Phoenix' Eyrie

Migration

2007-09-06T03:32:00.001+08:00

In the wake of last post's rather... barbaric interlocutor, I have decided to migrate this whole blog to my Wordpress account.

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 I want for my blog, while Wordpress seems to offer more.

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.

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.

I'm deactivating all comment capability here. The whole blog has been transfered there, so all comments should be made at Phoenix Eyrie, Reloaded.

^_^

Funny Morality

2007-08-31T13:16:00.000+08:00

I just came from looking at one of Inquirer.net's 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.

On the post regarding Migz Zubiri and his redemption via politics, John Nery reiterates his position (as opposed to Manolo's) that Migz can never be able to redeem himself because of the context in which the Gentleman from Bukidnon got elected, and most especially given Migz recent filing of a counter-petition vs. rival Koko Pimentel at the Senate Electoral Tribunal. According to Nery, 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 Koko's supposedly righteous pursuit of his case into electoral limbo.

I will not contest John Nery's analysis of Migz' actions; whatever the reasons of the Gentleman from Bukidnon 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 perceives as one of Gloria's boys is denied his constitutional rights, just because he happens to be in the little girl's camp.

But, see, that's my longstanding issue with the anti-Gloria crowd: they're such aces in the practice of selective morality.

I will repeat myself: what is so wrong with Zubiri filing a case with the SET? Isn't he entitled to do so?

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 Zubiri should be denied a Senate seat for cheating, or Escudero 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?

I mean, look at it. How can people even go to the lengths of actively advocating for Trillianes 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?

That's why I was just so incensed at de Quiros when he lambasted the judge who denied Trillianes his supposed right. In case he and other anti-GMA pundits have forgotten, there were LIVE FEEDS of the Oakwood Mutiny. Their bloody friggin' hero himself read the bloody friggin' demands, and what would happen if those weren't met.

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. Never mind if the Atienzas 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.

Don't you think there's just something wrong with this picture?

If people have the gall 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 AFP to task for the alleged abductions of political activists, then do the same for the CPP-NPA for its well documented torching of cell sites and industrial centers, as well as its owning up to the killings of Lagman, Kintanar and that other RJ leader.

Bakit kayo namimili? Para naman tayong nag-gagaguhan nito eh.

And people wonder why our Public Sphere is such a mess?

Reasoning with the enemy

2007-07-17T12:27:00.000+08:00

I'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.

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 Joma's 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.

But then, that's where the problem arises.

Henry Kissinger's book, Diplomacy, 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.

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 only through force of arms, but through the redress of what to them are the outstanding issues of the Vietnam War.

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.

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 Gandhi's 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 do 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.

I saw on the banner of PDI that the AFP is considering a long ceasefire - three years! - with the CPP. Given this, I am seriously thinking of sending the Chief of Staff and his Commander-in-Chief a copy of Kissinger's Diplomacy so that they remember context, and who it is their dealing with.

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 world 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.

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.

There must be no illusions here: the CPP-NPA-NDF 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 - everything! - to see this goal achieved.

The AFP and our national leaders must never forget this fact, even if our civil society leaders seem to have done so.

How hate blinds

2007-07-06T12:27:00.000+08:00

The recent statement by former VP Teofisto Guingona regarding Erap and his impending judging by the Sandiganbayan is perhaps, in my opinion, the most... eloquent testimony to how the hatred of Gloria's enemies for her have blinded them.

Consider the Message and the Messenger. By October of 2000, Erap had managed to stave off one challenge after another. True, the Inquirer had also defied his pressure over it, after a successful campaign against the Manila Times, 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.

Even at the start of his "I accuse" speech at the Senate, Guingona 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 Erap.

But Guingona did. Almost all by his lonesome.

That the Messenger of the corruption of Erap would say something like, “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,” lends to me a certain sense of the... surreal to this seemingly final chapter of a fight that started almost seven years ago.

Why this kind of a statement from someone whose only selling point has been his moral ascendancy over other politicians? Guingona 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 Erap juggernaut, plunged the country into seven years of unrelenting, unforgiving political warfare, because, supposedly, the casus belli was about truth, justice and the restoration of nobility in public office.

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.

If the issue was simply about the values of one man, then perhaps the statement by Guingona wouldn't sound so... absurd. Erap, per se, was never the issue (at least for me and many of my colleagues in the UCSC and KALIPI). 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 outraged 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.

But the issue, in case anti-Gloria forces forget, isn't about whether Erap 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. Goddamit, 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 Mendiola, leaving the Catholic schools to hold the line. We fought and bled for this "post-Erap" world, all because we were made to believe by our LightForsaken elders that this was the right thing to do and that the man - Erap - was guilty to the bone.

And now Guingona has the gall to tell people that Erap should go under the premises that (a) he's a changed man, and (b) Malacañang is pressuring the Sandiganbayan to rule guilty?

I'm sorry but... what the hell is wrong with him?

Guingona says further: “And so I say, let us give justice to Erap now that he is down. I hope the court will acquit him. Let freedom be for Erap.”

Okay. Give justice to Erap now that he is down. Uh-huh. But, Mr. Guingona, 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 Erap himself but to the persona of the Office he held. I mean, we knew the man to be ammoral at the very least. But to have actual proof that he was using his Presidency to illegally acquire wealth and power?

For that speech, Teofisto Guingona 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 Guingona 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 - Erap's 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 Erap on the offensive.

I've been reading Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy. 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.

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, pre-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 Khrushchev 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.

I would like to believe, seven years after the fact, that we overturned the existing order on the streets of EDSA and on other places nationwide, on the basis of a change infinitely being better than allowing the status quo to go on. It was more a battle begun on the premise of change 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 Erap, even before he began his Presidency, was unfit to be the country's Chief Executive.

But the dragon that was Erap, 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 moviestar their hero and savior. There were many reasons to go to war with Erap, but where do you get the proper, outrage-inducing justification to challenge the guy when it seemed like issues of morality weren't sufficient?

But suddenly, on October 2000, Teofisto Guingona gave us the casus belli.

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 yet again to solve the country's political issues. But we reasoned that he issue, as Teofisto Guingona 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 Erap's supporters as taunt to civil society that the impeachment was dead and gone.

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?

Because caprice it would seem with Guingona's statement. You go to war, bear its costs, for reasons that justify those costs. Guingona's statement tells us that the reasons for starting a still-ongoing vicious political war was meaningless. If he, the Messenger of juetengate, could so easily call for Erap's 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 Erap's 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 Sandiganbayan for a guilty verdict; wasn't Erap guilty, anyway, based on his (Guingona's) "I accuse" speech all those years ago?

I am telling you right now: if the country is a mess it's NOT because of Gloria. Okay, not just. It's the whole friggin' 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 - their Agenda - and not what is truly best for the country.

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 Guingona to thank for the trivialization of justice. It was he who laid down the facts for Erap's 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 Erap's such a poor, poor victim of that evil little girl in the Palace.

Libel and the freedom of the press

2007-06-25T11:52:00.000+08:00

Why this of all issues to discuss here in Phoenix Eyrie, 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.

Perhaps because the above are... far too "tactile" for me right now. "Tactile" as in "dama"; they are issues far too close to my Soul that my BP 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 any law the minute they made that choice to rebel. Besides, why is no one taking the NPA to task for its massacres and salvage operations?

Anyway.

Let me state it now that I find it galling 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 their excess?

I remember the thoughts and feelings I brought to Gummersbach 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 lack 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 too much freedom for our media, and that any attempt to put restraints, no matter how logical, always end up with Media coming down hard on the poor twit who broached the idea.

When Dax Manacsa first introduced the slander and libel provisions in the Revised Penal Code to us all those years ago in PolSci 101, what immediately caught my attention was the term in the provisions that said libel and slander could be charged on somebody regardless of whether the statement under question was true or not. To the law, it didn't matter whether what you wrote or said about the person is true or not; it was the intent 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.

Media is claiming that libel is an abridgment 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 ludicrous amounts of money.

But in my mind, this option 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.

If Doreen Fernandez' statement to us Comm. Sophies in journ class holds true, than what media organization can claim moral ascendancy enough to say that, yes, it does give reportage that is responsible, factual and above reproach? Because even the PDI And PCIJ are guilty of slanting news reports and in-depth analysis.

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).

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 really likes Mike Arroyo? The guy is, perhaps, the symbol for all that is wrong in Philippine politics. Yet, if you closely at all the reportage done on him, particularly the Jose Pidal thing, is there, really (anti-GMA sentiment aside), any solid evidence of his corruption?

All media presented, again and again, were the stuff their darlings were spoonfeeding the various press corps and reporters. I know of no single media organization that did the nitty-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 Velarde. And when Ping Lacson went into that thing on Arroyo's supposed mistress, to me that was just too much. It was like vaudeville.

Or what about stuff, say, Billy Esposo and Conrado de Quiros 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.

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 Esposo and de Quiros? How do you question a post over at PCIJ made by Alecks Palabrico, or those made by Manolo Quezon in his various blogs? I've seen PDI 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 PCIJ not ask the other side of a story.

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 PRs 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.

Reporters ask for money and/or favors, and Editors can and do keep certain information from coming out. Columnists - the vanguard of the so-called "punditocracy" - 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 we want whether on print or on screen.

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.

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.

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?

Selective morality and the aftermath of the 2007 Elections

2007-05-30T16:22:00.000+08:00

I'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? Haha, in fact, my top choice for Senator - Majority Leader Kiko Pangilinan - ran as an Independent. Come to think of it, my top three "assuredly-I-shall-vote-for-them" candidates had one in GO (Chiz Escudero) and one in TU (Mike Defensor).

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.

Besides, it really DID look as if TU had a trapo lineup, didn't it? Its hard to sell something that doesn't look good, and Reli 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 Senatoriables were presented was, well...

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.

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.

Take Trillianes 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 Trillianes acted not like the hero they say he is but like some common bandit or terrorist by rigging explosives around Oakwood and essentially holding a lot of people hostage, all to demand reforms from the AFP and make Gloria step down.

There is nothing 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 AFP Chief of Staff in Pong Biazon is there. And if all avenues within the system of the AFP 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.

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 ok 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.

Or what about the likes of Allan Peter Cayetano and Koko Pimentel? How can such upstanding gentlemen do something so crass as running for the Senate when they have 1st-degree relatives there?

Okay, maybe it should have been expected of Cayetano. Like with Raul Roco, 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 fighting for and someone who's doing it simply for something else. I'm not saying Cayetano doesn't exactly believe in the causes he purportedly 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.

As for Koko 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.

So I just couldn't understand whatever the hell possessed Koko to run while his sainted father still held a Senate seat. Or, come to think of it, why Nene Pimentel would give his imprimatur to such a move. No matter how you spin it, such a move as that of Koko and Cayetano reeks of "dynasticism." Although there is no law written to enforce it, our Constitution I think was clear about this issue. If families holding onto elective key positions in a whole province is a travesty of democracy already, then two persons of first-degree consanguinity sitting in the Senate is something like spitting on democracy's eye.

And people have the gall to justify their votes given these realities?

Preposterous.

Make no mistake: I am actually impressed at the gains responsible politics has made this last elections. Grace Padaca managed to still beat the Dys in Isabela. A priest managed to beat the Pinedas and Lapids in Pampanga. Mayor Jesse is still Naga City's mayor. These and others nationwide show that the Filipino electorate is slowly realizing its stakeholdership.

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 pre-set bias versus Administration bets. There is the presentation that any Opposition bet that wins is for good governance, and that no Admin bet could win if the fight were fair.

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 was possible. In the first place, not everyone subscribes to the views and opinions of Imperial Manila. It is 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.

Actually, the question is: if the GO managed to blank the TU anywhere, would Media bring it to the public's scrutiny with the same suspicions as when the TU did it in Maguindanao?

No. Because our media organizations have switched from being Informers to Agenda Setters, to Strategic Constituents aware of their power to influence the public's positions and opinions.

Our media orgs 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.

Even the vaunted PCIJ has fallen into the StratCon trap, perhaps due to the acknowledgement of its blog as one of the key sources of information by the online public on any issue. PCIJ 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 PCIJ even once make a post questioning Cayetano and Pimentel? Was there a "reflection" piece on the implications of a Trillianes victory in the polls? And what about the fact that people who were adamant to see Erap go and get convicted were all smiles and filled with pride as the former President raised their hands during their "proclamation" at Tanay?

This, sadly, is the milieu post-Garci. 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.

