Maria masters Sharapova

Selections from my Franciscan essays (hover cursor over link for source or click for full article)
‘Ana’s Lament. Learning Life’s Lessons, Maria Sharapova’s Phoenix Rises’

The Serbian loser was disappointed, of course; she had only her tears to show. The Canadian reporter was disappointed too; she had only her complaints to write. They were both missing the point – the January 26 Australian Open victory of the Russian winner was of another kind. It was psychological. It was less a tennis player’s mastery of her opponent than a tennis player’s mastery of herself. Your first and best opponent is always yourself.

It’s a point of view. ‘The tennis was hardly memorable: unimaginative at best, tense, error-prone and mediocre at worst.’ That is Stephanie Myles of Canwest News Service describing the January 26 Australian Open finals between Russian Maria Sharapova and Serbian Ana Ivanovic (canada.com), where Maria won 7-5 & 6-3 in 91 minutes. That’s some Reporter’s Notebook you’re keeping, Stephanie. My guess is that you have been watching the wrong pretty game, or rooting for the wrong pretty girl. Pretty isn’t on the outside.

The Best, I insist, because you don’t look at the finals as if it were the only game played. Even in women’s tennis, you have to be holistic, not only ballistic. Maria Sharapova defeated all 7 opponents in 2 weeks under the sweltering heat of the Australian sun. That’s the Big Picture Down Under or Up Top. If you’re not broad-minded, you miss the Big Picture. You have to be broad-minded; you have to look at the elephant. (Now then, you might also want to read about the Big Picture I have written about, ‘The Green Elephant Of India,’frankahilario.com.)

Neil Harman says Maria’s victory shows she is ‘the second best player in the game today’ (timesonline.co.uk). Wrong! Neil; Maria Sharapova is the best player in the game today, period.

Christopher Clarey says, ‘This season is off to a perfect start: seven matches and seven victories with no sets lost despite one of the toughest draws conceivable’ (nytimes.com). She had to play against World #3 (Jelena Jankovic), World #2 (Ana Ivanovic) and World #1 (Justin Henin) and demolish them on the way to winning the Australian Open. When the Top 3 Balls fall one after the other because of your serve, what should they call you? #1.

Her coach Michael Joyce says, ‘If you put the whole tournament together, for sure it was the best tennis she’s played.’ Ever. Michael, there is no other way to put it except together. You don’t win a title playing only the last and decisive game. Leo Schlink is singularly astute and emphatic, saying ‘Sharapova proved she was the best player in the world’ (news.com.au). You’re a winner, Leo; congratulations, Courier-Mail (Australia).

And Ana’s Lament? Ivanovic is ‘left to lament a stack of unforced errors as she hit 33 for the match to Sharapova’s 15’ (Luke Buttigieg, huliq.com). Does that mean Ana Ivanovic defeated Ana Ivanovic? Not by a long shot. Even Ana says no. She lost to a great player. She says, ‘I want to congratulate Maria for a great tournament and for giving me a tough time today’ (news.com.au.com). You can lose and be gracious.

The Melbourne victory was a sweet gift to Maria’s mother Yelena on her birthday. ‘Last year, I lost on her birthday and this year I said I’m going to make it up to her, and I did.’ You can win and be gracious.

Bonnie Ford says the Australian Open victory was Sharapova’s ‘striking return to top form in the season’s first major’ (sports.espn.go.com). In 2004, Maria won her first Wimbledon title and she was only 17; in 2006, she won her first US Open and she was only 19 (she was born 1987 April 19). In 2007, everything went wrong – she kept losing her games, the most humiliating being that Serena Williams, the #81 seed, defeated Maria Sharapova, the #1 seed in the Australian Open. She won only 3 games that time. You can lose and not be gracious to yourself.

That nerve-wracking loss was the first sign that Maria Sharapova’s world had crumbled. In 2007, she won only one title, in San Diego, in August that even she forgot (Linda Pierce, theage.com.au). She had suffered with Michael Joyce, her friend and coach, when he lost her mother Jane to ovarian cancer in April. And Maria had a cyst in her left wrist, and shoulder and hamstring and other injuries. She had known the Joyces about half of her life, meeting the family when she was about 10 or 11. It was Jane who encouraged Michael, who had stopped playing professional tennis, ‘to keep devoting time to helping the rising star’ (Bonnie Ford, sports.espn.go.com). Jane was herself already fighting ovarian cancer at the time. When Jane died, Maria was herself devastated. ‘I think the reason for that is because it’s one of the closest people in my team, in my family, that passed away,’ she says (Dennis Passa, origin.insidebayarea.com). She calls her team her family; she knows she is lucky to have her family supporting her. Q: When you have your family behind you, when can you lose? A: When you forget.

In 2007, Maria needed much encouragement, as her own injuries and ‘wounded confidence’ (Ford, cited) plagued her. Thinking back, AAP had this headline 2 days before the finals: ‘Sharapova out to erase 2007 demons’ (news.theage.com.au). No, you can’t erase demons, AAP, much as you wish to; Maria knew she had to confront them. And she did.

Linda Pearce says, ‘Tragedy close to home (was) an inspiration’ (theage.com.au). No, Linda, tragedy does not inspire you; you have to inspire yourself. The package comes completely knocked down, some assembly required. Growing up is a do-it-yourself thing.

In fact, it was more a championship match between real life and a dream of greatness in a sport one loves. Maria Sharapova had been down and almost out not by consistently better tennis opponents but by persistently bitter experiences.

Jane, mother of her coach, died. Jane had been mother to Maria too. So she had been a regular visitor at the hospital during Jane’s 6-year battle with ovarian cancer (Linda Pearce, theage.com.au). ‘It completely changed my perspective on life,’ Maria says. ‘During the time when I was practicing, the days I could practice without being injured, it was hard to motivate myself because tennis just didn’t seem important in those moments, whatsoever, at all.’ Jane was fighting, Maria was learning.

She dedicated her Australian Open (Daphne Akhurst Memorial Cup) trophy to Jane. That is because, Maria says, when Jane died, ‘after the loss that (Michael) suffered, I got a whole lot of perspective with my injuries and setbacks. It helped me prioritize so many things that were outside of tennis.’ Like life.

