Category Archives: Society

Qwertyman No. 221: The Fil-Am Midterm Vote

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, October 26, 2026

NEXT WEDNESDAY (Tuesday, November 3 in the US), Americans will troop to the polling stations to cast their votes in what promises to be a historic midterm election, by all accounts a referendum on the tempestuous first half of President Donald Trump’s renewed White House lease. Millions of Filipino-Americans will take part in that exercise, and how they vote could very well affect everything from how much the Pinoy jeepney driver will be paying for diesel to how China will behave in the West Philippine Sea—not to mention outcomes in Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, and other global hotspots.

According to US immigration sources, over 4 million Filipinos or people of Filipino ancestry now live in the US, of whom almost 400,000 are undocumented. About 2.5 million of these Filipino-Americans are eligible voters. With the US population currently standing at about 350 million—of whom 210 million have registered to vote in 2026—we can see that Fil-Ams roughly represent 1 percent of both the total US and voting population. That may not look like much on the national scale, but their concentration in several states—mostly in California, Hawaii, Texas, New York, and Washington, in that order—amplifies their political importance, particularly in key battleground areas. California alone accounts for over 1.5 million Fil-Ams.

A number of Filipino-American candidates are on the ballot. Running for reelection to the New York State Legislature is Steven Raga, who became the first Fil-Am to sit in that body in 2022. If successful, they will be joining many other political leaders of Filipino ancestry, some serving in the state legislatures of California, Wisconsin, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Bobby Scott, a Democrat representing Virginia, is the only Member of Congress with Filipino roots, serving in Washington since 1993. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria is also a Fil-Am, and the first openly gay person in that capacity. Many other Fil-Ams serve on city councils.

But it will be more than ethnic representation at stake for Fil-Ams—and indeed, all Americans if not the world at large—on November 3.

Why does any of this matter to us? Because millions of Filipinos have relatives in America—I have a daughter in California and a niece in Michigan (both Democrats but independently minded women who married into Republican families, to give you an idea of how complex these relationships can get)—and also because any flatulence from Washington impacts our noses here in Manila.

Filipino-Americans are voting primarily for their own national and local concerns, as they should, but inevitably they’re also voting for the kind of global order their leaders will seek to forge. The old order based on rules and respect has been effectively dismantled by Trump, replaced by military power and a disdain for human rights domestically and around the world. So the Fil-Am voting in Kalamazoo for lower prices at their gas pump isn’t doing that just for Michigan but for the world as well.

Fil-Ams have historically leaned and voted Democratic (68 percent blue vs. 31 percent red among self-identified registered voters in 2024, according to a Pew poll), but there’s been a recent rightward shift noted in the polls, which has been true as well of other ethnic groups like Latinos, especially in 2024. However, this shift will be tested in these coming midterms, with issues like affordability, inflation, health care, jobs, and social security ranking topmost among voter and particularly Filipino-American concerns.

Fil-Am voters do need to come out more to the polling booths to make themselves heard. Overall, 90 percent of Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI, the rubric under which Fil-Ams are usually grouped) have signified that they will vote in these midterms, but only 54 percent and 63 percent of eligible Fil-Am voters actually cast their ballots in 2020 and 2024, respectively. (In 2024, 54 percent went for Kamala Harris and 44 percent for Donald Trump among Fil-Ams nationwide.)

This is why both parties have been actively wooing Fil-Am voters to support them in the midterms, because their votes could mean victory or defeat in key races like Nevada’s, where Filipinos are the largest AAPI ethnic group at 44 percent.

Nevada is a particularly interesting story. The state doesn’t figure in our migration maps as much as California, Hawaii, or New York do, but Filipinos moved to Nevada in droves in the 1990s and 2000s, attracted by its lower cost of living and jobs in the gaming and health care industries. Today about 200,000 Fil-Ams live there, representing 60,000 votes being courted by Democrats and Republicans with karaoke and kamayan parties.

How did it go in Nevada the last time? A report from the Washington Post dated October 30, 2024—just a week before the election that put Trump back in power—shows how pliable the Fil-Am voter’s mind could be:

“While headlining a Las Vegas rally advertised as a celebration of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Trump told the crowd that he would build an economy that supports the Asian American community. ‘So many amazing Nevada Filipinos, right?’ Trump told the crowd, earning boisterous cheers. ‘… You all are the greatest people, hardworking people, and we’re going to take care of you.’

“Harry Cheng, 57, arrived at the rally an undecided voter. ‘I just wanted to hear what people had to say,’ said Cheng, who immigrated from the Philippines to the United States in 1989.

“By the end, he was convinced.

He knew Trump had made anti-Asian comments—including referring to the coronavirus as the ‘Chinese virus,’ ‘Wuhan virus’ and ‘kung flu’—in the past. But the former president and fellow Republican speakers made a strong case for closing the border and improving the economy, he said.

‘The number of migrants crossing the border has turned into a crisis, Cheng said. Meanwhile, he had immigrated ‘the right way.’

“Besides, he said, ‘Trump also made statements that were pro-Asian. I just heard it firsthand.’

“He stood near a lifelike cutout of the former president as the crowd filtered out of the rally and glanced at campaign T-shirts for sale. He planned to register as a Republican when he got home, Cheng said.”

Thanks to voters like him, Trump won Nevada by a sliver of a margin, at 49.8 percent against Harris’ 48.3 percent. I wonder what Harry Cheng is thinking now, and how he’ll vote on November 3rd.

(Image from Bilyonaryo News Channel)

Qwertyman No. 220: Living with Evil

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, October 19, 2026

A YOUNGER friend messaged me last week to ask for some advice. Would it be wrong, he said, if he left the country in the event that the Dutertes returned to power? He was neither a political figure nor a tycoon, but just an ordinary middle-class citizen engaged in his own small business.

What revolted him was the thought of sharing space with millions of fellow Filipinos who, regardless of the Senate impeachment trials, still want a Duterte in the Palace.

In another era, until a few years ago, I would have told him, “Don’t. Stay here. Persevere. Endure. Fight on.” Instead, I found myself texting him back, “If that’s an option, why not? Might be time to give yourself a break.”

There’ll be many who’ll be unhappy with that reply, but can you really blame someone who believes that a Duterte restoration will be nothing short of a zombie apocalypse, and who’ll want to escape?

Me? I’ll probably take my own advice, stay put, and find a way to survive. (We do have an option—a daughter living in the States who’ll only be too happy to have us over, but who’s the crazy foreigner who wants to live in Trump’s America?)

