tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-77258842024-03-14T13:02:42.967+08:00Phoenix' EyrieThufir Hawat said, "I can never stop being a Mentat." And because I just CAN'T stop being the analyst that I was Trained to be, this is where I will dump all my thoughts on issues. These are MY thoughts and analysis. You can comment, but don't crucify me for them because I never said they were gospel.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-75153702004831546032007-09-06T03:32:00.001+08:002007-09-06T03:40:55.251+08:00MigrationIn the wake of last post's rather... barbaric interlocutor, I have decided to migrate this whole blog to my Wordpress account.<br /><br />This is my first blog, and I've been using it since before the blogging craze caught on here. Sadly, Blogger seems to have few of the features <span style="font-weight: bold;">I </span>want for my blog, while Wordpress seems to offer more.<br /><br />I think I'll keep Novus War Journal V.2 here in Blogger, since the setup for this blogging provider is better for that kind of blog, the one that might eventually have graphics and all.<br /><br />But, in order to ensure something like with the last post doesn't happen, without me instituting security measures I abhor, I'm transferring Phoenix Eyrie to Wordpress.<br /><br />I'm deactivating all comment capability here. The whole blog has been transfered there, so all comments should be made at <a href="http://phoenixeyriereloaded.wordpress.com/">Phoenix Eyrie, Reloaded.</a><br /><br />^_^Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-34142340716427849112007-08-31T13:16:00.000+08:002007-08-31T14:58:50.310+08:00Funny MoralityI just came from looking at one of <a href="http://www.inquirer.net/">Inquirer.net's</a> blogs, the one called Current. As usual, it's such a nice place to get grist for one's blog, especially given how long ago the blogger stopped writing.<br /><br />On the post regarding <a href="http://www.inquirerbloggers.net/current/2007/08/28/migz-and-the-possibility-of-redemption/#comment-4078"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Migz</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Zubiri</span> and his redemption via politics</a>, John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Nery</span> reiterates his position (as opposed to Manolo's) that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Migz</span> can never be able to redeem himself because of the context in which the Gentleman from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Bukidnon</span> got elected, and most especially given <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Migz</span> recent filing of a counter-petition vs. rival <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Koko</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Pimentel</span> at the Senate Electoral Tribunal. According to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Nery</span>, the move was designed to turn the Tribunal into the electoral equivalent of the Energizer Bunny in that it will just go on, and on, and on, putting <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Koko's</span> supposedly righteous pursuit of his case into electoral limbo.<br /><br />I will not contest John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Nery's</span> analysis of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Migz</span>' actions; whatever the reasons of the Gentleman from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Bukidnon</span> for filing a case, that's his problem and, lest the pundits and public forget, he is certainly entitled to it, just like everyone else. Nowhere it is said that someone the public <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">perceives</span> as one of Gloria's boys is denied his constitutional rights, just because he happens to be in the little girl's camp.<br /><br />But, see, that's my longstanding issue with the anti-Gloria crowd: they're such aces in the practice of selective morality.<br /><br />I will repeat myself: what is so wrong with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Zubiri</span> filing a case with the SET? Isn't he <span style="font-style: italic;">entitled </span>to do so?<br /><br />Seeing the comments all over the post, I decided to add my two cents worth by posting what I called a "Point of Information": if <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Zubiri</span> should be denied a Senate seat for cheating, or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Escudero</span> impeached for betraying the ideals of the Opposition... then shouldn't someone who threatened to blow up buildings and people be all the more denied that privilege, regardless of how many... misguided people voted for him?<br /><br />I mean, look at it. How can people even go to the lengths of actively advocating for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Trillianes</span> to sit in the Senate while denying a (supposed) cheater and an alleged betrayer the same things? Which one is the greater sin to the Republic? Heck, which one has proof?<br /><br />That's why I was just so incensed at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">de</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Quiros</span> when he lambasted the judge who denied <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Trillianes</span> his supposed right. In case he and other anti-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">GMA</span> pundits have forgotten, there were LIVE FEEDS of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Oakwood</span> Mutiny. Their bloody <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">friggin</span>' hero himself read the bloody <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">friggin</span>' demands, and what would happen if those weren't met.<br /><br />And that's why I am just so... irritated at a public that would call for the ouster of an alleged cheat, while putting into office a confirmed terrorist. The same public that elected a non-performing, human rights-abusing person to City Hall on the basis of his closest rival being the son of the man who was a solid supporter of the alleged cheat. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Never mind</span> if the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Atienzas</span> were largely responsible for reviving the moribund capital into a shining city once again. I mean, get rid of your anti-Gloria lens and look at what Manila was in the last nine years.<br /><br />Don't you think there's just something <span style="font-style: italic;">wrong </span>with this picture?<br /><br />If people have the <span style="font-style: italic;">gall </span>to demand morality and ethics from its leadership, then this should be a blanket demand, not a flavor-of-the-month, apple-of-the-eye thing. If you're going to apply strict standards against the little girl, than do so for that terrorist. If you're going to take the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">AFP</span> to task for the alleged abductions of political activists, then do the same for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">CPP</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">NPA</span> for its well documented torching of cell sites and industrial centers, as well as its owning up to the killings of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Lagman</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">Kintanar</span> and that other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">RJ</span> leader.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Bakit</span> kayo <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">namimili</span>? Para <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">naman</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">tayong</span> nag-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">gagaguhan</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">nito</span> eh.</span><br /><br />And people wonder why our Public Sphere is such a mess?Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-47046766973077741282007-07-17T12:27:00.000+08:002007-07-19T18:59:44.217+08:00Reasoning with the enemyI've always said that what made me an effective intelligence officer for the Catholic Student Councils was that I knew for a fact that the "other side" - meaning the radical student/youth organizations - plays dirty.<br /><br />It's not actually as... negative as it sounds, since we're talking about moral relativism here: for them, everything was justifiable if it advanced <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Joma's</span> revolution. Nothing was exactly "wrong" for them if it advanced their agenda. We Catholic SC leaders just happened to operate under a different set of rules.<br /><br />But then, that's where the problem arises.<br /><br />Henry Kissinger's book, <span style="font-style: italic;">Diplomacy</span>, is truly teaching me a lot. True, I already knew that there was a high level of relativism in the realm of political action, but its fascinating to see it happen on the level of historical figures. Because, this way, it drives the point home: the person you are negotiating with in good faith might not be dealing with you in the same terms.<br /><br />Take for example all those concessions and negotiations with the North Vietnamese. The Americans - as portrayed by Kissinger - were giving so many concessions on the basis of building a level of confidence between them and the communists. The Americans were acting and negotiating on the basis of resolving an issue not <span style="font-style: italic;">only </span>through force of arms, but through the redress of what to them are the outstanding issues of the Vietnam War.<br /><br />But as Kissinger pointed out, the North Vietnamese were operating on the premise that nothing short of conquest of the South, the imposition of communism throughout the whole of Vietnam, was the goal. There would be no compromise, no peace, no concession. As Kissinger said, Hanoi was happy to pocket everything that Washington gave, but never gave back. That the United States continued this line of engagement for four Presidents astounds me.<br /><br />This is but one illustration on how important it is to know the context of the person(s) your dealing with. Some say that the reason why <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Gandhi's</span> style of revolution worked was that he was dealing with the British and their long tradition of liberal democracy; Imperialists as they British were, they <span style="font-style: italic;">do </span>regard themselves as democratic, God-fearing creatures. It is a very interesting thought experiment to substitute, say, the Nazis to the equation and see how even a non-violent protest fares against history's worst authoritarians.<br /><br />I saw on the banner of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">PDI</span> that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">AFP</span> is considering a long ceasefire - three years! - with the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">CPP</span>. Given this, I am seriously thinking of sending the Chief of Staff and his Commander-in-Chief a copy of Kissinger's <span style="font-style: italic;">Diplomacy </span>so that they remember context, and who it is their dealing with.<br /><br />Peace talks are wonderful things, I would concede. Woodrow Wilson's ideals for a peace that allows even the defeated to keep a large measure of dignity is a very ideal outcome. But, again, this is falling into the trap of regarding one's antagonists as beings who think the same way as you do. They don't. There is a <span style="font-style: italic;">world </span>of difference between a communist, especially one who has gone up a mountain, and a liberal democrat. The value systems are just too different to reconcile, especially since the former is all-too-willing to kill you if you won't agree to their ideology.<br /><br />Again, I'm not saying peace talks shouldn't be pursued; they should, in fact. All I'm saying is that there's a danger to thinking that people who have pursued an ideological rebellion for nearly four decades, who were not above culling their own ranks in order to maintain ideological purity, would suddenly begin thinking the same way as we do.<br /><br />There must be no illusions here: the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CPP</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">NPA</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">NDF</span> has as its goal the supplanting of all our liberal democratic traditions and institutions with the monochromatic systems and beliefs of communism. The communists have said time and again that they are willing to do everything - <span style="font-style: italic;">everything! </span>- to see this goal achieved.<br /><br />The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">AFP</span> and our national leaders must never forget this fact, even if our civil society leaders seem to have done so.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-62983851307568710222007-07-06T12:27:00.000+08:002007-07-06T13:54:58.578+08:00How hate blinds<a href="http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=75091">The recent statement by former VP <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Teofisto</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Guingona</span> regarding <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Erap</span> and his impending judging by the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Sandiganbayan</span></a> is perhaps, in my opinion, the most... eloquent testimony to how the hatred of Gloria's enemies for her have blinded them.<br /><br />Consider the Message and the Messenger. By October of 2000, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Erap</span> had managed to stave off one challenge after another. True, the <span style="font-style: italic;">Inquirer </span>had also defied his pressure over it, after a successful campaign against the <span style="font-style: italic;">Manila Times</span>, but it was like a Dunkirk or a Battle of Britain amidst the fall of the whole Western Front in World War II. It was like the Filipino public, although turning up an eyebrow over the... shenanigans of the Chief Executive, done so brazenly in public, was willing to live and let live.<br /><br />Even at the start of his "I accuse" speech at the Senate, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Guingona</span> had waded into dangerous waters. He was up against a President whose mandate was the biggest in history, had an extremely loyal following amongst the masses, and possessed a powerful majority in both chambers of Congress. Like I tell people, it was just not popular in October 2000 to go up against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Erap</span>.<br /><br />But <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Guingona</span> did. Almost all by his lonesome.<br /><br />That the Messenger of the corruption of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Erap</span> would say something like, <span style="font-style: italic;">“He is a man who has found a new light and a new life. In his own private self, I think he has found the answer; he has new values and he is now a new man,” </span>lends to me a certain sense of the... surreal to this seemingly final chapter of a fight that started almost seven years ago.<br /><br />Why this kind of a statement from someone whose only selling point has been his moral ascendancy over other politicians? <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Guingona</span> had pitted himself against the woman he helped propel into the Presidency first out of differences in foreign policy principles and later on for other things. He had gone against the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Erap</span> juggernaut, plunged the country into seven years of unrelenting, unforgiving political warfare, because, supposedly, the <span style="font-style: italic;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">casus</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">belli</span> </span>was about truth, justice and the restoration of nobility in public office.<br /><br />Filipinos are a forgiving lot; its partly in the nature, partly in the more than three centuries of Catholicism. We are quick to anger, quick to retaliate when our pride gets pricked, but a handshake and a round of drinks later we're all good buddies once again.<br /><br />If the issue was simply about the <span style="font-style: italic;">values </span>of one man, then perhaps the statement by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Guingona</span> wouldn't sound so... absurd. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Erap</span>, per <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">se</span>, was never the issue (at least for me and many of my colleagues in the UCSC and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">KALIPI</span>). Oh, sure, in principle the student councils of the Catholic schools should have protested - as we were already doing for some time - his wanton disregard, in public no less, of the traditional values of our Christian faith. We were <span style="font-style: italic;">outraged </span>at his penchant for booze and gambling, even as he was already the President of the Republic. But these... sins are all subject to change, if we profess ourselves as Christian, and most certainly eligible for penance if the person has shown sufficient proof of a change of heart, what might be called a genuine desire to turn away from sin.<br /><br />But the issue, in case anti-Gloria forces forget, isn't about whether <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Erap</span> has "found a new light and a new life." We went to the streets from October 2000 to January 2001 because we believed that our own President had so dirtied the highest office of the land that he had to go or the Philippines will. We fought against his massed thousands on May 2001 because we believed it was a brazen attempt to use the masses to bring him back to power. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Goddamit</span>, some of my people in the UCSC almost died that morning! The radical Left had seemingly disappeared as the tide of humanity closed in on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Mendiola</span>, leaving the Catholic schools to hold the line. We fought and bled for this "post-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Erap</span>" world, all because we were made to believe by our <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">LightForsaken</span> elders that this was the right thing to do and that the man - <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Erap</span> - was guilty to the bone.<br /><br />And now <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Guingona</span> has the gall to tell people that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Erap</span> should go under the premises that (a) he's a changed man, and (b) <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Malacañang</span> is pressuring the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Sandiganbayan</span> to rule guilty?<br /><br />I'm sorry but... what the hell is wrong with him?<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Guingona</span> says further: <span style="font-style: italic;">“And so I say, let us give justice to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Erap</span> now that he is down. I hope the court will acquit him. Let freedom be for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Erap</span>.”</span><br /><br />Okay. Give justice to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Erap</span> now that he is down. Uh-huh. But, Mr. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">Guingona</span>, do you remember the stuff you said in that speech of yours nearly seven years ago? Those were no simple accusations: to claim that the President of the Republic was no less than the leading protector of an illegal numbers game is a serious challenge not only to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Erap</span> himself but to the persona of the Office he held. I mean, we knew the man to be <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">ammoral</span> at the very least. But to have <span style="font-style: italic;">actual </span>proof that he was using his Presidency to illegally acquire wealth and power?<br /><br />For that speech, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Teofisto</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Guingona</span> began what would be a vicious, uncompromising, no-holds-barred level of political warfare in this country. The move to oust Gloria, and the viciousness in it, can be traced all the way to that day <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Guingona</span> gave his "I accuse" speech because it simply meant that the old rules were out of the window. Seven months and one ouster later, the political opponents of the new regime - <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">Erap's</span> supporters - would heartlessly throw thousands of poor people against the might of the State. In the two elections that followed, political warfare would alternate from the subtle to the obvious, but it was always high-intensity, culminating in the latest episode of the whole war, this time with Gloria on the defensive and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">Erap</span> on the offensive.