Her coach, Michael Joyce, says of her student and friend (Cronin, cited):

Sometimes those downs actually help you to shoot back up. And a young girl like her hasn’t been through a lot of ups and downs. It’s been mostly up, up, up. But I kept telling her, ‘It’s going to make you stronger, it’s going to make you stronger,’ and obviously it has.

No, Michael, the downs don’t automatically give you ups – you have to pick yourself up, you have to help yourself, you have to learn from life’s lessons yourself. Go ask your friend Maria herself.

In 2007 November 12, in the Madrid tournament, Maria Sharapova found herself when she lost to Justine Henin. She found she still loved tennis and had the heart of a champion, giving Henin a fight for her life in the marathon (3 hours,24 minutes) WTA final match. Maria lost, but she knew she did her best and that was good enough for her to come back from the living dead.

Justin Gimelstob credits Maria’s Australian Open victory to ‘Sharapova’s rediscovered game’ (sportsillustrated.cnn.com). No, Justin, it’s not a rediscovered game; it’s a rediscovered self; it’s Maria rediscovering Maria.

What happened? How did Maria defeat her demons? She didn’t. ‘Late last season,’ Bonnie Ford says (source cited), ‘when Sharapova couldn’t practice long stretches because of a strained shoulder and a ganglian cyst on one wrist, she found out what it was like to stop attacking a problem and simply live with it.’ She had a moment of inspiration. She had grown up. That’s the mind. Maria herself says, ‘I don’t think my body has 100% developed into its own’ (Luke Buttigieg, huliq.com). That’s the body, not the mind.

From the text (SMS message) sent by the American living tennis legend Billie Jean King the morning of the game, Maria had drawn inspiration. The text said: ‘Champions take their chances and pressure is a privilege’ (Bruce Matthews, news.com.au). From one champion to another. Used with love, the cell phone is one of our modern wonderful media; if it doesn’t bring you good news, it brings you grace.

Maria says of King, ‘She’s always a person who texts me’ if I have a tough moment or a great win’ (Richard Evans, sport.guardian.co.uk). King, now 64, had won the Australian Open in 1968, among 12 grand slam singles titles. ‘King will be proud how the Florida-based Russian heeded her words. Sharapova grabbed most of the important points of the match and stood firm when Ivanovic briefly threatened to take control late in the first set.’ It was the serve. She won a blistering 89% of first serve points. ‘She was serving so well it was hard for me to control my returns,’ Ivanovic says. When Maria won, she got another text from King: ‘Congratulations. You did great.’ Billie, it’s great when you conquer all the Top 3 in your game in one big tournament; it’s even greater when you conquer yourself.

Maria first met Billie Jean King when she (Maria) was 13 or 14. ‘From that point on, she’s just always been really supportive,’ Maria says (AP, sportsline.com). Even champions need people who support them.

Ana says of her defeat, ‘Experience will only make me better’ (Greg Stutchbury, uk.reuters.com). No, Ana, learning is not automatic; experience doesn’t teach – the learner has to learn. I know; I was a teacher. Go ask Maria herself.

Nirmal Shekar refers to Maria’s ‘test of character’ as she was down 0-30 in the first game, ‘but she came through in style’ (hindu.com), displaying ‘the red-hot form and the hunger that she has displayed over 2 weeks in the Australian Open championship.’ Playing against Ana, Maria passed.

Grant Clark and Heidi Couch say it was the ‘hard training and greater perspective on life that helped Maria Sharapova seal her first Australian Open tennis title with a straight-set victory over Ana Ivanovic’ (bloomberg.com). I say it was the greater perspective on life. ‘I had many setbacks throughout last year. I’m so happy I can come through and perform great throughout the whole two weeks.’ Among others, the death of a loved one. ‘After that loss I just gained a whole new perspective on life and my injuries and how to treat life with respect.’ She was paying attention to her inner self.

Is Maria’s smashing victory a comeback? A resurgence? No, a Phoenix Rising. The Phoenix does not rise until it has become ashes. Then and only then can the Phoenix will herself to rise. No one else will will it for her. (You might also be interested in another’s Phoenix Rising; try my ‘The Gospel Whisperer,’ frankahilario.com.)

‘Sharapova serves it to Ivanovic,’ Terry Maddaford says (nzherald.co.nz). It is her ‘almost surreal service games.’ Serves Ana Ivanovic right! I say. Serves the Australian tennis crowd too. Ana was the Melbourne crowd’s darling from beginning to end, from promise of victory to reality of defeat. When will Australians ever learn that the premise of winning depends on the pressure on the player, not the pleasure of the throng?

I’m 48 years older than but I’m a fan of the Russian. I became a member of the Maria Sharapova Fan Community some 3 years ago. I love the website too; I owe maria-sharapova.org the free image you see above, my PC desktop background (‘Sharapova Mural’). For the last two years they have sent me from the other side of the International Dateline a birthday greeting on the exact date. How many of my friends do that? None, zero, zilch! So you see, I’m a winner as long as I’m with Maria win or loss or more or less.

Why did the loser lose? Jake Niall says of Ana Ivanovic, ‘She wasn’t ready to win. So she didn’t’ (theage.com.au). You are your first and worst opponent.

Playing to a home crowd does not guarantee a win. ‘I have relatives here,’ Ana says, ‘so I just feel very comfortable here. And I feel like playing in front of an Aussie crowd is like playing in front of a home crowd.’ Ana, stop playing to the crowd and start playing to win!

Despite the loss, Ivanovic advances to World #2 in the rankings, behind #1 Henin. And Sharapova? To #4. Crazy. But you can’t win them all.

Greg Baum says, ‘Sharapova has always been easy to admire, hard to love’ (theage.com.au). ‘She presented as a prima donna, statuesque but cold. Affected on court, preening, shrieking and taking inordinately long to serve.’ (She didn’t serve until Ana stopped moving around with her squeaky tennis shoes.) Tennis Australia festooned the center court with flags, all Australian, none Russian. Poor losers!

Greg Baum quotes Maria as saying that after Michael’s mother died from ovarian cancer, ‘Tennis became so small in everyone’s perspective then.’ Life’s like that when you’re paying, not playing attention.

The winner has kind words for the loser. Maria says, ‘Ana has a wonderful future ahead of her’ (Stephanie Miles, canada.com). I say, win or lose, Maria has a wonderful future ahead of her.

