2004). The protectionists in the US allege that job losses are inevitable. The US high-technology industry is increasingly reliant on sub-contracted, non-unionized and illegal labor as well as the exploitation of cheap labor in third world countries

Themes of Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt vonnegut and Catch 22...

Themes of Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt vonnegut and Catch 22 by Joseph Heller In the books, Slaughter House 5 by Kurt Vonnegut and Catch 22 by Joseph Heller there are many themes that at first don’t appear to be related but once given a closer look have striking similarities. Both books are about one mans experience through World War II, one being a fighter pilot and another being a soldier. Each man is known as an anti-war hero. They do not agree with the war and do not find it appropriate to fight for it. Neither of the two men was the average â€Å"John Wayne† war hero that fights and dies for his country. This is what makes these two books stand out from other war books. Both of these books also were used during the Vietnam War as†¦show more content†¦Billy is a mild-mannered man who would much rather cruise through life turning the other cheek than having a confrontation. He is a tall lanky, goofy character that when captured behind enemy lines didn’t have a helmet, boots or a weapon. He looked so ridiculous that a German photographer took a picture of him to show the Germans how ill prepared the Americans were for war. When Billy enters the POW camp he is portrayed even more as a fool when instead of being given a normal overcoat like the rest of the prisoners he is given a woman’s fur coat. These are not at all what I would consider a war hero and that is exactly what the authors were trying to do. They were trying to question many things about war. One was to question our assumptions not only to the right to wage war but also the people who fight in the war and the leaders that run the war. The authors writing about the characters in this way also paints us a picture that is not often painted. This picture shows that all soldiers aren’t the rugged, handsome, brave and strong men that we all believe but that many soldiers are people like you and me. Most of them kids, that would just be starting college if it weren’t for war. Many of them scared, helpless, and confused as to why they are fighting and killing. These authors question war and its many aspe cts instead of advertise it. A theme that is a little more hidden in each of these books is what war does to people. In Catch 22Show MoreRelatedA Research Assignment : All Quiet On The Western Front And The Sun Also Rises2803 Words   |  12 PagesAnoki Jacksch 12Eng61 16.05.14: Introduction The authors, E.M. Remarque, Eric Lomax, Kurt Vonnegut, Joseph Heller and Ernest Hemingway, who became famous, wrote excellent novels, because they were in love, have an underlying issue or have experienced issues that they want to share with the world. I choose to investigate the following novels: All Quiet on the Western Front, The Railway Man, Slaughterhouse-5, Catch-22 and The Sun Also Rises, because they all thematically connect to the â€Å"horrors of war†Read MorePostmodernism in Literature5514 Words   |  23 Pagesnot previously deemed fit for literature. A list of postmodern authors often varies; the following are some names of authors often so classified, most of them belonging to the generation born in the interwar period: William Burroughs (1914-1997) Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), John Barth (b. 1930), Donald Barthelme (1931-1989), E. L. Doctorow (b. 1931), Robert Coover (1932), Jerzy Kosinski (1933-1991) Don DeLillo (b. 1936), Thomas Pynchon (b. 1937), Ishmael Reed (1938), Kathy Acker (1947-1997), Paul Auster

Jfk conspiracy Essay Example For Students

Jfk conspiracy Essay In 1976, the US Senate ordered a fresh inquiry into the assassination of John F Kennedy, who was murdered in 1963 during a motorcade in Dallas, Texas. People who had been involved in the original Warren Commission investigations were asked to make fresh statements. The FBI and the CIA were persuaded to release more of their documents on Oswald. New lines of inquiry were opened and individuals who had not previously given evidence were persuaded to come forward. Most important of all, pieces of evidence such as photos and sound recordings were subjected to scientific analysis using the most up-to-date methods and equipment. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) completed their investigation in 1979 and they finally came to a discrete verdict that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy, one of which killed the president. The fourth shot was fired from the grassy knoll. They concluded that John Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. There are many re asons why the HSCA came to this verdict, but firstly it was important that the American people understood why this case was re-opened over a decade later!The investigation was set up as direct result of the assassinations of two other major political figures; the civil rights leader, Dr Martin Luther King and the Presidents brother Robert Kennedy, in 1968. Naturally this aroused immense suspicion and the American public started questioning why so many key US figures had been assassinated in the space of just four years when previously this type of incident had been rare. At the time there was also an increasing amount of corruption and scandal within the government. This alarmed the public who had completely trusted the government before. The Watergate Scandal in 1974 involving President Nixon had clearly shown that this was not the case anymore. Nixon had abused his authority and power to his advantage. This indicated that even politicians were prone to sleaze and scandal. As a res ult of this, people also started questioning the behavior of the government. This is most likely why they were more receptive in accepting that Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy, later on. The public also became increasingly interested in the Kennedy assassination as books such as Rush to judgment by Mark Lane and Inquest by Edward Jay Epstein, started to be written. They immediately became best sellers and played a large role in raising awareness regarding the assassination. As a result people started to inquire more and rumours began that other people or organisations had been involved in Kennedys assassination i.e there had been a conspiracy. As people became more and more aware about the events surrounding the assassination, many blamed the Dallas police as being incompetent in handling the whole investigation. They had proven to be extremely unorganised despite the fact that the President had just been murdered. The fact that interviews hadnt been recorded was one of the reasons why there was so much confusion. Yet the only excuse the Dallas police could come up with was that they couldnt find a tape recorder! The questions that were asked by the officers proved t o worthless and what little records were kept are said to be inadequate. However more seriously, the Dallas police were wildly believed to be at fault for Oswalds death and even the world wide doubt over his guilt. Even though previously an attempt had been made to kill Oswald, no further security precautions had been taken to prevent this