The Drilon 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 Abads, the Acostas, the Aquinos and the Tañadas 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 Noynoy 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.

But that's 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 really is happening. Most people would rather depend on "known variables", like an advocate's pedigree, to help them determine what is right or wrong, who is good or evil.

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 severely compromise of contradict the ideals they embody.

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?

In the pre-21st century Ateneo, 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. Ateneans at Junior year are presented not just with the grade school depiction 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 Atenean to not only place things in their proper context but also to question our beliefs to see which are worthy and which are junk.

That's what the Filipino public needs now, I think. We question, yes, but stop when confronted with what I call the "Sedmak 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.

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.

Eve of Elections

2007-05-11T13:23:00.000+08:00

This 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 Barangay Captains and Councilors.

Traditionally, we Pinoys 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 any 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.

Ever since actively participating in political action when I joined the LP in October 2000 - about a week or so before the start of Erap's juetengate - 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 Drilon and friends, all gone now.

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 COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos 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 MMORPGs I play, I've seen blessed little of the political and campaign ads.

I do remember being at the Team Unity kick off at Manila, the one held at Tamayo's (that place behind the Cathedral in Intramuros), and I remember quite well what were my thoughts during that time but I'll keep those to myself for now.

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 not 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.

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.

What about allegations that the vote doesn't matter anymore since its the Canvassers who've been bought? Then all the more one should exercise suffrage. A blank ballot is a recipe 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.

Also, Ping Lacson 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 just vote but help in protecting the ballot by volunteering for electoral watchdogs. In fact, we in KALIPI have been encouraging young people to do so. I miss that, actually: I remember my first - and, it seems, my last - NAMFREL 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 NAMFREL again, other than getting an ID as a "Party Watcher" to NAMFREL.

As for candidates... So far, my Senatorial list includes Kiko Pangilinan (my reasons mentioned in an earlier post), Chiz Escudero and Mike Defensor.

I'm voting for Chiz 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, Chiz 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.

Mike gets my vote because, despite his uber-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 Liberal Philippines and The Liberal, and he's come across as someone who, contrary to the public perception, knows what's he's doing in the position 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.

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?

In our discussions here at the HQ over who to vote for, the names of Ed Angara and Tessie Aquino Oreta 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.

Manny Villar... 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. Heh. Maybe I'll vote for Villar 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.

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, we'll go THROUGH it!" and by God I'll be one of the first to take pickaxe to mountainside to help us get through that mountain.

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.

Tito Sotto? 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 Sotto's disposal and the generally-good image that had been spun for him.

I know, though, who I won't be voting for:

Noynoy Aquino is one. If I don't like it when my leaders lack vision, then I abhor those who are hypocrites. I saw his add about fighting for democracy and I shouted at the TV, "democracy? you have the gall to talk about democracy when you denied the Party that?" Hah. He was it that gave out that memorandum, post-7/8/05 that justified the Drilon-led usurpation of the LP's democratic processes. That would have been fine, if he had insisted to Drilon that, as per his memo, the NECO should have been convened post haste so the Party's leaders can vote on ratifying the "stand" they made that July 8 afternoon.

But no: Noynoy 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 NECO.

Even worse, he's now with the Erap camp. ERAP! Good God and a Half! Did you know that the reason for the rift between Noynoy and Mayor Atienza was the latter's support of Erap during what would lead to the May 1 Mayhem? I even heard of those heated discussions where Noynoy and Chito took LA to task for this support of Erap. Yet look at him now. Sheesh. He was even all smiles when Erap raised their hands during that trip to Taytay.

In an era of shifting political loyalties 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 Kiko and Chiz and Mike D rank high in my list. Especially Kiko. That took a LOT of courage to go independent, rather than compromise his position and principles and I salute Kiko for what he's done.

But Noynoy? *shudder*

Has he - and his family - forgotten that Erap was one of the people that defied Cory at the start of the New Order after the First People Power?

And in that same vein I am not voting for Alan Cayetano and Loren Legarda.

Cayetano is such a... jerk. Nothing else describes him best. Ok, maybe retard. If corruption is the issue, why the (censored) hell is he in the Erap camp? Tactical alliance? Sheesh. 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 not find anything wrong with that? Does the 1987 Constitution even ring a bell to him? For somebody who insists on the law, he sure is ready to break them.

Legarda is the quintessential turncoat. If I remember TAO's "Dancing Queen" routine back in '01, then I remember Loren's little "Crying Lady" trick. And now she's one of Erap's leading supporters. Hah. 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.

And did you know that one of the biggest unofficial bets in the Senate was on the longest serving staffer of Legarda? Watch where you put your celfone too, when the good former Senator throws a tantrum.

I will also most definitely not vote for Trillianes. 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 maneuvers, fighting loyalist cadres in street battles as part of a revolt. Trillianes and company went to Oakwood 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 not a democracy. If he couldn't get to air his concerns there, then he should have left and then gave presscons on the state of the military today, not take over a residential area in the heart of Makati.

If these people in civil society who are supporting Trillianes take the time to think 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 not 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 Consti 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 not one of these avenues. That is terrorism. Regardless of your grievances, you have broken the law and you must be made to answer for that.

There. Hopefully I'll get to complete even at least half of the 12 slots. Maybe some of the independents will look promising.

But this has got 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.

Disillusionment: Prelude

2007-04-17T19:10:00.000+08:00

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
he best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

-- from Second Coming, William Butler Yeats

Why Sen. Kiko will get my vote this May

2007-02-27T11:51:00.000+08:00

Given everything that's happened to the LP - and, heck, Philippine politics in general - hearing stuff like Sen. Kiko Pangilinan sticking to his guns is a whiff of fresh air.

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.

I remember seeing Sen. Pangilinan being interviewed over his decision to not attend "Genuine Opposition" (side note: so there's an opposition that's not Genuine?) campaign sorties. In essence, what Sen. Kiko 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.

Now this is what it means to stand for something. This is consistency. 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 ammorality, but if Noynoy 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 Erap somehow just doesn't cut a dashing figure of the Hero in my books.

Sen. Kiko, by his decision to tough it out as an independent, 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.

But whatever the reasons, Sen. Kiko 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.

And that's why he has my vote this May.

Thoughts on the Korean Crisis (and why I can never really be a negotiator)

2007-02-21T14:37:00.000+08:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

This way, warriors need not draw the blade once again. The Sheath still holds steel, and blood does not needlessly stain the ground again.

The Carnival Begins

2007-02-01T14:57:00.000+08:00

One thing any observer will have to admit about Philippine politics, especially during election season, is that it really, truly never has dull moments.

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.

In the Tatad's case, not only was it very public, but very vocal as well: the man practically paid for two full pages in the Philippine Daily Inquirer so his letter to Erap would be printed in its full, unedited glory.

Talk about your "Oh-M-Gee" situations...

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 and Tatad? Enrile bolting the Opposition camp is something that totally went by everybody - I mean, duh, right? - but Tatad?

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 not 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?

Apparently, the damage Gloriagate has done to the already-damaged political culture of the country is far, far, 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.

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 has dredged the bottom of crassness and personal political agendas this time.

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.

I mean, just look at it: NOYNOY AQUINO IN THE UNO?! What the hell, right?

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...), then perhaps some of them could have made a good showing at the polls this May.

But, no... they had to insist - assuming Kit Tatad's open letter is true - that Noynoy be included in the UNO lineup.

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?

Is their hate for Gloria so great that ideals truly mean nothing to them anymore?

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 all 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 they 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, on their say-so, because she thought they could do no wrong by her.

And then... they tried to oust her.

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 alter egos, 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 not 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.

They were essentially her shitteno, her inner circle of advisers. If massive cheating did 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.

And now they join UNO. Amazing.

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.

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 true alternative to evil, dictatorial little Glo and corrupt lord-of-all-gambling-lords Erap.

I wonder how Esposo felt when the news came out that Noynoy Aquino was in the UNO slate?

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.

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.

Newsflash, publicists: the Masses are different now.

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 anything but dull.

Two negatives a positive does not make, IRL

2007-01-03T13:47:00.000+08:00

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.

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.

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?).

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.

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.

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.

But...

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 Philippines 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Chacha once again

2006-12-08T10:32:00.000+08:00

The first street action I ever participated in was an anti-chacha rally.

This was way back in 1998 or 1999, the time of deposed Pres. Joseph Estrada. I was part of Ateneo's Sanggunian 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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We'll see. This would be one interesting pageant to observe.

Disconnect

2006-10-26T17:12:00.000+08:00

It 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.

Funny, but I actually can't find a word to describe my reaction to their responses. Disbelief? Astounded? Outraged? Maybe confused? No, not that one. I mean, the way they reacted - question the COMELEC resolution, question the COMELEC itself, when it was they 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 not abide by any decision.

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.

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 Liberal 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.

That was the first disconnect. Neric was so arrogant in Cambodia to claim that they 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.

Last time I looked, liberal democracy 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 after 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.

The second disconnect is there. These people have been claiming since July 8 that they represent the Party. That they did nothing wrong last July 8.

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?"

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.

But the first thing the Drilon cabal did was question COMELEC's right to hold the election and we've heard they're bringing it all the way to the Supreme Court.

"Duh" comes to mind.

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 distrust between both camps.

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?

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.

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?

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 supervise and select. Even Grade school students can tell you that, how much more people with the high academic credentials of the Drilon faction?

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?

I think the disconnect here is in my thinking that, at least, some 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. Liberal Philippines 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 four months ago. Instead, we're stuck in a rut and the hole's getting deeper, wider and murkier every day.

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.

If they did no wrong to the Party, its leaders and its members, then they shouldn't be afraid to face an accounting.

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.

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.

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.

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 they were the soul of Philippine liberalism.

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.

If only it were just them who'd be affected by the unravelling. Because it looks like they're very, very much willing to take us all down with them...

When trust blinds

2006-10-06T19:39:00.000+08:00

Actually, this was a post I was supposed to do last week. Unfortunately, the storm named Milenyo ("Millenium", in English) struck and the NCR was without electricity starting Thursday.

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 LP's youth wing, KALIPI, he'd choose Drilon over Atienza, simply because all of our idols - Butch and Dina Abad, Mar Roxas, etc. - were there.

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.

But, 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, think. 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.

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.

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?

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 me 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?

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 not done - just to see Gloria fall, I can nevermore be blinded by the trust I have given them.

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?

Media, influencing perceptions and its impact on the truth

2006-08-24T19:15:00.000+08:00

Whoever said information would be the key commodity of this new, digital world wasn't just spouting sci-fi gibberish.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

For example: one of the primary stories in today's Philippine Daily Inquirer has as header, "GMA allies begin burial ceremony for impeach bid." This, 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.

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 his or her views on the event.

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.

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 patis and toyo that liven up the dish.

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.

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.

AGAIN, I will say that I do not like her and is not here to defend her. But the thing is... has there really been proof to the level that you can say, beyond reasonable doubt, that she did cheat? My information sources tell me that, at the very least, they all cheated. 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.

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.

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?

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 appear that way. Because this is the Truth certain people want to be accepted as, and unfortunately for the general public they are in control of both the Gatekeepers of Information and are the Strategic Constituents themselves.

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 they want it to be, and not as it should be?

Dictatorship as nightmare

2006-07-28T10:28:00.000+08:00

And I mean that literally.

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.

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.

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 am 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 but we have known no other world except the one we came into consciousness. 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.

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 encourages the young to speak out and challenge authority. Meek, silent and opinionless are just soo... uncool in the post-Martial Law Philippines.

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.

I hope this is one nightmare that will not become a reality. 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.

Essay writing contest on human rights and democracy

2006-07-27T11:28:00.000+08:00

The Ateneo Human Rights Center and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation Manila Office 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.

As for the prizes...

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.

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, Does the universality of Human Rights require a particular type of democracy? Even an initial survey of the data on this topic showed a promising amount of issues that encourages a lively debate.

And there is the trip to Germany, hehe. I miss the Academy...

Some thoughts on SONA 2006

2006-07-24T17:41:00.000+08:00

What an... interesting SONA.

The President appeared to be in an upbeat mood... and was probably a little bit too 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.

Quite a bit of names congratulated there, and not a few ribbing. She even took a playful jab at Makati Rep. Teddy Boy Locsin.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Democracy and Stability Interrupted: casualties of the Israeli assault on Lebanon

2006-07-20T13:14:00.000+08:00

I'm looking at the title right now and thinking, have I done a journalistic booboo? I've always hated titles that tend to titillate, but are so misleading based on the content and 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.

