Mainstream media and IBON Foundation

Why Does Mainstream Media Always Choose IBON Foundation on Economic Matters?

If you've been tracking Philippine news for years, you might have observed this ongoing trend: when the economy is in the headlines—whether GDP growth, inflation, or poverty—IBON Foundation is usually quoted or featured. 

From Wikipedia

For others, though, this ubiquitous visibility brings more than curiosity—particularly because news articles and government security reports have characterized IBON Foundation as an "above-ground" arm of the CPP–NPA, the communist rebel organization that has been active in the Philippines.

Mainstream Media's Go-To "Economic Expert"

And in fairness, there is a pragmatic reason why IBON is seen everywhere. Journalists have them on speed dial because:

• They have instant press releases with information and graphs.
• They present tough, quotable opposition to official government views.
• They have a long history as an outsider's think tank promoting labor rights, equality of income, and protectionist economic policies.

And for the newsroom operating on tight deadlines, IBON is a handy option. But convenience must not stand in for caution—particularly when a source is affiliated with, as credible reports indicate, a four-decade old armed insurgency.

CPP–NPA Allegations

The Philippine Armed Forces (AFP), erstwhile military officials, and various in-depth news articles have characterized IBON Foundation as a component of the legal, underground apparatus of the Communist Party of the Philippines – New People's Army (CPP–NPA).

IBON has consistently refuted these claims, but the overlap is hard for its critics to deny:

• Parallel talking points and jargon between IBON pronouncements and CPP statements.
• Historical affiliations of some IBON members with leftist or activist organizations with links to the communist movement.
• Positions for advocacy coinciding with the CPP's political platform.

Whether or not one finds these views sympahtetic, the security issues cannot be ignored.

Same Color Politics

It's not just about economics, critics claim—its about ideology.

Some media are seen to lean in the same political "color" as IBON: left-leaning, anti-establishment, and usually very critical of U.S. relations and market liberalization.

This convergence accounts for why:

1. IBON is most frequently called upon for "alternative" data with little equal time for other economists.
2. Their criticisms are aired while voices in favor of reforms are marginalized.
3. The same anti-administration narratives are recycled across both IBON and some media.

The Risks of Overreliance

Even without the CPP–NPA charges, there are risks in having any single source of economic commentary:

• It limits the public's exposure to varied views.
• It runs the risk of infusing partisan ideology into purportedly objective reporting.
• It can harm media credibility if audiences perceive reporting as politically slanted—or better yet, sympathetic to groups linked to insurgents.

Moving Forward

If mainstream media wishes to maintain trust:

1. Expand the pool of experts – Feature economists from universities, think tanks, and business circles with a range of views.
2. Make disclosure – When quoting IBON, state its reported political affiliations so people can judge for themselves.
3. Encourage genuine debate – Allow the public to hear contrary analyses back to back, not separately.

For the people: stay skeptical. Don't take economic claims at face value—verify the source, check the agenda, and cross-reference with other sound data.

Last Thought:

Assuming the reports about IBON Foundation as an above-ground CPP–NPA organization are true, mainstream media's uncritical use of it for economic analysis is ultimately not just lazy reporting—it's potentially serving a group with decades of history of armed struggle against the state.

Equitable reporting is mediated by many voices and complete transparency if those voices carry political or insurgent affiliations.

About the impeachment

Impeachment of VP Sara Duterte: What Happened and Why It Matters

On February 5, 2025, Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio became the first sitting Philippine vice president to face impeachment by the House of Representatives, marking a historic and highly controversial political episode. Philstar.com+10Philstar.com+10TIME+10

The Complaints: What Was She Accused Of?

Multiple groups filed three separate impeachment complaints between December 2024 and January 2025, by civil society organizations, religious leaders, lawyers, and victims’ families. 