from happening again. Considering that they were holding the alleged assassin of the President in custody, the security was appalling. At the hands of Jack Ruby, one bullet had proved sufficient enough to kill Oswald. The fact that reporters were allowed to mingle around Oswald as he was escorted out of court, probably caused the death. Public access to Oswald should not have been permitted under any circumstance. Oswald was murdered in front of cameras and video footage of the incident shows that the police didnt make hardly any attempts to prevent the murder, but literally just stood there. Many people have found this to be extremely suspicious. Some believe that Jack Ruby killed Oswald to silence him and the police were ordered to let it happen. If this is true, who were they taking orders from?Despite discrepancies such as these, for many years the American public had to be content with the Warren Commissions verdict that Lee Harvey Oswald had been the sole assassin in the murder of John Kennedy who died as result of three shots being fired from the Texas school depository building. However since the report was published on 24 September 1964, fresh evidence kept surfacing, as did inconsistencies on the Warren Commissions part. There was a general feeling that they had disregarded evidence if it contradicted their conclusion. They had been under immense pressure from the public to come to a verdict. At the time Oswald had seemed like the perfect person to blame a motiveless man with a grudge. They had no doubt been influenced by public opinion and their conclusion had been a hasty one. In fact, three days after the assas sination, Lyndon Baines Johnson received a memo saying; The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates. By the 1970s Americans were actually alarmed that the Warren Commission had been so single minded and did not make any attempt to investigate other possible theories and that they hadnt followed a number of promising leads. It later also came to light that none of the commission members had any investigative experiences and completely relied on Hoover and the FBI. However, probably their biggest mistake was disregarding key eyewitnesses whom they considered to be incompatible, inconsistent and were contrary to their lone psychotic assassin theory. Nobody of the commission heard one of the witnesses who appeared before the counsel. Among them were crucial witnesses such as Abraham Zapruder. Others didnt even give evidence. J C Price, a bystander at the motorcade, claimed to have seen a man with a rifle running behind the fence on the gr assy knoll. Similarly, Gordon Arnold and James Simons stated that the shots came from the grassy knoll. Jean Hill, a teacher who was standing near the Presidents car, said: I heard four to six shots and Im pretty used to guns. They werent echoes. They were different guns that were being fired.Credible testimonies from literally dozens of witnesses such as these was ignored purely because it contradicted the Warren Commissions conclusion of a lone assassin firing three shots from the depository building. This indicated that their report was based on appallingly selective reading of evidence and just shows how reliable it was! All these eyewitness testimonies remained inconclusive to the Warren Commission at the time, as they just didnt make sense. Similarly Kennedys autopsy reports also contained many discrepancies. Two autopsies were carried out on Kennedy. It was hoped at the time that they would reveal the angles at which the bullets had entered Kennedys body, hopefully pointing t o where the gunman or gunmen were situated. The autopsies actually created even more confusion, as they were completely contradictory. The first autopsy was conducted in Parkland Hospital, Dallas although the official one was conducted in Bathesda Naval Hospital, Washington DC. When the two examinations were compared, alarming differences showed up. The main difference was that the exit and entry wounds were said to be different. In Dallas, doctors claimed that the bullet entered Kennedys body at the front of the neck, about bow-tie height. When Kennedy was brought into Parkland Hospital, Dr Malcom Perry said that when he was about to perform the tracheotomy, he noticed a hole of about 5mm just below Kennedys adams apple, presumably where the bullet had entered. Contrary to this, in Washington the autopsy reports show that the bullet exited from the neck. Their report confirmed the single bullet theory addressed by the Warren Commission whose conclusion was highly dependent on this theory. This was that the bullet entered Kennedys right shoulder blade, bruised the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaging the windpipe and making its exit through the front of the neck. According to the single bullet theory, the very same bullet entered Governor Connallys back, who had been seated in front of Kennedy, went through his chest taking out part of his fifth rib and collapsing his lung. The bullet then went into his right wrist and then buried itself in his left thigh. Although there is medical evidence to support this theory, some believe that the bullets path and velocity could not have been possible. Even Governor Connally believed that the bullet that wounded Kennedy wasnt the same one that responsible for his wounds. A FBI supplementary report states that the bullet that entered Kennedys back had penetrated to less than a finger length. If this is true, how can the bullet have exited from the front of his neck? There are of course other facts that war p this theory such as the fact that the bullet was mysteriously found on a hospital stretcher in pristine condition. Yet the bullet should have been out of shape and showing signs of severe impact, considering that it had gone through two major bones and had torn out a great deal of muscle. However some theorists believe that the bullet was in fact planted on the stretcher by the FBI or CIA so that they could pin the assassination on Oswald, again indicating the involvement of a conspiracy. Another disturbing piece of evidence surrounding the autopsies is the fact that the bullet wound to the head was said to have entered at different angles. On report says that it entered at a low trajectory whilst the other said that it entered at a high trajectory. As well as this the diagrams and measurements made during the autopsies vary. The differences as you can see are substantial and inevitably have a great influence on the theory of the second gunman. The examination of the body in Dalla s seems to point towards two gunmen, whilst the autopsy in Washington points towards a single gunman! The fact that the autopsy reports are still classified arouses suspicion in itself. It has recently also come to light that much of the reports have been destroyed. Is it possible that the government may be hiding something? Secret service presence during both examinations also has to be considered as it would have been in the interest of the government what the outcome of the autopsies were, if there was indeed something to hide. Nature vs Nurture by Art Spiegelman EssayThe HSCA now had enough evidence supported by eyewitness reports to conclude that Kennedy was a victim of a conspiracy. Unlike the Warren Commission they were able to conduct a more thorough investigation, most likely because they had