It?s too early in the New Year to think deep thoughts, so here?s another week of occasional ideas to ponder.

I?ve often wondered, does prayer work? Has the Church ever done any analysis on it? Because my impression from anecdotal evidence is that there?s no difference in success between those who pray and those who don?t. What I find particularly intriguing is that when prayers are answered, God is thanked. When they aren?t, ?Well, that?s God?s wishes.? God never loses, but humans who don?t have their prayer answered surely do. I?d like to see the Church ask SWS or Pulse Asia to conduct a survey and publish the results.

It has been suggested that it is too simplistic to blame the Church for the lack of morality and honesty, that the parents and the nation?s leaders must share the blame. I don?t agree, the parents and leaders were innocent, honest children once too. Filipinos go to church, priests issue homilies, are involved in much of the schooling. They are there at the impressionable age and have the responsibility to inculcate Christ?s teachings of honesty and morality into their flock. It?s the worldly, rather than spiritual, underpinning of Christianity. The Church has failed. Will the bishops accept this and now make reforms in the way they are involved with families so that the next generation will be a more honest one.

And will they be more outspoken and active against the obviously dishonest adults around us today? How can the Church accept that the Philippines is now billed as the most corrupt country in Asia yet remain surprisingly silent in condemning it? This is not an intrusion into the secularization of the State, but a legitimate attack on the immorality around us.

I don?t expect it to succeed, but if in the unlikely event it does, it has a key flaw, and hence a key change that must be introduced and that?s in the plebiscite to amend or not the Constitution. The people can only vote yes or no on the revisions as a whole. They can?t vote on specific issues. This means the people?s will is not being fairly reflected. It would be sad if necessary economic reforms are discarded when an extension of term limits is soundly rejected, as the surveys show it would be.

I can?t be bothered at this point researching it but I wonder what?s necessary to allow voting by issue. It must be the way it should be done. And surely congressmen who are called ?representatives? because they represent the people, have an unconditional responsibility to follow the people?s wishes when they rise to vote in the House of Representatives. Well the people, the people they represent have told them in no uncertain terms (64 percent according to Social Weather Stations survey of October 2008) that they don?t want Charter change at this time. If they can?t truly represent the people?s wishes, shouldn?t they resign and let someone who does represent the people?s wishes do so? By the way, one change I?d like to see is to remove the need for an enabling law in the anti-dynasty provision in the Constitution.

When oil prices shot up over $140 a barrel, the airlines understandably became very strict on weight allowances, whatever tolerance there used to be disappeared. Fair enough, we all recognize that the heavier the plane load the more the fuel used.

But what is not fair enough, and really never was, is that the weight restriction is on luggage only. Yet the problem is weight in total. Surely it should be only fair that weight of luggage AND passenger is calculated. If you as a person weigh more than an average, then you should carry less luggage or pay a penalty. Why should I at 75 kgs be limited to 105 kg when I?m sitting next to someone who weighs 105 kg?without any luggage. And he?s allowed to have 30 kg of luggage too.

It?s unfair, and I object. Airlines are encouraging obesity by their current policy. They should be more health-oriented and make it more expensive for obese people so they?ll be even more forced into a diet. On top of that, now that oil is a third of what it was, we should be allowed a higher weight allowance, or a cheaper fare.

There has been much discussion on whether the Philippines should enact an open skies policy, at least at Clark. Philippine Air Lines has rightly objected that it makes it unfair to it and the other Filipino airlines flying internationally as they don?t get such open treatment into where these other airlines come from.

And there?s the obvious solution. Why is the airline industry, the most modern transport system, mired in ancient regulation its transportation predecessors don?t have? That no other industry has? Why can?t any airline travel to any airport without restriction? Provided, of course, that it meets the various safety standards and there?s a time slot available.

This is a modern world where the barriers have come down, we Skype our kids in Australia as though they were a block away. We can travel around the world in hours, not months. Trade barriers are collapsing and will eventually go?the failure of Doha was a temporary hiccup. A country?s financial system can collapse, and we go with it. Yet we can?t fly from one country to another without a tit-for-tat bilateral agreement. It?s absurd.

We, the traveling public, should start to complain. Open skies will mean open competition. Open competition always leads to lower prices and/or better service. We, the consumers, get the best of choices. As it now stands, I choose on service and Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and our Philippine Air Lines (each one of them) excels. Qantas, my nation?s supposed airline, dismally fails.

There?s another anachronism: National airline. There?s no such thing, governments don?t run airlines anymore, private corporations do. You can be proud of your local airline the same way you can be proud of your local car?or your local pineapple company. But no more than that, they don?t need, or expect any special treatment. Neither should airlines.

One of the things that must be accepted by this government is that the dearth of foreign investment is not because of the world financial crisis. That has only exacerbated what was already a clear trend. In the first semester of 2008, BEFORE the crisis emanated, foreign direct investments already fell by 58 percent to $813 million compared to the same period the previous year. And the 2007 figure of $2.9 billion was already the miserably lowest in Asia.

No one is interested in the Philippines, just an exceptional two or three. That?s the reality, to pretend otherwise is exactly that: Pretense. 2009 will be a very tough year for getting anyone to invest?anywhere. The Philippines will need some very imaginative ideas and positive actions if it?s to attract anything at all.

We have about a dozen dogs, big, lovable ones that are part of the family. Here?s a list of the few things we learnt from those dogs we may wish to take into our lives this year.

1. Never pass up the opportunity to go for a joyride. (Is that why the president travels so much?)

2. Let others know when they?ve invaded your territory. (The De la Pazes and Pangandamans seem to have taken this one to heart)

3. Delight in the simple joy of a long walk. (It?s quicker anyway than sitting in traffic, so you might as well enjoy it.)

4. When loved ones come home, always run to greet them. (I like this one, a kiss is nice too. My pet galah insists I kiss her each day. Which I do but it gets a little hot when she?s been eating chili)

5. Avoid biting when a simple growl will do. (From a rottweiler I assure you that one works)

6. Take naps. Stretch before rising.

7. If you want something that lies buried, dig until you find it. (The Ombudsman should particularly note this one)

8. When someone is having a bad day, be silent, sit close, and nuzzle him or her gently.

And have a good day. I wish you all well for ?09, may it be a successful one for you.

Comments to my columns can be sent to plw@mydestiny.net