I’m no Pollyanna, and maybe it’s just the Boomer stubbornness in me, but I haven’t given up on this country yet, despite all the aggravations we have to live with. Living with evil is what it is—the traffic, the pollution, the floods, the poverty, the injustice, they didn’t just happen; they’re part of the architecture of a State fashioned by morally corrupt and greedy people who couldn’t care less about others.

That’s pretty dismal, I know, and even more reason for my friend to flee. Still, there’s an upside to all this: if only because of the floods and traffic et al, our people seem to be waking up to the existential need to fight corruption, practice good governance, and educate our young so they’ll know and do better than we ever did.

Even the DDS comeback that terrifies my friend might not happen, or come apart with time.

I’ve long argued—and I could be whistling in the wind—that the DDS faithful are not a monolithic bloc. Yes, most of them come from Mindanao and the Visayas, but most are also poor, a more universal and distributed trait. (Don’t count the social media trolls and the hired help.) I suspect—or at least I hope—that many might yet be persuaded to reconsider their loyalties, likely less by any Kakampink logic than by their own harsh realization that they have been betrayed and even stolen from by their patrons.

Sadly, whoever wins in 2028, I think it will take at least two more generations for those learnings to take root. Our present principals have to vanish from the scene to refresh our political stock and spirit, which is why educating our youth today—in school or through the Senate hearings—is crucially important.

If the Dutertes prevail, it will be terrible, but the sky will not fall. We will find ways to keep our heads above the floodwaters; most of us will persevere, and some if not many will fight on.

My own best antidote to despair over our political fortunes is to remind myself that we survived martial law. Having said that, I should add that survival often involves some degree of acceptance, creative adaptation, compromise, and even complicity.

Again I recall Nick Joaquin’s observation that a few weeks after the Japanese marched into Manila, things uncannily returned to normal—not that we embraced the invaders, but had found reasons and ways to persist.

I know that the once much-vaunted word “resilience” has become almost pernicious in our appreciation of it today, but it’s no less true for all the beatings it’s taken.

In a poem about the Second World War, W. H. Auden describes this urge to maintain or feign normalcy amid chaos:

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home.

The true danger lies in forgetting the big picture as we fuss over the details of daily routine and struggle. Alexander Solzhenitsyn has this marvelous episode from his novella “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” where his protagonist—a stonemason banished to the Soviet Gulag—is assigned to build a brick wall, a task he performs with great pride and precision, momentarily oblivious to the fact that he is reinforcing his own prison.

Last week’s tributes for and tirades against the late Cesar Virata again brought to fore the issue of complicity in an oppressive regime. He wasn’t alone. There was—and there remains—a small but vigorous resistance to dictatorship, but at least until EDSA, many of us learned to make our bed with Marcos and to lie in it.

Living with evil is a given part of the human condition, and it’s what we do in relation to it that ultimately defines us. There are those who would try to have as little to do with it as possible, and who would demand the same moral consistency of others, but it’s hard to avoid. It’s not some dark entity out there, or even a stranger across the hallway or in the seat next to you; it’s in you, that part of you that thinks killing drug suspects was a good idea.

What may ultimately bring us all together and move this country forward as a whole is the realization and acceptance of the fact that very few of us will come to the table with pure consciences and clean hands. Living with evil leaves stains, but even the stained come with valuable experience and insight.

Sometimes it’s not the obvious enemy, the ones most different from us, who bring the most pain and aggravation, but those closer to us, the ones we agree with on nearly everything—but who disdain and even demonize us for that ten percent we disagree on. Black or white suddenly counts less than shades of red or pink.

As Bertolt Brecht put it in his poem “To Those Born Later”:


Hatred, even of meanness
Contorts the features.
Anger, even against injustice
Makes the voice hoarse. Oh, we
Who wanted to prepare the ground for friendliness
Could not ourselves be friendly.

Evil is more singleminded and less quarrelsome than the good. It is not so easily distracted; it does not forget. It will expand at all costs, seize every advantage, tolerate and even accept tactical differences, take and exploit whatever’s available.

If we can be as adept as evil and pitch as wide a tent, then the good in and among us might yet prevail.

Qwertyman No. 217: The Edjop Effect

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, September 28, 2026

I’LL GET right to the point: my wife Beng and I, along with a younger couple, caught one of the last few screenings of the movie “Edjop”—and we all emerged so moved, albeit in different ways, that we had to spend another hour-plus over coffee just to process what we saw. 

It wasn’t even a matter of “liking” or “not liking” the movie or director Katski Flores’ and scriptwriter Jade Castro’s treatment of the life of the martyred activist Edgar “Edjop” Jopson. Grappling with the broader contours of the story, we were in no mood to quibble over details gotten wrong (and yes, there were a few) or political lines blurred, as many subsequent reviews and critiques seem to have focused on, for their own good reasons.

For Beng and me, the impact was personal, having been activists ourselves who came of age during that tumultuous First Quarter Storm that Edjop—perhaps inadvertently—helped launch. We saw “Edjop” for what it likely set out to be—the story of a young middle-class idealist’s radicalization in an environment of gross injustice, poverty, and oppression. What made it particularly poignant—and this for me represented the film’s true strength, although others may have seen it as a needless diversion—was its framing as a father-daughter story, of a younger generation’s belated understanding and acceptance of their elders’ actions and even excesses. I found it well acted, especially the major roles.

Full disclosure: director Katski had interviewed me, among many others, even while the film project was just getting started, to get my views on Edjop. (She had, of course, other excellent sources, including Bing Pimentel’s books on the man and the period and Joe Cuaresma’s documentary.) I told Katski that I could contribute very little beyond impressions gained from one brief encounter with Edjop.

That encounter happened a few days before January 26, 1970—the date of Ferdinand Marcos’ State of the Nation Address at the old Senate building (now the National Museum), for which the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP), which Edjop headed, was planning a massive protest rally. An organizational meeting for that rally was held somewhere in Quezon City, and for reasons I can no longer remember except possibly that I was already an activist at the Philippine Science High School, I was there, more of a kibitzer than anything.

I had just turned 16 a few days earlier. We had rallied in high school for local demands such as a new and larger building, but January 26 was going to be our first big exposure to national issues, and we took the lead from the NUSP, the so-called “moderates,” being then deeply mistrustful of the radical Left under the Kabataang Makabayan and Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (KM-SDK). I recall that meeting of senior NUSP leaders and their allies, and Edjop in a white shirt or barong. What struck me was his earnestness, his passionate belief in his cause, conveyed in an even voice and manner. 