more time to come to a verdict. However, although they had been able to come up with a satisfactory conclusion, they had not been able to identify the second gunman or even the extent of the conspiracy. But people came up with their own theories about what happened, blaming various organisations for the assassination of Kennedy. Undoubtedly the most poplar theory was that government agencies were involved, that it was planned by either high officials in the White House or by the secret service, FBI and CIA. It was executed by paid killers and afterwards the agencies ensured that the murderers remained uncovered. But what motive could such agencies have? The CIA certainly had a motive. They blamed Kennedy for no t throwing the full weight of his air force behind the Bay of Pigs affair and in addition they were bitterly disappointed that he had come to an agreement with the Soviets over Cuba. Kennedy had also stopped listening to the CIA after the Bay of Pigs affair and it resented being cold-shouldered by the President. Another popular theory was that the Mafia, the most powerful criminal organisation in the world, was involved. An indication of this was the involvement of Jack Ruby who supposedly had Mafia links. One of the reasons they could have conspired to kill Kennedy was that the Presidents brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had been using his legal powers to act vigorously against some of the larger and more influential Mafia bosses. In fact he had been leading a strong campaign against the Mafia. Getting rid of Kennedy would have resulted in a new government and therefore Robert Kennedy would be replaced. However it has to be considered that according to the Mafias code of conduct, they are forbidden to kill any individuals with any legal authority i.e police officers, magistrates and the President! Other implications included blaming the right-wing extremists to whom Kennedy was a communist as he attempted to build peaceful relationships with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Communists we re also blamed for being involved as they saw Kennedy as a friend of industrials and held him responsible for the Vietnam War, the blocking of Cuba and many other things. These were just a few of the theories around at the time but it has to be remembered that none of them have ever been proven. It was possible that people were so shocked by Kennedys assassination that they were overreacting and that there was a plausible explanation for his death. In key assassinations there is almost always speculation of a conspiracy, yet one has never been identified. But even the HSCA concluded that Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy, as they believed that all the evidence and the eyewitness reports indicated this. If there was indeed a conspiracy involved, it would cause a huge political crisis to unravel it. Although the HSCA came to a sufficient conclusion, the truth about Kennedys assassination will never be known. However, the haunting words that Oswald left us with; Im just a patsy wi ll always raise questions to whether there was a cover up, if Oswald was part of the conspiracy or if he was just a lone gunman with a grudge!

Rh Bill free essay sample

Jude College School of Art Science and Education Manila A Term Paper Submitted as a Requirement For the Subject: Philippine Government and Constitution Submitted By: Jim Waine C. Averilla Karissa Helene B. Salvador Submitted To: Diosdado B. Lopega March 27, 20 HISTORY According to the Senate Policy Brief titled Promoting Reproductive Health, the history of reproductive health in the Philippines dates back to 1967 when leaders of 12 countries including the Philippine’s Ferdinand Marcos signed the Declaration of Population The Philippines agreed that the population problem should be considered as the principal element for long-term economic development. Thus, the Population Commission was created to push for a lower family size norm and provide information and services to lower fertility rates. Starting 1967, the USAID started shouldering 80% of the total family planning commodities (contraceptives) of the country, which amounted to US$ 3 Million annually. In 1975, the United States adopted as its policy the  National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U. We will write a custom essay sample on Rh Bill or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). The policy gives paramount importance to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, including the Philippines to control rapid population growth which they deem to be inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the U. S. conomy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the US leadership to influence national leaders and that improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA, and USAID. Different presidents had different points of emphasis. President Marcos pushed for a systematic distribution of contraceptives all over the country, a policy that was called coercive, by its leading administrator. The Cory Aquino administration focused on giving couples the right to have the number of children they prefer, while the Ramos presidency shifted from population control to population management. Estrada used mixed methods of reducing fertility rates, while Arroyo focused on mainstreaming natural family planning, while stating that contraceptives are openly sold in the country. In 1989, the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) was established, dedicated to the formulation of viable public policies requiring legislation on population management and socio-economic development. In 2000, the Philippines signed the Millennium Declaration and committed to attain the MDG goals by 2015, including promoting gender equality and health. In 2003, USAID started its phase out of a 33-year-old program by which free contraceptives were given to the country. Aid recipients such as the Philippines faced the challenge to fund its own contraception program. In 2004, the Department of Health introduced the Philippines Contraceptive Self-Reliance Strategy, arranging for the replacement of these donations with domestically provided contraceptives. In August 2010, the government announced a collaborative work with the USAID in implementing a comprehensive marketing and communications strategy in favor of family planning called May Plano Sila. Summary of criticism Opponents of the bill argue that: (1) The worlds leading scientific experts have resolved the issues related to the bill and show that the RH Bill is based on wrong economics as the 2003 Rand Corporation study shows that there is little cross-country evidence that population growth impedes or promotes economic growth. (2) The bill takes away limited government funds from treating many high priority medical and food needs and transfers them to fund objectively harmful and deadly devices. The latest studies in scientific journals and organizations show that the ordinary birth control pill, and the IUD are abortifacient to 100-celled human embryos: they kill the embryonic human, who as such are human beings equally worthy of respect, making the bill unconstitutional. (3) US National Defense Consultant, Lionel Tiger, has shown empirical evidence that contraceptives have deleterious social effects (abortion, premarital sex, female impoverishment, fatherless