<br /><br />I've been reading Henry Kissinger's <span style="font-style: italic;">Diplomacy. </span>It's a fascinating read, to be sure, but for someone like me who considers himself a student of history, its quite a treat to hear from a person so in to the events that shaped the last half of the previous century what went into the decision-making processes of leaders in those events. It was quite interesting to find out that, had Churchill not been alone in demanding the Western democracies stand forcefully against the Soviets as the Iron Curtain was dropping down on Eastern Europe... the Cold War might have been over rather quickly. Or that if the fear of another Great War had made Great Britain and France issue a sterner challenge to Hitler early on, the Second World War might have been averted.<br /><br />Perhaps the most fascinating to read in the book is how leaders measure the costs and benefits of going into a conflict. According to Kissinger, warfare was, quite truly, as much an instrument of a nation's foreign policy in the old, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">pre</span>-World War I days. Negotiations were made in order to prevent war, and a nation would emphasize its demands with the rattle of a saber. In fact, it was precisely this kind of... threat behavior that allowed Stalin and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">Khrushchev</span> to stall the West, even if the United States alone had superiority in both its conventional and nuclear arsenal that early in the Cold War. It was only after the horrors of the First World War that nations started, uh... negotiating first, even to the point where it was absurd, just so they could avoid conflict.<br /><br />I would like to believe, seven years after the fact, that we overturned the existing order on the streets of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">EDSA</span> and on other places nationwide, on the basis of a change infinitely being better than allowing the <span style="font-style: italic;">status <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">quo</span> </span>to go on. It was more a battle begun on the premise of <span style="font-style: italic;">change</span> than anything else. The young had rediscovered the fire of activism, and there was a very, very, very big dragon to slay. We were fed by our elders in civil society the thinking that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">Erap</span>, even before he began his Presidency, was unfit to be the country's Chief Executive.<br /><br />But the dragon that was <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">Erap</span>, and all he represented, were protected by a subservient Congress and a million plus votes from the country's disenfranchised that saw in the gambling, womanizing, mostly-drunk former <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">moviestar</span> their hero and savior. There were many reasons to go to war with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">Erap</span>, but where do you get the proper, outrage-inducing justification to challenge the guy when it seemed like issues of morality weren't sufficient?<br /><br />But suddenly, on October 2000, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">Teofisto</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">Guingona</span> gave us the <span style="font-style: italic;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">casus</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">belli</span></span>.<br /><br />It was a long fight, to be sure. The economy suffered like no other, and we were even lambasted in the foreign press for using extra-constitutional measures <span style="font-style: italic;">yet again </span>to solve the country's political issues. But we reasoned that he issue, as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">Teofisto</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">Guingona</span> laid out in his "I accuse" speech, were so fundamental that there was very little room for institutional remedies, and that the one available option had been so brazenly denied, with matching jig from one of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">Erap's</span> supporters as taunt to civil society that the impeachment was dead and gone.<br /><br />How would we, the young men and women who acted as the shock troops and "mid-level officers" of that movement, know that it was all just the start of a long, protracted political war, one in which the old rules of engagement were gone? How many of my colleagues among the "moderate" youth leaders have abandoned the cause out of attrition and disillusionment? What is the cost of this war, truly? Do our elders realize yet that one of its biggest costs is a generation of disillusioned, cynical young people who are now rearing their own families? What will we teach our children and what world will we give them when, because of the caprice of our elders, even we with our immense powers and clout cannot bring order to the chaos they have wrought?<br /><br />Because caprice it would seem with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">Guingona's</span> statement. You go to war, bear its costs, for reasons that justify those costs. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_55">Guingona's</span> statement tells us that the reasons for starting a still-ongoing vicious political war was meaningless. If he, the Messenger of <span style="font-style: italic;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_56">juetengate</span></span>, could so easily call for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_57">Erap's</span> release under the inane pretexts of the man having "changed" and because of pressure from the Administration, then what the hell did we fight for? What the hell did we sacrifice for? Is he telling us that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_58">Erap's</span> sins to the Republic are so light that they can be washed away so easily by a (seemingly) contrite heart? So what if the Admin is pressuring the <span style="font-style: italic;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_59">Sandiganbayan</span> </span>for a guilty verdict; wasn't <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_60">Erap</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">guilty, <span style="font-weight: bold;">anyway,</span> </span>based on his (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_61">Guingona's</span>) "I accuse" speech all those years ago?<br /><br />I am telling you right now: if the country is a mess it's NOT because of Gloria. Okay, not <span style="font-style: italic;">just. </span>It's the whole <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_62">friggin</span>' lot of them. Only elders like the ones we have right now, who can so easily change their minds and even HEARTS based on their current pet peeve, could plunge the country into one conflict after another, damn the costs. I am seriously doubting their commitment and desire for a better Philippines since it would appear, with all their inconsistencies, that its all about the Agenda - <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">their </span></span>Agenda - and not what is truly best for the country.<br /><br />And most certainly its not about truth, nor justice. The former, I saw for myself how easily they dismissed it, from the paragons themselves of the once-mighty Liberal Party itself, beginning that morning of 8 July 2005 up until today. The latter, well... you have Tito <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_63">Guingona</span> to thank for the trivialization of justice. It was <span style="font-style: italic;">he </span>who laid down the facts for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_64">Erap's</span> crime. And now he trivializes all our struggles, the reasons for the protracted, no-holds-barred, 7-years-and-going-strong political war we are all in, because Gloria's the evil lord now and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_65">Erap's</span> such a poor, poor victim of that evil little girl in the Palace.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-72305867637038451122007-06-25T11:52:00.000+08:002007-06-25T12:47:20.066+08:00Libel and the freedom of the pressWhy <span style="font-style: italic;">this </span>of all issues to discuss here in Phoenix <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Eyrie</span>, you ask? There's so many more that demand comment, like the upcoming stance the Supreme Court will be taking with regard to extra-judicial killings, the deathwatch on the LP and my thesis that the Republic will soon face its last "wake-up call", albeit this time without any Guardians because all of those sworn to defend the Philippines have either gone abroad, gone corporate, or gone call center. Or gotten so horribly disillusioned that slitting one's throat might be a much better option.<br /><br />Perhaps because the above are... far too "tactile" for me right now. "Tactile" as in <span style="font-style: italic;">"<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">dama</span>"</span>; they are issues far too close to my Soul that my <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">BP</span> goes up at the slightest thought in that direction. Well, except for the extra-judicial killing part. I've always said that people who take up arms against the State lost the right to complain about rights and the protection of <span style="font-style: italic;">any </span>law the minute they made that choice to rebel. Besides, why is no one taking the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">NPA</span> to task for <span style="font-style: italic;">its </span>massacres and salvage operations?<br /><br />Anyway.<br /><br />Let me state it now that I find it <span style="font-style: italic;">galling </span>for Media to complain about libel laws, and that its somehow rather obscene for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the country's leading newspaper, to call that as "antiquated." What, has the Philippine Press, of all those in the world, suddenly found its sense of responsibility and maturity that no safeguards are necessary to curb <span style="font-style: italic;">their </span>excess?<br /><br />I remember the thoughts and feelings I brought to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Gummersbach</span> more than four years ago when I met journalists and other media practitioners from other parts of the globe. Nearly all of them were complaining at the <span style="font-style: italic;">lack </span>of freedom for their country's respective press. I, on the other hand, came there telling them that my country's problem is that we <span style="font-style: italic;">too much </span>freedom for our media, and that any attempt to put restraints, no matter how logical, always end up with Media coming down <span style="font-style: italic;">hard </span>on the poor twit who broached the idea.<br /><br />When <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Dax</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Manacsa</span> first introduced the slander and libel provisions in the Revised Penal Code to us all those years ago in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">PolSci</span> 101, what immediately caught my attention was the term in the provisions that said libel and slander could be charged on somebody <span style="font-style: italic;">regardless of whether the statement under question was true or not.</span> To the law, it didn't matter whether what you wrote or said about the person is true or not; it was the <span style="font-style: italic;">intent </span>of the act that mattered. If one's verbal or written statement directed at another had the intent to harm that person's honor and dignity in public, it becomes slander or libel.<br /><br />Media is claiming that libel is an <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">abridgment</span> of the constitutional guarantee to Freedom of the Press, along with that for expression and speech. It is presented as some sort of sword of Damocles, a threat to every journalist that they should tone the language and criticism lest they get slapped silly with libel cases, with their attendant demand for the payment of damages, often in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">ludicrous</span> amounts of money.<br /><br />But in my mind, this <span style="font-style: italic;">option </span>is the one thing that actually protects the Philippine public from a rapacious Fourth Estate. And rapacious it is, as well as irresponsible and lacking sorely of the objectivity required of true journalism.<br /><br />If Doreen Fernandez' statement to us Comm. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Sophies</span> in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">journ</span> class holds true, than what media organization can claim moral ascendancy enough to say that, yes, it <span style="font-style: italic;">does </span>give reportage that is responsible, factual and above reproach? Because even the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">PDI</span> And <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">PCIJ</span> are guilty of slanting <span style="font-style: italic;">news reports</span> and in-depth analysis.<br /><br />To be fair, there is a certain standard on when you file libel, especially against agents of the Fourth Estate. An expose can be done with it being so factual and thoroughly done that there is no hint of malice involved in the reportage. The presentation of information on the shenanigans of a person should be enough indictment, as we must believe that society's public facade has a shared set of values that punishes certain... deviancy in behavior (like too much corruption, say).<br /><br />But the media Philippines has been so stuck in the presentation of data as sensational as possible that its almost obscene. For example, who do you know <span style="font-style: italic;">really </span>likes Mike Arroyo? The guy is, perhaps, the symbol for all that is <span style="font-style: italic;">wrong </span>in Philippine politics. Yet, if you closely at all the reportage done on him, particularly the Jose <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Pidal</span> thing, is there, really (anti-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">GMA</span> sentiment aside), any solid evidence of his corruption?<br /><br />All media presented, again and again, were the stuff their darlings were <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">spoonfeeding</span> the various press corps and reporters. I know of no single media organization that did the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">nitty</span>-gritty of actually doing an in-depth investigation on whether or not there was actual merit on the accusations of the First Gentleman having spirited away more public money than all the corrupt leaders from Ferdinand Marcos to Jose <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Velarde</span>. And when Ping <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Lacson</span> went into that thing on Arroyo's supposed mistress, to me that was just too much. It was like vaudeville.<br /><br />Or what about stuff, say, Billy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Esposo</span> and Conrado <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">de</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Quiros</span> writes? There is that argument that democracy allows you - in fact, encourages you - to engage such vitriolic and biased writers in public debate. The clashing of opinions is the bedrock of democracy, the key to its survivability and dynamism.<br /><br />Yet there must be at least a fair level of parity between contestants in order for this to work. But how do you challenge the likes of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Esposo</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">de</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Quiros</span>? How do you question a post over at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">PCIJ</span> made by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Alecks</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Palabrico</span>, or those made by Manolo Quezon in his various blogs? I've seen <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">PDI</span> post "opposition" (meaning, pro-Admin) Letters to the Editor that actually enhanced the criticized writer's position because the L2E writer was made to look stupid. Or they printed a L2E that was stupid in the first place. I've seen <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">PCIJ</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">not ask </span>the other side of a story.<br /><br />We must remove from the discussion the pretensions of morality that we have so long adopted. If only media were as truly moral as it <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">PRs</span> itself to be, then perhaps there is basis in demanding for the rescinding of libel from our laws. But the truth of the matter is our media has been so drunk in the immense level of freedom given it by the post-Marcos milieu that it refuses to acknowledge that it has done much harm in its claim of the public needing to know.<br /><br />Reporters <span style="font-style: italic;">ask </span>for money and/or favors, and Editors can and do keep certain information from coming out. Columnists - the vanguard of the so-called "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">punditocracy</span>" - can say anything and everything they want regardless of fact or propriety. There are tricks in the trade that allow us to make you look and sound the way <span style="font-style: italic;">we </span>want whether on print or on screen.<br /><br />Media has such immense powers it can be so overbearing at times. As the self-appointed guardian of democracy and the public - they need to know, after all! - Media has forgotten that every right has a corresponding responsibility. Just as freedom of expression, speech, religion and the press are bedrocks of democracy, so too is the demand of democracy from its adherents that there must be responsibility in the exercise of these rights.<br /><br />What power does a single human being have against that of the monolith that is the Fourth Estate? Media can display all your dirty, disgusting laundry to all 80 million Filipinos and then some, since new media allows you to reach farther than ever before, and in real time too. All in the spirit of democracy and the "right" of the people to know.<br /><br />Given such a power, what recourse does an individual, no matter how highly placed in government or society, has if the libel laws are rescinded?Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-87978936330111530332007-05-30T16:22:00.000+08:002007-05-30T16:33:18.923+08:00Selective morality and the aftermath of the 2007 ElectionsI'm... amazed at the statements and reactions following the 2007 elections. Of course, dominance in the Senate by Genuine Opposition (GO) candidates was expected; it wasn't as if there were better choices in Team Unity, yes? <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Haha</span>, in fact, my top choice for Senator - Majority Leader <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Kiko</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Pangilinan</span> - ran as an Independent. Come to think of it, my top three "assuredly-I-shall-vote-for-them" candidates had one in GO (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Chiz</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Escudero</span>) and one in TU (Mike <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Defensor</span>).<br /><br />From what I can glean from stuff going around post-elections, many of the Republic's citizens voted not along GO or TU lines, but rather on a criterion that included the perception that this person will do his/her job in the Senate as well as their track record of service. I guess it really just so happened that many of the candidates who could claim such were in GO, partly because of the successful media-created perception that any candidate under the Administration is there simply to keep Gloria in power.<br /><br />Besides, it really DID look as if TU had a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">trapo</span> lineup, didn't it? Its hard to sell something that doesn't look good, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Reli</span> German's campaign style wasn't able to get past the perceptions. I was there during their kickoff and my thoughts as the 12 TU <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Senatoriables</span> were presented was, well...<br /><br />It's the "hardliner" comments, though, that astound me. People who claim to have voted straight GO say they did so on the basis of a rejection of corruption and all the evils of politics. For me, this best illustrates a phenomenon in the Philippine political sphere that has caught my attention since July 8: selective morality.<br /><br />I find it astounding that people, and especially the so-called leaders of the equally so-called Civil Society , could claim that their GO votes were based on the principles of morality and "good politics", of reform-oriented politics. It clearly shows how much people would go to just to give their actions a veneer of justification.