We joined the January 26 rally, assembling on the grounds of the University of Sto. Tomas, bearing “J26M” armbands. We marched to the Senate where Marcos was speaking. I was too far from the entrance to follow everything, but I could see that the KM-SDK were also there in front, and I would later learn (though this account might yet be corrected) that Edjop had decided to terminate the rally early because things were turning ugly, but then SDK firebrand Gary Olivar, a formidable speaker, grabbed the microphone to agitate the crowd. Marcos emerged, a black cardboard coffin was thrown his way from somewhere, the security forces moved, and a melee ensued. We ran for our lives. The FQS had formally begun. 

We moderates were almost as indignant about the way the Left had hijacked the event as by the State’s brutal response; I stayed out of the January 30-31 protest rally that proved even more violent, but watched on the news as students were teargassed and truncheoned along Mendiola and Malacañang. I dreaded what lay ahead; I was due to graduate from high school that year. It should have been a time of hope, but I knew only that something was terribly wrong, that the future was going to be harsh, and that I was as confused as anyone about what to do and whom to follow.

As it turned out, history carried a very wry sense of irony—even humor, were the setting not so tragic.

Within that year, I entered UP and almost immediately joined the Nationalist Corps, the Philippine Collegian, and the Alpha Sigma fraternity. The Nationalist Corps became my entry point to the SDK, and now I saw the “clerico-fascist” moderates to be sorely misguided and wanting in revolutionary fervor. In Alpha Sigma, one of my fraternity brothers was none other than the Gary Olivar we blamed for the J26M fiasco; in the Collegian, our editor was another frat brod, Tony Tagamolila. 

As the decade moved on, I would be arrested and imprisoned, and upon my release, I would take on a writing job I needed—with the government. Tony Tagamolila would die in an encounter with the military in Panay. Gary Olivar would move to the US and study at Harvard (and much, much later would become PGMA’s spokesman).

Little did I know that Edjop himself had become radicalized and was performing far more dangerous tasks in Mindanao than most of us ever did even in Manila. His death fell like a rebuke to those who had doubted him. Meanwhile, I had resigned from my NEDA job to go back to UP to study and to teach, and by the time the Ninoy assassination and EDSA happened, I had become convinced—as I still am—that the middle road remains the most viable if not the only one forward. It seems that I’ve returned to Edjop’s NUSP. 

I don’t know what Edjop himself would think of our situation now, of another Marcos in Malacañang trying to face down a possibly even more vicious alternative, of a CPP fractured by internecine warfare, of a people too easily swayed by rumor and shadow. If the effect of Edjop—the movie and the man—is to make us think of where we ourselves stand today, then the effort of making this film will well have been worth it.

Penman No. 489: Grateful and Graceful

Posted on by
Reply

Penman for Sunday, September 20, 2026

IT ISN’T every day that a certified celebrity comes up to shake your hand and to introduce herself to you as your fan—especially when it’s really the other way around. Here’s someone you’ve admired from a distance all your life, maybe even had a schoolboy crush on, and now here she is, taking your hands in hers like an old friend.

This happened last week at the Manila International Book Fair at SMX, where I was signing books for Anvil Publishing among others, and the surprise visitor to my table was none other than Boots Anson-Roa (now Rodrigo)—the actress, radio-TV host, humanitarian, and public servant—who, as it turned out, was also an Anvil author and who was also signing her newly minted biography titled Grateful, co-authored by Jennie Leuterio Ilustre.

Intrigued, I secured a copy of the book, and soon found myself drawn into the engaging story of a life well-lived, despite the inevitable dips and turns that come with surviving so many tumultuous decades. I recalled my own unpublished biography of another great Filipino actress, the late Rosa Rosal, whose vampish roles tended to be the complete opposite of Boots’ motherly persona, and whose real-life drama outclassed anything she portrayed onscreen—two very different images, and yet two women bonded by the same deeply held traditional values and by their devotion to family and public service.

Maria Elisa Cristobal Anson was born on January 30, 1945 ,just days before the Battle of Manila began, to Oscar Anson (later the actor Oscar Moreno, the “Robert Taylor of the Philippines) and Belen Cristobal, a pharmacy board topnotcher and chemistry teacher, who met and fell in love amidst the turmoil. Belen became pregnant, and the book reveals that it was only at age 53 that Boots discovered that the couple had considered terminating the pregnancy because of the harshness of the times; instead they decided to marry, making Boots possible. (The “Boots” comes from “Bebot” then “Bot.”) 

The young Boots tagged along with her father to his shoots, so pretty that Sampaguita boss “Doc” Perez predicted she would become a star, but she was more interested in watching movies than being in them. She did join theater at the University of the Philippines where she studied English, speech, and drama and served as a corps sponsor, but it was a hosting gig at TV 5’s popular Dance-O-Rama—a slot she twice refused—that finally landed her onscreen.

That choice proved life-changing in another, even more significant way, because this is where the “Roa” in her name comes in, care of Pete Roa, her Dance-O-Rama co-host and reputed ladies’ man, who courted her with flowers plucked from the show’s bouquets and asked her out to post-show dinners “to critique her performance.” The tactics worked. Boots fell for Pete, the two decided to get married, the parents on both sides naturally threw a fit, leaving elopement the only way out. The two snuck out of their show after a commercial break, and managed to get then QC Mayor Norberto Amoranto to marry them on June 5, 1964, followed by a hasty church wedding that same afternoon.

So began a highly visible and celebrated marriage of 43 years that produced four children—Leah, Joey, Chiqui, and Ben. The “Roa” would stick to “Boots Anson” so permanently that even after her second wedding to King Rodrigo in 2014, King would urge her to keep it, to honor that bond. 

The Boots Anson-Roa we know comes mostly from her movies—over a hundred of them—and her TV hostings. Her first movie came in 1968, when she was already a wife and mother of two, then highly unusual—indeed unheard of—for a leading lady. It was her role as the governess Carla in Lino Brocka’s landmark 1970 tearjerker Wanted: Perfect Mother that remains embedded in my memory, as in many others’—caring, loving, but also proper and self-sacrificing, an image that probably prompted her daughter Chiqui to call Boots “the quintessential Mama Mary.” Boots received a FAMAS Best Actress nomination for that performance, and she would go on to major roles in such movies as Tatay Na si Erap (named Best Actress along with Vilma Santos), May Minamahal, Mano Po, Blue Moon, Caregiver, and One True Love.