children, teenage pregnancies, and poverty). Harvard School of Public Health scientist Edward Green observes that when people think theyre made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex, in the phenomenon called risk compensation. There is evidence for increased risk of cancer (breast, cervical, liver) as well as significant increase of risk for heart attack and stroke for current users of oral contraceptives. The increased usage of contraceptives, which implies that some babies are unwanted, will eventually lead to more abortion; the orrelation was shown in a scientific journal and acknowledged by pro-RH leaders, (4) Peoples freedom to access contraceptives is not restricted by any opposing law, being available in family planning NGOs, stores, etc. The country is not a welfare state: taxpayers money should not be used for personal practices that are harmful and immoral; it can be used to inform people of the harm of BCPs. (5) The penal provisions constitute a violation of free choice and conscience, and establishes religious persecution. President Aquino stated he was not an author of the bill. He also stated that he gives full support to a firm population policy, educating parents to be responsible, providing contraceptives to those who ask for them, but he refuses to promote contraceptive use. He said that his position is more aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health. Economic and demographic premises The Philippines is the 39th most densely populated country, with a density over 335 per squared kilometer, and the population growth rate is 1. % (2010 Census), 1. 957% (2010 est. by CIA World Fact Book), or 1. 85% (2005–2010 high variant estimate by the UN Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision) coming from 3. 1 in 1960. The 2010 total fertility rate (TFR) is 3. 23 births per woman, from a TFR of 7 in 1960. In addition, the total fertility rate for the richest quintile of the population is 2. 0, which is about one third the TFR of the poorest quintile (5. 9 children per woman). The TFR for women with college education is 2. , about half that of women with only an elementary education (4. 5 children per woman). Congressman Lagman states that the bill recognizes the verifiable link between a huge population and poverty. Unbridled population growth stunts socioeconomic development and aggravates poverty. The University of the Philippines School of Economics presented two papers in support of the bill: Population and Poverty: the Real Score (2004), and Population, Poverty, Politics and the Reproductive Health Bill (2008). According to these economists, which include Solita Monsod, Gerardo Sicat, Cayetano Paderanga, Ernesto M. Pernia, and Stella Alabastro-Quimbo, rapid population growth and high fertility rates, especially among the poor, do exacerbate poverty and make it harder for the government to address it, while at the same time clarifying that it would be extreme to view population growth as the principal cause of poverty that would justify the government resorting to draconian and coercive measures to deal with the problem (e. g. denial of basic services and subsidies to families with more than two children). They illustrate the connection between rapid population growth and poverty by comparing the economic growth and population growth rates of Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, wherein the first two grew more rapidly than the Philippines due to lower population growth rates. They stressed that the experience from across Asia indicates that a population policy cum government-funded [fa mily planning] program has been a critical complement to sound economic policy and poverty reduction†. In Population and Poverty, Aniceto Orbeta, Jr, showed that poverty incidence is higher among big families: 57. 3% of Filipino families with seven children are in poverty while only 23. 8% of families who have two children live below the poverty threshold. Percentage of population living below poverty line (2003). Darker areas mean more poverty. Proponents argue that smaller families and wider birth intervals resulting from the use of contraceptives allow families to invest more in each child’s education, health, nutrition and eventually reduce poverty and hunger at the household level. At the national level, fertility reduction cuts the cost of social services with fewer people attending school or seeking medical care and as demand eases for housing, transportation, jobs, water, food and other natural resources. The Asian Development Bank in 2004 also listed a large population as one of the major causes of poverty in the country, together with weak macroeconomic management, employment issues, an underperforming agricultural sector and an unfinished land reform agenda, governance issues including corruption. Criticism of premises Opponents refer to a 2003 study of Rand Corporation, which concluded that there is little cross-country evidence that population growth impedes or promotes economic growth population neutralism has in fact been the predominant school in thinking among academics about population growth for the last half-century. For example, the 1992 study of Ross Levine and David Renelt, which covered 119 countries over 30 years (vs UP study of 3 countries over a few years). The RAND study also said that a large population can promote growth given the right fundamentals. Thus, they refer to the HSBC 2012 projection for 2050 that the Philippines will be 16th largest economy due to its large growing population, and those whose populations are decreasing will suffer decline. In his Primer which critiques the bill, Economist Roberto de Vera refers to Nobel prize winner Simon Kuznetss study which concludes that â€Å"no clear association appears to exist in the present sample of countries, or is likely to exist in other developed countries, between rates of growth of population and of product per capita. Julian Simon compared parallel countries such as North and South Korea, East and West Germany whose birthrates were practically the same but whose economic growth was entirely different due to different governance factors. De Vera says that similar conclusions have been arrived at by the US National Research Council in 1986 and in the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Consultative Meeting of Economists in 1992 and the studies of Hanushek and Wommann (2007), Dop pelhoffer, Miller, Sala-I-Martin (2004), Ahlburg (1996), etc. The other Nobel Prize winner who expressed the same view is Gary Becker. De Vera also states that from 1961 to 2000, as Philippine population increased almost three times, poverty decreased from 59% to 34%. He stressed that the more probable cause of poor families is not family size but the limited schooling of the household head: 78% to 90% of the poor households had heads with no high school diploma, preventing them from getting good paying jobs. He refers to studies which show that 90% of the time the poor want the children they have: as helpers in the farm and investment for a secure old age. Instead of aiming at population decrease, De Vera stressed that the country should focus through education on cashing in on a possible â€Å"demographic dividend†, a period of rapid economic growth that can happens when the labor force is growing faster than the dependents (children and