<br /><br />Take <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Trillianes</span> for example. I saw some of the posts in one of the Inquirer blogs, and due to outrage I just HAD to post in response to them. People so quickly forget that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Trillianes</span> acted not like the hero they say he is but like some common bandit or terrorist by rigging explosives around <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Oakwood</span> and essentially holding a lot of people hostage, all to demand reforms from the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">AFP</span> and make Gloria step down.<br /><br />There is <span style="font-style: italic;">nothing </span>that could ever justify these kinds of acts in a democratic country from its own military. If his grievances were legitimate, there were several dozen avenues for him to take. He could have taken it to the JAG. He could have gone to Opposition members of the House and Senate Committees on National Defense, especially in the Senate since a former <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">AFP</span> Chief of Staff in Pong <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Biazon</span> is there. And if all avenues within the system of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">AFP</span> and government fails, then he should have resigned his commission out of disgust and went to town; the media would have made him their darling with such juicy accusations, and him being oh-so-pretty and all.<br /><br />But more than a million people still voted for a clear-as-day rebel. I told them, so now we're telling our kids its <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">ok</span> to resort to such extreme measures just to air our grievances? That one can break the law and not only get away with it but be rewarded handsomely as well? If it was a statement against Gloria, then there were better ways to make one than legitimize rebellion, lawlessness, violence and a disdain for our Constitution.<br /><br />Or what about the likes of Allan Peter <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Cayetano</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Koko</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Pimentel</span>? How can such upstanding gentlemen do something so crass as running for the Senate when they have 1st-degree relatives there?<br /><br />Okay, maybe it should have been expected of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Cayetano</span>. Like with Raul <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Roco</span>, I never saw the guy as the paragon media made him to be. You can see if someone is taking stands because they genuinely believe in what they're <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">fighting</span> for and someone who's doing it simply for something else. I'm not saying <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Cayetano</span> doesn't exactly believe in the causes he <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">purportedly</span> espouse. But if he's such a law-abiding, exemplary citizen of the Republic, he should have adamantly said no to running for the Senate while sister Pia is there. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, you see.<br /><br />As for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Koko</span> doing the same... I knew the man, back when he was one of my bosses in the National Youth Commission, being Commissioner for Mindanao. In a sense, he reminded me of Mar: smart, well-educated, comes from a well-known and respected family, comes across as more academic than bureaucrat. Essentially, he was someone who you expected to do the right thing, given his credentials and background.<br /><br />So I just couldn't understand <span style="font-style: italic;">whatever the hell </span>possessed <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Koko</span> to run while his sainted father still held a Senate seat. Or, come to think of it, why <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Nene</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Pimentel</span> would give his imprimatur to such a move. No matter how you spin it, such a move as that of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Koko</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Cayetano</span> reeks of "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">dynasticism</span>." Although there is no law written to enforce it, our Constitution I think was <span style="font-style: italic;">clear </span>about this issue. If families holding onto elective key positions in a whole province is a travesty of democracy already, then <span style="font-style: italic;">two </span>persons of first-degree <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">consanguinity</span> sitting in the Senate is something like spitting on democracy's eye.<br /><br />And people have the <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">gall </span>to justify their votes given these realities?<br /><br />Preposterous.<br /><br />Make no mistake: I am actually impressed at the gains responsible politics has made this last elections. Grace <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Padaca</span> managed to still beat the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Dys</span> in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Isabela</span>. A priest managed to beat the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Pinedas</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">Lapids</span> in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">Pampanga</span>. Mayor Jesse is still <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">Naga</span> City's mayor. These and others nationwide show that the Filipino electorate is slowly realizing its <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">stakeholdership</span>.<br /><br />But perhaps the biggest threat to the emerging maturity of the Filipino voter is media itself. If one can dispense even for a while his/her knee-jerk disdain for the little girl in the Palace, you would notice that media has not been all that responsible in its coverage. There is already a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">pre</span>-set bias versus Administration bets. There is the presentation that <span style="font-style: italic;">any </span>Opposition bet that wins is for good governance, and that no Admin bet could win if the fight were fair.<br /><br />One of our pol ops here in the HQ pointed out the question of Maguindanao and the 12-0 for the TU that happened there. Although shocking, he had a point when he said it <span style="font-style: italic;">was </span>possible. In the first place, not everyone subscribes to the views and opinions of Imperial Manila. It <span style="font-style: italic;">is </span>remotely possible that, somewhere, somehow, people just don't like the GO. That they'd rather have peace and stability and whatever little progress there is.<br /><br />Actually, the question is: if the GO managed to blank the TU <span style="font-style: italic;">anywhere, </span>would Media bring it to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">public's</span> scrutiny with the same suspicions as when the TU did it in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">Maguindanao</span>?<br /><br />No. Because our media organizations have switched from being Informers to Agenda Setters, to Strategic Constituents aware of their power to influence the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">public's</span> positions and opinions.<br /><br />Our media <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">orgs</span> have forgotten that their sacred duty as society's Fourth Estate is to allow people in a democracy to make decisions, on their own, based on as complete a set of data as possible in a given issue. Both sides must get equitable airtime and print space. Remarks from facilitators and hosts must be unbiased.<br /><br />Even the vaunted <a href="http://www.pcij.org/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">PCIJ</span></a> has fallen into the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">StratCon</span> trap, perhaps due to the acknowledgement of its <a href="http://www.pcij.org/blog">blog</a> as one of the key sources of information by the online public on any issue. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">PCIJ</span> has been relentless in its questioning of officials and in the presentation of condemnations by groups - regardless of how small it is or irrelevant - of Admin bets. But did <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">PCIJ</span> even once make a post questioning <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">Cayetano</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">Pimentel</span>? Was there a "reflection" piece on the implications of a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_55">Trillianes</span> victory in the polls? And what about the fact that people who were adamant to see <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_56">Erap</span> go and get convicted were all smiles and filled with pride as the former President raised their hands during their "proclamation" at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_57">Tanay</span>?<br /><br />This, sadly, is the milieu post-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_58">Garci</span>. Our political landscape is a moral desolation. It seems as if the Communist ideal of "everything for the revolution" has dominated even those who supposedly lead us in reforming the whole system. And many of us blindly follow them because of "pedigree politics," where actions, no matter how contrary to the values and principles we believed in, are justified or at least unquestioned because of the person espousing the cause.<br /><br />The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_59">Drilon</span> wing is recognized by people, especially civil society, simply because the "names" of the LP are there. No one even questioned whether the acts done from July 8 onwards are liberal and democratic in nature, simply because the likes of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_60">Abads</span>, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_61">Acostas</span>, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_62">Aquinos</span> and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_63">Tañadas</span> are there. Every action of theirs is mantled in purity and justification because of pedigree even if it has become quite despicable already. I bet no one asked <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_64">Noynoy</span> how he could make democracy as the cornerstone of his campaign when he himself has denied the LP the surcease from its suffering that adherence to the democratic process would have given.<br /><br />But <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_65">that's</span> how it is now, I guess. Its hard to look deeper into the dynamics of an issue, its context, to get a clearer picture of what <span style="font-style: italic;">really </span>is happening. Most people would rather depend on "known variables", like an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_66">advocate's</span> pedigree, to help them determine what is right or wrong, who is good or evil.<br /><br />Which only shows that a little bit more maturity is needed by the public. They must learn to ask the hard questions, even to those considered as heroes. Back then, pedigree counted for something because you never expected your paragons to do anything that would <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_67">severely</span> compromise of contradict the ideals they embody.<br /><br />But after showing that even they could sacrifice the truth and democracy even if their backs weren't to the wall, and do so for so long that I think they themselves believe their own propaganda now, then we should be worried. Who watches the watchmen? Who will bring them to task?<br /><br />In the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_68">pre</span>-21st century <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_69">Ateneo</span>, it is said that you would know an upperclassmen if he scoffs at any intensive praise of Rizal. It is not about disrespect to the national hero - who is our schoolmate, after all - but about context and backgrounds. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_70">Ateneans</span> at Junior year are presented not just with the grade school <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_71">depiction</span> of Rizal but an in-depth look at the way the man lived and thought. There is a high degree of deduction involved as to what motivated Rizal to do this and that. There is a particular emphasis on the "historical" Rizal, the one who had a temper, picked fights with his fellow heroes and had a girl in every port or city he went to. We intentionally demystify the "mythical" Rizal, not to take him down from his perch but to both gain a better appreciation of the person - that despite his legend, he was, refreshingly, human, too, and therefore it is possible to achieve what he did - and to further teach the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_72">Atenean</span> to not only place things in their proper context but also to question our beliefs to see which are worthy and which are junk.<br /><br />That's what the Filipino public needs now, I think. We question, yes, but stop when confronted with what I call the "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_73">Sedmak</span> Conundrum." We are faced with the prospect of accepting Truths we don't want suffer the Consequences for, and thus we cease questioning. We are happy at this level of inquiry.<br /><br />But if we don't question further, actually demand more from our paragons when they go against the values and ideals they had the gall to represent, we might just end up replacing one tyrant for another. Enlightened, perhaps, even benevolent, but democracies abhors tyrants.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-86870249667051069212007-05-11T13:23:00.000+08:002007-05-11T15:00:44.954+08:00Eve of ElectionsThis coming Monday, the Filipino people will be coming out to vote for 12 Senators and all of their local officials except for those useless things called <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Barangay</span> Captains and Councilors.<br /><br />Traditionally, we <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Pinoys</span> have taken to elections with a passion and interest reserved only for fiestas. We may bitch and gripe about our elected officials but the same people would cheer and wave and shake the hands of <span style="font-style: italic;">any </span>candidate that would pass by, especially the national ones. Well, okay, unless they really despised the candidate, but I haven't seen nor heard of one being chased out of anywhere.<br /><br />Ever since actively <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">participating</span> in political action when I joined the LP in October 2000 - about a week or so before the start of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Erap's</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">juetengate</span> - </span>I've seen quite my share of electoral exercises. So far, the two I've been in were quite... memorable. 2004 was still the best since we planned for that as early as the summer of 2003 and came out as the biggest victor. It was sweet vindication to all we've worked for during what I call the "Liberal Family" era of the LP. Which is, thanks to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Drilon</span> and friends, all gone now.<br /><br />Somehow, I don't feel the elections this time around. Maybe because of a decidedly muted campaign; walls and gates are relatively pristine this time around, with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">COMELEC</span> Chairman Benjamin <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Abalos</span> being quite insistent that candidates follow the rules on the posting of campaign posters. And since most of my house time has been done in the virtual worlds of the two <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">MMORPGs</span> I play, I've seen blessed little of the political and campaign ads.<br /><br />I do remember being at the Team Unity kick off at Manila, the one held at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Tamayo's</span> (that place behind the Cathedral in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Intramuros</span>), and I remember quite well what were my thoughts during that time but I'll keep those to myself for now.<br /><br />Will I be exercising my right to vote this time around? I think so. I'm an officer in a political party and its youth wing; it would be rather contrary for someone in my position <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>to vote, especially since I've been bugging the kids to cast their ballots on May 14. If taxes give one the right to complain about government service, then the vote allows a citizen of the Republic to bitch at government when it screws up if you voted for the one who won, or to make your point if you voted for someone else.<br /><br />At the very least, votes are statements; even a losing candidate can make the Powers-That-Be sit up and take notice given a certain level of performance in the polls.<br /><br />What about allegations that the vote doesn't matter anymore since its the Canvassers who've <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">been</span> bought? Then all the more one should exercise suffrage. A blank ballot is a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">recipe</span> for disaster, as evil people will just use your unused vote to justify their cheating. If you cast your vote, and feel - or better, know - that enough of you voted the same, yet your candidate lost, then you have a legitimate reason to complain.<br /><br />Also, Ping <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Lacson</span> had it right: the person who cannot protect his vote has no right to complain about cheating. If the Filipino people want their vote to count, then perhaps its time to go out and not <span style="font-style: italic;">just </span>vote but help in protecting the ballot by volunteering for electoral watchdogs. In fact, we in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">KALIPI</span> have been encouraging young people to do so. I miss that, actually: I remember my first - and, it seems, my last - <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">NAMFREL</span> in 1998. It was one of the coolest things I ever did and I wish I could do so again but membership in the LP precludes being part of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">NAMFREL</span> again, other than getting an ID as a "Party Watcher" to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">NAMFREL</span>.<br /><br />As for candidates... So far, my Senatorial list includes <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Kiko</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Pangilinan</span> (my reasons mentioned in an <a href="http://phoenixeyrie.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-sen-kiko-will-get-my-vote-this-may.html">earlier post</a>), <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Chiz</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Escudero</span> and Mike <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Defensor</span>.<br /><br />I'm voting for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Chiz</span> because of the consistency in his being Opposition, and my impression that this is one person that you can still reason with. At the very least, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Chiz</span> could claim to having stuck to his guns through it all, and engaged us not in a contest of vitriol and mudslinging but in how politics should be fought: through a debate on issues and the issue. If there would be one person leading the Opposition in the Senate, it should be this guy.<br /><br />Mike gets my vote because, despite his <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">uber</span>-tarnished image with the public, I've known the man differently. Yes, he may have been one of the staunchest defenders of that little girl who sits in the Palace, but that's also one of the things you have to give him credit for. I've interviewed him several times both for <span style="font-style: italic;">Liberal Philippines </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">The Liberal, </span>and he's come across as someone who, contrary to the public perception, knows what's he's doing in the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">position</span> he's in. He had his "moments", yes, but I think if I was going to add to the Administration's numbers in the Senate, I'd rather it be someone I know.<br /><br />Hm. I still have nine slots to fill. I could just write a long line on the remaining slots (so as to prevent the evil people from tampering with my ballot), but that's a waste of a good vote. So who else can I put in?<br /><br />In our discussions here at the HQ over who to vote for, the names of Ed Angara and Tessie Aquino <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Oreta</span> have been bandied about, both because, despite their notoriety, have been consistent performers in past Senates. I think I can be convinced to put Angara's name on my ballot, but the image of TAO dancing after our "defeat" during the 2001 impeachment is somehow still fresh on my mind.