Last Saturday, at the Education Summit of San Joaquin Elementary School in Pasig:

Q: Ano ang mga suliranin o "issues" na may kinalaman sa pag-aaral ng inyong mga anak?
A: Di malutas ang global warming.

Q: Ano ang maari ninyong gawin upang makatulong sa mabuting pag-aaral ng inyong mga anak?
A: Di na ko mag totong-its, pramis.

I've been guilty of typing tipsy and sending e-mail when I'm emotionally vulnerable. I've found myself trying to hack into other people's inboxes to delete messages I wish I hadn't sent. I can be stupid like that. I'm not alone. Apparently these moments of weakness are more common than I thought. Thankfully, Google had the genius to invent this:

'Mail Goggles' might prevent e-mail regrets
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Here's the scenario: It's Friday night, and what began as an innocent happy-hour margarita morphed into a few pitchers. After all, those tacos were salty.

Bidding friends adieu, you jump in a cab, head home and decide a quick e-mail check is in order. And there it is: a message from your ex. Or your boss. Or that friend you're secretly mad at.

If you're the kind of person who types tipsy and regrets it in the morning, Google's "Mail Goggles," a new test-phase feature in the free Gmail service, might save you some angst.

The Goggles can kick in late at night on weekends. The feature requires you to solve a few easy math problems in short order before hitting "send." If your logical thinking skills are intact, Google is betting you're sober enough to work out the repercussions of sending that screed you just drafted.

And if you can't multiply two times five, you'll probably thank Google in the morning.

To activate Goggles, Gmail users should click the "Settings" link at the top of a Gmail page, then go to the "Labs" section.

There's no shame in admitting that sometimes you need a little extra help. Gmail engineer Jon Perlow designed Goggles with his own weaknesses in mind.

"Sometimes I send messages I shouldn't send. Like the time I told that girl I had a crush on her over text message. Or the time I sent that late night e-mail to my ex-girlfriend that we should get back together," he wrote when announcing Mail Goggles on a company blog.

The name is derived from the slang term "beer goggles," or the curious effect of alcohol on one's ability to see the true nature of that "cutie" at the other end of the bar.

But you can set up Mail Goggles to protect you from yourself at other emotionally vulnerable times before your morning coffee, for example, or right after "Grey's Anatomy."

The exceedingly close race that Hillary Clinton ran against Barack Obama showed that America is responsive to the idea of a woman in the White House. The Republicans took that idea and ran with it in the completely wrong direction. They gave us Sarah Palin.

While I admit that the idea of a woman as commander-in-chief of the most powerful country in the world appeals to me as a woman, that's not why Hillary Clinton was my candidate. Simply put, Hillary's got the chops to be president. I felt she was the best person for the job, and the fact that she's a woman was merely incidental.

I marvel at the McCain campaign's audacity in changing the rules of this election's gender debate by putting forth a vice-presidential candidate who is Hillary Clinton's complete anti-thesis. Didn't they think we would notice?

"...While the Republicans would have us believe that Palin can simply stand in for Hillary Clinton, there is nothing interchangeable about these politicians. We began this history-making election with one kind of woman and have ended up being asked to accept her polar opposite. Clinton's brand of femininity is the kind that remains slightly unpalatable in America. It is based on competence, political confidence and an assumption of authority that upends comfortable roles for men and women. It's a kind of power that has nothing to do with the flirtatious or the girly, nothing to do with the traditionally feminine. It is authority that is threatening because it so closely and calmly resembles the kind of power that the rest of the guys on a presidential stage never question their right to wield." (Salon.com)

The farcical comparison was captured perfectly by SNL:

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin: Just look at how far we've come. Hillary Clinton, who came so close to the White House. And me, Sarah Palin, who is even closer. Can you believe it, Hillary?
Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton: I can not.
Tina Fey as Sarah Palin: It's truly amazing and I think women everywhere can agree, that no matter your politics, it's time for a woman to make it to the White House.
Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton: No. Mine! It's supposed to be mine! I need to say something. I didn't want a woman to be President. I wanted to be President and I just happen to be a woman. And I don't want to hear you compare your road to the White House to my road to the White House. I scratched and clawed through mud and barbed wire and you just glided in on a dog sled wearing your pageant sash and your Tina Fey glasses.