But then, it is 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.

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.

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.

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 appalled 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.

Have the Israelis not 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?

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 does 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 kill

Blood on the sand, once again

2006-07-19T13:28:00.000+08:00

This is one of the things you fear.

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 against Israel. But the whole situation is dangerously teetering on the edge of full-blown hostilities.

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 dug underneath the Barrier! - but Israel's response is equally alarming.

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 does 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ours has been killed by them, 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.

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 tunneled underneath the Barrier between Gaza and Israel and 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.

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.

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.

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.

This is no simple war for lebensraum 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

An interesting bit of news

2006-07-10T13:06:00.000+08:00

Morning sometimes sees me doing monitoring. The advent of Net-based news, and the fact that Inq7 updates 24/7, means that something new might have come out that the morning newspaper's edition doesn't carry.

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, my liberal times. And he has this interesting post on something Prof. Mario Taguiwalo, President of the National Institute for Policy Studies (NIPS), wrote.

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 this post instead.

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:

“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.”

Well. That's interesting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

It's like what we said in KALIPI's position paper after July 8: who knows what the LP would have decided if we simply followed the processess we are known for as a Party? The anti-GMA group may just have won!

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.

And then there's CALD. This is the most painful of all, because we had to include our sister parties abroad in this insanity.

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, 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.

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 think March 2 would have happened?

Like I have been saying for a long time now: was anyone suprised March 2 happened?

Unless, of course, Drilon and his people have started to believe their own propaganda. Now that 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.

And if you think my being in the LP's pro-GMA camp has perverted my sense of liberalism, then look here.

KaBlog!

2006-07-06T17:58:00.000+08:00

Haha. Maybe I should write here, "Blogging fever grips Filipino young liberals!"

Although, when you think about it, it's rather ironic that KALIPI would just 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, Donna and Tops, it really is lightyears behind.

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 my jurisdiction, wahaha!

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.

Anyway, click here to go to KaBlog!, the official web log of the Kabataang Liberal ng Pilipinas.

By the way: we have unconfirmed rumors - and, oh, how I wish I had not disbanded ISaAC; I miss my intelligence operatives - that the Drilon faction has formed its own liberal youth wing.

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:

A. They're certainly within their rights to make their own associations, but
B. Making another KALIPI - no matter the name - is rather:
C. Immature
D. Improper
E. Pathetic
F. Absurd
G. Really gets my blood pressure up

Whoops. Too much angst.

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.

Hey, whoever did this? If you can't stand KALIPI not going with what you want, then live with it! We are not your slaves, and we think, we discern, and we do not immediately jump to conclusions. Respect us, and we'll respect you.

Heck, what am I talking about? We've always respected them, eventhough they haven't us.

Okay. Stopping now. Angst level is getting high.

Getting past the Gatekeepers: Blogging and the reform of the Fourth Estate

2006-07-05T11:26:00.000+08:00

Well, okay: mmmmaaaayyybbbeee not 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.

Everytime I read , hear and/or see "mainstream" media, everytime I interact with media personnel, I always, always, 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.

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. William Gibson's 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 yet.), and now more than ever is the access to that information crucial to day-to-day living.

While channel surfing last night, I chanced upon an interview of Manolo Quezon 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 Friendster 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.

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.

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, controlling information is the true first step to the dark world Gibson portrayed in his books, most eloquently in the seminal Neuromancer.

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 some 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.

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.

And I don't know about you, but that is perhaps the best thing to happen since the Wall fell.

Blog owner's note: this post was inspired by the second seminar on blogging courtesy of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation's Manila Office. 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.

I really owe a lot to the FNF and its wonderful Resident Representative, Dr. Ronald Meinardus, 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?

An interesting view on the impeachment

2006-07-03T11:02:00.000+08:00

Fr. 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.

What I guess most people, even pol ops, don't or vaguely know, is just how political the process is. Fr. Bernas emphasizes this when he said, "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."

This has all been drilled into our minds during the impeachment of Erap in 2000-2001. Political, not Judicial. 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.

Fr. Bernas further emphasizes the political nature of impeachment with two points: that it is partisan, and that "impeachment is political in the sense that what is involved is not just a legal decision but also a policy decision."

That's the new part for me. Impeachment as a policy decision. Quoting Fr. Bernas:

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 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.

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.

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 ideal 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 pragmatism as a justification to many (if not all) acts they have done in the political sphere.

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: if not Gloria, then who?

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.

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 not 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.

Impeachment is not 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.

Unless the opposition can fully appreciate this fact - they believe 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.

The horoscope signs of the LP

2006-06-29T15:32:00.000+08:00

Ha, ha. Forgive me for laughing a bit, but I just found out what astrological signs the Liberal Party is under.

Since the LP's official website is still under Drilon's control (what are they doing to my baby? They're teaching it to lie so horribly and to suppress dissent and differing opinions! I swear, when I get my hands on my baby again, I shall cleanse it of their insanity!), we decided to use the tools of modern, Net-based media to come out with a blog for the LP. At the very least, this will give the "alternative" side on the issue.

One of the problems we encountered with the official break was that Drilon's faction had control of the Gatekeepers of Information and they enjoyed a better perception with the commentators and columnists. Like I said somewhere, their side had the "progressives" of the LP. We had to find a way to get our side of the story out, and hopefully the new blog will help even out the perception battle.

Anyway, what was funny was when I viewed the complete profile for the blog owner. We entered the official founding date of the LP - 19 January 1946 - forgetting that Blogger automatically lists the Western and Eastern Zodiac signs of the blog owner.

Now we know: the Liberal Party of the Philippines is Capricorn and a Rooster.

Wehehe.

According to Yahoo Astrology, this is the forecast for the LP for 29 June 2006:

(For Capricorns)

Quickie:
Today's not a time for quick action. Contemplate your surroundings and just chill.

Overview:
You might be inadvertently sending out mixed signals even as you focus single-mindedly on your goal. It's time to examine your innermost feelings even if you're the picture of ambition on the outside.

(For Roosters)

You'll feel stronger and more clear-sighted in life; you'll know how to look at things with more detachment in the face of certain difficult situations. Your judgment in financial matters will be rather shaky; therefore this will not be the time to embark on too important speculation deals. On the other hand, you'll be swamped with love waves. Some stomach problems, as well as irritations caused by your children, are to be expected.

Wahahaha. How funny. "Some stomach problems, as well as irritations caused by your children, asre to be expected."

Want to see the one for this week?

For Capricorns:

Reading the day's newspaper may be a source of great ideas for you on Monday. At the beginning of the week the muscles you're stretching are those that deal with being receptive, curious, and present. Newspapers are helpful in these areas. A complicated business puzzle takes up most of your day on Wednesday, and Thursday is beset by the demands of coworkers. But Friday and Saturday are productive, illuminating, even merry-making. You're so happy by the end of the week you'll most likely feel like working on Sunday.

"Working on sunday?" Nooooooooo!!!!

And here's the forecast for the Rooster this year:

Your personality will tend to bloom this year -- you'll be less secret, less withdrawn than usual; you'll look more for the company of others. The year will be most favorable to extolling your creative talents. The stars will incite you to exploit your hidden resources, and their usefulness will not be limited only to your affairs or to your home. Set your imagination free! Beware, however! Your tendency toward compassion will be increased this year. It's possible that it will induce you to take care of others to the point of imposing on yourself heavy financial or other burdens. Don't let yourself be moved by the misfortunes that others will describe to you in a deliberately tragic manner. Assure yourself of the validity of what people tell you before granting your aid. Besides, remember that well ordered charity begins with oneself.

Wahahahahahahaha!!!!

Oh, good Lord, wehehe...

Braindead Eating

2006-06-26T13:50:00.000+08:00

A simple incident on what to eat over lunch inspired this crazy little post. And since it has a wee bit (at the very least) of analytical value, as well as a pleasant change from all these Gloriagate shit that everyone refuses to let go, that I decided to post it here rather than on my Multiply account.

(People, just beat her in the next election, goodness gracious! If you people can insist on Drilon remaining LP president because he can't be removed until the end of his term, how much more Gloria?! You anti-Gloria people are not only so damnedly holier-than-thou, you're also irritatingly inconsistent!)

Anyway.

The issue with food came up because I couldn't decide what to eat with the, er, menu I was given. None of the choices particularly caught my stomach's attention - and I haven't had a decent breakfast, mind you - and there isn't a North Park near enough.

So, feeling rather uncreative with my lunch, I decided to go to the nearby Jolibee and order my usual 2-pc. Burgersteak + upsized drink + extra rice.

In my opinion, this is "braindead" eating, meaning you do not have to go thourgh the mental gymnastics of deciding what to eat. Fastfood was designed, after all, to not only cater to the workman's budget (although you have to ask if that's still the case today; I mean, when was the last time you got a decent meal, even from Jolibee, at less than PhP 50?) but to also be, well, fast. This is production-line eating, the only thing faster being grabbing a Lucky Me or Nissin Cup Noodles.

While munching on my burgersteak, I was thinking about how wonderful a gastronomical experience my best friend and I had the last time we were at North Park. We ate buttered chicken, and something else she made me eat that I forgot what it was. Of course, there's the customary Yang Chao rice (a single order of which is good for maybe four of people my and Reggie's size and food capacity). Being hungrier than she was, and being the gentleman in the equation, I made her choose from the A3-sized menu, but really, I was feeling uncreative that night too and just wanted buttered pork on my yang chao. If we had gone to the nearby Gerry's Grill, it'd most likely end up with pork sisig.

Ha, ha. That's the funny thing about the modern world. We live our lives so fast and so hectic that even our food has to not only be rapidly ready, but quickly-selected as well.

Some of the nicest moments I've had with both my family and barkada were those times we'd let the waiter stew awhile as we debate on what to eat. Poring over a menu can show a lot about how your friends and family think, and the... negotiations on what to eat and what not to eat, and what to eat instead, can be quite fun and... instructive.

And resto dining is about taking one's time with the food, akin to Starbucks coffee-drinking sessions. You're not rushed. You have time to savor the food. You have time to socialize with people. Heck, you have time to enjoy the food you're eating.

Fastfoods on the other hand, will simply fill your need to be filled. I even doubt fastfood truly makes one full because I feel hungry just four or so hours after. Aside from this, the "line" makes you rush with your order. Anybody who's ever been behind a slow customer knows that feeling of wishing the person would get on with it, so you tend to look once and have an idea what you want to get from the limited options available. And if you dine-in, you're also rushed in your eating since so many people are coming in to be fed and need the space you're occupying.

Ha, ha. Braindead eating. Too much instant food. Our world has become so hectic that even our food has to be eaten not only on the fly but also without any deeper consideration on what we're eating.

Litmus test for an ideology

2006-06-22T14:24:00.000+08:00

Yesterday, Liberal International, the worldwide organization of liberals, began its 176th Executive Committee meeting here in Manila. Well, actually its in Pasay City, at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). Of course, Drilon wants to avoid holding it in the City of Manila.

For all intents and purposes, this is my litmus test for the Liberal Democratic ideology. Gathered on the soil of my beloved country are the leaders of worldwide liberalism. These are the people who, (supposedly) more than any political force in the world, are at the forefront of the promotion, development and defense of the values that define liberal democracy: freedom of speech, expression, religion and creed, as well as that essential core concept that is truly the mark of a liberal, which is the respect for and appreciation of opinions and ideas contrary to the one espoused by one's self.

CALD has already gravely disappointed me. In one sense, I understand why the region's foremost organization for liberalism and democracy did so badly on so simple (relatively speaking, compared to the other things faced by CALD and its member parties in the region) an issue. But they are the regional leaders of liberal democracy. Even without the foreign equivalent of the LP's Basic Orientation on Liberal Democracy (BOLD) seminar, they should know the basic principles and protocols of the ideology they supposedly adhere to.

Drilon's people have, of course, done all that they can to keep us away from the delegates. But surely they are all aware of the current situation of the LP. As befits political leaders, I am sure that they are looking for information on this issue. Even without any countermove on our part, there should be at the very least an attempt among LI leaders to get the "other side of the story."

They may not be aware of it, and they may even not care, but I have a microscope aimed at the leaders and members of LI. How they act with regard to the LP situation now that they are here will be a crucial factor in answering several "Questions to Life" that I have been asking since last year.

From my IRL Diary: Musings on the Future and What to DO with it

2006-06-19T15:53:00.000+08:00

I was going through some stuff when I chanced upon the last Diary I wrote on, IRL. The last entry, which was made 9 April 2006, at 10:40 p.m., is so... interesting from a Mentat point of view that I am posting it here rather than at my Multiply account.