But from her elopement story onwards, Boots would be the first to upend her “Goody Two-Shoes” projection. “I’m not a saint,” she insists—just level-headed, fair, and thoroughly professional, the kind of performer who always shows up on time, delivers, then goes home to family. The book also chronicles her many other roles and jobs, which we know or remember little of: her work with the US Embassy in Washington in the 1980s, with the Population Commission in the 1970s, with the UP-PGH Medical Foundation, with the Philippine Red Cross, and up to now with Mowelfund. She also taught Communication Arts subjects in UP, Ateneo, and La Salle, wrote newspaper columns, and handled radio programs. Always more than a sweet face, she brought substance to the job.

Pete’s passing in 2007 is a poignant highlight. Hit by a stroke in 1997, Pete soldiered on for another decade (I recall being a few beds away from him for physical therapy in the early 2000s at Capitol Med). He later acquired incurable cancer, and facing the inevitable, the family prayed for a peaceful passing, which happened on August 9, 2007, with Boots at his side. Pete had requested a concert instead of a solemn wake, so the industry gathered to pay him tribute. “It was late into the night,” Boots recalls. “All sympathizers and revelers had left what was originally meant to be a quiet chapel. The music was silenced; the animated conversations were stilled; and the laughter was muted. In a rare moment alone with Pete, I did a ‘curtain call’ for his performers. Now allowing that tear to drop, I bid Pete good night until the next morning for his burial. I gleaned a peaceful countenance. I was confident we made him happy. I was glad that, in his repose, he applauded his friends’ command performances. But, tongue-in-cheek, I begged him to spare me his own standing ovation.”

But the book ends with the happy note on which it begins, with Boots’ second marriage to lawyer Francisco “King” Rodrigo Jr., an old family friend and also a widower. For both, it was love the second time around. 

Indeed Boots Anson-Roa has much to be grateful for, as her book title suggests. But “graceful,” which she would never immodestly use for herself, seems just as apt for this woman who has led such a long and distinguished life with dignity, verve, and faith. Pleased and honored to shake your hand, and to wish you and King well for the rest of our earthly time!

Email me at jose@dalisay.ph and visit my blog at http://www.penmanila.ph.

Qwertyman No. 215: Crimes and Punishments

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, September 14, 2026

BACK IN the early ‘90s, I wrote an essay titled “Killing Time in Little Earth,“ in which I noted that “In the Philippines, we have crimes and punishments aplenty, but they have very little to do with each other.” I don’t think much has changed in thirty years, as recent events amply demonstrate.

For example, what it is about impending imprisonment that makes corrupt but otherwise bouncy politicians and officials suddenly acquire some debilitating disease that obligates their solitary confinement not in prison but in some swanky hospital suite?

Our prisons are bursting with inmates afflicted by tuberculosis, gastroenteritis, hepatitis, HIV, and host of other crippling ailments. But none of these inmates get the executive suite, and not everyone gets the treatment they need, if only because our jails are almost 300% congested, according to the BJMP’s own figures. Even if prison hospitals exist, they simply can’t keep up with the cases coming in; they’re swamped, and whoever they can’t serve go back into their overcrowded cells, carrying all kinds of communicable diseases. 

We’ve seen this happen so often here that it might as well be part of the official script: “Public officials above Salary Grade 30 charged with plunder will be subjected to a mandatory initial period of hospital confinement for a minimum of three months and to last no longer than the prescribed punitive period for their offense, during which extensive medical procedures will be undertaken to ensure the patient’s good health and fitness for prospective incarceration. Quality and substantial nutrition shall be provided, along with adequate recreational facilities for the patient’s physical and mental well-being. All this shall be at the state’s expense.”

These country-club habitues and their blue-chip physicians have been known to spin tall tales about how they suddenly acquired hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, respiratory ailments, and degenerative disc disease, to name the most popular diagnoses.

But to be fair, this epidemic of hospitalitis has been a global phenomenon. The Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, arrested in Britain, escaped repatriation and certain imprisonment for six years by reportedly feigning mental incapacity. He was later returned to Chile and charged with many crimes, but ultimately escaped judgment by dying before he could be convicted. Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, convicted of corruption, spent half of his one-year sentence in a Bangkok hospital before being kicked out by their Supreme Court for malingering. He would get in and out of jail more times since then. So politicians and despots find clever ways of replacing steel bars with green curtains, and justice often has to wait in the hallway while they take their time to recover.

Speaking of tall tales…. All this reminds me when, as an aspiring academic seeking relief from Manila’s infernal heat and university politics, I once found myself in a northern hillside village populated mostly by decrepit seniors. A young man there was causing mayhem with all kinds of vile rumors and fiendish schemes, gleefully hurting his elders without compunction for the sheer delight of watching them suffer, as if he hated what he was fated to become. How could someone so juvenile be so evil? 

A community council was called, to which I was invited as an honored guest. I would have been happy to observe the proceedings from a corner, but they sat me in a tall chair beside the village chief and handed me a bamboo cup filled with potent bugnay wine.

It was suggested, only half in jest, that this pest be disposed of as efficiently as possible, such as by driving a stake between his shoulder blades when he was squatting by the river to pollute the flow downstream. 

A heavily tattooed councilwoman less inclined to brute violence proposed instead that they approach the village shaman to lay a curse on the fellow, so that he would retch uncontrollably every time he did so much as utter a mean word, and grow pus-filled blisters between his legs whenever he mentioned the name of a specific villager who seemed to be the prime object of his mischief.

But then the chief turned to me, as the visiting writer and professor from the city, to ask me for my erudite opinion. Surprised but pleased to be consulted, and emboldened by the bugnay, I got up from my chair, thought hard, put on my sagest and most benign countenance, and drew on my command of fiction to offer counsel:

“O most noble chief, tell him this—you are cursed by the power of Fata Morgana! Fa-Tah Mor-gan-ah! Then turn your back on him—like this!—and leave him be to wonder what the curse entails. I trust life’s natural trajectory to bring him down to a deep dark valley where he will feel as much pain and misery as he is causing now. It happens to everyone. But for most of you here, having lived this long, that moment is surely behind you. For him, the worst yet to come, and he will not even know from where it will descend or arise. He will live the rest of his life in constant dread and anticipation of heaven’s inevitable retribution in some frightful form.”

I had to leave right after that to catch a bus to get to a beach resort in La Union before the sun set, pleased that I had contributed some paltry but precious wisdom to the community. The curse I conjured charmed me; I admired the uncertainty of the specifics against the certitude of the outcome.

But I later learned, in a long text message from the comely barangay nurse whom I had befriended in my first hour there, that the council had pondered my advice for about two minutes, and then, when my bus turned the corner toward the national highway, had deputized someone to whack the fellow over the head with a shovel hard enough to make him a slobbering fool forever. 