There’s more to learn. Maria says, ‘I know I’ve already won three Grand Slams, I know I keep saying this, but I don’t think I’m at the peak of my career yet’ (Luke Buttigieg, huliq.com). Just wait a while, Maria, just wait a while. Growing up is hard to do.

Bonnie Ford says (cited), ‘In those moments you feel mature. You have a wonderful career. Doing something that you love to do and being good at it, there’s no greater gift.’ There is, Bonnie. The greatest gift of all is Your Own Phoenix Rising, rising out of the ashes of your defeats, failures, heartaches and then going out there and persistently if not consistently being the best at what you love to do. I know. Been there, done that.

I theorize, you practice.

Selections from my Franciscan essays (hover cursor over link for source or click for full article)
‘My Law Of Graffiti. The Rebel Writer Writes, And Having Writ, Moves On’

I am not a scientist, thank God. I believe science is too serious a matter to be left to scientists alone. This time I’m going to write about theory and practice of science writing – I theorize, you practice.

Based on his deduction, Isaac Newton comes up with his Law of Gravity in 1687; based on his assumption, Albert Einstein revises Newton’s Law with his Theory of Special Relativity in 1915; based on my intuition, I have just revised both geniuses with my Law of Graffiti, 2008. The British mathematician is revised by the German physicist; both are revised by the Filipino writer. It all goes to show that insight knows no color, creed, credential, or genius.

It also goes to show that the sciences of mathematics and physics are no match to the art of creative thinking. See, there are no dull sciences, only dull scientists – or dull science writers.

I googled for “how to start” writing (including the double quotes) and got 846 English pages with Safesearch; I googled for begin OR start writing and got 11,000,000 English pages with Safesearch. Quality is in the numbers? Quality is in the Scan, not in the Search; quality is in the Googler, not in Google – Google cannot think for you.

The BBC geniuses know you have to be good first at writing to be good at broadcasting. Such advice I have found helpful myself in all my 50 years of getting to write – not necessarily getting to be published. There are far too few geniuses in the publishing business here and abroad.

He billed himself ‘America’s Mad Professor of Fiction Writing’ (he doesn’t scare me, I’m afraid).

This chapter is all about Writer’s Block, brainstorming, starting to create, beginning to write; this is all about the Search for the Holy Grail of Serendipity, for which you need freedom.

Serendipity is not about beginning right; rather, it is about beginning bright.

In one of my old favorites, his book How To Write, Speak & Think More Effectively (1963), I remember Rudolf Flesch saying, ‘Begin anywhere but begin!’ But I don’t remember him telling me how to continue. Either he forgot, or I did. (I’m 67 going on 68, and I’ve lost my copy.)

I come out with the 1st Law of Graffiti Thinking, and it is this, borrowing from genius: ‘E = mc²’ (E equals m times c squared), where E is Enlightenment (inspiration or insight), m is mass of materials, and c is the speed of write.

Graffiti, thy name is man (embracing woman) in search of a publisher, or audience. Scratches and scribbles and scrawls and doodles and drawings and images and icons and words and whatnots that you are, private media on the wall in public places, you have inspired me to reach the heights of frivolity and fertility, of quantity and quality, of madness and meaning, of coming across and coming to terms. I am glad at last I found you, you who have been in full view all the time. You are the metaphor of the unwritten, of the unborn, the visible chaos of genius in the artist hidden in man. I now baptize you The Broadcast Antennae of the Creative Race. May the Force be with you always!

The Immanent Genius in Graffiti, I can say, on hindsight: Because creativity is born of chaos; because graffiti is chaos; because it’s always loose; because it’s sometimes humorous and therefore relaxing; because it happens at different times without sequence and at different places without direction; because it’s amateurish; because anything goes; because helter-skelter; because come what may; because no rules no borders no limits no excuses; because the graffiti artist is Lord and Master – for of such is the Kingdom of Serendipity, where there is no order and law.

What you need in creative writing is freedom, release from the law.

Newton’s Law states that what comes up must come down; Einstein’s Theory states that you cannot bend the laws of physics wherever you are – my theory is that in creative thinking, obeying the dictates of the Law of Gravity doesn’t work to the artist’s advantage and, in fact, an artist cannot be creative unless he bends the laws of physics whenever he tries to create.

Metaphors actually.

When you begin the process of creative writing on science, you should be in another world other than that of science. This chapter is designed to lead you there. Not take you, mind; you have to take yourself.

How do you go about creative thinking? I say: Do the graffiti with me!

‘The Law of Inertia.’ Nothing will happen to you (and your writing) if you prefer to preserve your inertia – to break the law, do something, anything – move!

‘Lightning doesn’t strike twice in the same place.’ If you are creative, lightning will strike not only twice in the same place but many times, that is to say, flashes of genius will occur quite so often you’ll have a pleasant time not counting them. You will be energized. Yes, I think each of us has the capacity for genius. It makes me feel uneasy thinking I’m the only genius around here.

‘Work equals energy over distance.’ When you use my Law of Graffiti for brainstorming, trying to get rid of Writer’s Block or just simply beginning another piece of writing, you will get more even if you do less work and not spend so much energy. If you haven’t known about it, I have completely upended the Law of Genius according to Thomas Alva Edison; according to Frank Hilario, ‘Genius is 10% perspiration and 90% inspiration’ (see my ‘The Smart Revolution,’ americanchronicle.com). I have been inspired as much.

‘The speed of light in a vacuum is constant.’ You have to break this law. In creative thinking, you don’t want the speed of brilliance to be constant, and you don’t want to work in a vacuum!

Newton’s First Law of Motion states that ‘Every body continues in the state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.’ I’m impressing upon you that you have to break this law too. You don’t want to continue in a state of rest; that would be counter-productive. And neither do you want to move with a one-track mind; that would make your writing monotonous and tiresome.

Newton’s Second Law of Motion states that ‘The acceleration produced by a particular force acting on a body is directly proportional to the magnitude of the force and inversely proportional to the mass of the body.’ That means the speed of an object depends upon the force applied to it and the object itself. To break this law, turn it the other way around. Thus, in creative thinking, to increase the speed of inspiration, don’t force it. Like, if you are having a brainstorming session with a coach who keeps arguing against all kinds of ideas, your creativity speed is zero. (My advice: Since he cannot set the fire in you, fire him!)