9 April 2006, 10:40 p.m.

A hundred thoughts flit through my Mind. Hah: when has it not? In fact, I should feel insulted: just a hundred? Whatever happened to the formidable young man who could carry a thousand ideas, thoughts and strategies all at one Moment in his head?

That is, perhaps, the biggest thought of all: am I still the Mentat-Guardian of my generation, of this Republic, or has time come for me to depart from this field?

This new world is so much darker than the one we fought against in 2000 and 2001. I went back to my house one Saturday morning, January 2001, leaving a million people to finally get some sleep... and waking to a new dawn, a new country.

We won that day. But what did we win?

There will always be more people who care nothing more than to realize their dreams. This has always been my lesson to my proteges. Their dreams, I have always said, are no less greater than ours. And in ensuring that people can be free to dream those dreams - and, better, to realize them - we are also realizing our dreams as their Guardians, their leaders.

But what if the leaders and Guardians fall away to join themselves to the many, to insist that they, too, be allowed to realize their personal dreams?

This afternoon while at Mass, I had an idea: why not ask Bam to form a Shadow Cabinet? Instead of an Opposition forming this as foil to a sitting Government, the youth will form one versus their elders. But beyond simply proposing alternative policies, this Shadow Cabinet will execute them as well.

And why stop there? Why not gather representatives of our generation into a Congress? One that will set policies and objectives for our generation, the blueprints and plans to ensure that our future does not get mired in despair and hopelessness the way this present is as made by our parents.

But no sooner did I jot down my thoughts, the criticisms began to flow from my own Mind. The National Youth Parliament will object; if they did for something so... corollary to their work as the PUNK, how much more this? They will insist that they are the representatives of the Filipino youth. But the Parliament is as meaningless and inutile as the laws and policies they design and propose to the elder Congress. They will not be an obstacle, and if they insist on being one then something must be done to remove them from ever threatening the future of this country.

No: the true obstacle lies with us, with the supposed leaders, the ones who in 2000 and 2001 stood to fight for a nation.

But where are they now?

Soo many problems... Yet, the elders are so caught up in their powerplays and rivalries to do anything about these problems. And my generation's leaders are lost in their own lives, probably giving an excuse to themselves that someone else will deal with them. Or we will when the time has come.

If the latter is the case... such arrogance... Can't they see that the crises we will face have consequences that cannot be dealt with on the fly with patch-like solutions? These must be addressed now, while the problems are still in their infancy or we just may find ourselves surrounded by a flood without any way of preventing it sweeping away everything we have built up.

But... who is left? What is left? So many of the old tools lie broken so many old faces lost, blinded or corrupted...

And through it all, I feel, I think: if they have all gone, why should I stay? If the rest of the pack has gone... domestic, what more can one wolfhound do against the wolves and thieves that come to kill, devour and steal the sheep away?

Even worse, the Shepherd seems to stand silent while His wolfhound howls to the night, seeking answers and succor.

Why do I stay? Why do I still fight?

I have such a small window of opportunity left to salvage what I can of my life... so why do I not do so?

Ironies

2006-06-14T17:43:00.000+08:00

In my Training, "ideological confusion," or the contradictions that come about between the declared tenets of a system of belief and the actions of (some of) its propenents, is something to be expected from either the extreme Left or Right, more with the former. A sample of "ideological confusion" is the Left's declaration that they are the true democracy when they suppress and even persecute any views contradictory to the one the Communist Party espouses.

The third hearing for the LP's leadership dispute last 8 June 2006 was a morning filled with confusion. Well, ok, I wasn't confused. What Chito was saying during the hearing wasn't anything new. Or unexpected. Duh. What else was I expecting? I think the better term would be... outraged?

I think I tuned his voice out somewhere near the end of his rant because it was getting grating and I have to watch my blood pressure. I guess I find it amazing how someone can, on the streets, demand for the right to be heard, for democratic processes, for extra-constitutional action when constitutional ones fail, while denying these same rights to others. Was it in one of Orson Scott Card's books where he said that freedom of speech is demanded by everyone until it conflicts with one's interests? Something like that.

I guess I found it utterly amazing. I almost forgot the rules of decorum there, wanting so badly to shout at Chito, so what made March 2 different from everything you people have been doing since July 8?

There he was, and Wilfred Asis, demanding - even commanding - the COMELEC to declare in their favor because the "rulebook" that was the LP Constitution said so. A constitution, by the way, that was crafted to favor Drilon. It's also incomplete. Want to see proof that they manipulate evidence? Check the small, italicized note at the end of the "Drilon" constitution, where it states that amendments were made November 2004. There should be another paragraph there that says the consti's provisions are incomplete becuase Chito failed to submit to us the definitions for four of the five new positions.

Amazing, isn't it? They're using an incomplete frankenstein of a document to defend their position. Too bad my own side didn't hear - and refuses to hear - me when I told them that. I should know because I'm the one who wrote in the corrections after the Nov. 2004 NECO meeting. Hah, I even told Chit that when I gave her the copies of the different constis back when I was still in the Makati HQ.

Nobody listens to me. Ha, ha; Chito's hatred of me has blinded him to the fact that, despite everything, I still possess the skills, talents and Training that made him notice me all those years back. He should remember that when I point something out, you should listen, because I was Trained to notice things.

Anyway. It's just... galling. This is why I am just so fed up with our elders. This policy of double-standards is what wrecked this country and is wrecking it still. When will these people stop? When there's nothing left of the Philippines and we have to start from scratch? And all they can say is, sorry?!

Putangina.

Sorry. I'm just really angry, I guess. People like Chito feel so god-dammed self righteous its so sickening. Its like they can do nothing wrong simply because it's them. It's like if they do the extra-constitutional actions, its okay because they're the fucking "good guys," but when other people do it not only are you oh-so-wrong, but they reduce the discussion to name calling and insults. "Lakas Pala?" The fuck? What is this, kindergarten? I wish I could post here their rejoinders and responses to our responses. You could see just how... shallow they can be.

Given all this, I think I am about ready to issue a final Call to my generation. We can't survive more of this; the future my generation will be living in will not survive more of this kind of "ironies" that the present generation of powers-that-be operate in.

Hah. I wonder how many will respond? These LightForsaken elders keep saying the young are the hope of the nation in one breath while they push us all away either to the call centers or nursing with the other. Hah, some mothers even teach their daughters what to ask and how to do the asking to foreigners over chat. Mothers. This is how we are valued by our elders. This is the way the hope of this nation is treated. Mothers selling their own daughters. Leaders espousing high ideals while having no qualms about lying and doing character-assasination just to get what they want.

What painful irony that is...

New look!!!!

2006-06-14T17:40:00.000+08:00

Haha: look at that, a new template

I guess I got sick and tired of my old template. My Novus War Journal looked more professional and pleasing to the eye (well, at least to mine eyes) than this one, and Phoenix Eyrie is my first blog.

Okay, enough of this. The next post will be back to the I-am-a-Mentat posts, and oh, have I got some things to rant about...

Maid in Makati!!!!!

2006-06-06T12:05:00.000+08:00

Okay: I know I have been a VEEERRRRYYYYY delinquent blogger, but I will not restart my postings with another depressing analysis of current sociopolitical events. Life is sad enough for now for me to add some more to it.

Instead, I will make an unabashed plugging for a blog that has brought a lot of "feel good" moments for me these past few days: Maid in Makati.

This blog was found by one of my guildmates at Rising Force Online. And I'm glad my guildmate found it because it is more than just worth the read.

Leave your jadedness and cynicism at the door when you read the blog because it is one of the most fascinating and enjoyable reads I have ever had in a looooonnnnggggggg while.

Being Righteous

2006-05-05T18:03:00.000+08:00

If there's one thing about this whole mess called Gloriagate has done for me, its allowed me to view my world in an entirely different light.

I've always mantained that what made People Power II different from the May 1 Mayhem was intent, and the people behind it. At that time, who could fault the intentions and probity of the leaders of the so-called "Middle Forces," the men and women we young guns looked up to?

When the Garci tapes took an... unusual twist on 8 July 2005, I think what happened put me into a certain type of crisis. Mostly, this was caused by the sudden shift by people I considered my paragons.

Another very important reason - especially to a Mentat - was the process involved. As a "moderate," I was brought up and trained to believe that the ends can never justify the means. Isn't that one of our major complaints against the Left and Right? All for the Revolution. All for the State (or for Persons in Authority).

Moderates - indeed, Liberals, the ones who hold the Center - pride themselves in an almost-fanatic adherence to processes, because these allow for the best expression of democratic decision-making. Processes have to exist and have to be equitable so that justice can be served and tyranny - whether of the majority or the minority - can be avoided.

The best example for me was the way the LP came up with the decision to support GMA's 2004 candidacy. All five major candidates were given a chance to convince the LP (and, haha, I think it was Ping Lacson who came in second; I have to look into that). I'm sure not everyone was happy with the result, but how can you challenge something that went through a process that not only had protocols approved by everybody but also allowed everybody to speak their mind? In the end, despite the stigma attached (even then) to the Gloria name, the LP had no difficulty defending its decision, and even came out on top of the other political forces.

This... conundrum faced by the Party has, essentially, ripped away much of the veil that idealism had on me with regard to those I considered our seniors in the Moderates. No matter their credentials, no matter how much respect I had for them, it still pales to the fact that they lied in order to get a result they wanted.

Perhaps if they had sat down with us and explained why not only was the Truth bent for their purposes but also why dissent and an honest attempt to come to the truth of the matter were suppressed. Perhaps I could understand. For no matter what their pronouncements were from July 8, it could not remove from my mind and heart the shadow of great doubt stemming from personal knowledge that, at least on the LP side of the incident, July 8 had been rigged. And that rather than face the consequences of their action, or at least provide an expalanation to the rest of their compatriots in the Party, we who stood against the few that obviously hijacked the Party on July 8 were run around in circles or otherwise suppressed.

But what struck me most is the... posturing. The insistence in something that is essentially an opinion - if not an outright lie, in the case of the LP - as truth. The truth. The part of me that was Trained by Moderates could not stomach, much less reconcile, the fact that these people defending the Drilon act of July 8 knew the truth yet not only refused to set things right but suppressed all attempts at correcting a misperception.

It was as if, suddenly, just because one thinks the cause is right - i.e. the ouster of Gloria based on tapes whose veracity has not been fully certified - all actions done for that cause is right.

If the person doing the act was a Leftist or a Rightist, I probably would not have a problem. But since these people claim to be "moderates," liberals and democrats even, then I think there is a problem there somewhere.

It was as if, like many of those holier-than-thou pastoral councils and religious groups. being righteous was an excuse to do away with things that do not subscribe to one's point of view.

I was told about what occured during the recent CALD conference in Cambodia. Jan Tolentino, KALIPI secgen and YLDA chair for membership, was asked by the latter org to attend for it, as YLDA was petitioning for membership in CALD and none of the other execom were available. Incidentally, LP DG Eli Quinto asked if Jan could bring SolGen Ed Nachura's letter to CALD's member-parties, asking that, if the alliance would not recognize the leadership elected by the Party's majority last March 2, CALD could at least temporarily give the chairmanship to another member-Party (the LP is this year's chair for CALD) pending the resolution of the petition filed by Drilon at the COMELEC. Jan gave the letters to the hotel's concierge for delivery to the addresse's rooms and never talked about it in the conference's sessions.

The next day, the five Drilon-affiliated LP congressmen gave him a thorough dressing-down. Jan claims that the more he explained, the more the congressmen raised their voices so he decided to shut up and take it all in stride.

Later on, CALD Exec. Dir. John Coronel and the representative for the host Sam Rainsy Party, told Jan that he should "voluntarily" withdraw from the conference or YLDA will be sanctioned. Jan left without a second thought.

There is a fact sheet circulating claiming that the actions against Jan were done because he had embarassed the LP delegation and was spreading black propaganda during the conference. I find these claims absurd because (1) the issue was not discussed by Jan in the conference itself, and (2) the letters given to the member-parties were not combative in nature but informative, even supplicatory. I should know that they didn't contain any black propa because I drafted those letters and saw them signed by SolGen Nachura.

Even more incredible was the action of CALD prior to Jan's dressing down. During its execom, CALD passed a resolution supporting the Drilon faction of the LP, without even hearing the other side. In fact, Neric Acosta was said to have commented that, althought the Drilon faction did not have the majority in the LP, it was the "soul" of the Party and therefore represented liberalism best in the Philippines. One member-party rep even was reported to have said, even if Neric, Drilon and co. were to leave the LP and/or form their own party, they were still welcome in CALD.