He injured no one after that, and the villager he had most maligned was kind enough to daily feed him leftovers from the pig trough with a hard wooden spoon, followed by a cool gulp of soapy dishwater, so he must have lived a reasonably long life. I never knew if he reached that low valley I predicted, but I think the plains were punishment enough.

Qwertyman No. 214: Achieved, But Not Aspired For

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, September 7, 2026

WITH THE announcement last week of its three new laureates for 2026, the Ramon Magsaysay Awards Foundation (RMAF) once again drew attention to that transcendent quality so sorely lacking in our public life today: “greatness of spirit,” the standard by which RM awardees are measured—a greatness achieved, but not aspired for.

This year’s awardees exemplify that spirit abundantly.

Twice imprisoned by Burma’s military junta for his work in the resistance, Bo Kyi fled to Thailand after his second release in 1998. But rather than simply fend for himself or seek a new life away from politics, Bo Kyi met with his fellow refugees and organized the the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP), on the founding principle that “As long as political prisoners exist inside Burma, Burma will not be free.”  

The AAPP documents these prisoners—it’s estimated that since 2021 when the military regained power in a coup after a brief civilian interlude, the junta has arrested over 30,000 people, releasing only half of them. As many as 100,000 may have been killed.

It is against these atrocities that Bo Kyi and the AAPP are crying out and mobilizing, providing support to the prisoners and their families, and raising the situation in Myanmar to global attention, knowing that the Burmese people are hardly alone in their plight. Honoring him, the RMAF board of trustees said that “His enduring commitment reflects extraordinary moral courage, personal sacrifice, and an unwavering belief that democracy and human dignity are always worth defending—and that even in the face of oppression, the truth must be told, justice must be pursued, and the freedom to believe must be upheld and defended at all costs.”

The second awardee could not have been more different from Bo Kyi in her circumstances. Born to a family of privilege in Bangladesh, Runa Khan (not to be confused with the movie star of the same name) could have remained in what she calls a “glass bubble”—but instead she chose to immerse herself in the lives of Bangladesh’s poorest and most vulnerable communities, the dwellers of the char.

In Bangladesh, chars are essentially temporary islands or sandbars formed by deposits at the delta of the country’s three great rivers—the Ganges, the Brahmaputra, and the Meghna. While these rivers give the country life, they also, along with the sea, bring terrible floods and disasters. Thus, literally and figuratively, the char people live on shifting sand, ever subject to the vagaries of the weather and climate change, and largely neglected by everyone else.

Runa stepped in to help meet their needs—first, with a hospital ship in 2002. But realizing the challenge was far too great to be met alone, she organized an NGO named Friendship Bangladesh to bring social services, education, and employment to the char, and thereby also dignity and hope to its people. The RMAF trustees noted that “In her hands, privilege became not an entitlement, but a responsibility; not a family legacy to protect, but a gift to be shared.”

The third honoree comes from a small Southeast Asian country now associated with wealth and influence, but when Tommy Koh was born in 1937, it was far from that, a colonial backwater with no mind or destiny of its own. Over his lifetime, Tommy would see all of that change—and be part of the change himself, articulating Singapore’s voice and vision at the United Nations as its youngest ambassador at 29.

That exposure would lead to larger and more significant contributions for Koh in international affairs—most especially in what we now know as the Law of the Sea, which he helped to nurse within the UN from a negotiating committee he chaired in 1978 to its adoption as a UN convention in 1982. This law is what maritime countries such as the Philippines are now holding on to in their definition and defense of their territorial waters, especially against the encroachments of larger and more powerful nations.

But beyond diplomacy, Tommy Koh has made sure that a new generation of Singaporeans could take over from where he and his peers have left off, through legal education and through his many advocacies, which include the rights of the disabled and even animal welfare. The Magsaysay trustees observed that “Through his steadfast faith in dialogue, the rule of law, and international cooperation, he has helped make peaceful coexistence possible in a world of unequal power.”

There are good reasons why the Ramon Magsaysay Awards—unlike even the Nobel Prize to which it is often compared—studiously avoid serving politicians when it considers possible laureates. Foremost, I would surmise, is that politicians are elected and paid to serve, so that whatever great social good they do was exactly what they promised and signed up for, and doesn’t need to be rewarded. 

It’s a sign of the times that as soon as I say this, some worthy Filipino politicians leap to mind, basically because they are exceptionally honest, hardworking, intelligent, and selfless—qualities which, come to think of it, should be par for the course, but now so rare that we feel blessed to find even just a few still standing upright in a pit full of reptiles and roaches. So shamelessly hungry for recognition are these lower creatures that they plaster their names and faces on billboards for projects they probably stole from, and yet so dense and dislocated that they would wear designer outfits to flood-relief sorties. 

Measure that against the Magsaysay awardees—and yes, Ramon Magsaysay himself—and understand why we Filipinos continue to be hounded by injustice, poverty, and despair (not to mention flash floods). If there’s a Pinoy out there with the greatness of spirit to keep our poorest safe, dry, and amply fed in this season of storms, he or she would be my next nominee for the Magsaysay, with possible sainthood to follow.

(Photo from news9live.com)

Penman No. 213: The Age of Flex

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, August 31, 2026

“FLEX” IS a word I began hearing a few years ago from millennial and Gen Z speakers, and it quickly became clear to me that it had acquired a new meaning beyond the way we oldies had always understood it, i.e., in the sense of flexing your muscles so they stand out. Not all that different, really, but more deliberate and more intense: to flaunt, to show off, to rub your goodies in someone’s face. (As it turns out, upon further study. “flexing” this way was already part of gangster rap at least thirty years ago, and as many counterculture words do, slid into the mainstream.)

Whatever, we Filipinos seem to have embraced flexing with a passion, equating it with Pinoy pride in all its exuberant if not extravagant manifestations, from Eala-mania and the next Miss Universe to Michelin-worthy adobo and the Filipino gene in this and that Hollywood star.

That’s all well and good, as Lord knows we need something to cheer and crow about, with all the political and economic depressants we’ve been imbibing. 

Every time I hear the Hon. Robinhood Padilla saying something—anything—I become more convinced that AI will prevail and rule the world, and we may even welcome it, if Robin’s brain—and those of the millions who put him where he is—were to be the standard for human intelligence, as some visiting Martian might surmise. (But wait: isn’t “artificial intelligence” in fact what the good senator possesses in spades?)