<br /><br />Manny <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Villar</span>... Maybe. So far, he's performed too. And say what you will of that little act of his when he was Speaker of the House - the now-legendary "Prayer-Transmission" - but that required guts, timing, and a certain level of chutzpah to pull off. Yes, I know he wants to win big this time so he can make a case for running for President in 2010, but, hey, at least he delivers. And he takes a stand. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Heh</span>. Maybe I'll vote for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Villar</span> if only to twit someone who I once admired but now finds rather unworthy of the highest office of the land simply because he lacks the balls to make a stand on very important issues, playing safe so as not to alienate anyone in his quest for the Presidency.<br /><br />I don't like it when my leaders play safe. I want vision. I want someone who can capture my imagination and show me a path to take, the kind who'll tell you, "See that mountain, young man? If we can't get around it, <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">we'll go THROUGH it!</span></span>" and by God I'll be one of the first to take <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">pickaxe</span> to mountainside to help us get through that mountain.<br /><br />Too bad for that politico I once admired; he seemed so much like a man of vision when I first saw him, but years of working with him and observing him... so sad.<br /><br />Tito <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Sotto</span>? Maybe. I remember when he was being touted as VP-material. His sudden fall was one good example of a black propaganda PR campaign that somehow clicked, given the resources at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Sotto's</span> disposal and the generally-good image that had been spun for him.<br /><br />I know, though, who I won't be voting for:<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Noynoy</span> Aquino is one. If I don't like it when my leaders lack vision, then I <span style="font-style: italic;">abhor </span>those who are hypocrites. I saw his add about fighting for democracy and I shouted at the TV, "democracy? <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">you </span>have the <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">gall </span>to talk about democracy when <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">you </span>denied the Party that?" <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Hah</span>. He was it that gave out that memorandum, post-7/8/05 that justified the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Drilon</span>-led usurpation of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">LP's</span> democratic processes. That would have been fine, if he had insisted to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">Drilon</span> that, as per his memo, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">NECO</span> should have been convened post haste so the Party's leaders can vote on ratifying the "stand" they made that July 8 afternoon.<br /><br />But no: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">Noynoy</span> was one of the most avid supporters of the suppression of dissent and democracy in the LP. He even tried, several times, to win over the young leaders who were heavily critical of the July 8 incident and were moving to pressure the leadership to convene the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">NECO</span>.<br /><br />Even worse, he's now with the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">Erap</span> camp. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">ERAP</span>! Good God and a Half! Did you know that the reason for the rift between <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">Noynoy</span> and Mayor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">Atienza</span> was the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">latter's</span> support of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">Erap</span> during what would lead to the May 1 Mayhem? I even heard of those heated discussions where <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">Noynoy</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">Chito</span> took LA to task for this support of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">Erap</span>. Yet look at him now. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">Sheesh</span>. He was even all smiles when <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">Erap</span> raised their hands during that trip to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">Taytay</span>.<br /><br />In an era of shifting political <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">loyalties</span> and principles, consistency is the one thing that should determine whether a leader is true to his or her word or is just wagging your tail. Which is why <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_55">Kiko</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_56">Chiz</span> and Mike D rank high in my list. Especially <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_57">Kiko</span>. That took a LOT of courage to go independent, rather than compromise his position and principles and I salute <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_58">Kiko</span> for what he's done.<br /><br />But <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_59">Noynoy</span>? *shudder*<br /><br />Has he - and his family - forgotten that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_60">Erap</span> was one of the people that defied Cory at the start of the New Order after the First People Power?<br /><br />And in that same vein I am <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>voting for Alan <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_61">Cayetano</span> and Loren <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_62">Legarda</span>.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_63">Cayetano</span> is such a... jerk. Nothing else describes him best. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_64">Ok</span>, maybe <span style="font-style: italic;">retard</span>. If corruption is the issue, why the (censored) hell is he in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_65">Erap</span> camp? Tactical alliance? <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_66">Sheesh</span>. And is he not even fazed by the fact that, in case he wins - and God forbid he does - he'll be sharing the same chamber with sister Pia? Does he <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>find <span style="font-style: italic;">anything </span>wrong with that? Does the 1987 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_67">Constitution</span> even ring a bell to him? For somebody who insists on the law, he sure is ready to break them.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_68">Legarda</span> is the quintessential turncoat. If I remember <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_69">TAO's</span> "Dancing Queen" routine back in '01, then I remember Loren's little "Crying Lady" trick. And now she's one of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_70">Erap's</span> leading supporters. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_71">Hah</span>. There was this adage of old that Tigers don't change their spots. Well, it appears it doesn't hold with political animals like the ones we have here in the Philippines.<br /><br />And did you know that one of the biggest unofficial bets in the Senate was on the longest serving staffer of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_72">Legarda</span>? Watch where you put your <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_73">celfone</span> too, when the good former Senator throws a tantrum.<br /><br />I will also most definitely <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">not </span></span>vote for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_74">Trillianes</span>. The guy's a (censored) rebel, for God's sake! I saw how some people in civil society said they'll vote for him and I wanted to scream, good God, people, are we teaching our children now that its okay to use armed force to express one's grievances to the President? The man led in taking hostage several dozen people - many of them expats - and threatening to blow up a landmark of the financial district! It wasn't even a rebellion but an act of banditry, nay, terrorism! Soldiers who engage in a coup do so in military <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_75">maneuvers</span>, fighting loyalist cadres in street battles as part of a revolt. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_76">Trillianes</span> and company went to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_77">Oakwood</span> and HELD PEOPLE HOSTAGE. That's no different from any group who took over an airliner demanding things. He should be meted out capital punishment, not given a seat in the Senate! He has grievances? Then he should have aired them out to his commanders! He's in the military, Light's Sake, and the military is <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>a democracy. If he couldn't get to air his concerns there, then he should have left and <span style="font-style: italic;">then </span>gave <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_78">presscons</span> on the state of the military today, not take over a residential area in the heart of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_79">Makati</span>.<br /><br />If these people in civil society who are supporting <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_80">Trillianes</span> take the time to <span style="font-style: italic;">think</span> and not let their hate for Gloria cloud their judgement, then perhaps they'd remember that such acts remove any legitimacy to one's grievances. The Philippines is a democracy; anyone who believes otherwise is a Communist rebel. It may <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>be a perfect democracy - far from it - but it still is because, at the end of the day, you can tell the Supreme Court that the 1987 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_81">Consti</span> says so. And in a democracy, there are avenues to airing grievances against government. Taking over a residential facility and threatening to blow it up is <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>one of these avenues. That is terrorism. Regardless of your grievances, you have broken the law and you <span style="font-style: italic;">must </span>be made to answer for that.<br /><br />There. Hopefully I'll get to complete even at least half of the 12 slots. Maybe some of the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_82">independents</span> will look promising.<br /><br />But this has <span style="font-style: italic;">got </span>to be the shallowest elections I have seen. If this is the best both camps have to show, then we as Citizens of the Republic of the Philippines should seriously start asking really, really hard questions to our leaders as to what the hell is going on.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-71970612541252653242007-04-17T19:10:00.000+08:002007-04-17T20:04:07.153+08:00Disillusionment: PreludeThings fall apart; the centre cannot hold;<br />Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,<br />The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere<br />The ceremony of innocence is drowned;<br />he best lack all conviction, while the worst<br />Are full of passionate intensity.<br /><br />-- from <span style="font-style: italic;">Second Coming, </span>William Butler YeatsAzure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-18571488809411206692007-02-27T11:51:00.000+08:002007-02-27T16:36:43.262+08:00Why Sen. Kiko will get my vote this MayGiven everything that's happened to the LP - and, heck, Philippine politics in general - hearing stuff like Sen. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Kiko</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Pangilinan</span> sticking to his guns is a whiff of fresh air.<br /><br />It's like I always said: leaders who have the gall to take the moral high ground should not be afraid to also take the hard route usually associated with that choice. And when a leader puts his money where his mouth is, then that person deserves the title. And one's respect.<br /><br />I remember seeing Sen. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Pangilinan</span> being interviewed over his decision to <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>attend "Genuine Opposition" (side note: so there's an opposition that's <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>Genuine?) campaign sorties. In essence, what Sen. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Kiko</span> was saying was that he cannot, in good conscience, join the ticket led by a man he helped oust in 2001, in the same way that he won't join the lineup formed by the woman whose he asked be resigned or removed from the presidency in 2005.<br /><br />Now <span style="font-style: italic;">this </span>is what it means to stand for something. This is <span style="font-style: italic;">consistency. </span>In my post-July 8 gestalt, the true measure of a leader can be found in just how consistent he or she is with regard to positions. Basically, a leader says one thing, it has to reflect in all his or her decisions and actions. For example, you can't demand for the ouster of someone based on immorality while having your hands raised by another who was the very embodiment of the same. Well, at least of <span style="font-style: italic;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">ammorality</span></span>, but if <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Noynoy</span> seeks to use the Moral High Ground as basis for election to higher office, indeed for the legitimacy of his faction of the LP... then standing, all smiles, hand raised, with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Erap</span> somehow just doesn't cut a dashing figure of the Hero in my books.<br /><br />Sen. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Kiko</span>, by his decision to tough it out as an <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">independent</span>, has shown his true caliber. Perhaps its a well calculated move. Maybe he isn't as disadvantaged as he appears, since he has a not-so-secret weapon in wife Sharon and daughter KC. It may even be a fit of pique at not being a prime choice for a slot in the so-called GO.<br /><br />But whatever the reasons, Sen. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Kiko</span> told the public of his decision and, IMHO, its the right one. That way, none of his principles are compromised, no excuses need to be made as to why "Mr. Noted" is now with the man whose friend he supposedly helped keep from the presidency.<br /><br />And that's why he has my vote this May.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-76093264251998650192007-02-21T14:37:00.000+08:002007-02-22T11:58:12.530+08:00Thoughts on the Korean Crisis (and why I can never really be a negotiator)First post in a while and I do this? Why not another one on the LP? Because whenever I think about what Drilon and co. have done to the Party I love I get really close to a heart attack and I really, REALLY want to enjoy life now that I'm turning 30. I'll deal with those bastards some other time.<br /><br />I was reading through details of the six-party talks on the (latest) North Korea issue, and if there was a better contemporary example to the efficacy of dialogue and diplomacy over knee-jerk options like bombing an offending country to the Stone Age, then this is it.<br /><br />When the issue of NoKor beginning something like a nuke weapon research program started to filter into the world's attention, it understandably caused quite a concern. This was, after all, the... most unpredictable nation in the world, bar none, with a leader who is probably as unpredictable as his government's image (or more so). Saying North Korea was starting to make nuclear weapons was like handing the Football - the case that activates the American Nuclear Arsenal - to a psychotic pre-pubescent neanderthal on aggressor drugs.<br /><br />If that was me, my first reaction would probably have been to mobilize an insane amount of troops and weaponry right on NoKor's doorstep as a not-so-subtle and over sized version of the policeman's "drop your weapon" threat. If NoKor answered this with a "bring it on!", then by all means I would not have hesitated to do Korean War Round 2 (or is it three already?). After making sure my back and flanks were well-protected, of course.<br /><br />But that's me. I was never the negotiator of my generation's Guardians, after all. I was their analyst, their strategist, their protector. The center of the shield, the tip of the spear, the leading edge of the sword. My Training regarding threats was to not just eliminate them but also to prevent their being able to effectively threaten me or the one's I protect. This is premised on the principle that not all parties in a conflict think alike, and that there will be parties who will never see the situation the way you, in your liberal, democratic, republican and civilized upbringing would.<br /><br />But yes, this is a big victory for the negotiators, for those who were told they were talking with the impossible. Students learning the intricate and delicate art of negotiation and conflict resolution should read up on how this was done.<br /><br />Its also important to note, amidst all the criticism from the American Left and Right, that the success of this round of the talks hinged mostly on the principle of compromise. I have always maintained that negotiations can never happen, or be fruitful if they do occur, so long as at least one party in the talks is taking a hardline stance. Without sacrificing the basic premise of your side's position, one must allow room for maneuver. There must be concessions from all sides. There must be that general feeling of openness to resolving a conflict through dialogue and negotiation, and this cannot exist so long as one party says, "no: my way or the highway."<br /><br />At the very least, this should be a hats-off to Christopher Hill, Washington's envoy to the North Koreans. I like that little anecdote attributed to him that may have provided the important breakthrough: a Korean proverb about filling a cup with too much liquid that it drains out, leaving nothing. I wonder where I can find the exact wording of that one? It seemed to have doused cold water - haha, pun not intended - on Pyongyang's greed, trying to act more like a hostage-taker demanding terms than a sovereign state dealing with its peers.<br /><br />I have to hand it to the almost inhuman - it IS Pyongyang we're talking about here, after all - patience and perseverance of Hill and US SecState Condi Rice. In my new gestalt, the first thing I determine is whether or not a course of action will be effective in the persecution of a goal. If in my analysis it shows up that further action will lead nowhere but to an escalation that drains resources for no justifiable gain, then its time to cut one's losses and regroup. Or abandon the field entirely. That Hill and Rice persevered so far, despite the known preferences of their boss in the White House, should at least reap praises.<br /><br />Let's just hope this goes on to a happy ending. For although a warrior's best tool is always himself as a weapon, a real warrior, a Guardian, knows that the drawing of the blade is in itself a failure because you were forced to take the final recourse. In its most ancient traditions, a drawn blade was never sheathed without shedding blood, for to draw it on another was a clear sign of serious and deadly intent.<br /><br />This way, warriors need not draw the blade once again. The Sheath still holds steel, and blood does not needlessly stain the ground again.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-20690241049649749742007-02-01T14:57:00.000+08:002007-02-01T15:58:54.818+08:00The Carnival BeginsOne thing <span style="font-style: italic;">any </span>observer will have to admit about Philippine politics, especially during election season, is that it really, truly never has dull moments.<br /><br />I mean, look at the so-called United Opposition. Even before filing for candidacy begins, the group was plagued by defections of some very high ranking members. As in, "inner circle" kind of members. I'm talking about the very public exits of Tito Sotto, Tessie Aquino and Kit Tatad.<br /><br />In the Tatad's case, not only was it very public, but very vocal as well: the man practically <span style="font-style: italic;">paid </span>for two full pages in the Philippine Daily Inquirer so his letter to Erap would be printed in its full, unedited glory.<br /><br />Talk about your "Oh-M-Gee" situations...<br /><br />My paranoia (Mentat Training can sometimes take the fun out of relishing little victories like this) is telling me its quite possible we're all being taken for a ride here; I mean, look at this: Sotto, Tessie <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>Tatad? Enrile bolting the Opposition camp is something that totally went by everybody - I mean, duh, right? - but <span style="font-style: italic;">Tatad</span>?