The last statement I can understand; I told EPQ that I had misgivings about the letters, since Neric was a close friend to many of the regular CALD delegates and participants, add to the fact that John Coronel is a known Drilon supporter and a close friend of Neric and Chito. EPQ said that I shouldn't worry soo much because I knew - as writer of the letters - that nothing bad was in the communiques, and that if CALD was true to its ideals then the very least it could do was listen to the other side of the story.

Yet... if an organization and political parties and leaders who claim to fight for democratic processes, human rights and free speech could (1) make a stand without hearing all sides, and (2) take sides and action without giving the accused a fair hearing...

This is a horrible experience for me. I remember Sam Rainsy being here and asking that proper democratic processes be followed with regard to his case in Cambodia. I know for a fact that free speech and the right to dissent is a cornerstone advocacy of nearly all CALD member parties. God's Most Sacred Light, but isn't it practically a mantra of the Drilon faction that they want Gloria out because not only did she lie and cheat, but she was suppressing the truth and free speech, and clamping down on dissent?

This is horrible.

Are today's liberal leaders merely communists or rightists in liberal clothing?

If liberalism and democracy makes its stands and positions based on factors other than established processes that guarantee fair treatment for all parties concerned, then what makes us different from communism and facism?

If the truth can be so conveniently disregarded, or a groups's opinions - and there is even the admittance that they are not the majority! - enforced so harshly and totally, what right do these people have to demand democracy, liberalism and human rights from those they contend with? How are they different, then?

This is horrible. Truly, truly horrible.

Is this the world even our own leaders in the liberal democratic movement - the so called "soul" of Philippine liberalism - wish to bequeath to us? A world either of corruption and deciet or heavy-handed, truth-suppressing, dissent-quashing self-righteousness?

Horrible. Truly, truly horrible.

Pet Peeves: the Anti-Smoking campaign

2006-03-30T16:04:00.000+08:00

Okay, level off: I am not a smoker. Never tried, never will. I personally believe it's a bad habit. I have nothing against my friends smoking, but I always try to remind them of the cost it has to their health. If after this they continue smoking, that's their call. They're old enough to know, and I'm cool with them exercising their freedom this way.

Now for the rant.

My point with the anti-smoking campaign comes from that age-old debate on education vs. regulation. Some - most - people would say that laws need to be enforced to control certain behavior in order to maintain a certain level of decency or responsiblity in society.

Take smoking for one. I am well aware of the issues surrounding this. The health reasons alone should give people pause, but part of the issue concerns smoker habits. There's second-hand smoke, which is more dangerous than buffing a cig as there's nothing filtering the smoke to the one unlucky enough to be in the path of a smoker's exhaust. Then there's the litter. During my time in the Ateneo, this was a very real problem: somehow, smokers, especially in the legendary coño bench near the College Caf, can't seem to make the extra effort to throw their cig butts to the nearest trash can, which in the Ateneo is nearly in every corner. Trash, especially smoking-related trash, became so much that we had to "quarantine" the coño bench as an example, deploying a canary-yellow police tape with "biohazard" written over it.

Yet, for me, it is far more effective to educate your people rather than regulating behavior through the enforcement of certain rules. A law was passed sometime ago limiting smoking in certain areas, especially in enclosed spaces. Smoking was also being banned in campuses, ostensibly to limit its access to students.

My contention with this is in its efficacy. What good is a law that penalizes smoking in restricted zones and the sale of cigarettes to minors if it is not properly enforced?

I always use this example to illustrate my point: one time as I was hanging out at Starbucks Kat, I saw a group of high school students lounging outside. I was surprised - and not a little peeved - to see them whip out cigarettes and start smoking them. My first thought was, isn't there a law against this?

The other day, I passed by a sari-sari store in my neighborhood. Two boys, perhaps late grade school or early high school, were buying some snacks. Between two fingers of one boy was a lighted cigarette.

What's the point in the law, then, if it fails in its intended task?

But what was its intent, in the first place? Like laws that ban prostitution, that make jaywalking a criminal offense, or prevent the sale of liquor to minors, the law on smoking was meant to regulate the behavior. These laws were crafted to enforce the thinking that society frowns on certain acts, as aids in ensuring "proper" behavior among the members of society and expose the young in the "right" attitudes and values.

But regulation for me fails to achieve this due to its main "educational" tool: fear and punishment. You avoid a particular behavior because it will be punished. Negative reinforcement may be fine with dogs (as Dr. Pavlov's experiments show), but humans are different. Isn't it an adage in this country that somethig is illegal only if you get caught? And how the hell do you regulate sales of "regulated" products like cigarettes among informal retailers? Will the cigarette boy or corner newspaper stand ask for ID? Heck, even some 7-11 outlets don't ask ID for liquor and cigarette sales, eventhough it's obvious that the one purchasing is a minor.

People don't get the reason for the prohibition if all society's leaders do is regulate. The minds of most people have spent a lifetime doing "correct" behavior because they fear punishment, not because a particular type of behavior is what it is, correct. How many persons avoid brothels because they refuse to degrade the dignity of their fellowman? How many young people avoid drinking liquor because they know their physiology may not be developed enough to handle it? How many people don't smoke because they know it can lead to seven cancers, and progressively weakens the body? How many people cross the street on pedestrian lanes and walkways because they know it is not only risky to themselves but hampers the easy flow of traffic as well?

True, people can and do continue with "undesirable" behavior despite education. A lot of educated people do a lot of things that would horrify the general public, in the same way that many "uneducated" people live upright, responsible and decent lives. But education entails being informed, especially in the truths and consequences of a particular action or behavior. So long as this holds, then we can trust people to make informed decisions.

And if they continue doing behavior contrary to the information, then that's democracy for you. At least they'll know why when you make them pay the cost for continuing with their "undesirable" behavior.

The Real World

2006-03-20T11:11:00.000+08:00

I'm supposed to be writing four concept papers. But after seeing Billy Esposo's March 20 commentary on Inq7's Viewpoints area, I realized I cannot continue with the aformentioned papers without getting this off my chest.

I remember an argument I had with a barkada, just sometime late last year. I was complaining about the horrid state politics in general, and politics in the LP in particular, has become following July 8. My friend took a jab at me by saying, in so many words, that what the hell was I complaining about when I, of all people, should have expected politics to be made up of nothing but dirt and shit. I argued, rather heatedly as the conversation turned into a full blown debate between us, that, yes, some compromises have to made with one's idealism (and even ethics!) to operate in the political sphere, but there are just some things you don't do. There's a line you draw in the concrete, I said, and you don't cross that.

Besides, I argued, not all politicos are horrid monsters. I passionately defended "reformists" in the political sphere, people who I thought stood for higher standards. I think this was where we started really arguing, because I insisted that, despite the murk of politics, there are people who you can still trust to fight the good fight and stay true to the ideals and principles they taught and made one believe in.

At the time of that debate with my barkada, I guess I thought I'd seen it all.

That was until 2 March 2006, when LA and a whole lot, if not an outright majority, of Party leaders decided to take matters into their own hands and take down Drilon and company from the leadership of the LP.

I wouldn't be much of an analyst if I didn't expect a countermove; duh. Of course there would be. Given the stakes of the game, I knew Drilon and his people would hit back. Their still had "weapons" in their arsenal, after all, resources at their command. Even worse (at least, for LA's group, from my perspective), some of the most well-known and those regarded as "progressive" in the LP were in Drilon's group. This, I thought, would make this whole contest really, really, interesting. But, I thought, truth will out. People, once told of what really happened last 8 July 2005, and why March 2 had to happen the way it did, will realize that, at the very least, the whole situation is more complex than simple a... corollary to the whole GMA-Garci thing.

I, too, have been guilty, many times, of overestimation.

Actually, Billy Esposo's article is not surprising; he's anti-Gloria, so given that context it's not really surprising he'd take the Drilon line, insisting that even what happened to the LP is intimately connected to GMA. Okay, maybe it is: if Drilon had not been tempted by suddenly becoming President - however acting - before 2010, maybe the LP wouldn't be in this mess.

It's in the... other sources of information, they way they treated this fiasco, that has shown me just how really ugly, dirty and thoroughly lacking in morals and ethics this world can be.

In a post made last March 9, PCIJ's blog showcased comments from Rep. Neric Acosta. In the post, titled "Filipinos Dying by a Thousand Cuts," Neric gave us a preview of the Drilon's group true mentality regarding the Atienza group, which I thought showed that any attempt to unite the Party, even if Ka Jovy Salonga was the one to mediate it, would not even get to first base. Again, this was not surprising. Neric is a person I respect and admire a lot, but he's like Chito in the way the adamantly stick to the positions they espouse on an issue, regardless of the context of other mitigating factors surrounding the issue.

What hit me was the way PCIJ - a well-respected institution, indeed regarded as the last bastion of objective, professional, investigative journalism - treated the LP issue. If you check the post and proceed to the comments section, you'd notice a post made by Phoenix Blue, asking why PCIJ has only showcased the comments from Drilon group people (Chito had already been featured a few days before).

I am Phoenix Blue.

Neric's comments are something that didn't surprise me, but PCIJ's treatment did. I have the greatest respect for PCIJ. I tell people that it was reliable, objective and professional, that it was one of the best sources for objective-yet-hard-hitting information this side of the Pacific. So it came as a surprise to me that PCIJ was suddenly seemingly taking sides. Like I said as Phoenix Blue, there had already been two posts made by Drilon people on the LP issues, but none from the other side. I said this somehow did not fit in my defnition of fair journalism, that giving airtime or print space to only one side can badly skew the perceptions of readers, even more so that PCIJ is regarded not just as a Gatekeeper of Information, but a Strategic Constituent as well.

Until now, there have been no "rebuttal" posts in PCIJ's blog.

Perhaps that's what's rankling. Anti-Gloria people claim to be so on the basis of morality: the little girl cheated (the constitutionally-guaranteed right of innocence-until-proven-otherwise aside), therefore she should go. For National Demcorats and Rightists to do what they do is something that will not bother me; I know them, I have been trained to stand against them, so I am not surprised about anything they do. Ditto for Erap people, because they really are just a... variant of the communist "everything for the revolution" (replace "revolution" with "erap") credo.

It is the way "our" people - the so-called Moderates, the ones in the center, the ones who call themselves liberal yet are as illiberal and unethical in their comport in this issue as the person they hope to supplant - have acted that hurts me so much. Since when did the morals and ideals that the Center stood for gave way to justifying any and all acts to achieve our objectives?

Look at Chito: he is portrayed as the paragon of all that is good and true in today's young leaders. But he suppresses dissent and different opinions. If you do not side with him, you are the enemy. He subjects you to the worst public humiliation you can ever have and you can't do anything because he is Chito Gascon. And if you won't bow down to him and his humiliation of you, he will try to erase you from the equation, like what he's tried to do to KALIPI, like what he's tried to do to me.

It is painful to see so many of those I admire and hoped to emulate on the other side of this battle. More so because I do not consider myself fully on any side: I said I will stand up against Gloria when she transgresses human rights and the freedoms we enjoy, rights and freedoms she swore to defend, but I do not automatically believe the Garci tapes are for real. I know too much. I know that the technology and skill to manipulate information is there. And it is absurdly amusing to see people who help put Gloria where she is right now - who ran her campaign, for God's sake - saying she cheated and therefore must be removed.

It is painful to see them there. And to hear them justify their acts be a hundred different reasons. It is painful because you know the truth. I was there in 8 July 2005, when a dolorous blow was dealt the Liberal Party by its very own President, by its own leaders, by the people the Party regarded as its paragons and bannermen.

Because if the people who supposedly represent all that is true, noble and good in the LP cloak their actions in shadow and deceit, in slander and propaganda... what and who else can you believe in?

I was there last July 8, and two days before that where Drilon and his factotums (to use a new term being bandied between LP camps) declared July 8 as "katulad ng ginawa natin ngayon," or similar to what we did today, "today" referring to July 6, which was a simple consultation. I was there. I know the truth. And I believe they know it, too. Yet they can appear in public and still claim the truth is otherwise. Unless they have started to believe their own propaganda.

Was my friend right? Was my Atenean idealism making me believe in an illusion?

Is this, then, the real world?

When a Party is Over: the long, drawn-out death of the Liberal Party

2006-03-10T23:16:00.000+08:00

To say this is painful for me is an understatement.