Even if you and I didn’t know it as such, there is a famous example of a paradigm shift that dramatizes how creative thinking should go: Untying The Gordian Knot. I learned that in high school 50 years ago. While the tale is mythical, what happens is material as it is ingenious, inspired as creative thinking is. The story is from John Hagan (geocities.com); the words are mine:

Riding his wagon to the temple of Zeus, father of the gods, innocently Gordius fulfils an oracle, and the people make him their King. In homage, Gordius dedicates his wagon to Zeus, tying the yoke to the pole at the temple using a complex knot of cornel bark so intricate it defies unraveling. Fit for the gods. Out of the Gordian Knot, as it comes to be called, comes another oracle: ‘Whoever succeeds in untying the knot will be conqueror of all Asia.’ Every man worth his maleness tries and each one fails. Here comes Alexander the Great. He unties the Gordian Knot by cutting the whole thing with his sharp sword. With his sharp mind actually. And he goes on to conquer all of what is known as Asia. Genius knows no rules, no borders, no limits.

Now, about Alexander the Great’s paradigm shift, John Hagan views it differently: ‘Then, as everybody knows, he cheated on the oracle by cutting the knot with his sword instead of untying it.’ John, Alexander is using his head. Alexander merely changes his way of looking at the problem by what I call ‘changing the problem’ – from untying the knot to loosening it. Those other geniuses fail as they can’t cut it. In a flash of brilliance, my genius sees that the oracle does not say you can’t cut it. So Alexander the Great goes on to disprove those who say he can’t cut it.

In graffiti thinking, a term which I invented just now, which refers to creative thinking following my Law of Graffiti, when you cut & paste & delete & add to your notes and set your mind on fire, it is Your Own Phoenix Rising.

From the ashes of your graffiti notes rises the Phoenix of your creativity.

The Brooklyn Museum says graffiti is ‘a form of subversive public communication (that) has become legitimate’ (brooklynmuseum.org); borrowing from that, I say graffiti thinking is a subversive form of creative thinking that is legitimate all at once. Some people call graffiti ‘tasteless vandalism’ (wikiHow); graffiti thinking makes graffiti a form of creative vandalism – you destroy your old materials and create something new out of them. Your Phoenix Rising.

In creative writing, from out of the ashes of graffiti thinking, you and I need something like the Phoenix to rise and inspire us. Otherwise, we expire even as we respire.

Now, how do you go about graffiti thinking? Observe Frank’s Law of Graffiti:

Every scribble, scratch, scrawl, doodle, drawing, image, icon, word, whatnot is inspiration waiting to be discovered.

Been there, done that. That’s how I have been able to write 100 full essays in 100 full weeks (see my ‘100 in 100. Celebrating Centennials & Counting,’ americanchronicle.com). Graffiti thinking for inspiration, for insight; graffiti for instant gratification. So, open your mind and heart and go discover yours!

Watch ‘CSI’ and how the plot thickens; watch ‘Dr House’ and how the clot thickens. You want to write in English – get ideas from the best!

And don’t forget: While you’re reading, at all times, take notes, jot down your thoughts. In writing, jotting maketh an exact man.

The beauty of the Internet is that it is beauty always waiting to be discovered, and as an artist you should always be excited to explore both form and substance.

Nothing comes out of an empty and closed mind; with your open mind, many possibilities pop up when you read and read again, and when you take notes and make notes in your own sweet time. This is the Age of the Information Superhighway, so go out and drive and enjoy the view, smell the flowers.

Observe: Julie Miller is telling us that the right way to start writing is not to start writing right away. Assuming you have done your graffiti research, I will add to that and say that the right way to start writing is to follow the genius of Paul Graham: ‘Write a bad version 1 as fast as you can.’ Or follow Frank/Einstein’s genius: E = mc². Remember: The journey of a thousand miles doesn’t begin with the first step – it begins with the first thought. And so I leave you to the beginning of your creative writing. May the Force of Graffiti be with you always!

Think outside the box! of corn

Selections from my Franciscan essays (hover cursor over link for source or click for full article)
‘To Harvest The Sun. To Sow The Wind And Reap The Whirlwind’
October 1988: Professor Hartmut Michel wins the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. January 2008: The feisty and prestigious Professor Michel continues to wage a campaign against biofuels, comes to the Philippines and wins over, among others, the feisty & prestigious Philippine Daily Inquirer – he doesn’t win me to his side. Awe-inspiring Nobel Prize winners are not always right, and neither is the awe-inspiring Inquirer.

From my analysis of the Professor’s statements above and from other sources, I can see that the Professor is making sense – and nonsense. Michel is right and wrong. I believe biofuel is not a tragedy and what Michel says is a comedy of error. You can see that for yourself right now if you can think outside the box.

The German Professor is Director of the Department of Molecular Membrane Biology of the Max Planck Institute of Biophysics in Frankfurt, Germany. Planck, German of course, the father of quantum theory, was of the opinion that atheism was an obsession with symbols (Wikipedia). (Right! Thinking inside the box is an obsession with symbols.)

While scientists were leaving Germany during the Hitler years, Planck ‘felt it his duty to remain in his country’ although he was opposed to some of the Government’s policies, particularly as regards the persecution of the Jews’ (nobelprize.org). In all my 68 years, I have never planned to leave my country and, yes, while I have been opposed to some Government policies, I have been opposed to those opposed to the Government, in her time that of Cory Aquino, in his time that of Fidel Ramos, this time that of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. They don’t know any better.

Today I’m opposed to those who are opposed to biofuels if they don’t know any better.

Is Professor Michel thinking outside the box? In the Inquirer story (2008 January 14, inquirer.net), TJ Burgonio reports that Michel was in Manila last week and spoke in the Nobel Forum January 9, Wednesday at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). ‘We should not put money in biofuel development. It’s counterproductive,’ the Professor told his audience. I wasn’t listening – I wasn’t there.