elderly), thus reducing poverty significantly. In a recent development, two authors of the Reproductive Health Bill changed their stand on the provisions of the bill regarding population and development. Reps. Emerciana de Jesus and Luzviminda Ilagan wanted to delete three provisions which state that gender equality and women empowerment are central elements of reproductive health and population and development, which integrate responsible parenthood and family planning programs into anti-poverty initiatives, and which name the Population Commission as a coordinating body. The two party-list representatives strongly state that poverty is not due to over-population but because of inequality and corruption. Opponents also refer to the statement of the Federation of Free Farmers that history teaches about the economic advantages of a large population, and the disadvantages of a smaller population. The Wall Street Journal in July 2012 said that Aquinos promotion of a reproductive health bill is jarring since it could lead to a demographic trap of too few workers. The Philippines doesnt have too many people, it has too few pro-growth policies. Opposing the bill, Former Finance Secretary Roberto de Ocampo wrote that it is truly disingenuous for anyone to proceed on the premise that the poor are to blame for the nation’s poverty. He emphasized that the government should apply the principle of first things first and focus on the root causes of the poverty (e. g. poor governance, corruption) and apply many other alternatives to solve the problem (e. g. giving up pork barrel, raising tax collection efficiency). They also point to the five factors for high economic growth and reduction of poverty shown by the 2008 Commission on Growth and Development headed by Nobel prize winner Michael Spence, which does not include population control. Status Legislature On 31 January 2011, six different bills were consolidated into a single RH Bill which was then unanimously approved for plenary debate by the House Committee on Population and Family Relations. On 7 February 2011, the bill was scheduled to go before the House Appropriations Committee. 6 February 2011 the bill was endorsed by the House Appropriations Committee with amendment and referred back to the Population Committee for finalizing the language. President and Cabinet President Noynoy Aquino during the presidential campaign said that it confounds him why he is always associated with the RH Bill and reiterated that he is neither an author nor a co-author, much less did he sign the committee report regarding the bill. He said that he will fu lly support the crafting of a firm policy that will address the serious problem on population. At the same time, Aquino said that artificial contraception was a matter of choice and conscience and that health professionals who fool people into using artificial contraceptives should be penalized. As a Catholic, Aquino said he himself was not promoting artificial contraception but believes that the government should be able to provide it to Filipinos who ask for it. Aquino stressed: I’m a Catholic, I’m not promoting it. My position is more aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health. According to Rina Jimenez David who is pro-RH, during the â€Å"Women Deliver Philippines† Conference held September 2010, Dinky Soliman, Aquinos Secretary of Social Welfare and Development, said that choice and access† constituted the keystone of the Aquino government’s policy, reiterating the administration’s support for the pending reproductive health bills. On December 2010, the Cabinet and the CBCP agreed to have a joint campaign providing full information on the advantages and risks of contraceptives, natural and artificial family planning and responsible parenthood. They have established a technical working group for this purpose. They also agreed that government will not be an instrument to enforce or violate the conscience of the people about these issues. However, by April 2011 the President has given his full support to the entire RH Bill in a speech at the University of the Philippines and promised to push for its passage even at the risk of excommunication. Compromise and alternatives Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Congressman Roilo Golez and Buhay party-list separately filed bills that seek to restrict abortion and birth control use. These bills have been seen either as a nullification of the RH Bill, its alternative, or as a way of achieving unity among the populace, since the RH Bill proponents have stated their concern in preventing abortion. Presidential candidate Gilbert Teodoro or Gibo suggested a cash transfer from the government to individuals wanting access to family planning methods, whether natural or artificial. The individuals can then make use of the cash they receive to purchase birth control devices they may choose, thus guaranteeing freedom of choice. The Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on State and Church Issues issued 9 Talking Points on the RH Bill. Among other points, they proposed a study on the meaning of conception in the Constitution, and if it means fertilization, abortifacients are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed. They also proposed parallel programs for providing information and training, one for Natural Family Planning (NFP) and another for artificial methods of family planning. Columnist Jose Sison of the Philippine Star criticized this: â€Å"a Catholic School of theology has actually proposed in public, the use of tax payers’ money to train Filipinos to employ methods that are objectively and intrinsically evil† and cites empirical evidence and scientific proofs confirming the harmful and evil effects of contraceptives to individuals and to society. Recent events In September 2010, Aquino during this visit to the US reiterated his stand that he is in favor of responsible parenthood and respects the decision of each couple as to the number of children they want, and if they need the government support for contraception, then the government will provide it. This statement has created a furor as Catholic church leaders say that Aquino has sold out the Filipino soul in exchange for some measly aid from the United States. The President of the Catholic Bishops Conference said that there can possibly be an excommunication of the President if he continues on with his stance. Pro RH Bill Senators encouraged the President to be steadfast to do his duties towards the state. The Presidents spokesperson Edwin Lacierda explained that the President has not changed his stand and is reaching out to the prelates and said that the President himself has not made any decision in support of the Reproductive Health Bill as he is still studying the document. Lacierda said that the Executive Branch is not involved in the passage of the RH bill, saying the measures fate rests solely on the legislative branch. Filipino Freethinkers, an association of agnostics, atheists, progressives, etc. , who have been very active in the fight in favor of the RH bill, stepped up the pressure, creating more controversy that fired up renewed interest in the bill on both sides. On 30 September 2010, one of the freethinkers, Carlos Celdran staged a protest action against the Catholic Church, holding a sign which read DAMASO – a reference to the villainous, corrupt