I entered the Liberal Party as one who was cynical about politicians; as the head of the UCSC's intelligence directorate, being paranoid and cynical were part of the job description. Until that time in 2000, only one politician merited my respect (hah, and even he has lost that now). But you learned to love the LP, and being a liberal in beliefs if not in creed, it was but the logical conclusion to align one's self to the most visible and powerful symbol of liberalism in the Philippines. I was proud to be a Liberal, proud to be in the LP.

It is a testament to the extent of the... mess that the Party is in right now that one's pain is mixed so thoroughly in - and caused from - the confusion and disappointment that stems from 8 July 2005. Someone once said that what befell the LP was a mirror of what was happening to the country. Perhaps it is true: although one can see the battle lines clearly drawn, who are the protagonists? Who are the antagonists? Are the heroes totally pure in their motives, as heroes should be? Are the villains totally without basis for their percieved villainy, or are their actions justified by the acts of those they contend with?

For following the events of 2 March 2006 the manner of the escalation of this 8-month long debacle may have hopelessly shattered our once great Party. Yet this is no division where you can distinguish one part from another, and an attempt can be made to make it whole. No: the LP is shattered into a hundred million pieces, each minute shard being tossed in the winds of the dark fate released from July 8.

Isn't that where it truly begins? I still maintain that, despite Chito's points last March 2, he would have been answered in full if on that day itself, during that assembly and in the presence of the cameras of all the TV networks and notepads of reporters that March 2 happened becuase Drilon refused to heed the call of Party leaders and members to immediately convene the National Executive Council (NECO).

KALIPI asked for it not one week after July 8; I should know, I drafted that position paper, circulated to the members of KALIPI's National Board and to the major chapter leaders before we sent it to Drilon (this is contrary to what some people would claim; they said that we lack democracy in the youth wing since no consultation happens. How very far from the truth).

And when the Party's sectoral groups - KALIPI, the Liberal Caucus of Congressional Staff (LCCS) and the Liberal League of Local Legislators (L4) - met to discuss what was happening to the Party and what can we do about it, along comes Chito to tell us, in so many words that, yes, we were free to discuss, but we shouldn't, do anything that would, ah, affect the moves being done among "higher management." to resolve the issue. To my mind, this sounded so much like the Party's sectors were being told by the Drilon group to "keep off!" All we wanted to do was to discuss the problem, and call on the Party President to convene the NECO at the soonest possible time to resolve the issue. Drilon was right: the NECO is, short of the National Directorate, the highest policy-making body of the LP. During Butch Abad's time, no important decision was reached without at least consulting the NECO. The NECO's decisions would have been final.

Yet Frank Drilon, since 8 July 2005, refused to convene the NECO. Month after month after month. Until March 2 happened.

And they had the gall to refer to the LP constitution? So why didn't Chito mention anywhere that Drilon, too, had breached the LP constitution? It was clear there that the NECO should be convened at least once a year. The last time the NECO was convened was Nov. 2004, when Abad finally turned over the party presidency to Drilon. November and December 2005 came and went and still no NECO. Still no resolution to the conflict.

And there's that infernal "stand."

Let me level off here: I do not like Gloria. I think my previous post proves that. I am not entirely convinced of the Garci tapes - my training, both as an intelligence officer and as a communications major, prevents me from jumping too quickly to conclusions when a shadow of a doubt exists - but neither do I agree with the little girl who sits at the Palace. I think she should have let the impeachment through and fought it out in the Senate, hostile as it was after July 8; didn't the Filipino people show in 2001 that they cannot be hoodwinked? She shouldn't have done 1017, for that matter.

But the event involving the LP in 8 July 2005 showed the other reason of why I haven't gone so much against her: I cannot fully trust those wanting to bring her down, at least in terms of motives.

Wednesday, 6 July 2005: Party leaders met at Club Filipino for the first in a series of consultations. It ends at about lunchtime, with Drilon telling everyone in the table that, another one would be held two days hence and if they want to join that one, too, they were welcome to.

Friday, 8 July 2005: Party HQ personnel meet early at the HQ to get the equipment needed for that day's consultation. It was decided by the senior personnel present - me - that we would bring only the laptop (since Mario Taguiwalo, NIPS president, had a presentation) and some tarps since, as we were told, it was only going to be a consultation. I didn't even make a press release; what for? It was just a consultation, right?

Even when a whole phalanx of media people were camping in front of Kalayaan Hall, it still didn't feel as if something extraordinary would happen on our side of the planet. Yes, we were aware by that time of the Hyatt 10 and other people removing their support from GMA, but this is just a consultation, right? I mean, how can a stand be made when we in the HQ weren't ordered by the Party President to call the members of the NECO, at least for that purpose?

A vote was done inside the hall. A quick look showed some members of Congress. A few who were there were from the NECO, but no quorum. The vote to ask for Gloria's resignation I think reached 19, with impeachment being close behind it. So, at best, if say the NECO was there, the total votes wouldn't even breach 50. The LP constitution recognizes quorum for the NECO at 50%+1. At that time, the NECO was about 102. Do the math.

Media barged in for the 1:00 p.m. presscon. Still no alarm bells in my head. I heard someone ask Drilon after the vote what was the nature of the vote, and the people at the head of the table answer it was just an advisory vote. So, no worry, right?

At past 1:00 p.m., LP President Franklin Drilon was giving a statement that the Party was withdrawing its support from the President and calling for her resignation. If she won't resign, the LP will support moves to impeach her.

That was what happened that day.

Someone will contend my stiory? Fine, then: if even the Congressional Caucus of the LP agreed with this "stand," then how come 22 out of 33 Liberal congressmen voted to uphold the report of the Justice Committee, that there were no grounds for impeaching GMA? If the local leaders of the LP agreed with the July 8 "stand," then how come nearly all our governors, and city and municipal mayors were all expressing their support for GMA?

Go to www.liberalparty.ph and look up the roster of NECO members. 102 members. Let's say 3 senators support her resignation. Add to that the 11 congressmen who agreed to her impeachment in the House. Add Govs. Maliksi, Tupas and Padaca. Perhaps add Mayor Jesse Robredo. Add Chito, Mayor Soccoro Acosta, Chit Asis, Butch Abad, Rene Villa and Bobby Tañada. That's just 24. If we simply add the 22 congressmen who supported the Committee report to the remaining Governors and City Mayors who supported GMA, where would the math lead you? How about the none-elected members of the NECO?

Let us put aside the discussions of who was right or not last July 8. Given the Drilon's camp insistence on the NECO and the LP constitution since March 2, why didn't he just convene the NECO and get it over with? If what the anti-Gloria LP were right, then why were they afraid to convene the NECO? Didn't they want to put Atienza and his group in their place? What better way to do it than through the legal process of convening the LP's highest policy-making body and giving a final answer to the issue of where the LP was regarding Gloria?

Eight months. In all their pronouncements the Drilon group never once answered the question on why the NECO was not convened these last eight months to resolve the issue. The members of the NECO have put down everything for issues much less in impact to the LP; would they have shirked now that the existence, viability and reputation of the Party is at stake?

Even worse to not convening the NECO, Drilon and his cabal continued to foist the lie - and it is a lie, please make no mistake about it - that the LP had a stand and it was anti-Gloria. Stand? What stand? How can there be a stand when the NECO was never convened to ratify anything?

Oh, and there was something much worse: the muzzling of the sectoral groups and leaders of the LP. I mentioned the gathering of the LP sectors earlier, yes? The Drilon group attempted to muzzle that, prevent it from happening. When they couldn't, they sent Chito to put a spanner in the works and ensure that at the very least no concerete action would be taken by the LP sectors with regard to the issue.

KALIPI had a Mindanao Congress sometime after July 8. This was one of the decisions by KALIPI's National Assembly during its 5th Congress in Nov. 2004: owing to the fact that there was just one delegate from Mindanao, we would pursue an aggressive rebuilding in Mindanao by holding a congress for that Area. Yet we had to postpone it because calls went out to the our partner organizations and contacts among the local LP leaders that it was already cancelled. How can it be cancelled when the National Board had not even decided on the issue when some of Drilon's people called our Sec Gen to ask KALIPI to postpone it, in view of July 8? We heard that, following our strong position on the issue of July 8, there were fears that we would say some things on July 8 that some people won't like to be said.

I can go on and on here, but Drilon's people would only spout their line. No: let's deal with facts here, instead:

The NECO had not been convened since Nov. 2004, nor in the 8 months following July 8;
Drilon's group continued to say in the public that the LP was anti-Gloria, eventhough the NECO had not been convened for the discussion of a stand;
Actual records of LP members among the congressmen, governors, city mayors and other local leaders showed who these leaders of the Party were supporting;
LP sectoral groups and leaders were being muzzled, even if they were simply asking for forums where the problem could be discussed, and calls from them to convene the NECO fell on deaf ears

Liberals are supposed to be process-oriented, yes? The Party had a dilemma leading to the elections of 2004 because Raul Roco had a lot of supporters. And there were the solid-Erap supporters in the Party, too. So, in order to avoid what would soon befell the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC), the LP turned to a process of selection. This process was drafted and presented to the NECO for its approval. When it was approved, it was executed. After execution, the results of the exercise were reported to the NECO, who, based on the reports brought back by the people who interviewd all five major presidential candidates, decided that GMA was the best candidate.

So much as I wish there were other options - Eddie Villanueva had not convinced me that he was the right man for the job; I have no doubt he is a good and religious man, but the presidency demands... something else than those - I wrote, "Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo" on the president's slot of the ballot because I had no excuse to my Party for going against its decision.

Process. That's what's important for Liberals. It is what separates us from other ideologies, our adherence to protocols that ensure all our decisions are reached in a rational and democratic manner.

The pain I feel over what befell the Party is magnified whenever I look at the roster of those in the Drilon camp: Butch and Dina Abad; Sen. Rodolfo Biazon and Rep. Ruffy Biazon; Neric Acosta; Bobby Tañada; Gov. Grace Padaca.

These and more are people I respect and look up to in the Liberal Party. Especially the Abads, Cong Ruffy, Ka Bobby, and Gov. Grace, they have added to that pride one feels in wearing the L-in-a-shield of the LP.

Yet... I cannot go over the fact that July 8 was wrong. I should know. I was a staff of the HQ then. We were the ones who processed these things for them, who organized activities for them. We knew what July 8 was supposed to be about and were shocked at what really happened. We were appalled by the actions that followed after that, and outraged when the Drilon people started picking us HQ staff off in clusters. Jan and Cali were the firs to go. Me, Mante and Donna were recently removed, just this February. Hah, Mante and I were told it was because our contracts expired. See, they made us sign something sometime in Feb of last year, but it was never signed by Drilon. And, oh: I've been working for the Party since 2000, Mante since 2003, if not 2002.

I am outraged by the callousness in which the Drilon camp touts their moral ascendency. Because I know, as someone once intimately involved in the workings of the Party, that their actions since July 8 bankrupted any claim they had to being right with regard to this issue. At the very least, they should have called for the NECO. But they didn't, while continuing to claim that they spoke for Liberals all over the country.

I cannot join my old comrades in the anti-Gloria camp because of this. Because they are there. Because if people who can bend even a political party's rules and laws for their own benefit are the ones I will replace with someone like Gloria... how different is that? I'd rather have Gloria. At least she had no pretensions. Or at least, if she made one, you knew it was just propaganda.

So do I say that March 2 was right? Not exactly. But I can understand what led Atienza and more than 300 local leaders of the Party to do what they did, given the context of July 8.

It's actually funny when you look at it: the anti-Gloria LP claim that their call for GMA's ouster, even through people power or whatever means, is because the constitutional processes to address the griveances brought about by the Garci tapes have either been co-opted or rendered ineffective. Resign, Impeach, Oust, yes? (God, that used to mean something good back in 2000...)

Yet when leaders and members of the Party did so, because they who hold the levers of power in the LP refused to go through constitutional channels to resolve the issue of July 8, they refused to recognize this, to even acknowledge the grievances that led to March 2.

And like some of Gloria's people, they even lambasted their opponents. I can never forget the... venom in which they looked down on the barangay captains and municipal mayors who were present last March 2. Aren't those Liberals, too? What makes a "lowly" barangay captain any less Liberal than the Senate President? What makes the voice of our Municipal Mayors any less than those in Congress?

Why am I surprised? Didn't they muzzle us, the youth wing and the other sectoral groups? Wasn't there a plan by Chito to raise a "new" liberal youth oraganiztion since KALIPI wouldn't side with them?