That is not a valid assumption, Professor Michel. You cannot assume that when Indonesians and Malaysians and Filipinos grow their palm oil, first they clear their forests and, then burn everything on sight. The clearing of forests is not a characteristic inherent in the growing of biofuels; it is a choice people make. So, you can grow corn (the Yankees’ favorite), or sugarcane (the Brazilians’ favorite), or sweet sorghum (my favorite climate change crop) without cutting down a single tree in the forest. If you insist, you have a hidden agenda. Or monkey business.

Now, as Professor Teodoro Mendoza of the University of the Philippines Los Baños points out in his paper ‘Are Biofuels Really Beneficial For Humanity?’ (Philippine Journal of Crop Science, December 2007), ‘a huge amount of oil’ is consumed in the making, transport and storage of fertilizer. Let’s take the case of the nitrogen fertilizer, as nitrogen is ‘often the limiting factor in crop production.’ That’s about 2 liters of oil to 1 kilo of nitrogen. (Not only that. Mendoza points out that 1 kilo of nitrogen applied to the soil contributes to the pollution of the air by another 10 kilos equivalent of carbon dioxide.) That is to say, to produce and distribute and use fertilizer, all along the way you use fossil fuel – the one whose use you are trying to eliminate. I agree with the Professor: This is ridiculous!

But wrong assumption, Professor; wrong strategy too. You don’t have to fertilize your biofuel crop, or any crop for that matter. That’s exactly the reason I prefer sweet sorghum, because this crop grows well enough alone even without fertilizer. I have learned that this crop grows well most anywhere in fact, including waterlogged sites and marginal lands (try and check with icrisat.org) – so you don’t have to open forestlands for sweet sorghum plantations.

That’s not to mention that you don’t have to have thousands of hectares devoted solely to sweet sorghum. Farmers can plant a legume such as pigeon pea after sweet sorghum, to enrich the soil for the next crop. Farmers know relay cropping. Farmers can also mitigate the risks inherent in single-crop farming by growing several crops simultaneously to provide not only several sources of food and income but insurance against the failure of any crop arising from the attack of any pest or disease. Farmers know integrated pest management and multiple cropping.

When you grow crops for biofuel instead of food, this can cause food shortages (or food short circuits – my term). Professor Michel is correct. Surprise: Instead of growing the non-food biofuel crops, the Yankees insist on using corn as feedstock to manufacture ethanol, and the Brazilians insist on using sugarcane for their ethanol. Corn goes into the manufacture of thousands of consumer and industrial products; sugarcane goes into the manufacture of probably even more. Consider corn only, consider the multiplier effect of American cars eating American corn. What’s eating the Yankees?

Now, let’s think outside the box of corn.

Again, wrong assumption, Professor, and wrong strategy. I said, ‘When you grow crops for biofuel instead of food …’ why do you insist on using a food crop like corn or sugarcane to produce ethanol? In other words, you’re playing with fire when you use a food crop to produce biofuel for cars. You don’t need a food crop to produce alcohol, period; if you insist, you must be under the influence.

If you haven’t seen The Multiplier Effect, come visit the Philippines now (or, better yet, retire here): American corn becoming the US’ major source of ethanol has caused the increase in the prices of foods and related items not only in the United States but as far as in these Pearls of the Orient Seas, because we Filipinos eat American corn – we import our corn, joke or no joke, from the Yankees.

Would you believe? We import American corn for the birds and the bees – we feed our poultry with American corn, and of course the fastfood restaurant Jollibee – with its Bee mascot attending to each of the many branches worldwide – serves delicious chicken fed with delicious American corn.

It’s crazy. Roy Huckabay, Executive Vice President of the Linn Group, says, ‘When the energy markets went bananas over the last year, the value of corn as an energy source sky-rocketed.’ So, the consumers have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay the high prices of foods. This is stealing from the poor to give to the rich, Robin Hood in reverse. If you insist, you must be under the influence of the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Professor Michel is correct, according to my favorite brilliant Senator, Miriam Defensor-Santiago (January 15, Donna Pazzibugan & TJ Burgonio, newsinfo.inquirer.net). She says:

Biofuel is land-based and will eventually compete with food. Because the Philippines has a small land area, biofuel production will tend to encroach on food production. Corporations are already searching for millions of hectares for jatropha alone. We have to step on the brakes and decelerate.

Wrong assumption, Senator, and wrong strategy. You are allowing biofuel to compete with food – why should you? Even considering the high food prices, that corn for fuel competes with corn for food and feed is not an argument against bioethanol crops; rather, it is an argument against madness in using a food crop as a source of biofuel. That corporations are searching for millions of hectares for non-food-crop jatropha alone, which is for biodiesel, is not an argument against biodiesel crops either. No Ma’am, I know we have a tiny country, but the Biofuels Act does not raise a serious debate on food versus biofuels. Rather, it raises a serious debate on strategy for biofuel production. Because of the assumed biofuel strategy, biofuel is tragedy.

In the same Inquirer report, Parañaque Representative Roilo Golez says:

There seems to be a mad rush to develop biofuels. A lot of resources are being committed, including millions of hectares of land and billions of pesos, on something that is now being debated.

There is a mad rush, Sir, I agree with you, all over the world, including in the United States, which has continuously refused to acknowledge the wisdom of the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997, can you imagine that? Millions of hectares are being committed, but not in the Philippines. No one can commit millions of hectares to any crop (except rice) in the Philippines – we have only a few millions to begin with. Unless you are referring not to cultivated lands but forestlands to be cleared or deforested sites to be cleared anyway. To be committed to assigning those millions to jatropha alone, or to any biofuel crop for that matter, would be to be insane. To be or not to be, that is the question.

And Sir, biofuels is not something that is being debated (unless of course you’re listening to Professor Michel) – rather, it is which plants (crops or non-crops) to use as biofuels. Such as the source for ethanol: The Yankees prefer corn; the Brazilians prefer sugarcane; the Filipinos prefer sugarcane – Team ICRISAT prefers sweet sorghum. I prefer Team ICRISAT’s choice if you ask me. I have written about 25 full-length essays on this subject, all published by American Chronicle (for a quick view, read ‘My American Book. Embracing Science Embracing Faith’). Sweet sorghum is ‘a smart man’s choice of a poor man’s crop’ (frankahilario.com) because it need not compete with food crops for site or size; it needs little fertilizer; it needs little water; it needs little pesticide. All things considered, sweet sorghum is cheaper and better than the other crops raised for ethanol. Sweet sorghum makes sense out of nonsense.