Feminist writer Rebecca Traister explains why the pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin's nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for:

What Palin so seductively represents... is a form of feminine power that is utterly digestible to those who have no intellectual or political use for actual women. It's like some dystopian future ... feminism without any feminists.

Palin's femininity is one that is recognizable to most women: She's the kind of broad who speaks on behalf of other broads but appears not to like them very much. The kind of woman who... achieves her power by doing everything modern women believed they did not have to do: presenting herself as maternal and sexual, sucking up to men, evincing an absolute lack of native ambition, instead emphasizing her luck as the recipient of strong male support and approval. It works because these stances do not upset antiquated gender norms. So when the moment comes, when tolerance for and interest in female power have been forcibly expanded by Clinton, a woman more willing to throw elbows and defy gender expectations but who falls short of the goal, Palin is there, tapped as a supposedly perfect substitute by powerful men who appreciate her charms.

In a similar vein, Emily Bazelon talks about why watching Palin is agony for women.

When Sarah Palin made her debut at the Republican National Convention, I knew absolutely nothing about her. I saw an attractive, charming woman who appeared to be strong, confident and competent. She seemed dedicated and eager to serve. Her speech, taken in and of itself, was very compelling. Her criticism of Obama made me go, "Oh snap!" She was feisty. I liked that.

Post-RNC examination of her record as mayor and governor made her considerably less impressive. And then we got a taste of Sarah unscripted. Her succeeding interviews (Hello, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric) completely ruined her me. Her performance at the vice-presidential debate proved that she can speak in complete sentences, but not that she understands anything about foreign policy.

Jon Meacham sums up the Palin Problem nicely:

A key argument for Palin, in essence, is this: Washington and Wall Street are serving their own interests rather than those of the broad whole of the country, and the moment requires a vice president who will, Cincinnatus-like, help a new president come to the rescue. The problem with the argument is that Cincinnatus knew things. Palin sometimes seems an odd combination of Chauncey Gardiner from "Being There" and Marge from "Fargo."

Is this an elitist point of view? Perhaps, though it seems only reasonable and patriotic to hold candidates for high office to high standards. Elitism in this sense is not about educational or class credentials, not about where you went to school or whether you use "summer" as a verb. It is, rather, about the pursuit of excellence no matter where you started out in life. Jackson, Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton were born to ordinary families, but they spent their lives doing extraordinary things, demonstrating an interest in, and a curiosity about, the world around them. This is much less evident in Palin's case.

But while she's not the most qualified candidate for vice-president, she is certainly the most entertaining. She's like a bright shiny object that's been tossed in the middle of the presidential race and everyone is scrambling for her. Since she first captured mainstream media attention she's become an instant celebrity who inspires a tabloid-like fascination in people.

My interest in Sarah Palin ranges from political to ideological to personal to sartorial to grammatical. Sometimes listening to her speak is like getting a root canal in the part of my brain where English resides, but the masochist in me can't wait to hear what she'll say next. I'm particularly fond of her poetry:

"On Good and Evil"

It is obvious to me
Who the good guys are in this one
And who the bad guys are.
The bad guys are the ones
Who say Israel is a stinking corpse,
And should be wiped off
The face of the earth.

That's not a good guy.
(To K. Couric, CBS News, Sept. 25, 2008)

To lighten the serious political mood this blog has been sporting lately, let's talk about midgets. By some weird coincidence midgets keep being randomly brought to my attention. Now I shall bring them to yours.

Midgets in Pinoy Showbiz

I'm not exactly immersed in Filipino pop culture, so in the past the only celebrity midget who came to mind was Mahal of Lunch Date/Jimboy Salazaar/Shower Scandal fame. Thanks to this article, I now have a better appreciation of ( the contributions of little people or unanos to the Philippine entertainment industry. )

Midgets in Sports Entertainment


Lady Boxing and Midget Oil Wrestling
Ringside Bar, Kalayaan Avenue
So if little people duking it out is your thing, you now know where to go.

