I use the word, idiotic, kindly. For how would you describe their latest tirade against the Department of Education’s push for sex education in the elementary levels?

The DOE is implementing sex education primarily to combat unwanted pregnancy, STD and the dreaded HIV/AIDS, among other reasons. They have successfully pilot-tested the curriculum, which was developed by teachers, some of whom are parents.

Yet Kapatiran, for reasons that strain even the imagination, has filed an injunction against the DOE to prevent them from implementing the curriculum. They claim that the curriculum will turn students into raving sex maniacs.

Okay, so that’s not really what they stated, but it’s close to it: “For being baseless, DepEd Memo 261 is unreasonable and arbitrary unless DepEd is candid enough to admit that its real agenda is to transform the sex behavior of our kids towards being sex-obsessed.”

Kapatiran then goes on to suggest that sex education should remain as a family affair taught by parents.

Hey, why don’t we just scrap the whole educational system and let home schooling be the norm? But we can’t do this because parents of public school students precisely send their children to school so they can be educated in ways that go beyond their capabilities. And this should include sex education.

So parents have to trust our educational system. The DOE then has a responsibility to uphold that trust. I can’t imagine our educational authorities meeting so they can “transform the sex behavior of our kids towards being sex-obsessed.”

The DOE develops education not pornography. What will turn kids into being sex-obsessed are our current TV fare where noontime shows display gyrating scantily-clad dancers and prime time programming suggest teens falling in love and their parents engaging in adultery.

Maybe Kapatiran members should stop watching TV. It’s transforming them into being sex-obsessed and not education-oriented.

Take the case of Revillame. What does he symbolize when he is viewed by an international audience? He symbolizes arrogance, sexism, impunity to insult his fellowmen and general inanity. To expose him for what he truly is, can this be crab mentality?

Let’s take another entertainer, Martin Nievera. How do we perceive him? In the vernacular, saksakan ang yabang (sorry to English readers because this can’t be translated word for word). He was warned by others not to sing the National Anthem (for the Pacquiao-Hatton fight) in any other way than it should be sang.

He didn’t heed the warnings. Instead he sang it the way he wanted to sing it. Why? Is it being Filipino? No, it’s being Martin Nievera. When you’re not internationally recognized, singing the National Anthem correctly will just feature a Filipino celebrity singing the Philippine National Athem. But when you try to give your own version, just maybe, your name will be remembered, i.e. “Martin Nievera just sang the Philippine National Anthem;” especially when you try to give it a rousing ending.

It’s just the same as singers singing other people’s songs. They give their own version so they will be remembered instead of the original singers.

So when Nievera –or the latest one, Dessa– slaps our cultural sensibilities by making a mockery of the National Anthem (not to mention Philippine laws), is it crab mentality to write against it?

Sure, we may write about it in a stinging manner. But we were first stung by the insensitivity of these "professional and talented" singers.

In glaring contrast, look at Lea Salonga. She’s internationally recognized. Obviously she’s comfortable with who she is. This is why she doesn’t have to sing the National Anthem her own way. So we’re proud of her!

Heck, we’re even proud of Sam Milby, because here’s a guy born and raised in the U.S., but who’s really trying to master Tagalog and to even speak it without an American accent (hello, Martin Nievera!).

Yet, we’re not perfect. So, perhaps we perceive things cross-eyed. Nevertheless, think about this: what we perceive may very well be what people are unknowingly revealing.

His arguments are weak if not downright wrong. For one thing he states that, although Nievera didn’t sing it traditionally, he did not disrespect it. Duh… So, singing our national anthem without respect to THE LAW is not being disrespectful. At the very least, Nievera disrespected the composer, Julian Felipe.

De Quiroz also argues that Americans have been singing their national anthem, The Star-spangled Banner, in different renditions because they’re "secure in their patriotism," even citing Jimi Hendricks’ now iconic version played in Woodstock. Americans aren’t secure in their patriotism. The truth is they don’t really give a rat’s ass about anything and that’s why Jimi Hendricks played The Star-spangled Banner the way he did because Americans were being indifferent to the Vietnam War.