<br /><br />Well, that's my paranoia talking. I still remember the battles we fought against those three, and the way Aquino-Oreta danced after the Second Envelope incident in 2001. I know that politics, especially here in the Philippines is more concerned with "permanent interests" than standing one's grounds on the basis of principles and ideals, but, really, there are just some things you do <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>do. How can anyone who fought on the side of Truth and all that's decent in 2001 even think about standing besides the likes of Dancing Queen herself?<br /><br />Apparently, the damage Gloriagate has done to the already-damaged political culture of the country is far, <span style="font-style: italic;">far, </span>greater than even my worst nightmares. Musical chairs is a common factor of Philippine politics, but the realignments happening on the eve of the 2007 elections just... boogles the mind. It also makes whatever is left of my idealism want to drink itself to death.<br /><br />UNO has always been more an alliance of political interests rather than a union of ideals and alternative programs. Anybody who still thinks UNO was about the poor and all that should have his or her head examined. The 2007 version of UNO is no different than the one we defeated in 2004, although I'd have to say, Chiz Escudero aside, it really <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">has </span></span>dredged the bottom of crassness and personal political agendas this time.<br /><br />Oh, yes, I'm voting for Chiz; if that expensive and worthless institution that's the Senate should continue, then perhaps we should elect there someone with sense. And sensibility. Escudero might be an oppositionist, but at least he's decent about it. And consistent. Which is more than I can say about the Drilon cabal of the LP.<br /><br />I mean, <span style="font-style: italic;">just look at it: <span style="font-weight: bold;">NOYNOY AQUINO IN THE UNO?! </span></span><span>What the hell, right?<br /><br />I'd have understood if Drilon's cabal decided to go it on their own; they had this big production a couple of days ago where they announced their so-called lineup for the Senatorial elections. That's ok, even better, if truth be told. They've been harping for some time now about some so-called "Third Force" and it would seem they're quite ready to put their money where their mouth is. Heck, who knows, since a good portion of the public still thinks they're "good guys" (ah, my misguided public... if only I could show you the Truth about your so-called heroes, how they lie, how they suppress and twist the Truth for their own personal agendas and the Republic be damned...)</span><span style="font-style: italic;">, </span><span>then perhaps some of them could have made a good showing at the polls this May<span style="font-style: italic;">.<br /></span><br />But, no... they had to <span style="font-style: italic;">insist </span>- assuming Kit Tatad's open letter is true - that Noynoy be included in the UNO lineup.<br /><br />UNO. Erap's group. The group we fought from 2000 - 2001. The group Abad and Pangilinan stymied during the canvassing of votes back in 2004. Odd though, when you think about it: a year after the canvassing, the same people that defended Gloria's votes were the ones who tried to oust her. If they were so sure one year later that she cheated, why were they so... ardent in keeping the opposition from doing a thorough check of the votes?<br /><br />Is their hate for Gloria so great that ideals <span style="font-style: italic;">truly mean nothing </span>to them anymore?<br /><br /></span><span>And who was it that convinced Gloria to admit to making a call to Garci, despite her adviser's recommendations? "Do a Clinton", I think the selling point was to poor little Glo. And she did because, at the end of it all, she trusted the people who were egging her on to say "I'm sorry" for something virtually <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">all </span></span>politicians did anyway. She thought they were telling her the right thing to do to defuse the crisis, that these people, the "civil society" contingent of her Cabinet, being morally upright members of society (or so it seems at the time), were telling her its okay to do this. Instead, she got more flak, and I didn't see any of her CivSoc Cabinet members try to back her up after. Which was why she angrily told the "civil society" contingent of her Cabinet that she did what <span style="font-style: italic;">they </span>wanted and she got more flak for it. You have to understand the little girl's context at that moment. Information sources tell us that, political shark that she is, Glo seemed to genuinely trust her CivSoc ministers. Which was why decades of political instinct was thrown out of the window by her, <span style="font-style: italic;">on their say-so, </span>because she thought they could do no wrong by her.<br /><br />And then... they tried to oust her.<br /><br />Remember that these people plunged the country - not once, but twice! - nearly into civil war on the basis of morality and decency. These people said they were the paragons; you couldn't claim otherwise, and demand that your boss, the President, resign her office. I mean, they were her <span style="font-style: italic;">alter egos</span>, and they practically were the vanguard of her campaign team in 2004. They resigned on the basis of what was still essentially heresay and some weird thing about their boss being more concerned with survival than serving the country. Duh. Of course Gloria was trying to survive; this country does <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>have a nice track record with how it deals with ousted presidents. The little girl was facing the very real possibility of getting lynched, and they weren't helping provide the security she needed to, as they wanted, do her work.<br /><br />They were essentially her <span style="font-style: italic;">shitteno</span>, her inner circle of advisers. If massive cheating <span style="font-style: italic;">did </span>happen in 2004, then they were in on it. At the very least, they never asked the hard questions; heck, they even stymied attempts at this, if the canvassing of 2004 was any indication.<br /><br />And now they join UNO. Amazing.<br /><br />About a week or two ago, Billy Esposo came out with a column in the Philippine Star that was essentially praising the Drilon Wing. The "true" LP, he called them. Of course Mr. Esposo either got his facts wrong or deliberately didn't even check on what happened. He's a demagogue, a PR man. A true journalist would have couched attacks against his true target - the President - with facts.<br /><br />What was truly amazing was his assertion that this Drilon Wing of the LP - along with poor, I-wonder-where-his-common-sense-went Manny Villar's Nacionalistas - represented the so-called (now officially dead) Third Force that would one-up Gloria and Erap. This was the <span style="font-style: italic;">true </span>alternative to evil, dictatorial little Glo and corrupt lord-of-all-gambling-lords Erap.<br /><br />I wonder how Esposo felt when the news came out that Noynoy Aquino was in the UNO slate?<br /><br />Oh yes, the carnival has begun. And our side has yet to show its set of actors in this sordid little drama. So far, all we know is Mike (Defensor) is the only sure runner for the Senate. A contact even told me that he has a pol-ad out already and that it sucked. I haven't seen it, so I can't judge it.<br /><br />I wish his media handlers would focus on the more worthwhile aspects of Sec. Mike. I' ve interviewed the guy and he's charming, witty, warm and smart. He's the perfect foil to Chiz, for God's sake. They should play up those qualities of him, rather than do a, uh, cheesy packaging of him designed to supposedly wow the masses.<br /><br />Newsflash, publicists: the Masses are different now.<br /><br />Still, its a carnival. And the days have been rather boring of late. Filipinos love elections, after all, if for no other reason that its certainly good entertainment. Never a dull moment during elections. And I bet this one will be <span style="font-style: italic;">anything</span> but dull.<br /></span>Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-10037680224516710922007-01-03T13:47:00.000+08:002007-01-03T16:04:44.110+08:00Two negatives a positive does not make, IRL<p class="MsoNormal">No, this isn't about the LP thing; I am still so dissed at it that I still can't properly write about it. This is about a little debate that occurred between two of my kada during our Christmas get-together.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Consider the protagonists: one is a newly-grad law student who just took the bar. Of all my kada, she's perhaps the most "Establishment" of us all, even more so than me. The other kada is the one who had three girlfriends all at the same time, all the while finding nothing wrong in it while remaining as one of Youth for Christ's organizers. In a very real sense, this friend of mine could be described as... amoral.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Anyway: the debate was sparked by his, uh, business practices. Jaq (the law student kada) and I (initially) were trying to convince him to be more, ah... legal with the way he conducts his business. Mostly, Jaq and I were trying to convince him to register his biz with the appropriate agencies, since this was the lawful thing to do (and I wonder why in the Alignment Test of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons I still rated as Lawful Good?).</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Francis (my other kada, the one we were debating with) initially parried our points. But as Jaq (now solo debating with Francis by this time since I already came to the conclusion that he was too set in his ways to be reasoned with) engaged him deeper and longer, he began to... deflect the arguments about what the Republic deserves with stuff like he's being nationalistic with using Filipino talent in his biz, or that none of his income goes abroad unlike the megacorps who are based here, or that despite there being no contracts between him and his financial backers, he gives them their dues and in time, and others besides.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Like I said above, I stopped debating with Francis because I realized - and also because I've been with this guy at least since second year high school - he won't be convinced by any of our arguments. He implied he's earning much from his biz; like he said, why would he allow government to cut into his substantial bottom line when it would most likely go to the pockets of corrupt officials? Jaq was countering this with its the salaried citizens that bear the brunt of tax-evading businessmen like him.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In one sense, I could understand where Francis was coming from. Too much corruption discourages business. Corruption is like a leech that sucks away at the lifeblood of enterprise, and most of the time its the small ones, the vulnerable ones, that are subjected to the greed of evil public officials because small businesses lack the resources to defend themselves against this predation.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But...</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I remember that time I received my first taxable paycheck. You'd be surprised how... elated I was. Personally, I view the Income Tax as one of the proofs that one is an adult, since only full adults supposedly earn enough money, or keep a job, that necessitates taxing. But even more than that, aside from it being my civic duty as a Citizen of the Republic of the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Philippines</st1:place></st1:country-region> to give my share for its upkeep, I always say that people who pay taxes are the ones with the right to criticize government and demand that things should be better. Why? Because we PAY for this right, even before any personal purchases because the law subtracts a certain amount from our salaries even before we see our paycheck.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">People who don't pay taxes have absolutely no right to complain, in my book. Especially if they are earning a decent amount from working here or operating a business locally.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But I think what really got me concerned was the fact that people, like Francis, are ready to twist the law, or even discard it entirely, just to get what they want and then justify it. It’s so irksome in that people like Francis seem to be of the opinion that they are entitled to the benefits of a liberal democratic republic with a free market system while sidestepping the responsibilities attendant to being a citizen of that republic.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s not even a question of whether your money does go to the proper upkeep of your nation or it lines the pockets of your congressman. That’s not the point in the system of taxation that runs a modern country. When Conrado de Quiros called on people to withhold their taxes in order to keep their money away from Gloria’s government, I thought that this was such an irresponsible thing to do. Taxes run this nation. If people don’t pay their taxes, the country will cease functioning.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Dealing with corruption, that is preventing your public officials from dipping their grubby hands into the wealth of the nation to further theirs, is not a function of taxation. Taxation deals with ensuring a nation has enough to function, and maybe a little bit more to grow. Preventing greedy people from misusing one’s taxes is part of another system, the one where a citizen is an active stakeholder and demands from his or her public official that these resources be spent properly and effectively.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">You can’t foil corruption by withholding your taxes. That way leads to even greater corruption as government begins to lack the resources it needs to function, and people in the bureaucracy begin to be subjected to more… external pressures. If more businessmen, or the highest-salaried people in this country, paid the proper taxes – or, rather PAID their taxes – then maybe government would at least have funds to give its employees decent-enough salaries so they won’t stoop down to accepting bribes just to make ends meet (heck, perhaps teachers wouldn’t have to sell stuff to their students and focus more on teaching).</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">True, government sorely needs to implement a more effective tax-enforcement scheme. But how come, year after year, taxation is low? Because, whether through the magic of their elite accountants and/or “gifts” to well–placed people in the bureaucracy, people who earn more pay less (or none at all).</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">See, that’s what’s wrong with the Filipino: instead of demanding what is our right as taxpayers, as citizens, we instead spit on the law. Is it the law, the system, that is the problem in the first place? No. It’s the PEOPLE. The Law, and the systems that determine its operation, are there. It’s people who find ways to either subvert those systems, or disregard them utterly.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Heck, even Supreme Court Justices do it. Look at that TRO on the LP and the COMELEC. Imagine, Drilon’s Wing of Evil, Lying and Arrogant People Who Claim They’re Liberals but in Truth are Communists in Disguise got a TRO when the Supreme Court was in recess and the Chief Justice had just arrived from abroad? Amazing. And all it took was one Cory Aquino to make the Justices sidestep the SC’s own rules, the CJ to not follow procedure, and for democracy to be stifled.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And they have the gall to say they are doing this to keep external factors from influencing an internal party matter? Sheesh. The lie is so slick it would put a frictionless surface to shame.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Was it a fault of the system? Nope. It was people. People with the resources to pervert the system and the lack of morality to do anything just to get what they want.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So long as Filipinos think this way – the whole situation is dirty, anyway, so I will play dirty – then it will be really difficult to change this country</p>Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-79059546973099350642006-12-08T10:32:00.000+08:002006-12-08T10:50:42.664+08:00Chacha once againThe first street action I ever participated in was an anti-chacha rally.<br /><br />This was way back in 1998 or 1999, the time of deposed Pres. Joseph Estrada. I was part of Ateneo's <span style="font-style: italic;">Sanggunian </span>then, and I think, if memory serves me right, this was after we had created the Union of Catholic Student Councils. We were there protesting the Estrada-led chacha not on the merits of any proposed ammendment to the Constitution, but on it being a thinly-veiled attempt to remove term limits.<br /><br />"Dancing" the chacha seems to be a preoccupation of every administration after 1986 except Cory's. Pres. Ramos tried to do it, and, as mentioned above, so did Estrada. Gloria trying the same seems to be par for the course.<br /><br />The end result of each chacha has always been the same: failure. Because they were all presented to the public as having a motive other than improving on the (IMHO) wonderful 1987 Constitution, chacha has always fallen flat on its face.<br /><br />Yesterday, after marathon sessions, the House of Representatives approved a Resolution that would turn Congress into a Constituent Assembly. Today, news is rife on protest actions against this latest attempt to change the '87, inlcuding one next Friday that would see the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches unite for a massive rally versus the House resolution.<br /><br />If this was pre-Gloriagate, I would say actions led by the Church have a very, very good chance of succeding. This is a country where religious forces have played a role as counter to excesses of the political forces. This is still a country with 80% of its population as Christians who, despite being lax in attending Sunday Mass or strictly following the precepts of their faith, hold their religious leaders in high regard much, much more than their political leaders.<br /><br />I would like to see how this goes. I hope the planners of next Friday's mass action have taken into consideration the fact that a lot of things have changed since the failed power grab of 8 July 2005. Of course the Catholic Church can still call on one of its most powerful weapons, the Catholic Educators Association of the Philippines (CEAP), which oversees the Catholic schools. That is a force to reckon with, although the Catholic schools, specifically the UCSC, have not engaged in any mass action since the attempted ouster of Chief Justice Davide in 2003.<br /><br />We'll see. This would be one interesting pageant to observe.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1161857570457005492006-10-26T17:12:00.000+08:002006-10-26T18:12:50.570+08:00DisconnectIt has been two weeks or so since the Philippines' Commission on Elections (COMELEC) came out with its decision on the LP leadership issue. I've taken this long to even begin commenting on the bloody thing not because we "lost" on some aspects of the case, but due to my... disbelief at the response of Drilon and his cabal over the whole fiasco.<br /><br />Funny, but I actually can't find a word to describe my reaction to their responses. Disbelief? Astounded? <span style="font-style: italic;">Outraged? </span>Maybe confused? No, not that one. I mean, the way they reacted - question the COMELEC resolution, question the COMELEC <span style="font-style: italic;">itself</span>, when it was <span style="font-style: italic;">they </span>who brought it to COMELEC for arbitration in the first place - was a high-probability Scenario. We all knew that short of, uh, "unconditional victory" for them, Drilon's faction would most likely <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>abide by any decision.<br /><br />I heard the Abads are taking a hardline stance to this, as in no reconciliation with the Atienza faction, or at least the Mayor himself. That was the first shock, I guess. Assuming this is true, I would truly feel sad. All-throughout this fiasco, I have always maintained that the Abads were some of the moderating influences in the Drilon faction, that people like Chito and Chit are the hardliners, the ones who would advocate a "total surrender" and "scorched earth" policy to this political battle.<br /><br />And then there's that question on the election. I remember feeling the outrage when Chito actually had the gall to, ah, accuse the Atienza group as having an "election mentality" during the hearings. It was like a "duh" statement. I almost forgot decorum then, wanting to shout at Chito, "dude, we're the <span style="font-style: italic;">Liberal </span>Party, remember? Of course we'll always favor elections!" And now that COMELEC has decided only an election can solve this, they don't want to honor it.<br /><br />That was the first disconnect. Neric was so arrogant in Cambodia to claim that <span style="font-style: italic;">they </span>are the "soul" of liberalism (you know, that statement of sheer and utter arrogance has somehow stuck in my mind like bad, spent chewing gum on the soles of your shoes...). Taking off from that statement, one would assume that these people would subscribe to values that form the core of the liberal ideals.