Midgets in Bruges

In Bruges is the darkly comedic tale of two hired killers, Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and Ray (Colin Farrell), who have been sent by their boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes), to cool their heels in Bruges, Belgium after a hit. It's a good movie in general but it's this scene in particular that totally made it for me:

( You don't know karate! )

Some issues raised in the comments of my previous post:

Propaganda/Ignorance

Gaby said: I went to Mass yesterday, and there was a tarp hanging from one of the balconies saying something along the lines of "NO to the Reproductive Health Bill! Nakakasira ng pamilya! Masama sa kalusugan!"

The "nakakasira ng pamilya" bit I can understand, because they think sex education will lead to promiscuity. But the "masama sa kalusugan" part?

Then Tess said: The first people that should go through the sex education programs this bill will provide are the priests. Their knowledge on the contraceptive pills and such is so dated.

It didn't occur to me that the Church/religious groups might actually believe to be true some of the false information they've been peddling. That may explain why they think the bill is "masama sa kalusugan." She said that in her church they were handing out leaflets about how contraceptive pills cause cancer and death. It could be propaganda, but it could also be that they don't actually know the real benefits/side effects of these pills.

Sex Education and Promiscuity

There's this argument that comprehensive sex education will make people want to go out and have lots and lots of sex. Anyone who subscribes to this idea has obviously never attended a sex ed class.

A couple of years ago my best friend Glenda and her husband Evan had to attend one of those requisite sex ed classes in city hall to get their marriage license. She thanked God her husband (who's Canadian) couldn't understand a thing, because talking about sex in that highly clinical, antiseptic way, particularly in Filipino which somehow makes even technical terms for the human anatomy sound vulgar, was the one of the grossest, most uncomfortable experiences she'd ever had to sit through.

There is absolutely nothing sexy about sex ed. If talking about fallopian tubes and the inner workings of the uterus and the number of ways one can contract STDs turns you on, there is something very wrong with you.

Feanne said: After learning about how easy it is to get STDs & unwanted pregnancies, doesn't it make you wanna be a lot more careful about whom you get physically intimate with?

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) said: It has been, repeatedly shown that reproductive health education leads to responsible behavior, higher levels of abstinence, later initiation of sexuality, higher use of contraception, and fewer sexual partners, These good effects are even greater when parents can talk honestly with their children about sexual and reproductive matters.

Reproducing Like Rabbits

I recently met a poor couple in Tondo that has sixteen children. They didn't want/plan to have that many children. It just kind of happened and now they don't know what to do with them.

Feanne said: If the parents had reproductive health education... and access to family planning info and services... then at least they would've had the knowledge and the ability to THINK FIRST. "Should I have sex?" Am I ready to have a child? Can we support another child? How many children do we want to have?" etc etc.

Reproductive Health Programs and Extinction

Jeremy said: I don't get why anyone assumes that learning about contraceptives (and STDs!!!!) will stop people from procreating. Honestly, that's like saying people will choose to starve to death if they're educated about food.

People are still going to want to have kids even after they learn about condoms and the pill. They'll just want to do it when the timing is good (i.e. they're not just learning about how things, um, fit together) and the circumstances are right (i.e. they can afford it). And if a certain couple doesn't want to have kids, well - they probably would not make good parents anyway, for any number of reasons! (The top one being that they don't want the kids to begin with.)

The "Culture of Death"

If you're not "pro-life" you're basically:


We support HB 5043.
I'm so tired of this "culture of death" rhetoric from religious/conservative camp. We're not even talking about abortion here. I'm personally anti-abortion, which to me is an entirely different discussion from artificial contraception. But to the Catholic Church, artificial contraception still falls under the "culture of death" because you're not being open to the possibility of life.

As far as the Church is concerned, sex should only be used (A) for procreation; and (B) as an expression of "conjugal love" between spouses. You can't separate A from B. Married couples should always be open to the possibility of a pregnancy, so while family planning is permissible, only natural methods are allowed. Having sex purely for pleasure is immoral.

I sometimes feel like if sex weren't necessary to propagate the species the Church would be happy to ban it altogether.

If they're able to convince people with their theological arguments about the "sanctity" of sex, good for them. But I think they need to come to terms with the fact that sex is the world's oldest form of entertainment and people are going to keep having it. There are many different views on when and with whom one should have sex, some more liberal than others, but the general consensus among reasonable people is that it should be between consenting adults who understand the risks and are prepared to deal with the consequences.