Philstar.com+3Philstar.com+3Wikipedia+3

Allegations included:

• Misuse and malversation of over ₱612 million in confidential funds for the Office of the Vice President and DepEd. Philstar.com+10Philstar.com+10Wikipedia+10
• 
  
• Betrayal of public trust, graft & corruption, and undermining legislative oversight. AP News+15Philstar.com+15Philstar.com+15
• 
  
• Threats and extremist rhetoric, including alleged plotting to assassinate officials and inciting sedition. Wikipedia+2YouTube+2

The complaints consolidated into a fourth impeachment complaint, endorsed by 215 House members—a clear majority above the constitutional minimum of 102—fast-tracking it to the Senate without committee referrals. rappler.com+12PCIJ.org+12Philstar.com+12

The Legal Process: From House to Senate

Once the third complaint was filed, the House leadership invoked the "third mode" impeachment rule, allowing the complaint—now treated as Articles of Impeachment—to go directly to the Senate. PCIJ.org

What comes next:

House-appointed prosecutors (11 members) will argue the case in the Senate. Philstar.com

The Senate serves as the impeachment court; a two-thirds vote (16 of 24) is required to convict and remove Duterte.

Conviction leads to lifetime disqualification from public office, though no penalties like jail time are automatically imposed. Philstar.com+1

Civil society leaders—including Caritas Philippines—have called for a swift, impartial process, warning that delays weaken public trust. Reddit

What It Signals Politically

The impeachment came amid a bitter breakdown between Sara Duterte and allies of President Marcos Jr., who once traveled together during the 2022 elections. pna.gov.ph+9TIME+9YouTube+9

Her opponents—many now aligned with Marcos—worked to quickly secure the one-third vote needed. Notably, Sandro Marcos, the president’s son, endorsed the complaint. Philstar.com+1

Still, many Dutertes maintain a strong political base. Despite impeachment, Rodrigo Duterte was re-elected mayor of Davao while detained at the ICC, and other family allies won limelight Senate seats. TIME+1

Supreme Court Intervention: A Critical Twist

On July 25, 2025, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the impeachment complaint—not on merits but because it violated the constitutional rule banning multiple impeachment attempts within one year. Since three complaints had already been verified, the fourth was deemed unconstitutional. reuters.com

This ruling halts the Senate trial entirely for now and strengthens Sara Duterte’s political position, especially as a frontrunner for the 2028 presidential race. reuters.com

Key Takeaways

Final Perspective

Sara Duterte’s impeachment underscores a fractured political landscape in the Philippines. While accountability mechanisms are at work, the process also mirrors power struggles between two dynasties.

Her eventual fate is now paused—not decided—pending procedural timing. The constitutional safeguard that protected her may also embolden more legal challenges in the future.

A failed system

Cracks in the Nation: When Corruption Is Made Concrete

We walk in the Philippines on streets that deceive our feet and dump our faith into the concrete. We bring our children to schools where the paint is quicker in drying than the promises. We go to hospitals more concerned about the cost than the cure. This is not development—this is deceit incorporated into the blueprint of the system.

We live in a nation where bridges curve not due to traffic but under the weight of embezzled public money. Schools are built not to develop minds but to produce invoices. Hospitals are designed not to heal the ill but to hemorrhage government funds.

When concrete walls delaminate prior to the first day of classes being taught, we know there is something amiss. When a flood sweeps over a street freshly paved only the month before, we do not have to be engineers to feel betrayed. We know. Because we live it.

Google Photo

When Corruption Becomes Infrastructure

Philippine corruption is not a theoretical abstraction or a political slogan—it is infrastructure. It is in the rebar that is too flexible. It is in the classrooms that flood. It is in the bridges that collapse after ribbon-cutting ceremonies. This corruption is not merely a moral failing; it is the gradual, public hanging of the common good—signed off in triplicate and buried in bureaucracy.

We're told not to ask questions. We're told to let the experts handle it. We're told that we wouldn't be able to grasp it. But we're paying the price—and with our taxes, with our security, and sometimes with our lives.

The Real Cost: Broken Trust

Trust lost can be more difficult to restore than any bridge or monument. Each time a shortcut is used, each time the public money is diverted to be used for individual enrichment, the nation forfeits more than money—it loses hope. The people lose trust in government, in institutions, in the very notion that things will get better.

This rot is not concealed—it pervades everything. And still, silence is promoted. Passivity is the norm. Dissent is frowned upon.

The Call to Action: Inspect. Question. Speak.

It is not un-American to demand more.

It is our responsibility to ask questions about the projects that are undertaken in our name and with our funds. We are entitled to call for transparency. To visit roads and schools. To photograph decaying infrastructure. To object when our lives are put at risk by greed at the top.

Let it be said clearly: Silence is the concrete they would like to pour over our resistance. Each time we remain silent, they make a gain. Each time we shrug our shoulders at a clogged drainage system or a collapsed classroom ceiling, they get stronger.