<br /><br />Last time I looked, liberal <span style="font-style: italic;">democracy </span>holds the ballot sacrosanct as the truest expression of the people's will. If there is a question of fairness and/or honesty in an election, you question the process <span style="font-style: italic;">after </span>and present proof of wrongdoing, or you do a NAMFREL and design a mechanism that ensures the sanctity of the elections. You don't question the basic principle of the process. You don't say one side is bad because they have an "election mentality" and still lay claim to the title Liberal.<br /><br />The second disconnect is there. These people have been claiming since July 8 that <span style="font-style: italic;">they</span> represent the Party. That they did nothing wrong last July 8.<br /><br />If so, logic dictates that the party in the right - pun not intended - in this contest should be confident, regardless of the situation. When the COMELEC said that, "ok, Atienza's little event last March 2 was indeed "rump", we're ordering him to refrain from representing the Party, but you, Mr. Drilon are not President anymore either so we're calling an election," the appropriate reaction for people supposedly in the "right" side of the contest should have been, "ah, ok. Kewl. When is this?"<br /><br />This should be elementary. If one's hand was not in the cookie jar when mommy came back, one shouldn't be scared to face mommy.<br /><br />But the first thing the Drilon cabal did was <span style="font-style: italic;">question </span>COMELEC's right to hold the election and we've heard they're bringing it all the way to the Supreme Court.<br /><br />"Duh" comes to mind.<br /><br />On the question of COMELEC "interference" to what is essentially an internal Party matter, the answer can be found in the Resolution itself, something that any sane and rational individual without any other agenda than seeing the LP united again will say is appropriate: there is a sense of <span style="font-style: italic;">distrust </span>between both camps.<br /><br />Once again with the "duh" for the Drilon camp. Once again, it should be elementary, so much so that a streetkid of maybe 6 years old, if the language was devoid of legalistic and academic terms, would understand: how can one side hold an election that the other would recognize when its most likely each side would rather tear off the heads of the other?<br /><br />Its so basic it almost hurts. Even a freshie in International Relations or Conflict Resolution will tell you that for two warring parties to come to an agreement, a third party is needed to broker talks. Does the third party dictate for the other two? They'd be morons to allow that. Someone is needed to ensure that a resolution is achieved, something that cannot happen if both sides in a conflict are left to their own devices.<br /><br />Or, let's put it this way: snide remarks aside from the anti-Gloria camp, is it the COMELEC who elects your public official every three years?<br /><br />If supervision of an election by a COMELEC means its that poll body that decides for those it merely supervises, than all elections in democratic societies worldwide are shams, because a third party other than those concerned ran them. Besides, basic english: there is a profound difference from <span style="font-style: italic;">supervise </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">select.</span> Even Grade school students can tell you that, how much more people with the high academic credentials of the Drilon faction?<br /><br />And what's this crap about bringing it all the way to the Supreme Court? Most likely, the high court will just throw away their petition. I mean, if I was an SC magistrate, I'd ask one simple question to Drilon: why not? I mean, why not an election? What's wrong with holding one and having COMELEC supervise it? Aren't you people in the LP going to elect these leaders anyway, and not the COMELEC?<br /><br />I think the disconnect here is in my thinking that, at least, <span style="font-style: italic;">some </span>of them have the welfare of the Party and its members in mind. We have been badly hit by this internal conflict. At least one Governor is gone, and several local leaders. All of our projects and programs are on hold. Far from just effectively stopping the LP's resurgence in its tracks, all the gains of the last six years or so may have just been obliterated by the irresponsible action - and their highly suspicious and insidious inaction, with regard to the call for a conveneing of the NECO - of less than two dozen people starting 8 July 2005. <span style="font-style: italic;">Liberal Philippines </span>is gone, the Liberal Family is gone, Dr. Meinardus is gone, the Party's website should be renamed www.frankdrilon.com and even now those evil, evil people are trying to create their very own KALIPI, using Taiwanese money supposedly meant for "sectoral" development. Even worse for the LP, we should have been preparing for nextyear's mid-term elections some <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">four </span></span>months ago. Instead, we're stuck in a rut and the hole's getting deeper, wider and murkier every day.<br /><br />Disconnect. In communications parlance, this points to a... disparity between what's being said, to what is actually happening. The Message is being contradicted by actions from the Sender, and so the Reciever at the very least is confused because the Message does not connect - hence, the "disconnect" - with other data coming from its Sender.<br /><br />If they did no wrong to the Party, its leaders and its members, then they shouldn't be afraid to face an accounting.<br /><br />If they are paragons of civil society and liberal democracy like they trumpet they are, then they shouldn't be afraid of any electoral process because the ballot is the essence of democracy.<br /><br />If they truly had the interests of the Party at heart, and not see it simply as another tool to remove Gloria, then they should be of the mindset of ending this early, rather than using the legal system itself to stifle democracy.<br /><br />Democracy can't be "conditional," in the sense that one group, simply because they label themselves the "good guys", can demand it while denying it to others when it doesn't suit their purposes. If they demanded democracy and freedom from Gloria, asking for the right to choose the leader they think is best, then they shouldn't deny the same to others when demanded of them.<br /><br />You can't go around demanding the right to speak and then interrupting someone else when they start saying something you don't like or runs counter to your position, and still call yourself a liberal democrat. That goes counter to several core values of liberalism: tolerance and freedom, among others. Only Communists regard opinions other than that of theirs as wrong, and last time we heard, they were telling the worldwide liberal community that <span style="font-style: italic;">they </span>were the soul of Philippine liberalism.<br /><br />You can't keep saying one thing, especially over media, and do or demand another. That's disconnect. Too much, and static happens, or dissonance. PR and communication principles allow for the manipulation of information for a desired effect, but you can "weave" a reality only so much before it unravels in the face of its own contradictions.<br /><br />If only it were just <span style="font-style: italic;">them</span> who'd be affected by the unravelling. Because it looks like they're very, very much willing to take us all down with them...Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1160135966649523052006-10-06T19:39:00.000+08:002006-10-06T19:59:28.220+08:00When trust blindsActually, this was a post I was supposed to do last week. Unfortunately, the storm named <span style="font-style: italic;">Milenyo </span>("Millenium", in English) struck and the NCR was without electricity starting Thursday.<br /><br />What sparked my reflections on the above was a conversation I witnessed during one event we attended. The focal point there was the statement of one of the persons in the conversation that, if he was still the leader of the <a href="http://liberalpartyphilippines.blogspot.com">LP's</a> youth wing, <a href="http://kalipiblog.blogspot.com">KALIPI</a>, he'd choose Drilon over Atienza, simply because all of our idols - Butch and Dina Abad, Mar Roxas, etc. - were there.<br /><br />Once again, this brought home the value that Strategic Constituents have. Entities like the StratCons, because of the influence they exert on the thinking processes of those in their circle, have such a powerful sway over the way those that look to them for guidance decide on a campaign or issue.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">But, </span></span>there are certain targets that, theoretically, are not as affected by StratCons as, say, the general public. In the case of leaders of civil society, there is that certain expectation that, even given the role Strategic Constituents play in their decision-making, people working in the "Movment", well, <span style="font-style: italic;">think. </span>Its not so much that you'd do what your StratCon says should be done but that the person has garnered so much of your respect that his/her opinion weighs heavily on the decisions you'll make.<br /><br />This is partly why I... abhor the situation the LP is in, where KALIPI has been placed in. It was like the elders of ours, despite all the training and indoctrination they gave us under the liberal banner, would expect us to just accept the information they were giving.<br /><br />Didn't they teach us to think, to discern? Didn't they encourage us to dissent if decency and the truth are on the line? Didn't they bring us up hating justifying the means used to achieve a certain end, to rail against injustice?<br /><br />I wanted so ask my friend if he'll be of the same opinion if he knew the way Drilon and his people persecuted KALIPI for simply asking for explanations, for the youth wing doing its duty of calling its elders to rein in their impulses and follow the procedures of the Party. What would my friend say if I pointed out why Noynoy Aquino's memorandum following July 8 was the cloth used to cover up the lies of that date? What if I told him of what they did to <span style="font-style: italic;">me </span>personally? Of the sheer underhandedness, of the black propaganda and character assasination, of the abridgement of the very essence of the ideology our elders on the other side supposedly stood for? Would my friend be able to justify what was done by CALD to Jan in Cambodia, or the fact that, for an organization supposedly made up of liberals and democrats, they used methods more akin to the Communist Party to vindicate their side?<br /><br />In one sense, I am thankful for them, for tearing away the veil from my eyes. There was a time not so long ago that any pronouncements from my elders would have been taken as gospel truth. Now, given all they have done - and <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>done - just to see Gloria fall, I can nevermore be blinded by the trust I have given them.<br /><br />Assuming, I can still trust them as much as I once did. If you can be sacrificed so easily for a goal that is in itself suspect and so filled with the taint of ambition and misguided self-righteousness, how can trust be restored?Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1156418768819948172006-08-24T19:15:00.000+08:002006-08-24T20:05:04.653+08:00Media, influencing perceptions and its impact on the truthWhoever said information would be the key commodity of this new, digital world wasn't just spouting sci-fi gibberish.<br /><br />But then, as a Communications major, I can appreciate the way information is processed both by the general public and the ones we mark as our "Targets" for the campaigns we design and execute. You have a message. It passess through a medium. It is transmitted to the intended (and unintended) reciever.<br /><br />Of course, its never as simple as that. The old Sender->Reciever model of Communications cannot fully illustrate the complexities that come with information processing.<br /><br />For one it doesn't take into account the role the Gatekeepers of Information play in the whole process. In most modern, (and ironically) democratic societies, the general public do not get the, ah, "raw data," or the information on an issue in its raw state. In most cases, people get their information from two sources: mainstream media, and the government. The problem here is that the latter usually tailors its information to make it look good, or at least to lessen the impact of bad news, while the former tailors its information to a specific agenda.<br /><br />That's the Sender side of the equation. On the Reciever side, you have the Strategic Constituents, the persons that people consult with, or whose views on an issue are valued by a certain group, before a decision on an issue is made. If I remember my PR class right, StratCons are defined as people (or entities) that can "help or hinder your campaign."<br /><br />All these, along with the biases of a culture and the personal history of an individual, all help to influence the way a particular piece of information is processed and, ultimately, determines its effects.<br /><br />I gave that long-winded discussion on the Communications process in order to show how somethings we view as truth may just be a matter of perception.<br /><br />For example: one of the primary stories in today's Philippine Daily Inquirer has as header, "GMA allies begin burial ceremony for impeach bid." <span style="font-style: italic;">This, </span>ladies and gentlemen, is a story on the above-fold, front page area of the most widely-read and generally respected newspapers of the country.<br /><br />There is this great debate on whether news should be of the "BBC" type - that is, shorn of sensationalism, given straight to the point and without any commentaries from those giving the report - to the "CNN" type, the so-called "distinctive" journalism where a newscaster is oftentimes asked by the anchor to give <span style="font-style: italic;">his </span>or <span style="font-style: italic;">her </span>views on the event.<br /><br />Because the way information gets presented can and does determine how a reciever processes that information. Take away a large chunk of "objectivity" in a news report, and you'll end up with something that actually goes beyond simply informing the public to something that sets the agenda for the public.<br /><br />But this somehow defeats the concept of information-sharing and dessimination in a democracy. Part of the reason why the Opinion section - with its biases and rhetoric - is in the middle of a paper,or why commentaries are shown separate from a newscast, is that you have a chance in the preceeding pages or through the 6:00 news to see the information in a more-or-less objective state. Its like eating; rumors are appetizers, the front page news is the main course, and the opinion page is either dessert or the <span style="font-style: italic;">patis </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;">toyo </span>that liven up the dish.<br /><br />The problem here is that perceptions get formed not through the ideal way of a person getting information and then coming up with what we call an informed decision through deliberation and reflection, but through exposure to biases. In Comm parlance, the information recieved by the public is already "slanted", and when they talk to their StratCons, and somehow the "slant" resonates with the StratCon's ideas, it gets reinforced. There is no tension between competing data that allows for an informed decision because all the information someone gets is slanted one way.<br /><br />And this should be a cause for concern. I once read something on the nursing leak, totally unrelated to the issue of Gloria's legitimacy. And yet, the letter sender somehow connected the two, even to saying that there is "overwhelming proof" of Gloria's cheating.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">AGAIN, </span></span>I will say that I do <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>like her and is not here to defend her. But the thing is... <span style="font-style: italic;">has </span>there <span style="font-style: italic;">really </span>been proof to the level that you can say, beyond reasonable doubt, that she <span style="font-style: italic;">did </span>cheat? My information sources tell me that, at the very least, <span style="font-style: italic;">they all cheated. </span>Or at least tried to; FPJ's group lacked the resources to do so. Besides, I have personal experience that acts as a tension to what mainstream media says, what PCIJ says and what even my own StratCon says.<br /><br />But that's me. I was Trained as an intelligence operative, as an analyst within a security and intelligence context, so I'm usually paranoid of information I recieve. And, yes, being a Communications major, knowing that information can be manipulated to achieve a particular end, you tend to be careful of accepting something at face value.<br /><br />What about the general public? What kind of defense does the people have when their sources of supposedly-reliabel information, or their Strategic Constituents, all seem to conspire to slant the information they recieve in order to advance their goals and private agendas?<br /><br />People think its a truism that "Gloria cheated" or that there is "overwhelming proof" to her cheating not because there is... but because its all been made - by mainstream media, by PCIJ, by agenda-driven groups who used to be the respectable branch of Civil society - to <span style="font-style: italic;">appear </span>that way. Because this is the Truth certain people want to be accepted as, and unfortunately for the general public <span style="font-style: italic;">they </span>are in control of both the Gatekeepers of Information and are the Strategic Constituents themselves.<br /><br />What can you consider as Truth then, when even supposed paragons and reliable sources of information start manipulating the facts and the presentation of information in order to make the Truth appear as <span style="font-style: italic;">they </span>want it to be, and not as it <span style="font-style: italic;">should </span>be?Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1154066416667109612006-07-28T10:28:00.000+08:002006-07-28T14:08:41.840+08:00Dictatorship as nightmareAnd I mean that <span style="font-style: italic;">literally.</span><br /><br />It was perhaps one of the weirdest dreams I've ever had. From what I can recall, the first scenes were of armed men storming a sleeping me in my house. The next scenes are held in a large complex that seems like a school and mall (in my Dreamscape, two regular areas I dream in is one that looks like the Ateneo, and another that seems to be a mall of some sort). Come to think of it, the layout appears to be similar to Ayala Alabang, although my spatial sense told me its somewhere in QC.<br /><br />But more than the location, what bothered me, even after waking, was the palpable sense of... fear. Yes, fear. My dream-self was aware of the situation it was in - that of a dictatorship, or at least a regime under suppressed liberties - yet I could feel myself genuinely afraid. This isn't the common fear of dying (especially a potentially gruesome death) in nightmares. This is no "ordinary" nightmare horror but one that seems to cut deeper than the instinctive fear of the ending of one's life.<br /><br />Understand that I have training to what some people might call as Dreamwalking. In most, if not all, my dreams, I am after a time aware that I <span style="font-style: italic;">am </span>dreaming and can then exert a certain level of control over my dreamscape, although most times I let the whole dream be just to see where this latest story the supposed random firing of my synapses has made will lead to. Despite this, I've had really horrifying dreams but if anything I consider these nightmares as a "Danger Room" - in reference to the virtual-reality training facility of the X-men - where I can have a bit of training, at least in facing my fears and anxieties, so I let even these nightmares be and try to resolve them. Yet I have rarely been totally afraid in a dream or nightmare, and even rarer are the times when I resort to my training and wake myself up.<br /><br />This was somehow... different. The... horror in the nightmare that was in the context of what may be Martial Rule stems, in my analysis, in the utter... helplessness in wishing to do or say something and not being able to do it for fear of the tools of a dictatorial state picking you up for transgressing its wishes. I wanted to scream. I wanted to rant at the state, to show my anger... but I couldn't. Something was holding me back. Something was pressing like a vise at the core of my soul and preventing me, somehow, even with the knowledge that it was a dream, from doing what I wanted to.<br /><br />I think that is where the horror comes from. I wasn't born free, my mother having birthed me in 1977, or five years after Marcos declared Martial Law. But I did come of age in an era of democracy. One of my most vivid memories remains that of watching the Wall fall, and knowing at that moment, even as a pre-teen, how it felt, what it symbolized. I was a teenager in the time of the celebration of democracy and freedom, the first generation of Filipinos to know how it feels like to be free, and I became a young adult at a time when democracy and freedom seemed to be the common theme worldwide, despite all the troubles of the early 21st century.