Sex does have social implications, which people regardless of their religious persuasions or lack thereof need to deal with. Sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancies, illegal and medically unsafe abortions, abandoned children, vulnerable single mothers, poverty, etc. But educating people and helping them make informed choices can do so much to address these problems. We can't say the same for threatening them with eternal damnation. There's a reason why the highest abortion rates can be found in the most conservative and religious areas of the world.

Religion and Politics

Feanne said: There's supposed to be a separation of church and state.

Vida said: Just a clarification, separation of church and state from its origins (and is still interpreted in the same way) in the American constitution was created in order to inhibit the State in creating an official religion e.g. Church of England etc. This does not deter the Church or any religion for that matter to push for its own agenda.There is a moral dimension to the government because it is an institution made out of people

Yes, politics and governance have moral dimensions. However, it's up to the people (and not just a single institution or interest group) to define what is moral. The Catholic Church doesn't have a privileged position in the morality debate, even it believes it has a monopoly of truth and goodness.

Catholics are just one interest group. As an interest group they're certainly free to express their views on issues. They can try their darnest to convince non-believers that they're right. But there is freedom of religion in this country, therefore people who don't share the Catholic sense of morality are not bound by it. At at the end of the day we have to respect that everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs and we have no right to impinge on how others live their lives. That's why the Bill of Rights exist. I reserve the right to be a heathen.

If you want to live in a society where people are not entitled to make personal choices based on beliefs contrary to yours, democracy is not for you. I suggest you buy your own island and establish an absolute monarchy or a theocracy or a totalitarian state, or any form of government that allows you to control all aspects of other people's lives.

Sarah said: I'm not too cool about using my parents' taxes to the government to provide people with condoms.

I respect that, but people who share that position are the minority. According to surveys:

82% say that candidates in favor of couples' free choice of family planning methods should be supported while only 3% think otherwise and 15% are undecided.

83% of Filipinos say they are in favor of candidates who support the allocation of government funds for family planning while only 2% say they are not and 15% are undecided.

Is it democratic for the 2% and the 3% to decide for everyone else?

The Economic Arguments

Some groups are raising the demographic doomsday scenario, citing the "inverted triangles" of Japan and Singapore. The argument is: People are our asset. We have to see them as human resources that propel our country's development instead of burdens to our economy. Let us re-focus then our policy on developing our human resources base instead of eliminating them. Let us put out hope and energies in educating them to be citizens that will positively contribute to the progress of the nation instead of educating them to extinguish our race.

threeworld said: There is a direct correlation between a large population and a booming economy. The four economies that are booming in today's world are Brazil, India, Russia, and China and these are countries with large population.

First of all, what this bill represents is a way to manage population growth not control it. There is no policy limiting the number of children a couple can have. This bill may ultimately lead to less children being born, but if Filipinos want to have less babies can/should any person or institution FORCE them to have more? Should it be government policy to dictate the number of children couples should have?

Second, there's no direct correlation between a large population and a booming economy. If it's really as simple as more people = greater economic prosperity, the countries with the biggest populations should also have the highest GDP per capita. Singapore has a much smaller population than China but a higher GDP per capita. Bangladesh has more people than Russia, so why isn't Bangladesh freaking rich?

People per se are not an economic asset. They have to be productive. Okay, let's make them productive. No one's saying "Stop developing human resources; stop making humans instead." What we're saying is we're producing people at a faster rate than we can turn them into skilled labor. We can't even provide them with BASIC education!

Which is not to say we shouldn't keep striving, but what do we do about the multitudes being born into poverty as we're getting our act together? Unemployed people in the shanties are having dozens of children that neither they nor the state can support. That's a problem we need to address immediately and the religious/conservative camp doesn't have any immediate solutions. This bill is an immediate solution, because it can stop unwanted pregnancies and consequently stop more people from being born into poverty.

What the examples of Japan and Singapore have shown is that limiting the growth of a population works only up to a certain point. After that point it becomes necessary to make it grow again. It has not shown that we should keep reproducing like rabbits even if it means majority of the population has to live in squalor.