clergyman Father Damaso of the novel Noli Me Tangere by Filipino revolutionary writer Jose Rizal – and shouting stop getting involved in politics! A fan page, Free Carlos Celdran was created in Facebook, which generated 23,808 fans in 24 hours. Francisco Montalvan of the Inquirer said that in the end the Damasos are the scheming, corrupt and deceptive people, implying that the pro-death advocates are these, while the Cardinal Rosales who started a nationwide fund for the poor is very far from Damaso. Meanwhile, the Imam Council of th e Philippines, the top leaders of the Moslem population which at 4. M constitutes 5% of the Philippine population, declared that they are against contraceptives since using them underestimates God, and makes one lose morality in the process. During the first public hearing on 24 Nov, the chair of the Committee on Population handling the bill said that there is no instruction from the Speaker of the House to expedite the bill. Upon the call of anti-RH congressmen, the Committee Chair decided to refer the bill also to the Committee on Health, since the bill is about Reproductive Health. Leader of the pro-RH group, Elizabeth Ansioco, said that the bill is doomed if it is referred to the Committee on Health. Anti-RH Deputy Speaker Congressman Pablo Garcia said the members of the Committee on Health know of the WHO announcement on the carcinogenicity of combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives. House Speaker Belmonte said that Congress is not likely to rush the legislation of the bill and will tackle it in plenary early next year. Belmonte said it is better that highly contentious bills be given more attention. On 3 December, the Senate cut the proposed budget of P 880M for contraceptives down to P 8M for condoms since other contraceptives violated the Constitutions ban on abortifacients, and Senator Tito Sotto III said that his constituents never asked for contraceptives. On 27 July 2012, the Speaker of the House decided to put to a vote by 7 August 2012 whether the debates have to be terminated. In response, pro-life groups and the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines have decided to call for a Prayer Power Rally†, on 4 August 2012 at the historic Edsa Shrine. Meanwhile, 6 co-authors of the bill withdrew support, with the head of the minority group of the house declaring that 8 of their group are withdrawing their previous support for the bill. Congressional approval and presidential assent At 3 in the morning on December 13, 2012, the House of Representatives voted on second reading in favor of the bill with 113–109, while five representatives abstained. In the upper house, the Senate voted on December 18, 2012 to pass the bill on second reading with 13–8, while Senators Sergio Osmena, III and Lito Lapid were absent. On the same day, both houses passed the bill on the third and final reading. Members of the House of Representatives voted 133–79, while seven representatives abstained. The Senate registered 13–8, the same result as the second reading. On December 19, 2012, both versions of the bill were passed to the Bicameral Committee to produce a final version to be signed by the President Aquino. The committee quickly passed the bill in just one session. It was transmitted back to the House of Representatives and the Senate, which both ratified the bill, with the Senate voting 11–5 in favor of ratification, and the House of Representatives voting via voice vote. On December 21, 2012, President Aquino signed the bill into law, codifying the bill as Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. News of the signing was announced by House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II on December 28, 2012. Reactions Averilla, Jim Waine C. Philippine Government Constitution I used to support the RH bill. But finding out the truth behind it, neither would you. I believe this law will put the Filipinos at risk of extinction because at its very core, the RH law is an extension of a secret, global conspiracy, a western attempt, to apply principles of eugenics on unsuspecting, inferior populations in order to prevent them from the human evolutionary process, at the end of which would, at the highest point, call forth the â€Å"master race†. The truth is in our hearts, we just have to listen to it. At first my interpretation of the RH bill led me to think that it was just a bill meant to help educate the uninformed about ways to prevent them from fornicating their way to a very bad financial situation. My ignorant mind devised some simple points as to why the RH Bill was right. I thought: 1. Minimum wage of a non-agricultural Filipino worker is P404. 2. If there were 20 working days in a month, the average minimum wage earning Filipino would earn around P8000 a month. 3. In average that person ate food on a regular basis, he will spend about around P70/day on food. There are 20 days in a month, so I guess that would equal to P2100 a month. 4. But if this person had a partner, he might want to feed her too. Feeding her would cost another P2100 a month. 5. P8000 – P4200 = P3800 6. If this person and his wife rented a home, or used electricity and bathed from time to time, the amount left from his salary would be significantly reduced. Lets say their utility bills and rend amounted to P1800 7. P3800 – P1800 = P2000 8. P2000 is a lot of money, but I don’t think they should have more than 3 children right? Babies need milk, diapers, toys, immunity injections, baby medicine, etc†¦ 9. From this let’s deduce that babies cost money. If babies cost money, I theorized that having more babies would cost more money. And from this data, I see that a person who spent a lot of money on children, but I didn’t earn a lot of money, would soon be broke and unable to provide for both himself and his children. Another word for broke situation is poverty. 10. I believe that a person can avoid being poor by making less babies. So, I thought that steps should be taken to inform people about this very little known fact. I also thought that the government should make contraceptives accessible so that people who don’t earn a lot can properly manage the little resources that they have. That’s why I supported the RH Bill. But now I know that I was wrong. I believe that the issue of the RH Bill is not a religious issue. â€Å"The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that the Philippines is overpopulated. † -I agree. I, myself, have observed that the Philippines is not overpopulated. In fact, if you use your common sense and think about it, you will realize a few things: 1. We are not overpopulated! Look at the mountains, the jungles, the caves and the ocean floor. There are no people there! 2. If we were really overpopulated, we would have trouble traveling. But if you go to EDSA, there’s no traffic. When you ride the MRT, it’s not packed with people. 3. Students in public schools are well educated because the teacher to student ratio is very low. In fact, because of our low population the government can basically guarantee that all public school students are provided books, notebooks and other school supplies. â€Å"The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that contraceptives are good for mankind and women. 