So you see, Professor Michel, it’s all in the assumptions; it’s all in the approach, it’s all in the strategy.

In other words, the Professor is thinking only of one approach to the growing of any crop: mechanized, chemical agriculture. The farm machines gobble up gasoline or diesel (fossil fuels). The fertilizers you apply and the insecticides you spray against insect pests and herbicides against weeds are manufactured using loads of fossil fuels. You pump out gallons of water using gallons of fossil fuels. Mendoza (cited) says you need to pump about 10,000 liters of water to make 1 liter of ethanol. You are using your enemy to fight your enemy – so, the Professor is right; all the world’s a stage, and it is the theater of the absurd!

But there is another approach that our Nobel laureate has failed to mention in the growing of any crop: Small is beautiful. Didn’t German-British economist Ernest Schumacher teach us exactly that 35 years ago? Schumacher won my head and heart instantly. In homage, I named one of my sons after him. I’ve lost that son of mine, but I still remember him with fondness; I’ve lost my copy of Schumacher’s book, but I remember him kindly warning us against big machines in the big farms. (I’m glad Time listed him one of a hundred heroes of the last century.)

So I say, in the spirit of Schumacher: Small farms, small machines, big heads, big muscles. Less and less is more and more. So: Less and less fertilizers. Less and less insecticides. Less and less herbicides. Less and less water. (Not to mention less and less middlemen.) Even big business in biofuels can be small farms taken together. Proof of concept? The Rusni distillery producing ethanol from sweet sorghum is probably the world’s first in relying for feedstock on Indian farmers in village clusters in Andhra Pradesh, India (icrisat.org). Thousands of small farmers are planting sweet sorghum hybrids from ICRISAT; sweet sorghum as a biofuel crop is the work of Team ICRISAT, whose Team Captain is William Dar (see also my ‘The Color Yellow. Run, Al Gore, Run! (Run, ICRISAT, Run!’ americanchronicle.com).

The image (above) is to remind you that biofuel is not just in the numbers. It’s in the approach. In one approach, money is the incentive; in the other approach, more than money is the incentive. Whose side are you?

While I disagree with the Professor in his fragmented approach to solving the problem, I agree with him in his conclusion that there is global warming and so we better do something about it. He tells his Manila audience that ‘the Philippines is vulnerable to a rise in sea level and stronger storms as an offshoot of global warming’ (Burgonio as cited). So, ‘the Philippines has every reason to do everything to reduce the use of fossil energy.’ Yes, the Filipino is worth thinking outside the box for.

The Professor suggests that the Philippines tap other renewable energy sources to generate power. ‘The islands are rich in wind power. You should invest in wind to generate electricity.’ I appreciate the suggestion. In this, I like to think Professor Hartmut Michel is saying, in effect, if you sow the wind, you will harvest the whirlwind. And that makes an excellent energy source!

Nobody ever said ‘Biofuels alone.’ So, why not machines to harvest the wind and solar cells and sweet sorghum to harvest the sun? In Africa, Asia, South America. Then those harvests of seasons will be harvests of reason.

In the meantime, Manila remains the most polluted city in the world, and I’m referring only to atmosphere. Consider: 1 million cars smoking carbon dioxide into the very air you breathe. Consider: Smoking is bad for your health.

 

Sweet sorghum is sweet smart

Selections from my Franciscan essays (hover cursor over link for source or click for full article)
‘The Smart Revolution. Ethanol Corn Or Sugarcane?
‘Sweet Sorghum Is Smart’ – William Dar, ICRISAT’

Sorghum makes a revolutionary theory: Smart! For biofuel, a paradigm shift from American corn to American sorghum, from Brazilian sugarcane to Brazilian sorghum, that’s smart. To make ethanol, corn is fine, sugarcane is sweet, but sweet sorghum is sweet smart.

‘Sweet sorghum is the smart crop,’ Director General William Dar of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) says over lunch on broiled chicken, sinigang na maya-maya (sour soup, fish), tea and sugarcane juice somewhere in Quezon City, Philippines yesterday, January 11. ‘A smart crop’ – I wish I had thought of that.

And now Dar tells us, ‘Sweet sorghum is the smart crop. What we need to start the Smart Revolution is a smart crop.’ Now I’m thinking: If we’re as smart as we think we are.

Born January 11, The Smart Revolution advocates the enshrinement of pro-poor policies, among others. Sweet sorghum as source of ethanol is intelligent, not only because it is pro-poor. The Director General of ICRISAT enumerates 4 standards as his basis in saying sweet sorghum is a smart crop: food security, energy security, ecological sustainability, and water security. I write them down. He doesn’t explain; I have no questions. Let’s see if I’m as smart as I think I am:

Corn and sugarcane are food crops. The Yankees turn X amount of corn and the Brazilians Y amount of sugarcane into ethanol and they are denying X/Y quantities to the food manufacturers, who will (gladly) raise prices, and thereby punishing their customers by having to pay the price for a public policy that their peoples did not declare. They should be ashamed of themselves!

Sweet sorghum grain is food, but the yield in grains to a hectare is only about 4% of the yield in stalks, 4 tons to 92 tons/ha (Belum Reddy et al, ‘Sweet sorghum: A water-saving bio-energy crop,’ icrisat.org). To favor food and simplify, let me grant that the food yield of sweet sorghum is 10% and the stalk yield is 90% of the total harvest. Still, the ripple effect of the 10% is minimal, if visible at all. That reminds me of how the gifted Thomas Alva Edison defines genius: 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. I don’t like it; too much work to do. So, I’ll take the 90% of sweet sorghum as my inspiration. A smart aleck, reversing Edison, I have been inspired to define genius as 90% inspiration and 10% perspiration. That should inspire others to help wage The Smart Revolution. Head first – assuming Heart – Hands later.

For a country to enjoy energy security, it will have to be self-sufficient and produce its own energy. For my country, since the Philippines has hardly any oil field, it means at least the fuel for cars and trucks must be tapped from crops, and the smart source for ethanol is sweet sorghum. What about the popular sweet crop, sugarcane? Okay, sweet sorghum is the smarter choice. It’s also sweeter, sweetheart.