<br /><br />The malls, the clubs, the coffee shops, the burning of our airwaves by celfones, our ubiquitous use of the internet, our generation's celebrated - and sometimes lamented - outspokenness and nature that abhors limitations and control, even our propensity to come home in the wee hours of the morning... these are all things that we take almost for granted as we do breathing, things that are only possible within the context of the democracy hard won against a two-decade conjugal dictatorship. Generation X and beyond cannot be what it is without these freedoms we enjoy and celebrate, even as some of us have joined official adulthood by having our own kids.<br /><br />And that, perhaps, is what truly made my nightmare of a land under dictatorial rule frightening: the suppression of something that we have never experienced being without. I participated in the actions before, during and after the Second People Power. I have been with the youth movement at least since 1998. Yet in all this I remained operating within a more-or-less democratic system. We were free to raise our fists against the status quo. We were free to question and even take to task loudly those who rule us. We were even free to call the President of the Republic such horrid names that we wouldn't even use against our most bitter rivals.<br /><br />True, for us who are active in the movement, who have the gall to call ourselves youth leaders, we know of those dark days of Martial Rule <span style="font-style: italic;">but we have known no other world except the one we came into consciousness. </span>We were too young to have known the fear and anger and frustration of the dictatorship; all we know was we couldn't watch Voltes V nor play videogames anymore.<br /><br />All we've ever known is a life where you can party till you drop the next morning (and on the streets, too!), play videogames until your eyes water, and watch all the animation, violent movies and adult flicks you can get your hands on. All we've known is a world where the worst we can get for speaking our mind and/or speaking out against our elders is a grounding or a slap on the wrist. Heck, it's even a world that <span style="font-style: italic;">encourages </span>the young to speak out and <span style="font-style: italic;">challenge</span> authority. Meek, silent and opinionless are just <span style="font-style: italic;">soo... </span>uncool in the post-Martial Law Philippines.<br /><br />But last night, confronted even with the simulacrum of the specter of despotism in a realm I was fully in control, I was powerless before it in fear despite my loathing and outrage at it. And all I could do, despite my training, despite all my experiences, was to press the mental equivalent of a reset button and wake up. Because I just couldn't imagine living in such a world where I was not free to do as I wish, when I want to.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span><br />I hope this is one nightmare that will not become a reality<span style="font-style: italic;">. </span>For real life does not give you that option of waking up to a better existence, if the current one has become too horrible to live in.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span>Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1153974279336463072006-07-27T11:28:00.000+08:002006-07-27T12:25:48.173+08:00Essay writing contest on human rights and democracy<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.fnf.org.ph/News/writeandwincontest-mechanics.htm"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7710/489/400/Essay_Contest_Poster.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />The Ateneo Human Rights Center and the <a href="http://www.fnf.org.ph">Friedrich Naumann Foundation Manila Office</a> are sponsoring the above essay writing contest. For the mechanics, click on the image above for the link to the details found in the FNF site.<br /><br />As for the prizes...<br /><br />The 15 best essays shall receive prizes as follows: the top 4 -15 essays will receive P3,000 each, the third prize essay will receive P10,000, the second prize essay will receive P15,000, and the first prize essay will receive a trip to Germany and a seminar on human rights at the Friedrich Naumann Foundation Leadership Academy. Winning essays will also be published in a book.<br /><br />I hope a lot of people join. I want to see just where the discussion on the topic will go to. The contest wishes to answer the question, <span style="font-style: italic;">Does the universality of Human Rights require a particular type of democracy? </span>Even an initial survey of the data on this topic showed a promising amount of issues that encourages a lively debate.<br /><br />And there <span style="font-style: italic;">is </span>the trip to Germany, hehe. I miss the Academy...Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1153735883372193122006-07-24T17:41:00.000+08:002006-07-25T10:11:40.546+08:00Some thoughts on SONA 2006What an... interesting <a href="http://congress.gov.ph/press/print.php?pressid=1344">SONA.</a><br /><br />The President appeared to be in an upbeat mood... and was probably a little bit <span style="font-style: italic;">too</span> excited for her SONA, as she stepped up to give her speech even before the singing of the National Anthem. Whoops. I expect several Protocol Officers to get a really good tongue lashing later, as well this little incident getting blown totally out of proportion by the media and her enemies.<br /><br />Quite a bit of names congratulated there, and not a few ribbing. She even took a playful jab at Makati Rep. Teddy Boy Locsin.<br /><br />She rattled off quite a good number of programs, nearly all of it infrastructure in nature: roads, sea and air facilities, railways... In one sense, the construction of all these transportation infrastructure makes sense on a strategic level: roads, rail facilities, seaports and aerodromes are not called "arteries" for nothing. These are the essential pipelines through which a nation's economy and growth flow through, and development is usually interconnected, pun not intended, with the level of development of such. A bad road usually means less progress coming into a locale, just as a well-paved and maintained highway quite literally speeds up the flow of investments and people into a place.<br /><br />Of course, as the Prez continued to rattle off all those projects - some of which, she said, are in place already - my mind had one question: where are we going to get the money for all this?<br /><br />Is that why she started her SONA by saying we not only have money to pay off the national debt, but to build needed infrastructure?<br /><br />And I don't think she should have spent the amount of time she did in praising Gen. Palparan. She's currently under flak for the disappearance and deaths of Leftists; heaping such accolades on the man regarded as the foremost hunter of the Left in the Philippines might not be good PR. People would say she's sancitoning extra-judicial killings now, straight from her own mouth, even if there really is no proof until now that the military, and Palparan in particular, are behind many if not all of the deaths and disappearances.<br /><br />It's also good to see a new guy at the helm of the Senate. I have nothing against a Senate that is indepedent and even critical of the Executive Branch; the principle of the Separation of Powers only holds if all three branches are strong. But, given the context of Frank Drilon's actions since 8 July 2005, the Senate's activities appeared to go beyond mere fiscalizing.<br /><br />Now that a man without (immediate) ulterior motives on the Presidency is at the Senate's helm, perhaps it would be a more productive one, and not just plain destructively noisy.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1153373988098068922006-07-20T13:14:00.000+08:002006-07-20T13:42:01.633+08:00Democracy and Stability Interrupted: casualties of the Israeli assault on LebanonI'm looking at the title right now and thinking, have <span style="font-style: italic;">I </span>done a journalistic booboo? I've always hated titles that tend to titillate, but are so misleading based on the content <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>the context of the article it is heading. I try my best to teach people going into journ or writing to be responsible when it comes to heading their pieces.<br /><br />But then, it <span style="font-style: italic;">is </span>true: the assault by Israel on Hezbollah positions on Southern Lebanon is becoming a catastrophe. Far from destroying the militant group, Israel is actually making things more dangerous for itself because it may just have dealt a mortal blow to another developing democracy in the region.<br /><br />I remember watching the return of democracy in Lebanon, and its slow, painful but sure steps to stability. Its cost was painful - the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Harriri was its catalyst, after all - but it proved that even in the war-torn and monarchy-controlled Middle East, there is a country whose people yearn for peace, stability and democracy, and who can cross religious lines to do what is right.<br /><br />Lebanon is, after all, being touted as a showcase of not only religious tolerance but of harmony. Muslims and Christians live side-by-side there. They work, play and go through life without looking at each other with wary eyes and hidden weapons. Despite the presence of Hezbollah in its southern regions - admittedly a source of deep concern - Lebanon strikes one as a place not conducive to the growth of the extremist ideal. People here have long lived with people of other faiths beside them to be so easily hoodwinked by the fanatics.<br /><br />I grieve for the Lebanese. Although I know the cause of the Israeli action, it is painful to see a people who have so recently won - on their own! - their right to democracy and to stability brought back to the nightmares of the past. And, like with the civil wars of 30 years ago, it largely isn't their fault. They were in the way. In fact, I am <span style="font-style: italic;">appalled </span>by the amount of collateral damage the IDF is causing in trying to stamp out Hezbollah; it truly seems like the nightmarish realization of that age-old adage about using a cannon to kill a fly.<br /><br />Have the Israelis <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>learned from America's mistakes? Did they not notice in Iraq what happens when you use an army to stamp out terrorists? Did they not know that the international community would be outraged at what appears to be a blatant disregard not only for the sovereignty of a state but of the callous disregard for the safety and security of that state's people? Or perhaps the leaders of Israel don't care anymore? But, truly, are the lives of three soldiers worth the stability of the region, the existence of a whole sovereign state, and the lives of millions of people in that state?<br /><br />This must stop. There is so much potential for a stable and democratic Lebanon. It would be the fly in the fanatic's heady ointment, and a proof to the monarchies of the Middle East that democracy <span style="font-style: italic;">does </span>work, even amidst the sands of Arabia. There are better, more effective ways to deal with unrepentant terrorists like Hezbollah than destroying half a country in the process. Because if Lebanon falls, then the Israelis may just have birthed a far bigger, nastier and deadlier monster than the one they currently are trying to killAzure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1153289786640972482006-07-19T13:28:00.000+08:002006-07-19T14:26:57.816+08:00Blood on the sand, once againThis is one of the things you fear.<br /><br />What started as (a relatively simple) raid and hostage-taking has now escalated into a full blown invasion. I still don't call it a war simply because Lebanon, Syria or even Iran and Palestine has not retaliated with formal military maneuvers<span style=";font-family:";font-size:12;" ></span> against Israel. But the whole situation is dangerously teetering on the edge of full-blown hostilities.<br /><br />My first thoughts on the matter is how... wrongly Israel is going about the whole thing. True, the raid by Hamas-affiliated militants on an Israeli outpost in Gaza about a month or two ago was horrible - hello, the <span style="font-style: italic;">dug </span>underneath the Barrier! - but Israel's response is equally alarming.<br /><br />I can understand the concerns over the whole incident within Israel. The Barrier was meant to increase security along the border with Gaza, which is Hamas territory in fact if not name. That Hamas operates both as a legitimate political force - after all, it <span style="font-style: italic;">does </span>have an overwhelming majority of seats in the nascent Palestinian parliament - and an armed force dedicated to the destruction of Israel is always a point of concern. Israel has every right to defend itself, regardless of what Hamas and its allies think, no matter how much they deny or refuse to recognize the existence of the Jewish state.<br /><br />But Israel's heavy use of formal military power, largely against civilian areas... this goes against many tactical and strategic doctrines I was taught with. The use of overwhelming force appears as too much overkill, when surely the nation with one of the most elite intelligence corps in the world has the resources to do something equally or more so effective, with less complications? This only invites censure on the international scale, and paints Israel as the aggressor, regardless of who started the whole incident in the first place.<br /><br />That they would attack with their full military might a country that is more or less leaning towards full democracy like Lebanon, is also the height of strategic incorrectness. The scenes broadcast over international television does harm to any justification the Israelis gave for their actions, and puts their allies in a tough spot indeed. Giving the United Nations the diplomatic equivalent of the finger also little helps their cause.<br /><br />Yet there is also that fact: who started this whole thing in the first place? Before turning off the TV early this morning, I saw scenes from Iran and I think Syria over CNN. I was hearing things like how support should be given to the militants because they're Muslim, too, and how the killing of women and children by Israel must stop.<br /><br />In every conflict that involves force in whatever form, this is one of the things that surprises me the most: the cry for vengeance for lives lost. This is, of course, a natural reaction. One of <span style="font-style: italic;">ours </span>has been killed by <span style="font-style: italic;">them</span>, and honor cries out for reparation. It comes as a surprise when soldiers and warriors say these things because our trade is conflict and death. Those who wield the sword, die by it (most of the time). As Gen. George Patton once said, the objective is not to die for one's country but to make the soldier of the other country die for theirs.<br /><br />But most surprising in any conflict I have studied is the one on between Israel and the Muslim world. Of course there are a lot of mitigating circumstances and deep-seated reasons for the beginning and continual nature of this conflict. It is the behavior of Muslims over this issue, especially in the Middle East, that confounds me. Historical reasons aside, wasn't this latest chapter of the Arab-Israeli conflict started when several militants of Hamas <span style="font-style: italic;">tunneled </span>underneath the Barrier between Gaza and Israel <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>attacked an outpost, taking one young Jewish soldier as prisoner? The effort alone involved in tunneling underneath that wall without getting noticed must have been immense. This was no spur-of-the-moment act of violence but a strike that was methodically and intelligently planned and executed. If warfare is murder, then this was as premeditated as it gets.<br /><br />One scene last night showed a masked militant - and if he was so ready to die for his people and his faith, why did he hide his identity? - holding a gun and a copy of the Koran aloft. There is something frightening about that scene, something that elicits a reaction from one that, almost unconsciously, makes you want to draw your own weapon. It is the sign of the threat that wishes to do harm to you, akin to the chest-thumping and loud hoots of adult chimpanzees in displays of aggression. It is the clear indication of what the Other wishes to do to you and yours, and every instinct in your body and mind cries out for the proper response to such an overt implication of impending violence.<br /><br />It was a clear symbol of what drives this conflict from the side opposite of the Israelis. Where the Jews are fighting for survival, especially in the context of the Holocaust and centuries of persecution after the Diaspora, their opponents are fired up by religious fanatics who have perverted the teachings of a religion that was designed to keep such aggression in check. Yes, there are other reasons behind the whole Arab-Israeli conflict - and some of them as much Israel's fault as any - but it has become nearly so impposible to resolve because religious fanatics from the Muslim world have so distorted the issue. You cannot reason out of something someone who was not reasoned into that something in the first place.<br /><br />The Israelis must remember this. They have been so long without the overt manifestation of a massive threat to their survival as a nation and as a race that their numerous wars with the Arabs were, that perhaps they have forgotten what it is they face. Their enemies - and they are legion - are simply looking for the flimsiest excuse to call on holy war on Israel. No other religion than theo one the Israelis contend with has made such an... institution of holy war, that has made it so all-encompassing to make it so deadly.<br /><br />This is no simple war for <span style="font-style: italic;">lebensraum</span> or the ascendancy of one race over another. This is about a people who have been conditioned to think that any act against them is another in a long line of acts designed to keep them down and oppressed. This is a conflict that has been rooted by the leaders of a whole people in their religion, a faith that demands absolute belief in its tenets, and that any act of war from their opponents is also an act against God.<br /><br />Israel must remember that, just like in a debate, when your opponent throws a holy book at you, then all discussions and debates end. And they, of all people in contemporary times, should know that when people start coming out in the streets with guns lofted alongside copies of the Koran, then the situation goes beyond a nation's need for security or justice over one trooper taken as an act of war.<br /><br />To the opponents of the Israelis, this is no simple act of war on the mundane scale... but one that already involves God. And when God is part of the picture, how can one talk about securing borders and taking down militants? How can warfare be prevented from spilling into civilian areas and harming non-combatants? In holy war, there are no non-combatants.<br /><br />Escalations are one of the things commanders try to avoid in warfare. As much as possible, a commander wishes to limit the factors and situations in a conflict into a more-or-less manageable system. Escalation in any conflict means more chances for the whole situation to go beyond one's control. And in warfare, once you have lost control, then disaster for your forces is not long in coming.<br /><br />Israel must pull back, if only to consolidate and take a breather. Its initial anger is understandable, but to fight in the full of anger is also to invite disaster. They must exercise restraint, before this whole situation escalates beyond even their most worst-case scenario.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1152509922525083672006-07-10T13:06:00.000+08:002006-07-11T09:24:08.733+08:00An interesting bit of newsMorning sometimes sees me doing monitoring. The advent of Net-based news, and the fact that <a href="http://www.inq7.net">Inq7 </a>updates 24/7, means that something new might have come out that the morning newspaper's edition doesn't carry.<br /><br />So I check. And I also check the blogs of note if I have the time (or inclination). And one of those I regularly check is Dr. Meinardus' blog, <a href="http://www.myliberaltimes.com/">my liberal times</a>. And he has <a href="http://myliberaltimes.com/?p=110">this interesting pos</a>t on something Prof. Mario Taguiwalo, President of the <a href="http://www.nips.org.ph/">National Institute for Policy Studies (NIPS)</a>, wrote.<br /><br />Actually, I was going to respond to the post, but it got long and rather, er, strong. So as not to put to risk Dr. M any further - some people in the other camp have been doing their damndest to get rid of him as Resident Representative - I have decided to make <span style="font-style: italic;">this </span>post instead.