This is the most painful part. We are the Liberal Party. We were supposed to be the ones who will reform the political sphere. We were the good guys, for God's sake.

But if the good guys are so ready to set aside what is right in order to get what they want... where does that leave you, then?

Who do you believe in?

Who do you trust?

I thought I had seen enough, acheived a level of equilibrium between my Atenean-inspired idealism and the pragmatism needed to engage in politics. I thought I had found a group that resonated with my most cherished values and ideals.

Now, I'm not so sure anymore...

Maybe that's why mourn. Because something I loved so much is dead. Because no matter how this is resolved, the LP might never recover, at least in my lifetime. The wounds are too deep, too much blood has been spilled, and the warfare between the camps so total that the landscape is a devastated and desolate mess.

So... there.

Maybe Bam was right: we should give up on our elders. There are no paladins there anymore. Just a bunch of thugs in armor bashing at each other to prove who has the bigger sword, while the countryside burns and withers in the face of plague, poverty and pillage.

Drawing a Line on the Concrete. With my blood, if necessary

2006-02-28T03:02:00.000+08:00

Just in case I didn't make myself clear with the previous post (I guess I didn't), then let me make it clear, especially to my old comrades in the UCSC, and to its current generation if they are still inclined to listen, even for a bit, to the ranting of an old man:

First, I do not agree with violent overthrow of governments. Corollary to that is my disagreement with military juntas or any similar systems. Liberals are supposed to be process-oriented, yes? The ends can never justify the means, and if someone will tell me that they have to burn the house in order to save it from termites, then I definitely have a problem with that. The same with authoritarian regimes: so long as individual and human rights are being curtailed in any way, then I am also very much against those.

Which leads me to my second point: the rampant and brazen assault of the Macapagal-Arroyo government on the Bill of Rights. Dammit, Madame President, but one does not need to be a lawyer to understand what Sec. 18, Article VII means in its entirety. Nothing, absolutely nothing justifies the government's actions at the proclamation of 1017. In many cases, it was not only illegal but indecent, too. The best example is the way Randy David and Argee Guevarra were picked up. Or how about the way those poor people who were at Karingal with Prof. David were treated? Dammit, Madame President, but those were women and children! On the way to EDSA to celebrate People Power I! Not only did your men deny them their constitutionally-mandated right to freedom of speech and assembly, but your men also treated them- especially the children! Good God, those poor children!- harshly, as if they were hardened criminals!

Illegal? The way government has been comporting itself since Proc. 1017, it has been nothing but barbaric. Inhumane, even.

Let me level-off here: as someone who has experience and training in security matters, I can understand and even appreciate the situation that can make a President of a democracy call on the extraordinary powers granted him or her by their constitution. Until the brazen disregard for the Constitution by the Macapagal-Arroyo government, I was ready to argue to anyone that, given the possible threat posed by disgruntled members of the military, government's declaration of a State of Emergency is valid. There is - again - another attempt at a power grab, and this time seriously involving members of the AFP and the PNP, the Scout Rangers and Special Action Force no less, two of the most elite security forces in the country.

Government has a right to defend itself. That I can understand. If some soldiers and policemen get the short end of the stick (or, in this case, the very hard end of one) for actions contrary to their standing orders and the chain of command, then tough luck. The military is not a democracy, and going against the chain of command outside normal channels can really get you into a lot of heat. But even if the military is not a democracy, there should be other ways, other means, because the country they serve is (supposedly) a democracy.

I'll also argue against those who could so... carelessly endanger the Republic through actions like this. This is not Martial Law (well, at least until last Friday). This is not the Erap years. This is a country we built together, at least until 8 July 2005. I know so many are dissatisfied at GMA's governance, but if I find out that some of my Mentors, and those few elders I still respect, are part of the "plan" (if there ever was one) last Friday, then my idealism will most certainly take a fatal blow. I think what defines us in the Center from those of the radical Left and Right is that we do not subscribe to the adage, "the ends justifies the means." That is perhaps the one single thing I hate about Communism, its willingness to engage in whatever means necessary to achieve its revolution. In all my encounters with the radical Philippine Left, this has always colored my perception of them. But we are of the Center. Some of us are even proud to call ourselves "Moderates." Aren't we then supposed to be process-oriented? When we engage in warfare - whether it be on the literal, physical level, or the metaphorical, socio-political one, or both - shouldn't we comport ourselves in a way that our actions do not condemn us as well?

Yet... I cannot sit here and say I agree with what has been done to our rights in the last few days. Disagree? No: I am horrified. I am indignant. I am shocked. I am outraged.

Yes, I know what the Tribune and Malaya have been doing. Yes, I know what ABS CBN really subscribes to. But, to quote the '87 Consti, "no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances." (Sec. 4, Article III)

As the Tribune petition to the Supreme Court said, Proc. 1017 is not even a law, so what right does government have to do what it did? Sec. 18, Article VII? Bullshit. Again I quote Par. 4, Sec. 18, Article VII: "A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus."

I don't like the Tribune. I believe it's too biased a paper for its own good, or even to be regarded as serious journalism. I believe it's just propaganda on print. The Malaya is little better, although Lito Banayo is good for a couple of politically-accented laughs.

But those two were newspapers. Legit newspapers. Members of the Press. Government has no right to even threaten media nor tell it what to do because the fundamental law of the land says so.

I don't like rallies all that much, in the context of so much democratic space. I believe they serve a purpose, and are a necessary part of civil society's toolkit, but a functioning democracy should have other, more effective avenues for addressing the issues confronting its citizenry.

But rallies are expression both of free speech and assembly. In a democracy, we, the people, should be able to gather where we choose and say what we want, observing only the natural laws of decency and reason. The people - on whom, as the Preamble to the '87 Consti states, resides all powers and emanates from them - should have a right to complain about a President they think has been failing them. Why? Because the fundamental law of the land says so.

And no one, most especially the President who swore she'd defend that Constitution, nor the military and police who said the same oaths, is above that fundamental law.

Y'know what? I helped kick Erap out in '01. But in fairness to the guy, he gave us this much: the right to assemble and speak. Even if it cost him so much after.

I wonder, if the current President could (continue to) do worse than that?

No, this is wrong. I may not agree with the way Black and White has defined the whole issue that began with the Garci tapes, but in this I will agree: there are just some things that are downright wrong. And government’s actions since Proc. 1017 have been nothing but wrong.

The Bible says that when your brother offends you, the first thing you do is point it out to him. If he still doesn’t get it, you bring a friend along who will witness to his wrongdoing. If he still thinks otherwise, then the Bible was clear on how such a person should be treated.

If the Macapagal-Arroyo administration continues to think it’s not doing anything wrong with Proc. 1017, then we have a problem here.

And then, I think, it’s time to once again draw a line on the concrete with our blood, and tell those who would trample on our hard-fought rights that enough is enough, and that we’d be damned if we let another dictator rise and put us and the Republic in chains again.

Dangerous Times

2006-02-26T01:05:00.000+08:00

When that aborted coup last Friday happened - along with the reaction of the Palace to it - I was very little, if any, perturbed. I even had a bit of stress from my own father because he was so worried and wanted me back at the house. I guess his statements - if I didn't want to listen, that was my problem, or something like that - rankled me because of his four children I was the one who was part of one revolution and helped stop another. I've seen my share of conflict and recieved training to handle it and myself. I wanted to tell him that, if I wasn't worried about a few tanks then he shouldn't.

Yet, with tonight's news of the takeover of the Daily Tribune, my anxiety over the state of emergency has heightened.

Part of me understands the action: the Daily Tribune has done nothing but castigate the Arroyo administration since 2001. The Tribune, after all, is an Erap paper, in much the same way Malaya is an Angara or Lacson paper. I don't know to whom Abante belongs to. These three were supposedly some of the first... "institutional" casualties of Proclamation 1017. Oh, wait, I'm wrong there: uber-pundit Randy David was picked off during the EDSA rally last Friday, along with lawyer Argee Guevara. Rhealeth told me that former UP President Francisco Nemenzo has also been picked up, but that guy also kind of had it coming, being one of the most vocal of critics calling for Gloria's overthrow.

Of all the classes I had with journalism institution Doreen Fernandez, one has remained etched in memory. We had her as our prof during soph year Intro to Journ. We weren't freshies anymore, wide-eyed and in awe of our status as Atenean college students, but I think we still had a bit of the naivete of our age. Doreen's class would show us a little bit more of the world we were going to confront and hopefully change. That day, she posed us a question: why did we think some newspapers still operate eventhough they are losing money for their publishers? No answers from the class, so she answered her own question for us: because it gives one power. Having one's own media gives one the power of a Gatekeeper of Information, the ability to influence the thinking of large segments of the population. And in a society that trusts media more than government, that can be quite the power indeed.

As a longtime media operator, and for a major political party no less, this lesson given to naive little soph me is something I can fully appreciate. I've seen it in action. In fact, it's one of the beginning exercises I give my trainees in KALIPI's media directorate, that of identifying which media is with which faction or interest group. There is no objective media. The first rule of media ops brings home the point: do not piss off media. If media were objective, they wouldn't mind being dissed by media ops like me if they can get the Truth, whatever the hell that is in a post-July 8 Philippines.

But, if the press is such a pain and does take sides in a political contest, is that any reason to take such radical, punitive action against a segment of it?

I'm looking at the 1987 Consti right now (thank you, Chan Robles). First, let's look at the provision that Gloria invoked:

Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

Gloria quoted the first sentence of Section 18, Article 7 as justification for Proc. 1017, and is presumably the operating “law” for any and all actions being taken in accordance with the State of Emergency. But as one person pointed out before, and from what I can see up there, (a) State of Emergency was never mentioned in Sec. 18, Article 7, and (b) paragraph four is very, very, clear about what remains “in operation” and not.

This is because of certain provisions that come before Article 7, some of the most important provisions of the ’87 Consti:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

Section 19. (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Those provisions are from Article III, more commonly called the Bill of Rights. And if Gloria wants to use the Consti as justification for Proc. 1017, then she'd better read it again. Because even with Proc. 1017, she can't have opposition papers closed, or highly critical media organizations like, say, ANC, because Sec. 4, Article III says so. And she can't have... "inconvenient" people like Nemenzo and Randy David, nor Anakpawis congressman Crispin Beltran picked up because so many Sections in Article III says so. She can't do what she wants because the very same Sec. 18, Article VII that she quotes says so. And it holds even if she had the gall to declare Martial Law.

I read somewhere - I think it was a column in the PDI about freedom of the press - that any opinion or statement that elicits strong reactions (or something like that) is precisely what the right to freedom of the press and speech protects. Because it is precisely strong words that create debates that should be the basis of a functioning democracy. A true, strong and vibrant democracy must not be scared of high-handed criticism; in fact it should encourage it. Because the essence of a democracy is about people having their own opinion and not being afraid of it being heard, especially if it concerns the powers-that-be. Yes, there is a fine line between freedom of speech and sedition but wouldn't it be better to err on the side of democracy?

Gloria's people should have seen from last year that what we have now is a people that thinks. Otherwise, the little lady would've been out since, say, July 8. But because the Filipino people refuse to be so easily hoodwinked to any faction, we all still sit and wait for more proof to come out.

But what is going to happen now, that Gloria is appearing like some dictator in all but name with her recent actions?

This a very, very dangerous time. People probably would have understood some of the measures taken to secure the Republic last Friday. Some probably didn't do more than shrug when they heard the President read Proc. 1017. But a lot of people will look with growing alarm at her recent actions. And coming as it is during the celebration of the First People Power... Gloria and her people couldn't have chosen a worst time to act the dictator.

Dangerous times indeed. Marcos was able to put the country under Martial Law because he moved fast, and the people initially thought it was for the best. I think the Filipino is wiser now, despite all those surveys that say people wouldn't mind another dictatorship if it'd clean everything up. And Gloria's people have not moved with the speed and efficiency that Marcos did.

How absurd. As Tin said in a text a while ago, she's just comitting political suicide.

We'll see. The Filipino people are very patient and forgiving, but a lot of dictators and corrupt leaders found out the hard way not to tempt fate when it comes to trampling the Filipino's rights and sense of right and wrong.

People Power at Twenty

2006-02-21T16:41:00.000+08:00

Bandwagoning again, goodness... But, then...

It’s funny how I reacted to the articles on the First People Power that have been coming out of PDI. Ha, ha: they actually bring a tear or more to my eyes.