Is it ecologically sustainable? Yes. Sweet sorghum can siphon off as much of the carbon dioxide in the air as sweet corn. The Ilocanos are a hardy people; they thrive anywhere. Like the Ilocanos of Northern Luzon in my country, sweet sorghum is resilient; so, it can reclaim and enrich marginal lands like corn or sugarcane cannot. Sweet sorghum is an intelligent solution to a problem soil. A crop for the sagacious farmer, not to mention the sagacious entrepreneur.

The cost of growing sweet sorghum is 4 times lower than that of sugarcane, P 17,820 compared to P 44,250/ha/year. Here, less is more, and that’s smart.

Crops need to drink water too. A favored crop in the Philippines, sugarcane doesn’t drink water – it gorges on it. For 1 crop of 12 months, sugarcane uses 36,000 cubic meters of water; for 2 crops of only 8-9 months, sweet sorghum sips only 8,000 cubic meters (Reddy et al, as cited). That’s 78% less water; in other words, sugarcane wolfs down 4.5 times more water than sweet sorghum. This is shocking news, at least to me, as my country has been cultivating sugarcane commercially since the 18th century under the Spanish regime; in the 19th century, sugarcane became a major export (Jose Maria T Zabala, fao.org). A historical lack of intelligence. So, we Filipinos have been cultivating for 200 years a crop that is a wastrel of water. This is water under the bridge we can stop if we’re smart enough.

Is the US smart enough to make a paradigm shift and make a sharp turn from corn to sweet sorghum? I doubt it. How about Brazil from sugarcane? As smart the United States, I guess.

Sweet sorghum is adaptable to many different sites. Flexible is smart.

While we are having lunch yesterday, I notice that the restaurant has ‘sugarcane juice’ and so we order a glass. It’s good. Dar comes up with an insight: That’s a good idea. Sweet sorghum juice is a good product. That’s what I call a smart customer.

Because it is soil-friendly, because it needs much less fertilizer, because of its multiple uses; and because a farmer can earn between $1,250 and $1,625 (at P40 to $1) (mixph.com), not peanuts in my country, now I can tell you: Sweet sorghum is a smart man’s choice of a poor man’s crop.

This is a multi-feedstock distillery, able to extract juice from not only sorghum but also sugarcane and corn. AR Palaniswamy, Managing Director of Rusni Distilleries says, ‘This ensures that we run the plant and provide employment to farmers throughout the year.’ A wise entrepreneur cultivates farmers.

GMA has since been supportive of sweet sorghum for ethanol production (see my ‘The Yankee Dawdle,’ americanchronicle.com). Smart President of her country.

The centerpiece of the conference is the setting up of what is to be called the National Sweet Sorghum Research and Development Center. R&D: I’m not happy to note that the name does not exactly fit the framework; there’s an important letter missing. The image I show (above) is to remind people to please not forget the art & science of Extension; E should always follow R&D. Not only that. Consider that E today must include KM (knowledge management) – you have to sell theory so that practice will follow. Science is swell if you can sell well.

Related to Extension, there’s another E that I think should be integrated into any framework for a national sweet sorghum institute: Entrepreneurship. In cultivating sweet sorghum, entrepreneurship should also be cultivated among Filipinos, in either of two ways: (1) Encouraging the big businessmen to put up their ethanol distillery plants and encouraging the surrounding farms to supply the sweet sorghum stalks on a continuing basis. (2) Encouraging small farmers out of reach of a distillery to collaborate and build village-scale sweet sorghum-based industries such as for syrup, jaggery, wine, feed, food, fuel, fertilizer. Small is smart.

Strategic issues to be addressed in the conference involve, in my own words: (a) production, (b) processing, (c) people, (d) public-private partnerships. I note that the title of the conference has the phrase review and planning. Good thinking. I also think that based on the range of issues listed to be discussed, the review is designed to be holistic, starting with the seeds and ending with what happens to the harvest, what are the benefits and who gets what. If you’re broad-minded, you don’t ever forget the distribution of benefits.

All in all, I am convinced sweet sorghum is The Smart Crop, the great climate change crop. So, I say the smart set are the Filipinos and other Asians, the Europeans, Africans, North and South Americans and others who are paying attention to climate change following the Kyoto Protocol (see also my ‘Atlas Blogged! Climate Change In UK, Then In UP, Then In US?’ americanchronicle.com). To those who have been intelligently accepting the Kyoto Protocol, I say:

Sweet sorghum is smart money.

Sorghum makes a radical tease: Smart. Now, for the rest of us, which one are you: Smart cookie, smart mouth, or smart ass? Those who have been foolishly rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, the peoples of the United States and Australia, to them I ask:

While you’re so rich, why aren’t you so smart?

You can’t write if you’re a dummy

Selections from my Franciscan essays (hover cursor over link for source or click for full article)
‘My Crazy Dozen. The Rebel Writer’s Guide For Non-Dummies’

Who am I talking to this time? They would be public speakers, lecturers, PowerPoint presentors, resource persons, debaters, reviewers, essayists, biographers, autobiographers, authors, ghostwriters, columnists, journalists, consultants, managers, even proposal packagers in science. And why is that? All of them must be good writers first before they can be good at what they’re supposed to be doing. Those who can afford can hire good writers, so I’m not writing for those dummies.

The non-dummy reason I will not write a dummies’ book for writers is that you can’t write if you’re a dummy.

A dummy is certainly not educated on the subject – but why educate him on the history, comparison and technical details of Windows when all he wants to know and do is run Windows to write a letter and send it via email?

Dan Brown reports that his book Da Vinci Code has sold 70 million copies worldwide (danbrown.com); multiply that by 2 readers a copy and you have 140 million dummies worldwide.

To balance that a bit, Time reports that JK Rowling’s 7 Harry Potter books have sold 400 million copies worldwide. Multiply that number by 2.5 readers a copy and you have 1 billion dummies. Count me in. I’m unique; I’m a one-in-a-billion dummy.

That’s how science should be told, like magic – science is magic.

This world has gone to the dummies!

The Attorney General has determined that gambling is bad for your health.

From what I’ve seen so far, you’re a dummy if you buy a book for dummies – they’re for professionals, who I would believe are no dummies.