So we must investigate. We must ask questions. We must record. We must voice our opinions.

Because if we don't, we become guilty of the burial of responsibility.

Hope, Built with Honesty

A country isn't constructed upon glitzy ribbon-cutting and golden-worded speeches. A country is constructed upon honor, openness, and service. We are worthy of bridges that won't buckle. Hospitals that will heal. Schools that will ignite. Storm-tested roads that hold.

They aren't frills—they are rights. And we won't get them through someone else being magnanimous with us. We need to make them.

Let's make a nation in which public projects really work for the public. Let's bring down the walls of silence and put up steel-strong scrutiny. Let's pave roads not with lies—but with truth, fairness, and accountability.

Is he even relevant?

Richard Heydarian: Should We Trust His Insights?

Richard Heydarian is a name that tends to generate controversy among political and academic circles. A well-known political analyst, columnist, and writer, Heydarian is regarded for his controversial views on geopolitics, international relations, and Philippine politics. But the question is — should we trust his insights? 

Richard Heydarian, Wikipedia

This blog takes a closer look at Heydarian's background, his perspectives, and how to critically evaluate his views.

Who is Richard Heydarian?

Richard Heydarian is a political science professor who is also a prolific author. He writes for major publications such as Al Jazeera, The New York Times, and Foreign Affairs. With a keen interest in Southeast Asian geopolitics, he has also done analyses on regional security, economic patterns, and leadership dynamics.

He has also written influential books like "The Rise of Duterte: A Populist Revolt Against Elite Democracy" and "The Indo-Pacific: Trump, China, and the New Struggle for Global Mastery", which have established his position as one of the greatest voices in the industry.

Why People Trust Heydarian?

1. Academic Credibility
   Heydarian is well-educated in political science, hence having a balanced point of view towards international and regional affairs. He is frequently sought after in academia and media platforms.
2. Media Presence
   A frequent face on global news networks, Heydarian provides clear and concise analysis that makes sense of intricate political events. His skill at deconstructing complex ideas into palatable insights is admirable.
3. Independent Perspective
   Unlike pundits who are aligned with one political party or another, Heydarian comes across as an independent analyst. His frank and critical appraisal of governments — foreign and domestic — has proven his interest in free interpretation.

Reasons for Skepticism

1. Personal BiasAlthough no analyst is completely bias-free, Heydarian's strong views tend to be polarizing at times. His critics suggest that his views might be biased towards certain narratives, which may affect the objectivity of his analysis.
2. Controversial Statements
   One of the examples that generated a lot of backlash was Heydarian's statement equating some areas of Mindanao to "sub-Saharan Africa" in economic underdevelopment. Although he probably meant to highlight the economic plight of the region, most Filipinos took offense and felt the comparison was reductionist. The social media backlash was quick, with individuals condemning him for reductionism in Mindanao's complex socio-economic context. This is an example of how tone and framing can at times overpower the intended message.
3. Selective Criticism
   Certain critics argue that Heydarian's criticisms might be more selective in targeting particular political leaders or policies, and less on other pertinent views.
4. Media Framing
   As a regular media commentator, Heydarian's opinions may at times be manipulated or magnified to suit particular narratives. It is important that readers and listeners contextualize and frame his utterances.

How to Analyze Heydarian's Insights?

1. Cross-Reference with Other Sources
   Don't just depend on the view of a single analyst. Compare Heydarian's opinions to that of other reputable analysts and institutions to gain a wider perspective.
2. Take into Account the Context
   Evaluate the context within which Heydarian is presenting his opinions. Is he giving a personal view, an academic analysis, or a media commentary? Any context can shape his tone and emphasis.
3. Identify Potential Bias
   Acknowledge that biases are inherent. The trick is to recognize them and balance their influence on the argument being made. Seek evidence-based reasoning and credible sources in his analysis.

Conclusion

So, do we trust Richard Heydarian? The answer is not a straightforward yes or no. To trust an analyst is not to blindly accept — it is to critically engage with what they have to say. Heydarian's experience and knowledge provide useful insights, but they are only one of many voices you should listen to when developing your own opinions.

In an age of information overload, the capacity to think critically and evaluate perspectives from multiple dimensions matters. You may agree or disagree with Heydarian, but his political contributions offer a foundation for richer dialogue.