De Quiroz then wonders why historian Ambeth Ocampo disapproves of Nievera’s rendition when Ocampo teaches a "pop" version of history to make it more appealing to present-day listeners. Here’s where de Quiroz shows his naivete. Certainly history should be taught in a way that today’s listeners (i.e. the youth) can understand it, for it is merely a story of our past. Our national anthem, on the other hand, brings honor to those of our past who died that we in the present may enjoy our freedom. To sing it any other way than how it should be sang dishonors our history.

If we were to allow people to sing Lupang Hinirang any which way they want, then what’s next? Would we also approve of Martin Nievera using the Philippine flag as a beach towel because he wants to connect tradition with post-modernity?

But here’s my take on why Nievera sang the anthem the way he did: He wanted worldwide attention. Nievera doesn’t hide his burning ambition to be an international star. He tried singing in the Las Vegas strip, but he was a curtain raiser to a magician. Thus, the Pacquiao-Hatton fight was an opportunity to be on a worldwide stage. Notice that he sang the anthem first in a low pitch and then ended in a high note that was designed to elicit oohs and aahs. He also sang in different beats. The problem was his singing just didn’t hit the mark. He had pitch problems as he ended and the entire performance was just ghastly.

Never mind if he sang the Anthem rightly but in a bad way. But he sang the Anthem in a wrong way badly. And it backfired on him.

Did Nievera sing with thoughts of the youth? I doubt it. Did he sing it wrong albeit with a patriotic heart? Yeah, right. He’s an American, for crying out loud!

I believe Nievera used the National Anthem for his own agenda at the expense of Filpino pride and honor. Maybe, Conrad, he should have sang "Ang Himig Natin" instead.

"I write to appeal on behalf of my family, especially my (four) children who are presently studying in their elementary years," Defensor said.

"If you (Mananzan’s group) feel that the courts may not be the proper venue then tell me where I can seek the justice that all of us speak of," he said. "I am also a Catholic and I pray together with my family. Am I now refused justice or the support of the religious because I served this administration?$quot;

My answer to that is a resounding, YES! In case Defensor is naive or downright stupid, when one supports an administration that lies to its people and steals from them, then that one is guilty of incredibility. When one remains silent and does not expose the administration he serves and benefits from, then that one is guilty also of conspiracy.

If you read the rest of Defensor’s statement, it seeks to ooze with sincerity. He even invokes the future of his children. But how about the future of our children who will take up the cudgels of debt, if not at least the global embarrassment, that this administration has wrought from unabated corruption?

Now Defensor asks to be believed. He says that his perjury suit against Lozada is a personal quest and not backed up by the administration. If Defensor is truly seeking justice, then he should loudly bang at the doors of the Ombudsman and demand its findings on Joc-joc Bolante and the fertilizer scam or the other government scams that the Ombudsman is being silent about. If Defensor is worried about the future of his children, then he should expose the shenanigans of the administration he is so proud to say he served.

Otherwise, he should just withdraw his suit, cower in the darkness and let his children and his children’s children bear the sin and stigma of their father.

Now that oil prices are diving, the three –SHELL, PETRON, CALTEX– have been slow to bring down pump prices, declaring that they were still losing money.

Duh …

The three –SHELL, PETRON, CALTEX– should place the sign you see on the right of this article at the entrance of each of their stations all over the Philippines. Because this is in effect what they’re showing to the Filipinos. They really don’t care what Filipinos are going through. Call them whatever you want: unFilipino, unpatriotic, greedy, swapang, thick-faced (makapal ang mukha); they don’t really care.

SHELL, PETRON, CALTEX serve mammon and that’s that!

Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes threatened to have SHELL, PETRON, CALTEX audited. They responded: “Go ahead!” They called his bluff. So, what now, Angie?

SHELL, PETRON, CALTEX know very well they can’t be touched by the government. They’ve been deregulated, remember?

So what every Filipino has left is the hope that SHELL, PETRON, CALTEX will lower their pump prices out of conscience. But do they have one?

What SHELL, PETRON, CALTEX do have is a middle finger. And it’s pointed at you!