I’m sure Sen. Padilla feels he’s flexing something—his wit, his confidence, his irresistible appeal?—when he strides up to that podium sporting that “I know you think I’m dumb, but I’m going to outsmart you” grin. If his charm seems to be lost on doubters like us, that means nothing, because he’s not performing for us but for his faithful, whose adulation for their hero is merely amplified by every brickbat thrown his way. He may, for all we know, even be a lot smarter than we think, may be quietly reading up on algorithms and Habermas over coffee in some Jollibee before sneaking into the Senate to put on his bumpkin act. He’s flexing his acting, his ability to enthrall his audience with his pilosopo character, who pretends to look and sound stupid while nursing some deep-seated truth that every Juan and Juana grasps except all those JDs and professors of Law.

This past month brought some other, far less subtle examples of Pinoy flex. 

At his confirmation hearing, Air Force reservist Brig. Gen. Mikee Romero’s “fruit salad” made an active general’s shirtfront look like plain buko pandan, setting off a storm of outrage and wonderment over how a sitting politician could amass such miraculous medals in much shorter time than it took a serving soldier to dodge a bullet and leap into a foxhole. “I never asked for them,” he declared in self-defense while abruptly announcing his retirement, for which candor I daresay he deserves another Congressional Medal of Candor, at least for confirming how the system works: I get you your choppers, you give me a chestful of chopped oranges and pineapples.

But who needs wearable baubles when you can actually drive one? Businessman AJ Violago must have thought the world was his oyster (or Boxster—or Spyder) when he got the keys from his friend the actor Derek Ramsay to go zoom-zoom in a pricey Porsche and, while he was at it, tack on custom license plates with his initials to show who was Spyder-Man. Unfortunately the caper backfired, revealing not only AJV’s folly but someone’s forgetfulness as well in the amount of PXX million in unpaid customs duties. The 918 has been impounded and will be auctioned off to recover that money, so Derek and his friend can at least take comfort in having indirectly contributed to mitigating the Philippines’ P7.2-trillion budget for 2027. 

And since we Pinoys love prizes and recognition so much, let’s give the 2026 GMA “I Am Sorry” Award (in honor of the former President, for exemplary albeit dubious acts of contrition) to Dimasalang National High School Principal Randy Emmanuel Bulanon, who gleefully attacked Atty. Jesus Falcis, Rep. Percy Cendaña, and Rep. Chel Diokno for everything from their sexuality to their buck teeth. After the inevitable backlash—including the threat of legal and administrative charges and possible dismissal from the service—Bulanon took down the posts and released a lengthy apology, wishing that he had “exercised greater prudence, restraint, and discernment… especially considering my responsibilities as a school principal.” 

I want to show these messages—Bulanon’s original posts, and the letter of apology—to my students in Professional Writing, to ask them which they thought were more personal and sincere and therefore believable, and which may have been AI-generated. It may not matter in the legal sphere where this now all seems headed, but it’s interesting to see where the truth recedes and what takes over when survival’s at stake. (When I look at the “letter of support” circulating on Bulanon’s behalf trumpeting his achievements as an educator, all my AI flags go up, from language to structure.)

Runner-up honors go to Danao City teacher Zenith Enriquez who threatened to shoot presidential spokesperson Claire Castro in the mouth. When netizens recoiled—and Castro threatened to sue—Enriquez said sorry and pleaded for the bashing to stop, because her children were now bearing the brunt of the backlash. Now, I don’t care if you’re DDS, pro-BBM, or as pink as a baby’s butt; but maybe next time, you should keep your lips zipped and look at your kids first before you make that stupid post, because the comeback could be far worse than more words thrown your way.

Confucius could have flexed about all the government positions he held and the rulers into whose ears he whispered. Instead he wrote sobering lines like “The superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions.” And that’s why we remember him more than all those emperors in their fancy tombs.

Qwertyman No. 212: Better than AI

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, August 24, 2026

MY RECENT column about my plans to harness AI in my Professional Writing class at the University of the Philippines provoked so many inquiries and reactions that I thought I’d share more of my ruminations, preparatory to a lecture on AI and writing that I’m scheduled to give at a conference in November. Feel free to disagree with and to interpellate me—some statements I’ll be making here might sound contradictory or even outrageous to some good people out there—so I can refine my arguments further. 

I’ll begin with the observation that the eminently practical Singaporeans have a strategic plan for promoting AI literacy toward what it calls “AI bilingualism,” i.e. domain expertise plus AI fluency. They don’t think AI should be taught as a separate course but embedded into what people are already doing. Citizens above 25 can avail themselves of free six-month subscriptions to AI apps. Singapore also hosts data centers under very strict conditions.

Can and should we go Singapore’s way? We’re still embroiled in the question over whether to allow a big data center like Pax Silica in—and rightly so. There are many key technical and ethical issues to sort out having to do with resource demands, legal frameworks, and people’s rights. 

That said, the realist in me expects that AI will be here to stay, whether we host it or not, like it or not, and there have audibly been many of those “nots” lately, in both public forums and social media. 

I can understand and respect this resistance. As an education professor studying AI reminds us, skepticism isn’t ignorance. It isn’t just technophobia; adopting AI isn’t as simple as getting used to a VCR, a cellphone, or even the Internet. Rejecting AI doesn’t mean you’re a Luddite, or you don’t understand algorithms, LLMs, and whatever it is they’re gushing about as though the heavens had parted and God’s open palms came out of the clouds showing “A” and “I.” I can see why even tech-savvy writers and artists will refuse to use it in their work on principle.

I myself use Claude in my nonfiction mainly to organize material, but beyond Google, I certainly won’t employ it in my fiction, precisely because I’m doing my best to avoid being predictable, which AI is in a sense all about.

(Am I not horrified by that image of Anthropic’s machine chopping up and digesting books for AI’s training? As an author and antiquarian book collector, of course I am. Will my outrage move the needle? Not by one degree; the harvest will continue, and its output will be so homogenized that we’ll be using it without knowing it. I think the original travesty, if you will, happened when those billions of trees were pulped and fed to the paper mills and printing presses so we could publish our precious books—but of course we don’t think of it that way.)

That doesn’t mean that in the future, writers and artists of unimpeachable integrity can’t or won’t find ways of integrating it organically into their work. It’s scary to contemplate, but AI will mutate to a point of familiarity and trustworthiness that it will be near impossible to deny or to ignore. Taking a page from physics, the controversial but eerily prescient futurist Raymond Kurzweil has anticipated a crucial juncture called “the Singularity,” when human and artificial will merge, likely through nanotechnology, and even boldly gives a date when that will happen: 2045. I’ll be long dead by then, so I’m not even going to worry about its implications.