At the end of the day, trust isn't granted — it's developed by being transparent, credible, and providing consistent insight. Be informed, be critical, and allow plurality of thought to inform your worldview.

The Irony of UP's Paper: A Strong Case for Constitutional Reform

Dear UP: Your Own Research Supports Charter Change

The University of the Philippines (UP), our country's top institution of higher learning, recently came out with a discussion paper that has lit up the reform movement. On initial reading, the paper seems to doubt or warn against constitutional revisions—especially those on economic liberalization and structural reform in governance.

But here's the twist: if you read the paper closely, it actually supports the call for constitutional change.

Let's discuss why.

The Paper Doesn't Oppose Charter Change—It Reinforces It

Contrary to some media analyses, the UP discussion paper is not an argument against constitutional liberalization. It rather emphasizes the imperatives of:

• A Parliamentary-Federal system, and
• Open Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policies

These are precisely the pillars that constitutional reform advocates have been championing for decades.

So let’s stop pretending this paper undermines the reform movement. It confirms what we’ve known all along—that systemic change is necessary if the Philippines is ever to escape the economic and political stagnation we’ve been trapped in since 1987.

Why the Current Constitution Holds Us Back?

Here's the uncomfortable truth: the 1987 Constitution is architecturally a relic and essentially defective. It has yielded a government plagued by:

• Name-recall politics over competence
• Patronage appointments, stifling merit-based leadership
• Executive-legislative gridlock, preventing long-term policy consistency
• Policy inconsistency, courtesy of non-renewable six-year presidential terms
• Weak system of accountability, restricted to politicized impeachment
• Red tape and bloated bureaucracy, discouraging local and foreign investors

These're not political mere annoyances. They're inherent obstacles to making the Philippines an economically competitive, dynamic, and responsive country.

What Other Countries Did Right—and Why We Should Learn from Them

South Korea, Japan, and China are typically referred to as economic miracles. But let's be real about how they achieved this.

Prior to opening up their markets to global competition, they constructed well-established, centralized developmental states. They possessed:

• Long-term planning
• Policy consistency
• Effective governance frameworks
• Strong system of accountability

We, however, are attempting to open up our economy and yet holding on to a political system that is the opposite of these ideals.

In political science, this has been called a "fragile state." Gunnar Myrdal advocated developmental states that employ state power not for the enrichment of elites, but to spur inclusive growth. This takes the strength of institutions—something that the 1987 Constitution simply does not enable us to construct.

A Call to the University of the Philippines: Lead, Don't Stall

UP, you are an intellectual beacon. But with great power comes great responsibility.

Rather than doubling down on fear or vagueness, you might help spearhead a rational, fact-based debate about constitutional reform—not put it off with stale fears and reused talking points.

The hysteria about term extensions, foreign ownership of land, or alleged "loss of sovereignty" has been dismantled repeatedly. The actual threat is keeping a system that still rewards incompetence, fosters corruption, and hinders our country's progress.

UP official website

The Bottom Line: Let's Be Honest

If you take your own research seriously, then you'll have to confess: Charter Change is not a political power grab. It is a nation-building necessity.

So to the scholars and economists of UP: this is not a criticism of your scholarship. It's an appeal to put it to use.

Support constitutional reform—not for any political faction, but for the future of the Filipino people.

Final Thought

The Philippines cannot be a prosperous state with an impotent 1987 Constitution.

If we desire genuine change, it's not enough that we have better leaders. We need better systems. Systems that make people accountable, pay attention to competence, invite investment, and effectively deliver services.

That will not happen under the 1987 Constitution.

It's time we face that reality—and move on.

_________________________________>
UP's Academic Paper: https://econ.upd.edu.ph/.../ind.../dp/article/view/1552/1037

Rethinking about PBBM

Unexpected Twists: Reexamining Bongbong Marcos in an Evolving Political Scenario

Three years prior, talking positively about President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. would have seemed unthinkable. His last name is synonymous with one of the darkest moments in Philippine history—martial law, dictatorship, and plunder for many. But politics, as life, is not often black and white. And recently, Bongbong Marcos has been doing something nobody anticipated—steering away from the inheritance that propelled him to power and forging a new path that, though flawed, indicates a different trajectory.