<br /><br />According to Dr. M, a commentary by Prof. Taguiwalo has appeared in a 4-page booklet entitled “Liberal Party on the Road not yet taken“. Dr. M quotes the following, and I extract this verbatim from his blog:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“Despite the fact that our shared position on GMA’s unfitness to remain president may have initially defined us (in contrast to other liberals who have a different opinion on this issue), being simply anti-GMA is not a fruitful, wise or sustainable direction for our political party. Being anti-GMA is not even the universe of liberal aspirations for our country. And worst of all, being anti-GMA is not the most productive way of applying liberal principles in serving our people at this time… Just as overwhelmingly being pro-GMA can warp one’s liberalism, being obsessively anti-GMA can pervert our liberalism.”</span><br /><br />Well. That's interesting.<br /><br />I've always said that what torpedoed the whole scenario the LP finds itself in right now was the rather intransigent position of some of those in the anti-GMA camp on the issue of July 8. They REFUSED to listen to the fact that so many of us who challenged the statement of July 8 weren't doing it on the grounds of whether we were pro- or anti-GMA but because it was a question of process, of the mechanisms for decision-making and consultation that is at the heart of what revived the LP in recent years.<br /><br />If only the question of GMA's legitimacy could be divorced from that of what the Party did leading to July 8, then MAYBE we could get somewhere.<br /><br />Seeing what Prof. Taguiwalo wrote gives me hope that some people, especially in Sen. Drilon's side, will start rethinking this whole thing. They HAVE to listen to Prof. Taguiwalo somehow.<br /><br />My tirades against Sen. Drilon in this blog wasn't because I was pro-GMA (although I HAVE heard that some people in the Drilon camp are trying to paint it that way) - far from it: I DON'T agree with so many of what she has done since the Garci tapes came out - but because, as Staff of the HQ and an officer of the youth wing, I saw firsthand how this perversion of liberalism by some in Drilon's group happened. Heck, I AM, after all, a victim myself of this perversion.<br /><br />When I speak out against Sen. Drilon and those around him, I don't do so because I am simply with the Atienza camp, but because I was taught one thing during my time with the LP and I saw another thing when 8 July 2005 happened and in the long months leading to 2 March 2006, how some of my elders acted contrary to what I was taught and made to believe.<br /><br />I am in the Atienza camp not for anything some people - and they know who they are - say I am, but simply because I saw and experienced PERSONALLY how the values I was made to believe in as a member of this Party were twisted, manipulated and yes, perverted to support a particular action that has NO official sanction of the Party's majority.<br /><br />You know, I was thinking this: those who went against GMA are the intellectual and moral elite of the Party. I have seen how they could tilt the balance in their favor during a NECO session simply by stating their case clearly and concisely.<br /><br />I was thinking: what if Sen. Drilon, using his power and influence as LP President and Senate President, INSISTED to the NECO to convene on July 8, and allowed people like Mario Taguiwalo to present the case vs. GMA, allowed a full debate to happen? What are the chances they could have convinced a majority of the NECO to side with them?<br /><br />How many were pro-Roco leading to the 2004 elections? Yet what happened after all the data came in from the process that was approved by the NECO in determining our standard bearer in the 2004 elections?<br /><br />It's like what we said in KALIPI's position paper after July 8: who knows what the LP would have decided if we <span style="font-style: italic;">simply followed the processess we are known for as a Party? </span>The anti-GMA group may just have won!<br /><br />But July 8 had to happen. Even worse, they did nothing that could be termed as in keeping with the LP's traditions and processes in the months leading to March 2. Actually, much worse was the suppression, the cover ups, the PRs with so much false information fed to the media through our email and website. I think, if someone asks me why I posted all of those press releases in www.liberalparty.ph loudly proclaiming the LP's so-called stand on GMA, all I could answer is , it was my job to post them, and because my boss at the time said to put those up.<br /><br />And then there's CALD. This is the most painful of all, because we had to include our sister parties abroad in this insanity.<br /><br />You know, I wish COMELEC had asked for witnesses or some such. I wish my name had been called. I would have stood or sat there and told the Commissioners, your honors, do you want to know WHY March 2 happened? I would have answered, <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">because Drilon and his people allowed it to happen. Because, contrary to the rules, traditions and ideals of the Liberal Party, they not only refused to convene the NECO for so long but did their damndest best to suppress anything that would have hinted at a division in the LP or a question from the ranks about July 8.</span></span><br /><br />I would, perhaps half-rhetorically, ask the Commissioners... ask yourself, your honors: if Drilon had convened the NECO anytime between 8 July 2005 and maybe the anniversary of January 2006... do you <span style="font-style: italic;">think </span>March 2 would have happened?<br /><br />Like I have been saying for a long time now: was <span style="font-style: italic;">anyone </span>suprised March 2 happened?<br /><br />Unless, of course, Drilon and his people have started to believe their own propaganda. Now <span style="font-style: italic;">that </span>is a problem, indeed. Because you cannot reason out of something anyone who was not reasoned into it in the first place. Or anyone who has deluded themselves into thinking that a particular position is the truth after telling a lie for so long.<br /><br />And if you think my being in the LP's pro-GMA camp has perverted my sense of liberalism, then <a href="http://phoenixeyrie.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_phoenixeyrie_archive.html">look here.</a>Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1152180578832913252006-07-06T17:58:00.000+08:002006-07-06T18:19:56.546+08:00KaBlog!Haha. Maybe I should write here, "Blogging fever grips Filipino young liberals!"<br /><br />Although, when you think about it, it's rather ironic that <a href="http://www.liberalparty.ph/KALIPI/">KALIPI </a>would <span style="font-style: italic;">just </span>be one of the latest to have its own blog among the young liberals of the Philippines. I mean, compared to the blogs of, say, <a href="http://www.donnababadilla.blogspot.com/">Donna</a> and <a href="http://chrispangilinan.blogspot.com/">Tops</a>, it really is lightyears behind.<br /><br />And how come I can say stuff like that about our blog? Because I head KALIPI's Directorate for Communications and Public Relations (DCPR), and that little cybernook falls under <span style="font-style: italic;">my </span>jurisdiction, wahaha!<br /><br />Hey, it's my baby, too. And since we've been hyperlinking like crazy between all of our blogs, we hope to induce more netizens to start posting replies like crazy on our posts.<br /><br />Anyway, click here to go to <a href="http://kalipiblog.blogspot.com/">KaBlog!</a>, the official web log of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Kabataang Liberal ng Pilipinas</span>.<br /><br />By the way: we have unconfirmed rumors - and, oh, how I wish I had <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>disbanded ISaAC; I miss my intelligence operatives - that the Drilon faction has formed its own liberal youth wing.<br /><br />I have a lot of comments on this, but I guess I'll refrain going into details until I hear more. But, if this is true, all I can say in brief is:<br /><br />A. They're certainly within their rights to make their own associations, but<br />B. Making <span style="font-style: italic;">another </span>KALIPI - no matter the name - is rather:<br />C. Immature<br />D. Improper<br />E. Pathetic<br />F. Absurd<br />G. Really gets my blood pressure up<br /><br />Whoops. Too much angst.<br /><br />I'd rather they just continue with that "UMASA KA " thing that Chito and Rudy Santos thought about all those years back. Heck, I even gave them the concept paper for it. This, making their own KALIPI, is just soooo like spitting on our eyes.<br /><br />Hey, whoever did this? If you can't stand KALIPI not going with what you want, <span style="font-style: italic;">then live with it! </span>We are <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>your slaves, and we <span style="font-style: italic;">think</span>, we <span style="font-style: italic;">discern, </span>and we do <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>immediately jump to conclusions. Respect us, and we'll respect you.<br /><br />Heck, what am I talking about? We've always respected them, eventhough they haven't us.<br /><br />Okay. Stopping now. Angst level is getting high.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1152072344029706252006-07-05T11:26:00.000+08:002006-07-05T15:31:13.993+08:00Getting past the Gatekeepers: Blogging and the reform of the Fourth EstateWell, okay: mmmmaaaayyybbbeee <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>exactly the reform of the Fourth Estate. But media has been so much a Corporation these last few decades that they've seemingly forgotten why they heck the existed - and came to be regarded as a full "Estate" - in the first place.<br /><br />Everytime I read , hear and/or see "mainstream" media, everytime I interact with media personnel, I always, <span style="font-style: italic;">always, </span>go back to that one class in Journ 101 where Doreen Fernandez herself popped the bubble of idealism keeping afloat the rosy view of the media that we Atenean Comm sophomores still had. (Most) Media exists, even if they operate at a loss, not becuase of any idealism or even altruism, but because having your own media is having power. It would only be when P.R. class in fourth year started introducing us to Strategic Constituencies and the term Gatekeepers of Information that it all started to make sense, especially as it all dovetailed nicely into the modified Sender-Reciever models of modern communciations theory.<br /><br />Blogging changed all that. Okay, that and the Internet. The former would probably have not flowered if not for the... insinuation of the latter in everyday human life. But no one today who has constant access to the Net can deny the... liberating power that blogging has brought to the whole system of information transfer that the 21st century is based on. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gibson_%28novelist%29">William Gibson's</a> near-prophetic vision of a humanity centered around information is here (albeit without the graphical complexity and granduer of a VR web, nor the dystopian atmosphere of his future. Well, not <span style="font-style: italic;">yet.</span>), and now more than ever is the access to that information crucial to day-to-day living.<br /><br />While channel surfing last night, I chanced upon an interview of <a href="http://www.quezon.ph/">Manolo Quezon</a> on ANC, and he said there that he wishes more people would express their opinion. In a very real sense, this is what blogging does. Even those "simple", diary-like journals found among <a href="http://www.friendster.com">Friendster</a> users are as important as the cutting edge blogs of known pundits simply because they add to the collective trove of information and experiences of the human race.<br /><br />In essence, blogging is tantamount to staking one's very own real estate in the VR realm of the Worldwide Web and doing with it what you want, how you want it, and showing the rest of the world how you percieve reality. As a liberal, that is not only good, but truly astounding. Liberals revel in information. We seek the alternative viewpoint, no matter how offensive it can be to our sensibilities. We may hate what we see from someone's else's PoV, but at least we've seen another take on the issue.<br /><br />And that's important. In an increasingly digital world whose backdrop is the increasing trend to security-over-freedom following 9/11 (augh! It's so... Gibsonesque! Why the hell must there always be some catastrophe or another that defines the future?! Can't it be something glorious instead like the Fall of the Wall? Why is Buffet's giving away NEARLY ALL of his money, and making a statement against "dynastic wealth" not as earth-shattering as the rise in oil prices?), keeping information from being interpreted by a single or select group of Gatekeepers is asking for trouble; in fact, <span style="font-style: italic;">controlling </span>information is the true first step to the dark world Gibson portrayed in his books, most eloquently in the seminal <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer"><span style="font-style: italic;">Neuromancer. </span></a><br /><br />Blogs - ironically, its rise is a by-product of the second Iraq war! - allow ordinary people to bypass an increasingly-monolithic Fourth Estate that is increasingly coming under the control of the First and the Third. As alternative sources of information to the traditional Gatekeeper that is mainstream media, they ensure that information stays free, dynamic and multi-facted. Sustaining a single worldview is Orwellian, just as the suppression of dissent and differing opinions (like <span style="font-style: italic;">some </span>people I know and you know who you are!). Blogs - yes, even Friendster blogs - actually help keep Big Brother, in whatever forms or even gender it chooses to be, at bay through its affirmation of that essential cornerstone of demoracy which is the free access to information and the freedom to say what is in one's mind.<br /><br />With increasingly-cheaper webspace available, and the blogging community not only constantly striving to better the medium but insistent in helping others get into this brave, new world, democracy has a new tool in its arsenal, one that is well beyond the capabilities of Government, Religion, Big Business and Mainstream Media to control.<br /><br />And I don't know about you, but <span style="font-style: italic;">that </span>is perhaps the best thing to happen since the Wall fell.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Blog owner's note: this post was inspired by the second seminar on blogging courtesy of the <a href="http://www.fnf.org.ph">Friedrich Naumann Foundation's Manila Office</a>. I was a participant in the first seminar they conducted last January, and although I have been blogging for quite some time now - two years this month! - it was only after the seminar that I started blogging seriously. Although many of the lessons I learned about blogging there were things I was doing for some time by then, the seminar gave me the drive and the confidence to at least be constant in posting.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I really owe a lot to the FNF and its wonderful Resident Representative, <a href="http://www.myliberaltimes.com/">Dr. Ronald Meinardus</a>, who's more like a mentor to me than anything else. Guess I never got around to thanking them fully for everything, so this is a nice opportunity to do so, hai?</span>Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7725884.post-1151903860889637582006-07-03T11:02:00.000+08:002006-07-03T13:17:40.976+08:00An interesting view on the impeachmentFr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, presents an interesting view on impeachment that I never thought about before. Okay, fine: I did. Every person with a modicum of political training and exposure understands that impeachment is a political process.<br /><br />What I guess most people, even pol ops, don't or vaguely know, is just how <span style="font-style: italic;">political </span>the process is. Fr. Bernas emphasizes this when he said, <span style="font-style: italic;">"the impeachment process is not a judicial process but a political process. Its purpose is not to punish a malefactor but to protect the public from harm."</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Garamond;"></span><br /><br />This has all been drilled into our minds during the impeachment of Erap in 2000-2001. <span style="font-style: italic;">Political</span>, not <span style="font-style: italic;">Judicial. </span>The way I understood this before, it meant that the processes of the judiciary would be utilized, but several principles don't apply. For one, if I remember my Erap Impeachment right, the principle of guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt that courts use for giving verdicts does not necessarily apply. All was needed, as I remember it, was enough information that would convict the accused.<br /><br />Fr. Bernas further emphasizes the political nature of impeachment with two points: that it is partisan, and that <span style="font-style: italic;">"impeachment is political in the sense that what is involved is not just a legal decision but also a policy decision."</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Garamond;"></span><br /><br />That's the new part for me. Impeachment as a <span style="font-style: italic;">policy decision. </span>Quoting Fr. Bernas:<br /><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Garamond;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;">For that reason, the responsibility for impeachment has been given to a political (read: “policy-making”) body. When congressmen and congresswomen deliberate on whether to raise the complaint to the Senate, or when the senators deliberate on what verdict to support, the question they answer is not only whether there is evidence to support a “guilty” verdict, but also <span style="font-weight: bold;">whether under the circumstances the preferred policy should be to remove the official on trial to allow someone else in. In other words, a verdict of “not guilty” does not necessarily mean “innocent.” It can also mean “guilty,” but keeping the person in is the wiser option now. What is often decisive is the legitimate gut feel or illegitimate interest of individual legislators.</span><br /><br /></span>Like I said, this is interesting. In the sense that the whole thing has been pursued under what is essentially the Black and White Movement's take on the whole issue: that there are no gray areas to the issue. It's either the President did wrong, or she didn't.<br /><br />When Black and White came up with this kind of thinking, I thought they were missing the point. We would all love to have the utmost morality and integrity in governance. That is the <span style="font-style: italic;">ideal </span>situation. But if anything my years in political operations has taught me, the world we all move in is far from being ideal. The same politicians who fight on either side of this issue were the ones who bandied around the term <span style="font-style: italic;">pragmatism </span>as a justification to many (if not all) acts they have done in the political sphere.<br /><br />I think that, given this way of looking at the whole impeachment process that Fr. Bernas illustrated, the anti-Gloria movement should think about revising their strategies and get down to the most fundamental of questions: <span style="font-style: italic;">if not Gloria, then who?<br /><br /></span>I would like to think that outrage isn't dead among us Filipinos, but because our political leaders have made pragmatism a byword in the public sphere, the public themselves have incorporated it into their psyche. So the president did wrong? Big deal: all you politicians cheat in the elections. It's like politician = cheater in this country. It's like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.<br /><br />If they look closely enough, the anti-Gloria people should have noticed that there is a shift in thinking in the public, that it is not anymore a question of impropriety and immorality, but whether a regime change would benefit the country more at this stage or not. The people are tired of regime change. They may <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>like Gloria, but the opposition to her has not even given clear alternatives to her. These are nearly the same people who ousted Erap and installed Gloria as an alternative. Now they want to oust her? To the rest of the public, this may sound weird.<br /><br />Impeachment is <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>a contest of purely good vs. evil, moral vs. immoral, proper vs. improper, black vs. white. The most celebrated impeachment of the 20th century - that of Bill Clinton - should have taught everyone that. It is a question of whether, given the reasons for the impeachment, a president is fit to govern or not, or whether the removal of the current occupant of the Palace will make things better for the public.<br /><br />Unless the opposition can <span style="font-style: italic;">fully </span>appreciate this fact - they <span style="font-style: italic;">believe </span>she should go, even to making her guilty in their minds sans proper, unbiased investigations, but have they been able to translate this belief into information that can convince the majority? - or the nature of impeachment change, then perhaps the opposition should just stop subjecting the Republic to more instability and just gird themselves to the electoral battle of 2007, where they have a better chance to change the dynamics of the situation to their favor.Azure Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12231261727774481083noreply@blogger.com1