But I will predict that in the lead-up to that point, at least in publishing, three streams will emerge. At the top tier will be 100% human-written books, which will come at a premium though not necessarily sell better (as it is, right now, many if not most such books don’t sell, anyway). In the middle will be hybrid human/AI work—the new and intriguing frontier we have yet to explore, which will be initially met with distrust if not disdain, but will come into its own. At the bottom rung will be 100% AI-generated work, especially popular fiction, produced by skilled prompters working for publishers who will be paying them no royalties. 

As I’ve often asserted, the notion that “human is always better” simply isn’t true. To begin with, the world is full of brutish, stupid, and even murderous people for whom the word “humanity” seems purely a biological description; granted, some such ogres become great artists, but the world is also full of kind, smart, and pleasant people who can’t write or draw for the life of them. 

In other words, the bar is so low that AI doesn’t have to do very much to surpass human capabilities. It can’t out-write Shakespeare or maybe even the class genius, but it surely can compose a better business letter than most ordinary people—who will be AI’s real base, not academics or creatives wringing their hands over whether and how to incorporate AI into their work. AI mainly empowers the inarticulate; the genuinely good will likely eschew it, or limit its use to the most rudimentary tasks like formatting.

AI cannot be the truth-seeker. It can’t even be the standard against which we rate our students’ or employees’ performance. AI doesn’t work 12-hour shifts or struggle to pay the rent or commute in heavy rain. AI doesn’t cost overhead, leaves, benefits, and profit sharing; it’s never absent, and doesn’t talk back, indulge in water-cooler gossip, or comment snarkily on your OOTD (at least not yet). In fact, it doesn’t cost a thing beyond a basic subscription, easily recovered from the savings on paychecks. Sure, it doesn’t have “soul” or that “uniquely human touch” that poets and painters love to wax romantic about—but honestly, did you get those the last time you called Customer Service and demanded to talk to a real live person? How many people truly manifest “soul” and a “uniquely human touch”? 

Studies have already shown that AI will consistently outperform people in certain specific tasks. What we need to find is what we can consistently do better than AI. The key question I’d like my students to ask themselves is, “Why should they hire me, and not AI?” 

Better than just resignation, my current position is one of critical acceptance: use it where it helps save time and effort with routine processes (but make sure students understand those processes first), and with organizing material following some supervening human design. 

As soon as I say that. I know I’m idly hoping that people will resist having AI do their “thinking” for them, and will treat AI as a mere assistant or executor. In many cases, the temptation to have AI do everything will simply be too great. But this is where the most important element of human agency comes in: not even in the design of the project itself, but in the decision if and how to use AI for best results. If you can write better than AI, that might be the best result yet.

(Image from itexperts.co.in)

Qwertyman No. 211: Saving the Newborn

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, August 17, 2026

GIVEN ALL the political, economic, and even meteorological turmoil we’ve recently been going through, I thought I’d write about something undeniably and visibly positive this week, if only to remind us that good things are possible if the “whole of government”—including even our fractious Senate—puts its mind to it. 

Full disclosure: I’ve been editing a book on, of all things, the Philippine Newborn Screening (NBS) program, and I’ve been so impressed by what I’ve come across that I requested and secured permission from its author, Dr. Carmencita D. Padilla, to share some highlights of that program. Dr. Menchit, as we call her, is no ordinary physician; a clinical geneticist and pediatrician, former chancellor of UP Manila and a key figure behind its National Institutes of Health, she was named National Scientist in 2023 for her contributions to medicine.

Back in 1990, Menchit had just returned from a fellowship in Sydney, brimming with enthusiasm about NBS, which had already been adopted and routinely practiced in Australia. 

What NBS addresses is this: babies can be born with any of almost 30 conditions inimical to their health, including congenital hypothyroidism (mental retardation and growth delay, with IQ loss possible as early as the second week of life), congenital adrenal hyperplasia (salt-wasting crisis, shock, death by the end of the first week), PKU, and galactosemia. 

A newborn with any of these conditions looks perfectly well: doctors and mothers will see no rash, no fever, no warning. Looking healthy, the baby will go home, with the disorder hidden for months, or even years, until the symptoms appear—by which time, it could be too late to reverse the damage. Ironically, if the problems are spotted early, there are treatments available, often as simple and as cheap as a modified milk formula for phenylketonuria (PKU), which causes irreversible intellectual disability if left alone.

So early screening of all newborns is key. The process itself is fairly straightforward: “puncturing the heel of a newborn, absorbing a few drops of blood onto a special filter paper card, and transporting the specimen to a specialized laboratory for testing.” These cards could be easily mailed to a central laboratory. In the early 1960s, an American microbiologist named Dr. Robert Guthrie—whose own son and niece suffered from developmental problems—created a test to scan blood samples for indicators of anomalies and proposed this solution. But the medical and scientific communities shunned him, until sufficient publicity forced them to see he was right.

It would take more than 30 years for NBS to reach the Philippines, largely through the efforts of Dr. Carmelita Fagela-Domingo, who had seen NBS working in the West and tried her best to persuade the Philippine health bureaucracy to adopt it, and Dr. Padilla, who finally succeeded where Dr. Domingo had initially failed.

What worked for Menchit Padilla was the support of people like Dr. Domingo herself and UP College of Medicine Dean Alfredo Ramirez, and subsequently other allies in both executive and legislative branches beyond academia. Together, the two women pushed for a comprehensive pilot study that could form the basis for official government policy. Padilla also met Dr. Guthrie, who encouraged her to persevere in the effort.

Twenty-four Philippine hospitals took part in the study as members of the NBS Study Group. Private donors contributed computers, video cameras, fax machines, and pagers. A Finnish company donated a refurbished NBS machine. By 1997 the program was well underway. What was needed now was for the DOH to take over for the program’s full implementation nationwide. By 2000, there were still less than 200 hospitals out of 3,000 birthing hospitals participating in the program.

What was needed was an enabling law. This is the part of the story that I find most instructive, given our current Senate, and which I urged Dr. Menchit to include in her book (which she did, despite her initial misgivings). 

Because they couldn’t afford a lobby group, Menchit took it upon herself to draft the bill—after enrolling for a Master of Arts in Health Policy Studies degree at UP Manila. (I wonder how many of our lawmakers would go that far to get things done right—but then of course they have millions to spend on staff.)