The Son, Not the Father

Regardless of how much one dislikes his pedigree, it is instructive to observe a deep truth: people are not their parents. A verse from Ezekiel 18:20 is a timeless reminder: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." History will judge the father. But the son? The son must be held accountable for his own deeds.

That change of heart has become particularly significant now that the new administration is starting to exhibit signs of reform, pragmatism, and—even more astoundingly—principled leadership.

From Symbolism to Substance

Unlike the strongman populism of the last few years, Marcos Jr. has made decisions that subtly but meaningfully depart from his father's shadow of authoritarianism and his predecessor's blood-stained playbook.

Let's consider what's been transpiring:

✅ Professional, non-partisan hires for high-level positions like PNP Chief Gen. Nicholas Torre, a reform symbol in a historically militarized organization.

✅ Putting an end to the phony drug war: No more extrajudicial "tokhang" murders. The President has set aside Duterte's deadly record in favor of due process and human rights.

✅ Stopping wasteful expenditures, including rejecting billions in questionable "confidential funds" that are linked to the Vice President.

✅ Defending Philippine sovereignty over the West Philippine Sea by reclaiming the 2016 UN arbitral win, a foreign policy position long neglected or bargained away.

✅ Shunning Beijing's influence, including reversing the enigmatic "Gentleman's Agreement" supposedly created under Duterte's regime.

✅ Reinvigorating friendships with the West, and not as an act of submission, but as a diplomatic realignment.

✅ Ordering the pursuit of justice against criminal religious cult leader Apollo Quiboloy, who for years walked with impunity.

✅ Demonstrating political will by standing up against the Duterte faction, keeping them in check for abuses previously thought unassailable.

These are not symbolic acts. These are indicative of a measured, de-Marcosian method to leadership—a move no one was really anticipating.

When the Opposition Joins the Table

The political aftershocks of Senators Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan joining the Senate majority raised more eyebrows than cheers. To many from the liberal-progressive clan, it was betrayal. But is it?

If their membership in the Education and Agriculture committees translates to real, tangible improvements, then perhaps it's not a loss—but a calculated comeback. Even Senator Risa Hontiveros, who campaigned for their return, hasn't sounded the alarm.

Reformers sometimes have to work through the system to transform it. And maybe Marcos Jr., unexpectedly, is keeping the possibility of such an alliance open.

It's Not Love—It's Clarity

Let's be clear: this isn't a glowing review of Bongbong Marcos as a visionary. It's not about erasing the past. It's about facing current realities. He's not perfect—but he's not Duterte. And he's definitely not his father.

There’s power in saying: “I’ve changed my mind because I’ve seen evidence.” And that’s what this is. A personal evolution born from observing a different kind of leadership than what was expected.

And if that opinion alienates others? So be it.

No Apologies for Seeing Change

This blog does not exist to parrot echo chambers or gratify tribal allegiances. It exists in order to question, judge, and think critically—even if that means diverging from ideological purists or the perpetually outraged.

If you've read this far and feel driven to unfollow, unsubscribe, or cancel—go for it. This place isn't for outrage-as-performance. It's for painful truths, considered nuance, and yes, hope that even in politics, people can surprise us.

Because if we can't accommodate growth—not only in leaders, but in ourselves—then we've learned nothing at all.

Let's continue to watch. Let's continue to question. Let's continue to hold them accountable. But let's not be so blinded by the past that we cannot observe history-in-the-making.

Lawsuit? Here's how to respond

How to Respond to Threats of Continuing Lawsuit

Being threatened with a lawsuit can be frightening and worrisome in any case-be it personal or professional. If someone is threatening a suit to you repeatedly, then it's very important for you to keep yourself calm and think of a strategy with which you will take all the threats calmly. Whether the threats are baseless or true, how to respond is really crucial in relation to protecting your interests and keeping yourself peaceful as well. Here's the comprehensive guide on how to behave in front of someone who continues threatening a lawsuit.

1. Stay Calm and Alert

Your immediate instinct might be the emotional reaction when confronted by threats of litigation. Compose yourself, however. Emotional reactions will heighten the situation and may even be used against you should the matter go legal. Calm down, step back, and objectively view the situation. Being composed will also give you more control over the conversation and allow you to demonstrate that you are not intimidated.