1. I agree, the RH Bill/Law is not good for women because it might draw a woman away from her one, true, universal purpose – the uninterrupted production of healthy babies 2. Furthermore, the role of women in society and the universe is to make babies. That’s why God made women. That’s their sole purpose in life. They’re not good fo r anything else. Ever wonder why there are no women in the clergy? Because they’re not good enough. 3. Contraceptives would allow women to enjoy the benefits of physical intimacy while maintaining a successful and productive career, if she so chooses. That is so wrong. Only men should be able to enjoy that privilege. 4. Women should get pregnant every single time they have sex and only immoral women enjoy sex without the possibility of conception. In fact, a better alternative would be for women, in general, to follow the example made by Mother Mary – to learn how to conceive without having sex. â€Å"The RH Bill/Law will put Filipinos at risk of extinction! † 1. Population decline is just bad for nations. Just look at the countries which have a declining population – Italy, Japan and Singapore. They’re in such a bad shape. The Philippines obviously has a better economy and has a higher literacy rate than these countries. In fact, many Italians, Japanese, and Singaporeans go to the Philippines for work. That only goes to show that a decline in population is bad for the economy. â€Å"Our population is our biggest asset! † 1. In my opinion, people should make as many babies as they can because the population is not a problem. In fact, the more babies a person has, the more assets he has. Forget real estate properties, stock investments, or Jollibee franchises. The real secret to increased wealth is babies. 2. If you have 15 babies, you’re practically wealthy because babies are assets 3. If you need money, you can sell them 4. If you can keep them alive until they can walk, they can one day beg for money in the streets – they’re going to have to anyway because there’s no way in hell you’ll be able to provide for all of them on your own 5. If ever a person is not able to feed the 15 babies he made, it’s the governments fault, because it’s the governments sole responsibility to make sure that every Filipino baby is fed. 6. The best way a person can contribute to this country is to contribute to its population. The RH Bill/Law is wrong because it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of abortion. † 1. Reproductive/contraceptive education will have no effect on the number of abortion cases. In my opinion, these abortion cases will not lessen because women will continue to have abortions regard less of whether they are pregnant or not. 2. Abortions cannot be prevented. It’s just something that women naturally do. Like shopping, for example. â€Å"The RH Bill/Law is wrong because it will make people participate in extra-marital and pre-marital sex. † 1. The RH Bill/Law will practically encourage our people to engage in immoral activities. 2. We must protect our moral values and reject the RH Bill. Because, currently, not a single Filipino engages in pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex. Well at least this is what we believe until to this day. 3. The root cause of extra-marital and pre-marital sex is one’s exposure to contraceptives. There is just something in contraceptives that people find very arousing. 4. In western countries, men lure strange women into bed by shown those condoms. 5. If we ban condoms, absolutely no one would engage in premarital or extra-marital sex. The RH Bill/Law is wrong because it assumes that parents don’t teach their children about sex. † 1. The truth is that parents talk to their children about sex all the time. It’s so not awkward. The dad usually tells his children how he takes off all his clothes, does a sexy Tiger growl and makes sweet, sweet music with their motherâ€℠¢s body. 2. Also, a father usually advises his daughter that if she’s going to have sex with her boyfriend, she should use a condom. Sometimes the father even drives the daughter to the boyfriend’s house and waits for the couple to finish 3. Filipino daughters don’t have sex without the father’s permission. Unwanted pregnancies or teen pregnancies never happen to Filipino girls. That’s why we do not need the RH Law â€Å"The RH Bill is a conspiracy. † It’s all lies, all lies Salvador, Karissa Helene Philippine Government Constitution It is very much unfortunate, disappointing, and alarming that nobody in the mainstream media talks about the negative, unintended consequences of the fascist Reproductive Health bill, now called Responsible Parenthood bill, on the country’s business sector, particularly small businesses. I reject this legislative proposal primarily because it’s anti-reason, anti-individualism, and anti-capitalism. In other words it is against individual rights, liberty and economic freedom. This is just one of the many aspects of the bill– that it can negatively impact the country’s industry, particularly small business establishments that employ millions of professionals and skilled and even unskilled workers. Let’s take a small cafeteria, canteen, or publishing house near your place. Think about the small establishments and bar and restaurant stools in malls and many places in the metro. These small businesses that put two to ten or so people will be one of the main targets of the RH bill supported by some misguided, mediocre hippies who are mostly schooled and professionals. Yet nobody wants to talk about this issue. It’s as if these pro-RH bill hippies and fanatics think that wealth is created by wishful thinking, that is, by simply passing an intrusive, rights-violating bill purportedly designed to help the poor and women. What these anti-population and pro-regulation advocates don’t know is that the proposed legislative measure is itself a big insult to the poor and women. It is anti-poor and anti-women. The RH bill is a big insult to the poor because it treats them as dependent, parasites, worthless, or a leech who simply rely on other people’s extorted money or alms. Authors of the consolidated bill argue that one of the principal objectives of their highly moderate, anti-intellectual measure is to â€Å"help reduce poverty and achieve sustainable human development. † Still, what these political idiots do not and refuse to understand is that the government has no financial capability to deliver the promises of their measure because it is already bankrupt. The government, which is the worst parasite in this country, is not a productive agency or entity. It can only deliver some of the promised public services by using state force, like taxation, regulation, and forcible immolation of some social sectors like businessmen and health care providers. The consolidated RH law is a huge insult to women– and this is what statistician does not understand – because it considers them as inferior, ignorant, weak, having no mental, physical and emotional capability to decide on her own and to protect herself. It treats women as ignorant and weak because the law’s advocates believe that they need to pass a highly intrusive, unconstitutional legislative proposal to provide them the information and services they need. Also, the proposal is a big insult to every Filipino family because it treats parents as irresponsible, ignorant, weak, lazy, and having no capacity to make informed, responsible family decisions. It is stated that the law’s primary