Population Growth and Poverty

Vida said: Population has always been the convenient excuse for poverty. Japan is more than a hundred million. What makes them different from us is economic reform leading to relatively more equal distribution of wealth. The RH bill sidetracks us from addressing real economic issues i.e. Agrarian reform, financial reforms, etc.


It make us forget the failures of the state because now it's all about no population control=more people being born poor. We have been pursuing agrarian reform for the last 100 years. That says so much about the failure of the state. So if we are not reforming fast enough to keep up with the growing number of people being born into poverty, then the problem lies with the state and reforms, not with the population.

Who's forgetting that we need economic reform? Who's turning a blind eye to the failures of the state? Who's stupid enough to think that this bill will solve ALL our problems?

This bill is not a panacea but that doesn't mean it's not worth passing.

Poverty is a governance problem, not a population problem. The population growth rate is not the cause of poverty. The Philippines is not poor because we have too many people. We're poor because of a whole slew of political economic reasons.

Reproductive health legislation is not an economic solution. But it does lessen unwanted pregnancies and it thereby reduces the number of people born into poverty. By reducing the number of people born into poverty, we're not solving the problem of poverty. We're just stopping unwanted pregnancies/births from contributing further to the problem.

I'll once again point to the poor couple in Tondo that has sixteen children. Agrarian reform, financial reform etc. may solve the problem of poverty in the long run, but they are not going to stop people from having more children than they want/can afford to support in the short run. Reproductive health programs, to a large extent, will.

On the Reproductive Health Act of 2008, Part 1

It's unacceptable that young girls who've barely hit puberty are having babies, that poor families are having dozens of children whom they can't afford to feed, clothe or send to school, and that an appallingly large number of Filipinos are completely ignorant about reproductive health and family planning methods.

In 2005, Rep. Edcel Lagman et al proposed House Bill 3773 (The Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act of 2005). This is what I had to say about it then. It's 2008 and the proponents have put forth new reproductive health legislation in the form of House Bill No. 5043 (The Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008), incurring the same fire and brimstone from the Catholic Church. The fundamental arguments haven't changed, and so neither has my position. In sum:

The bill... is about responsible parenting, family planning, and reproductive health. It has nothing to do whatsoever with legalizing or promoting abortion. By reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies it may actually even lead to less abortions.

(Reproductive health) programs teach people about both natural and artificial contraception. They make artificial contraceptives available, but they don't force people to use them. People can choose. The Church can exercise its moral leadership by preaching against artificial contraceptives and trying to influence their decision, but it can't -- shouldn't -- make the choice for them.

What this bill is ultimately about is responsible, informed choice. It does not advocate one family planning method over the other. It aims to educate people on human reproductive processes and inform them of the options available to them. It seeks to give people access to a full range of medically safe and effective family planning methods. People are free to choose the option which they feel is in keeping with their personal values and/or religious beliefs.

Please ignore the cheap tactics employed by certain conservative groups to discredit H.B. 5043. Examine the full text of the bill yourself and make up your own mind about it.

( Objectives and Key Provisions )

The justification for the bill is given in Rep. Edcel Lagman's explanatory note of H.B. 17, one of the bills substituted by H.B. 5043:

( The Cold Hard Facts )

Read Rep. Lagman's defense of the bill against the storm of false allegations here and here.

If you believe this bill should be passed, please speak up. Add your voice to the public debate and help counter the misinformation that is being spread. If you agree with this Declaration of Support for the Immediate Passage of the Reproductive Health Bill into Law, please sign the petition.

On the Reproductive Health Act of 2008, Part 2

My school isn't even in the UAAP and even I'm sick of the pettiness and stupidity it inspires in people.

I don't understand why people get all riled up over college basketball. The fact that UA&P's basketball team does not compete in the UAAP is irrelevant to this post. Even if they did, I'd probably be mildly pleased/disappointed if they won/lost, but I'd shoot myself before I participated in any ridiculous fanatical behavior on their account.

If I were to get emotional about something, it would be an academic competition. Because at least my school's performance in an academic competition would reflect upon me personally, as a student of the university, who underwent the same academic training as the hypothetical participants.

I can't make the same correlation with athletic competitions. I may feel an affinity with the players even if I don't personally know them because we're from the same school and we thus have shared experiences, but I don't see what the outcome of a basketball game has to do with me personally. It reflects on the players, on their coach, and to some extent on their families and friends. But not on random people who just happen to be from the same school. Random people do not have a personal stake in the game.