2. Record Everything

Document all communications when a threat for legal action occurs. Save e-mails, text messages, or any other written correspondence. If it happens over the phone or person-to-person, take copious notes of what was said, who said it, and when it happened. Keeping records of such will help in the development of a clear timeline and context if things escalate.

3. Listen Without Replying

Recognize that you may want to feel defensive or fearful, but listen for what the other person is saying without interrupting or responding in a negative manner. Doing so not only enhances the process of getting information but will also demonstrate to people that you are serious in taking their concerns. Many times, listening to people's views can diffuse the situation and lead to an open way of resolution.

4. Do Not Admit Guilt

Never apologize for anything when the lawsuit threats come out. Some persons say ridiculous things like "I am sorry you feel that way," or "I did not know that's what happened," which could be a statement about which a court and jury would find them in a mistaken admission.

5. Be Professional

If the person intending to sue sends you notice of intention in writing, be professional with him or her. Brief, courteous is your language and not a single tone of emotion. Be clear that you should not engage in debates or even to argue your version with them. This would only inflame heated rhetoric.

Example response: "Thank you for raising this to my attention. I shall assure proper review of the issue keeping in mind all your concerns. Please be assured that I'll see the thing through accordingly after discussing it with concerned parties."

6. Consult Lawyers

If the threats persist or escalates, it would be prudent to seek counsel from a lawyer. The lawyer can review the facts and apprise you of the law applicable to your situation. They may advise you based on knowledge of your rights, evaluate the merits of the threats against you, and direct the course of action that you should take next. You want to consult an attorney for an additional reason: any subsequent reactions or actions that you will undertake should first be preceded by advice given by a licensed attorney.

7. Determine the Seriousness of the Threat

Not every threat of a lawsuit is valid. While some may actually have the potential for getting a lawyer to sue, others simply use these threats to intimidate or pressure you to do something. An attorney who knows his stuff can better help you figure out the legitimacy of the threats so that you can decide what's appropriate to do next.

8. Provide a Way Out

If it can and should be settled out of court, agree to amicably settle the dispute. This can be through proposing a meeting with a view of attempting to solve the problem or offering mediation. An amicable settlement saves both parties time, stress, and cost. The maturity displayed by willingness to understand each other's positions makes the plaintiff abandon his suit altogether.

9. Know Your Rights

It's always important to know your rights if you suspect a lawsuit will come your way. Due to the differences in laws in each region, what may be valid in one area may not be in another. If it's a breach of contract, defamation, or any of these legal matters that are posing a problem for you, knowledge is power that will make you empowered to make smart decisions.

10. Be Prepared for the Worst Case

Most of the threats never result in actual lawsuits, but one always wants to be ready for just such an event. You would want to discuss strategy with your attorney and assemble all supporting documentation for your defense. Preparation will mean you are not caught flatfooted if the matter carries out.

Operating with Persistent Threats

This may mean you must keep professional boundaries in place, especially if they continue to threaten litigation over time and your efforts to solve the matter do not dissuade them. You will likely want to limit contact or seek a mediator who can help iron things out. And when they move into outright harassment and abuse, the appropriateness of seeking protections afforded by law - perhaps in the form of a cease-and-desist letter - becomes quite clear.

Conclusion

A threat of litigation is something no one looks forward to; however, with thoughtful responses and proper counseling, you're going to successfully come out of it. Remember to stay calm, create documentation records, avoid unnecessary admissions, and consult the legal services when required. The approach makes things easier for you so that you can confidently handle the situation and prevent it from interrupting your life or career.

The only way to approach this is to be patient, vigilant, and professional. Lawsuits are quite serious, but to be prepared and educated would have you ready for anything that may come your way.

A letter to myself #DearSelf

Just a letter to myself...

It's time to prepare yourself in any circumstances. Be productive as you can be. Do the best for tasks given to you. Always strive for perfection. Involve yourself to people, be human and responsible.

Procrastination is okay but remember it has limit. Be friendly to people around you, around the social networks and around the world. Assist strangers with a smile. Carry on the truth you have learned. Remember, always do the best.

Go out of comfort zone and be challenged mentally, physically and spiritually. Knock doors when in need. Do homework, know your facts, and remember the passion that persuades.

Make allowances for your friend's imperfections as readily as you do for your own. Always look for new best friends.

Pay bills on time, pay tax, avoid credits. Be thrifty. Remember, wealth is health, too.

Above all things, pray.