There’s no such thing as ‘a perfect blogger’ – I’m an inveterate blogger and I’m not always perfect.

WordPress is not that smart, and I’m not that dummy.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch – only a free hunch.

In other words, ‘for dummies’ is all hype, and you’re a dog if you dig it, you’re a zombie if you yearn for it, you’re a fool if you pine for it, you’re a puppy if you lap it all up.

Hacking is for crazy whiz kids or insane virtuosos, not dummies like you and me. In this case, I like being a dummy.

The idea of a brainstorm is that you have absolutely no idea!

My Crazy Twelve Commandments Of Writing For Non-Dummies

(1) If you want to begin right, don’t begin right.
(2) If you want to create order, create disorder.
(3) If you want to write well, don’t write.
(4) If you want to be read, don’t read yourself.
(5) If you want to listen to advice, don’t give the advice.
(6) If you want to attract readers, don’t give your vocabulary.
(7) If you want to improve, don’t just improve.
(8) If you want to get more ideas, look where there are none!
(9) If you want to have a good sequence, make a bad one.
(10) If you want to write objectively, you’re a journalist.
(11) If you want to know everything, you’re an encyclopedia.
(12) If you want to give up, you’re a mad genius!

Later, from out of the chaos, I can hear myself say, ‘Let there be life!’ And there is like. And it is enough.

The ideas and information I got from the Internet challenged me, set me in other directions, and otherwise helped me think some more and come up with my own order of thoughts. It wasn’t easy, but then again I’ve had years and years of practice so much so that the pressure has become pleasure. You should be so pleased!

That first paragraph is information overload, too much even for a professional reader. It reads like an ad copy written by Bill Gates himself. Bill Gates is great in marketing, not in copy.

If you believe you have all the wisdom, you’re not real; you don’t exist. End of story.

Contrary to what Dale Carnegie may have said, vocabulary scares people.

That’s why I say science writing is too important a subject to be left to scientists alone.

The Rebel Writer has determined that a wide vocabulary is bad for your health.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholden.

WordPress is not the only blog pusher in the world.

I was a barbarian knocking at the gates for more ideas. Heaven knows I don’t have to be a barbarian but it helps.

Impressions are important: Impressions first, impressions last.

When in Rome, don’t write like the Romans do. Unless I’m sadly mistaken, all journalists try to write objectively – and that explains why they are boring to read.

Your readers are not objective themselves – they root for people, sides, causes. No, you’re a double dummy if you try to write for all kinds of people – you can only write for your kind of dummies, dummy.

Not knowing is a perfect reason for knowing more!

Today, being a writer is easy – talent or no talent, you create a blog and in a minute or two, you’re a published writer.

You’d be mad to give up a high regard for yourself, or your ambition – but you’d be a genius as a writer.

I can share with you that the more you are at peace with the world, the better you become as a writer, not to mention as a human being.

Why now do I write? I want to share my experiences and insights in living and hope to encourage others. Why now do I write for writers? I want to share my experiences and insights in writing and hope to encourage writers to encourage others.

There is so much negative in the Philippines today that to encourage the positive requires that you invest on heroism that of course is a huge risk since it borders on stupidity.

The Philippines needs more geniuses who are foolish enough to give up their comfort zones in favor of their country, to give up their ambitions for themselves. I’m hoping that more such insane geniuses will rise among Filipinos, especially writers young and old – the old, for their own legacy; the young, for own their future. Give up and be recognized!

As for me, I’ve given up on UP, the University of the Philippines, my alma mater; I’ve given up on the fervent UP nationalist geniuses. These are the times for globalization; now, nationalism is local, internationalism is global and the irresistible force.

Age doesn’t matter; you can be a genius at 8, 18, 38, 68, 78, 88, 98? A silly genius for the environment. A crazy genius for God and country. A hero. To be a hero, I suppose you shouldn’t have to be ridiculous but it should help.

I write to probe

Selections from my Franciscan essays (hover cursor over link for source or click for full article)
‘100 in 100. Celebrating Centennials & Counting’

I Francisco have written 100 Franciscan essays published online by the American Chronicle in the last 100 weeks, from February 2006 to December 2007. I didn’t count before, but those 100 now make me feel I count a lot.

In journalism, you write 30 and you’re finished; in science writing, I write 100 and I’ve just began.

100 essays I wrote; what was I trying to prove? Nothing. I don’t write to prove; rather, I write to probe. And if you ask me, those 100 prove that my probing is worth approving.

There are no dull science stories, only dull science writers.

Since Word 2007 is entirely new, I have to forget everything I have learned about Word 2003. I’d rather forget Word 2007.

I have 100 reasons why I call sweet sorghum, which scientists prefer to call Sorghum bicolor, the great climate change crop (see my ‘My American Book,’ americanchronicle.com). The #1 reason: Sweet sorghum grows rich on poor soils. It can withstand waterlogging on one hand and drought on the other. Scientists should call it Sorghum versatile.

I have always been open-minded about my writing, but publishers have not agreed with me. So I see: The problem with writing is not writing but publishing – that you’ve got talent is not a guarantee that you’ll get published.

As against page publishing that the newspapers and magazines delight in, or book publishing that textbook publishers enjoy, blogging has given me the pleasure of thought publishing (and the inspiration to coin a new term). Blogging is the biggest thing since the printing press. Blogging is the best thing that ever happened since blabbering.

I told you 100 is perfect! And so, like George Burns and Bob Hope and your mother or grandmother, I’d be glad to live to be 100 years old but, God, 87 is good enough for me.

I’m grateful for people who are grateful.

Having learned to be creative more than 40 years ago with Rudolf Flesch’s pocketbook How To Write, Think & Speak More Effectively, I can relate even two opposites and find some pleasant things to talk and think about.

I have reason enough for my faith, and I have faith enough in my reason.

A science story does not have to be drab.

Get personal. Imagine that you are taking part in a conversation, so you write as if you’re talking to someone in particular. That will make your writing more natural and, therefore, more appealing. Also, remember always to take sides; that way, you gain credibility.

Money speaks louder than words.

At any rate, the exact date is not important: We celebrate the event, not the number. We celebrate the centennial, the growing of age, not the age. We hold on to the process, not the product.

A double centennial? 100 happening in 100: The pleasure had been mine.