Of course, you don't necessarily need to have a personal stake in the game to care about its outcome. Being a fan of the Ateneo Blue Eagles or the La Salle Green Archers can be no different from being a fan of the LA Lakers of the Boston Celtics. You think they're a good team, you enjoy watching them play, you've gotten to know the players as you've been following their careers, you've seen them work hard and you think they deserve to win. It's fun to cheer them on. You're happy when they win and you're sad when they lose. I get that. You're not the kind of fans who bother me.

The kind of fans who do bother me are the ones who use basketball games and stupid school rivalries to define themselves. "I'm an Atenean! *thumps chest* Our basketball victory is proof that we are superior to you mere mortals in every way!" WHATEVER. GO SHOVE YOUR TRUE BLUE HALIKINU SOMEPLACE TENDER.*

So your school won a game. What does that say about you as person? Absolutely nothing. It has nothing to do with your academic performance. It is not an indication of your competence or likeliness to succeed professionally. It is not a testament to your character. It speaks nothing of your virtues or personal qualities. What, then, is it to you? Where does this sense of pride come from?

It's one thing for you to be proud of your schoolmates and give them a clap on the back for a job well done, and an entirely different thing for you to think their victory elevates your status as a human being. Your school's team may be better than the teams of the others, but how are you personally better than the students/alumni of other schools?

You may be proud of your school, but have you stopped to think about whether or not it has reason to be proud of you? Your school may have produced star athletes, brilliant scholars, business moguls, politicians, movers and shakers of society, but if you're mediocre and you haven't any personal accomplishments to speak of, you really have no business being all high and mighty about being an Atenean or a La Sallite or whatever.

I've observed that a person with a weak sense of self tends to subsume his/her personal identity beneath the collective identity of a group to which he/she belongs. That really bothers me. You are defined by your actions, your choices, and the kind of life you live. You are not defined by the people around you. The company you keep may be some indication of the kind of person you are, but you do not deserve praise for their achievements. You are not great by association. You are judged on your own personal merit. Do you embody the ideals of your school? Do you live up to its lofty standards? If you don't, it's time to reconsider that superiority complex.

And if you truly love your school, don't sully its respectable name by being a simple-minded trash-talking jackass. The egotism and disrespect displayed by fans on both sides do nothing but shame their respective alma maters.

* DISCLAIMER: I'm not singling Ateneans out. They're just easy examples because they won yesterday's game and some of them are being less than gracious about it. I'm not talking about Ateneans in general. I'm just talking about those who demonstrate said behavior. I'd feel just as much contempt for anyone, from any school, who acted that way. If I saw that kind of behavior in UA&P students I'd be the first to tell them off.

Jen at the Volcom promotional event for bloggers
September 17, 2008
Good Earth Roasts, Rockwell
So there was an on-the-spot t-shirt designing contest with the above theme and Jen and I decided to make an environmental statement. Our concept was a withering earth goddess amid a desolate landscape, and it actually didn't look half bad at the start (that is, before I got involved). In hindsight, fingerpainting over Jen's drawing may not have been the best idea.

My greatest artistic achievement was the series of stick people who adorned the margins of my readings in college, but unlike me, a lot of you people on my friends list are extremely creative and talented. And so I invite you to join:

The best among original submitted graphic shirt designs with the theme "Why are you hurting your neighborhood? What's wrong with you?" will be picked out by Volcom and made into a limited edition shirt. The chosen designer will be featured by Volcom and will recieve:

• A cash prize of Php 25,000.00
  
• A Php 10,000 shopping spree of Volcom stuff from Aloha Board Sports.
  
• Media mileage and bragging rights for holding the title of being a Volcom Featured Artist

You can use any art or graphics medium. Just be sure to submit it in the following format:

• 16 ½" width x 23 ½" height JPEG format with 300 dpi
  
• Artwork should incorporate the Volcom stone

Upload your piece to http://www.volcomcallforart.com using the registration form found in the site. You will receive a confirmation email acknowledging receipt of your entry.

All artwork must be in before midnight of October 30. Results will be out by the 2nd week of November.

( Formal Terms & Conditions )