I’ve been given my assignment for the next issue, I’m almost done writing it but I have an option of submitting something for the sidebar of the pages where my article will appear. If you’re a parent and interested in giving your opinion and having it published, please post a comment in response to the question “Are we guilty of excessive consumerism and how do we teach our children to become wise consumers?” Please limit your comment to 150 words to avoid getting truncated. Also, please indicate the name you want published along with your opinion and the ages of your children. Something like this: Connie Veneracion, mother of 2 girls aged 16 and 15.

I’ll send all your comments to my editor, if there are more than she can publish (limited space in print unlike blogs), I’ll let her choose which ones should go on print. You know, so that if yours doesn’t get chosen, you can get blame her, not me. Kidding, kidding. Carol is a great editor and I’m sure she’ll handle this more than fairly.

The issue that is currently in the market carries an insert that contains an articles on wholesome children’s activities including one on making paper toys.

If you want to check it out, you’ll find Code Red in National Book Store.

Looking forward to having your opinion published.

Yesterday, Sam walked into my study with coin banks in her hands, a smile on her face and a suggestion that they were “bloggable.” I thought so too because a few minutes later, I was taking photos of the red piggy bank with hearts all over its body and the green dinosaur that look like it saw something quite shocking because its eyes are popping out of their sockets, all the while thinking about a coin bank I had as a child, shaped like a house and, on the roof, the message that “A coin a day will build a house someday.”

Some writers work with picture prompts and word prompts. I use them too, sometimes, but memory prompts work best for me. And that memory of the coin bank with the “A coin a day will build a house someday” message was enough to get me started on a magazine article due two days from today.

Sometimes, help and inspiration come from unexpected sources. Thank you, Sam.

Not too long ago, when political aspirants blatantly put up tarpaulins and billboards showcasing their faces and the names, people automatically scoffed at the brazen way these people market themselves for the next elections even when the elections are years away.

The reactions vary depending on whether the aspirant is gunning for a position in local government or in national government. People seem to be more dismissive — accepting would probably a better description — of barangay officials, and municipal and city councilors, mayors and vice mayors who, almost as soon as they are sworn to office, lose no time in claiming every electric post with fiesta greetings, congratulatory messages to graduates, Christmas and New Year wishes and even some inane note for Lent.

Perhaps, it’s a result of saturation that people no longer react. It has become such a way of life and people have gotten tired of noticing and criticizing. Where such practices used to be the exception, they have become the rule. And as social norms go, people have come to accept. Of course, it doesn’t make such practices right but that’s another story.

But when it comes to aspirants for national office, people notice. When Bayani Fernando started filling the streets of the metropolis with his face, going around the country outside his area of responsibility and especially when vehicles in Fernando’s hometown of Marikina started sporting “BAYANI President” stickers, people noticed. And they were critical because Fernando was obviously ignoring the prohibition against premature campaigning, flaunting his power and taunting the public.

But when the rest of the 2010 aspirants soon followed Fernando’s example, the effect was something similar to people’s reaction to the overabundance of not-too-subtle campaign materials on the local government level. When advertisements featuring Villar and Roxas, for instance, started airing on the idiot box, despite the fact that President nor presidency was not mentioned, people suddenly forgot their criticisms of Fernando’s gimmicks. Campaign season had begun more than a year before the 2010 elections.

And media played it to the hilt. There is hardly any mention of premature campaigning these days. In fact, ANC featured a forum showcasing the presidential wannabes. Surprisingly or not, it was hailed—even among the academic and legal circles — as a breakthrough in introducing the aspirants to the public. The Philippine Daily Inquirer’s online news site, Inquirer.net, followed suit yesterday when it opened its Inquirer Politics section — a misnomer if there ever was one because it is not about politics in the real sense but about the 2010 elections. When I checked yesterday, there were photo thumbnails of incumbent senators that link to their bios.

Yes, we’re in the midst of a saturation drive. And, once more, premature campaigning has become the norm and people have stopped resisting. Why resist, anyway, Inquirer Politics might even be correct in saying that the sooner we are informed, the better our choices will be in 2010. Some laws are stupid anyway so why should they take precedence over our right to know?

Ah, but ANC and Inquirer Politics and the rest of media that encourage and even spearhead premature campaigning are wrong. While it is good to inform the public and help shape an informed electorate, there is a good reason why the campaign period should be limited and why the prohibition against premature campaigning should be enforced. Many of those who seek office are already government officials. They are mayors, vice mayors, governors, congressmen, Cabinet members, senators and even a vice president. They have been elected or appointed to perform specific tasks. They hold office and get paid from taxpayers’ money to work — to work for us. They don’t hold office so that they can spend their incumbency campaigning for the next elections.

The sad thing, of course, is that prohibition or no prohibition, the fact is that incumbents do spend their tenures campaigning for the next elections. They make sure they get maximum media mileage by grandstanding during public hearings, by being conveniently available and cooperative to reporters conducting ambush interviews, by delivering sensational privilege speeches for which they cannot be arrested, and so on and so forth. And when media encourage premature campaigning, often without even being too subtle, then media is encouraging and egging on political aspirants to put their jobs in the backseat and focus on their personal ambitions first and foremost. Is that responsible? Is that public service?

The even sadder truth is that no incumbent is interested in raising issues of premature campaigning because they are all benefitting from it. Why prohibit themselves from doing what they want to do, eh? Are they loco? What are they in power for, huh?

But the saddest part is how the public has cast aside the glaring fact that at this time, more than 10 months before the May 2010 elections, these incumbents should be working and not campaigning. Campaigns are more fun, they give birth to one scandal after another, and that’s more entertaining that reading and hearing about what laws have been passed and what public service has been performed. So, let’s go on with the show. That’s entertainment.

When we accept that it is all right for these incumbents to campaign this early instead of doing their jobs, we lose. Sure it’s a treat that the entertainment started so early, but we lose. It’s more than 10 months until the 2010 elections and we’re already losing. Sad.