Versions of the bill were filed at the House and Senate early in 2003, but by mid-year, hearings had yet to begin. To get the bill certified as urgent, its proponents had to get the support of Sen. Juan Flavier, who warned them that it would likely take ten years to get the bill passed. Desperate, Padilla turned to Sen. Loren Legarda, who was still hosting a talk show; between breaks, Menchit filled her in and persuaded Loren to start hearings on the bill and to file her own version, which she did on August 1. I’ll leave the rest to Dr. Padilla’s recollection:

“With barely three days until the end of the 12th Congress, we were advised to lodge an appeal for an ‘urgent bill’ with the House Presidential Legislative Liaison Officer, Undersecretary Bernardino Sayo. 

“It was a Wednesday, 5 pm. We went to his office at the House of Representatives. After listening to our desperate appeal, which was supported with albums full of pictures of saved and not-saved babies, Undersecretary Sayo agreed to arrange for a certification of an ‘urgent bill’ to be signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo the following day Thursday at 10 am. We were advised to return to the House of Representatives the following day for the second reading at 4 pm, the last day of the session at the House. With the bill now certified as urgent, our schedule for a second reading was bumped up. House Majority Floor Leader Neptali Gonzales, fortunately for us, helped the bill pass the second reading in the midst of calls for adjournment from the floor. 

“Garnering a unanimous affirmative vote, the bill moved to the required final third reading the following day, Friday, the last day of the 12th Congress. I received a phone call at 6:30pm from the Chief of Staff of Senator Flavier, Mon Navarra. He said ‘The NBS bill was passed into law! We were able to do it in 10 months—not 10 years!’ And since the House had adopted the Senate version in its earlier deliberations, there was no need for a bicameral session. We just had to wait for the signature of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, which happened on April 7, 2004.”

The NBS bill, RA 9288, had itself become something of a miracle baby, giving hope to millions of newborns and the yet-unborn. Today well over 90 percent of Filipino newborns are covered by NBS, with a 100% rate targeted by 2028. Would that our government were so singularly and charitably minded in our other national priorities, especially for those already long born! 

(Top image from miraclefeet.org)

Qwertyman No. 210: A Grand Experiment with AI

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, August 10, 2026

TOMORROW, TUESDAY morning, will be the first day of the class I’m teaching this semester at the University of the Philippines in Diliman. I retired seven years ago, but as professor emeritus have availed myself of the option to keep teaching at least one course. I don’t have to, and sometime soon I might stop and take a proper rest, but I think it’s good for both my young students and myself to keep up what amounts to an intergenerational dialogue. 

Even in UP, too many courses are being taught by instructors just a few years older than the class. That’s good for communication and relatability of thought and treatment, and sure, the alternative of being lectured by your grandfather isn’t exactly thrilling. But I feel that now, more than ever, we need to bridge what the 1960s called the “generation gap” to make mutual sense of the world we’re living in, which is probably just as perplexing for me as for them. 

I usually teach at the graduate level, but for the first time in years (if not the last), I’ll be handling an undergraduate class, at my department’s request. It’s a course for seniors called Creative Writing 198: Special Topics (Professional Writing), which I myself designed and first taught over twenty years ago. It’s aimed at providing English, literature, and CW majors with the practical writing skills they hardly learn in school. They may know their Shakespeare and Salinger, their Defoe and Derrida, their Virginia Woolf and Virginia Moreno—but they can’t write an application letter, a news report, a feature story, a brochure, a speech, an AV script, or do a proper interview. 

In other words, they can’t write for a living, which is what the big, bad “real world” beyond graduation expects them to do. They get all starry-eyed about writing that great sci-fi or romance novel that will bring them international fame—and yes, who’s to say it won’t ever happen—but they’ll quickly realize that you need a day job to pay for all the instant noodles and pizza (not to mention the studio, the wi-fi, and the commutes) that dreams are made on. So—drawing on all my years as a self-styled “Swiss Army Knife” of writing—I designed CW 198, from which at least two generations of students have now emerged. I’m happy that many still write me back to say that it was one of the most useful courses they ever took. (To those who can’t study with me, you can take a look at my book, Windows on Writing, published by Vibal Press.)

I’m writing this not to advertise the course, which should be fully subscribed by now, but to share the anxieties and apprehensions that many teachers—from full professors down to the greenest instructor—are facing: how to teach writing in the age of AI. The last time I taught CW 198, AI was still something of a joke; I’d ask it to write something in the style of Nick Joaquin and it would throw up laughably pseudo-romantic garbage. 

I do recall, however, saying even then that AI was bound to catch up in time. That time has come, and we’re no longer laughing. The uncanny and frankly scary speed and precision with which AI has learned to mimic human writing—yes, your writing, if you feed it with enough examples—tell us that human thinking can’t be too difficult to approximate if not exceed. (Here, bring in your favorite senator, and you’ll see how low the bar is set. And it’s hard to accuse AI of being “soulless” when so many people and their productions are exactly that.) 

Not surprisingly, AI in education has been met with fear and suspicion, if not outright hostility. There have been reports of professors retiring early to escape the aggravation of having to chase after AI-assisted cheaters, and of having to sort out the natural from the artificial. All over the world, and all over academia, there have been movements against AI, or at least against its abuse and misuse—an aversion extended to all digital media. 

Sweden leads the world in moving back from digital screens to paper in its basic education; phone bans in school are now in effect in Denmark, Finland, France, and Italy, among others, as part of this “analog revival” to improve reading skills. Following such models as the University of Chicago Law School, the UP College of Law will now forbid law freshmen from bringing and using their digital devices in class, to encourage critical thinking.

I agree with these moves, especially at the foundational levels of education. At the same time, let me state what I think clearly: we reject or ignore AI at our own peril. It’s not going away, it will keep getting smarter, and our young people will be using it ten years from now with neither guilt nor shame, making precise prompts with natural fluency. I’m not saying that all the ethical questions will have been swept aside by then, but the major technical challenges (yes, with ethical dimensions) like AI’s enormous water and power requirements should have been resolved, likely with AI’s own help. 

That said, what am I going to do with my CW 198 class? I’ve decided that instead of banning it outright (which I suspect will be futile in any case) we’ll use AI—to see what it does and what we can do differently or better. I’ll have them do in-class writing to establish benchmarks, and then we’ll ask AI to come up with its own version. What AI says won’t be the standard by which papers will be scored, although it might be superior in some mechanical ways like grammar and spelling. We’ll see how AI shapes its arguments, against how we might approach the topic and present examples. We’ll put a premium on original thinking, on expressing individuality, focusing not so much on “getting it right” as on “making it mine.” 

I frankly don’t know how this will all work out, but at 72, I’ll be taking a privileged peek over the horizon, embarking on a grand experiment in the spirit of that poem recently recalled by “The Odyssey”: to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

(image from noveltymediaworld.com)