goal is to â€Å"help give parents the opportunity to exercise their right to freely and responsibly plan the number and spacing of their children. That’s the other way of saying that Filipino parents are not free and badly need the help and assistance of the state so to â€Å"responsibly plan the number and spacing of their children. † The bill’s highly mediocre and ignorant explanatory note adds: â€Å"The bill is truly rights-based. It mandates the provision of all forms of family planning, both modern natural and artificial, to women and couples as long as they are legal and medically-safe, and truly effective. However, the acceptance and adoption is the option and decision of parents and couple, particularly women. If that’s the case, why is there a need to pass the bill? The answer is because this is not what the bill is all about. In truth and in reality, it is about more political power! It’s about putting the entire business industry, medical profession and education sector under the total control and supervision of the state. In general, the bill is a BIG INSULT to the entire Filipino nation that has somehow embraced rational principles and the concept of freedom and individual rights. Those who ignorantly, naively take the consolidated bill at its face value will certainly accept the contradictory slogans. There are two sides of the consolidated bill: the fantasy side and the reality side. The measure’s fantasy side can be readily gleaned from its highly ignorant explanatory note, which is filled with supportive statistics and some tragic information about the plight of the poor and women. They did not state how except the fact that they enumerated the bill’s nice-to-hear intents and provisions. The reality side of the measure is that all those promised, stated RH services would be covered or delivered by sacrificing, enslaving employers and health care providers. Section 18 states: Employers’ Responsibilities- The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) shall ensure that employers respect the reproductive rights of workers. Consistent with the intent of Article 134 of the Labor Code, employers with more than two hundred (200) employees shall provide reproductive health services to all employees in their own respective health facilities. Those with less than two hundred (200) workers shall enter into partnerships with hospitals, health facilities, or health professionals in their areas for the delivery of reproductive health services. Employers shall furnish in writing the following information to all employees and applicants: (a) The medical and health benefits which workers are entitled to, including maternity and paternity leave benefits and the availability of family planning services; (b) The reproductive health hazards associated with work, including hazards that may affect their reproductive functions especially pregnant women; and (c) The availability of health facilities for workers. What does this section mean? Section 17 details the bill’s horrible fantastic scheme. So once the fascist bill is approved, any potential or aspiring employer would be covered by it, which means that he/she would be legally regarded as an indirect government employee. The employers or companies who have the capacity (with more than 200 employees) would be mandated by law to â€Å"provide reproductive health services to all employees in their own respective health facilities. This provision means that those employers and companies with more than 200 employees need to have their own â€Å"health facilities†, and this means additional expenses on the part of job-creators. On the other hand, employers with less than 200 employees shall enter into â€Å"partnerships with hospitals, health facilities, and/or health professionals in their areas for the delivery of reproductive health services. † Logic tells us that since employers and companies would be legally require d to shoulder additional expenses, then they are justified to increase the prices of their products and/or services. Does anyone think of PRICE CONTROL? The state control of the entire medical industry is laid out under Sections 20 (Implementing Mechanisms) and 22(1) on prohibited acts. The penalty that awaits erring, non-compliant employers and health care providers could be imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six months or fine of P10,000 to P50,000 or both. This means that any employer may be sued by his/her employees for non-compliant with the intents and provisions of the bill. Once the RH bill is approved, anyone who thinks of starting a business, whether big or small, should consider the measure’s punitive provisions, some necessary expenses, and the need to deal with government regulators. In the United States, hundreds companies left the Democratic-infested California because of the state’s too much regulations and anti-business policies. This is why I have been telling my blog readers that the bill is NOT simply about serving the alleged interests of the poor and women; it is PRIMARILY about MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. The bill is about nanny statism or BIG GOVERNMENT. Already, many foreign investors do not want to invest in the Philippines because of its high tax rates, excessive economic regulations, pro-employee labor courts, leftist-activist court justices, among others. The Doingbusiness. orgrecently ranked Philippines 148th in terms of ease in doing business and 156th in terms of starting business. In terms of paying taxes, the country has been ranked 124th. Corporations pay a total tax rate (% profit) of 45. 8 percent! If approved, the RH bill would have the following negative impacts on small business: . It would be more difficult to start a new business considering the fact the the bill criminalizes the mere act of doing business and its regulative, interventionist provisions. 2. Employers would be forced to make additional expenses so to cover the RH care needs of their employees. 3. Since they are forced to make additional expenses, they might consider laying off some of their workers fo r survival. 4. Since they are forced to shell out additional expenses, they might not accept new applicants, a situation that would worsen the country’s unemployment rate. . Since they are forced to shell out additional expenses, they might consider some of the following survival measure: 1) salary cut, 2) less bonus or benefits, 3) cost cutting, 4) no expansion, 5) close business. 6. Since they are forced to shell out additional expenses, they might consider PRICE INCREASE. 7. There would be more informal sectors (unlisted, unregistered businesses) so to avoid paying more taxes and complying with government regulations. 8. Potential and existing employers would be considered a NEW CLASS OF CRIMINALS or ENEMY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE. . Those who have the money and resources would rather invest in a business-friendly economic environment like Hong Kong, India and other Asian countries. 10. Employers would simply shrug. You can help the poor without enslaving and treating businessmen , doctors and some other people as potential criminals or enemies of social progress. Think like a human being, not like a parasite! You don’t help the poor and the marginalized by supporting the RH bill; it’s both the big and small businesses that can truly help them!