I belong to the generation who fought on the Second People Power. And before. I can still remember those days of the Resign-Impeach-Oust (RIO) Initiatives against Erap. All those meetings. All those street actions and forums. More meetings. More actions, some of them really big ones like the Impeachain, the Jericho March (and its near-disastrous security lapse by yours truly that allowed those damned NDs to overrun the K2Y positions, grr), and the first gathering at EDSA on November.

Even those of us who were at the forefront of the RIO and the Second People Power still stand in awe of those who made the First possible. Men and women like Dinky Soliman, Butch Abad and Jovy Salonga were our idols, men and women who literally faced the guns and goons of a dictatorship and won.

Yet, I think we who stood against Erap, and tried to maintain what little sanity (and security) could be maintained in a crowd of up to a million in those days of the PP2, can appreciate what went on in the First. In fact, I think it was also the answer of my generation to our elders', that, yes, we can make a difference, too.

Still, PP1 awes me. True, I had a cannon barrel facing me squarely during the Second, but I knew there was little to no intent of its use, at least immediately. So when I see pix or vidcaps of those people who literally stood against those tanks in the First... awe is the least thing I would feel. These were ordinary people. These were the kind of people you meet everyday on the streets or at work. These were people who didn't have an ounce of training for operations in the public sphere, not the people who usually waved flags or shouted slogans. How many of those standing on EDSA in 1986 were part of the First Quarter Storm? How many of them, at least before 1983, participated in rallies and other actions against the dictator?

Yet they were there. For four glorious days the people we call "ordinary" flocked to EDSA and stopped the tanks and heavily-armed troops. They came there not with red-colored flags but with rosaries and packets of food and drinks that they eagerly shared with the soldiers they came to stop and could have rolled over them anytime. They came not to shout slogans but to pray and talk with the soldiers, and to peacefully demand a change in government.

Now, People Power is twenty years. All I can remember of that date was my parents debating on whether they would get my grandparents from Manila and bring them to us at Muntinlupa. I was too young then, to appreciate what was happening, and I can't recall my parents telling me things like "malaya na tayo, anak," after Marcos left. And growing up with a grandmother who's a Blue Lady can really screw up your appreciation for the Martial Law years and People Power. Add to that one's distressing memories of the Blackout Years (imagine being one of the first families in your community with a PC - this was 1990, okay? - and not being to use it with impunity because there's no electricity for, say, half the day), and things really get kind of muddled.

But, yes, I can appreciate it now; after all, I've been serving as part of Civil Society since the formation of the UCSC in 1998. And I wish that the government could've done a better celebration of this landmark date. Or if government won't, maybe CivSoc should. Proper remembrances of dates like this are important to the rebuilding of a nation. People need to properly remember what happened and why it happened. We need these stories to remind us of a time when we were better. Or rather a time when the Filipino acted the way the should. Filipinos need to remember how and why the First People Power happened, because we just might find in the experiences of those four days the answers for many of the questions we've been asking since the Second.

Faith in the People

2006-02-12T18:57:00.000+08:00

Mass, at least where I regularly go to, has been quite... routine for me, most days. I rarely hear one at the Gesu, since the ones there are usually held at 10:30 in the morning, and I oversleep a lot during weekends, and I also rarely hear Mass at Greenbelt.

This Sunday's Mass, though, was rather different. You see, at Pandacan's Sto. Niño Church, there's this elderly beggar who attends the 3:30 p.m. Mass. Not always, but regularly enough. He has this kid he lugs around, a big kid, obviously unable to move on his (her?) own.

Even in a Parish Church for a community that's essentially "middile-Middle," the pair are, well, a sight to behold. 3:30 in the afternoon is the Children's Mass, but the priest who used to celebrate it, Fr. Romy de Castro, has quite a bit of a following from the parishoners that many of the attendees to the Mass are adults, or young people.

One time, the old man sat on the center-left aisle area. You could see the way people... moved away from the pair. It wasn't even that subtle. And the looks they gave...

This afternoon was different. I arrived late, and the new, young priest was already well into his sermon; it would seem the Gospel for this Sunday was about the leper (lepers?) that Jesus cured, and the young priest was telling his flock about how we would feel if we were lepers - whether physical or something else - and people would shy away from us, ostracize us even. Because that's what Jesus thought and felt, and which was why he acted as He did and cured the leper(s). The young priest said that with that single act, Jesus changed the way society viewed its outcasts, calling on the people to shun the practice of shunning, that we should bring everyone into the community especially those that most need our love and care.

The pair of beggars at that time were sitting in the third-to-the-last pew of the rightmost aisle of the Church. There was the... expected space around them, and I was observing how the people around the pair would react. To tell the truth, I was expecting more of the shunning of this pair, and was quite ready to feel bad throughout the whole Mass.

Then, one of the people nearest them stood and gave a small amount of money to the old man. Then another. The next thing I knew, nearly everyone beside them gave them money. Even in farther pews. There was even this young woman in front of me who chased after them just to give a few pesos. If i remember correctly, the first to give was this young couple, who had their baby with them.

To say my heart was touched is to give an understatement. This was totally unexpected. But maybe I should have. As a Guardian, I have seen the worst and the best in the Filipino. And this is but a simple expression of the best in the Filipino soul: that, regardless of all the things that has bowed down this once-noble race, we have not forgotten what we are. And what we are is a people whose hearts are so big that, no matter how small, we will extend help to our fellowman.

I said in an earlier post that this country has stood countless trials not because of its leaders or heroes or martyrs, but because of its people. This magnificent, brilliant, beautiful and deeply-spiritual people. When disaster strikes, we don't abandon each other but pick one another up, and the rule always is women and children first. We give so much to charities and to worthy causes, not out of a sense of noblesse oblige - how can that be the case when many of those who give are not of the "noblity" of this country? - but out of a genuine desire to help others. This charitable and helpful aspect of the Filipino spirit is I think part of the reason why the NGO culture is so much alive here, why volunteerism is a living, changing force in this country.

Perhaps we are apathetic, young and old alike. Perhaps that new, ugly word of sociopolitics - pragmatism - has buried the Filipino soul under so much muck. But the FIlipino soul is a resilient and powerful force that cannot be broken nor buried for so long. It cannot forget nor deny for long what it truly is. It yearns to shine forth. That was what both People Powers were all about: the Filipino soul blazing forth in all its majesty and glory to show the world that, yes, there is another, better way. That the world need not be about darkness and pragmatism, that reality can be soo much better and sweeter.

And, yes, that's why you fight on, even as your idealism flutters in tatters in the cruel winds of Philippine politics. Because you have faith in the Filipino, and that its true worth will once again shine true.

The End of the Reform Age

2006-02-09T11:42:00.000+08:00

Okay, before people react too adversely to the title, let's level-off here: yes, this is not based on any "scientific" proof, like demographics or even statements from the people involved. But, I do speak from my long experience and association with the civil society movement, especially with its more younger generation, who are essentially my comrades-in-arms if not close friends.

I think it all started sometime in the early nineties. There's this local band that has a song entitled, "para sa mga namulat sa dekada sitenta," or "for those who became aware in the '90s." For, truly, the call for deep-seated reform had its beginnings with the awakening of the Filipino youth in the administration following Cory Aquino's. We were the last children of Martial Law and the youth of the new democractic era that was ushered by the First People Power. We were the young who saw the Wall fell, who witnessed despotic governments - whether Right or Left - fall one by one as a wave of democracy swept the globe. Many older people regard my generation with a certain level of approbation, muttering beneath their breaths that we who came of age after 1986 never had it so good and that we never had to fight for anything more than parking space, a table during lunch and dinner at some snazzy resto or cafe, or for a place up front in some concert.

Of course, we proved the damned elders wrong when the student movement picked up in the mid-90s. I still remember my first mass action: it was over the Ramos initiative to amend the consti, and the usually Ivory-towerish Ateneans joined their rivals from UP Diliman and the also-resurgent ladies of Miriam College to form a chain protesting the thinely vield attempt by Fidel Ramos to extend his term via concon. I don't know about the others who were there that day, but it felt... good to do something like that, to shake a fist at Authority that thinks it can get away with abuses to power. We were young, we were Aware, and we were Active, and we were going to shake the corridors of power! And shake them we did in 2000 and 2001, as everyone whose opinion is worth something agrees that the success of the Second People Power was due to the millions of young Filipinos who turned out to protest the blatant display of trapo politics at the Senate's refusal to open the Second Envelope. It was the young who started it all by showing their indignation with the flash street protests that followed the refusal. And it was the young who, in the words of my generation, "put paid" to a regime of corruption and immorality by coming out in the millions to show the powers-that-be that they may hold the levers of power in society, but if nothing then through sheer numbers the young will trample their sorry trapo ass.

It was a good time, wasn't it? And a good time to be good. Despite everything our elders would like us to believe and accept, we showed them all that idealism, especially when backed by determination, dedication, defiance - three Ds to combat the three Gs? Hmm... - and a lot of creativity - the celfone as a weapon for a revolution; who'd have thunk? - can move more than one mountain. We dreamt, we acted on that dream, and we made that dream a reality.

Yet...

Has it really been just six years since PP2? But so many things seem to have changed, and many for the bad. What better way to... destroy the forces of reform than to drain them out of the country or co-op even their best and brightest? How many young people took up nursing even if their skills and talents are better served for other fieldds? How many even of the young leaders who fought on the Second People Power now work for the call centers? Heck, even my contemporaries who went to "traditional" corporate jobs have been eaten by their work. Back then, when there was a cause to fight for you didn't need to call twice; sometimes, we even went around looking for causes to espouse. Now, it seems so hard to gather people even for a simple get-together because of work. Hah, even those in civil society and government are eaten by work.

I don't know. Who's to blame? Gloria? C'mon: like what I've always said since the Garci tapes surfaced, she only acted the way we expected her to act so what's to be disillusioned about Gloria? To blame Gloria for all the ills of the Philippines is a gross reduction of the problem. Yes, she is part of the problem, but not the only factor in the equation. No: like the stuff you see in some astrophysicist's whiteboard, the equation is far more complex than adding one to one and getting two.

In the National Youth Commission, there is a changing of the guard that I think is significant, regardless of other opinions. Bam, despite a good chance of being retained for another term as Chairperson, has decided not to. In his own words - we got to chat today at his soon-to-be-former office, after a long while - "it's time to move on to other things." And he was saying the same thing to his longtime EA, Saira (also a good friend and adviser of mine, one of only two women who can give me a scolding and get away with it), and he was telling me the same thing. Cel Aves and Cris Arnuco have also moved on from the Commission. It's hard to find a team in the premier youth institution of government that is more reform-oriented than the one Bam led and had the likes of Cel and Cris.

This to me hammered the point that, perhaps, the "Age of Reform" that started with the Awakening of my generation in the 1990s has, at least for now, come to an end. The grand experiment of Generation X with trying to change society before we're 40 is over, and... we've lost. In one sense I can understand the Ostrich-like actions of many of even my colleagues in the old UCSC because the last few years have been a trauma bordering on fatal for our idealism. Our elder leaders have not only betrayed our confidence in them but also in many cases abused us, seeing us as no more than pawns in their power games. Our icons have failed us, whether to serve as a continuing inspiration or to reach the lofty goals and image they portrayed when they came out to challenge with us the demons plaguing this country and its people. And the values that we held dear have not only been broken by our elders - so blatantly in many cases! - but what's left has been dragged through muck and mud that we can't recognize what's left of our hearts and souls anymore.

Given the context following the mad clash for power unleashed by the May 1 Mayhem - civility between the contending political forces died on the bloodied streets of Mendiola that day, alongside propriety and a modicum of pakitang-tao among the trapos - how can we bring about change? Whatever little hold we had on the levers of power and influence now fade with the exit of Bam, Cel, Cris and the others in the NYC. The national-level youth organizations are either compromised, marginalized, or engaged in inter-org and inter-ideology rivalries to become as effective as we were in 2001 (but then, given the propensity of the NDs to stick to their overarching goal - the success of their Revolution and the installation of a communist government in the Philippines - who can blame the others for becoming so paranoid and going on the defensive?). The leaders who rose during the Second People Power are lost in the corridors of career and corporation.

Gawad Kalinga shows that hope still exists and that there still is something we can do. And there is Rock Ed. But unless GK and Rock Ed have a strategy in mind - I'm actually hoping the two are some part of one big strategy, a last attempt by the remaining reformist forces to bring about positive change, but maybe I hope too much - then all these "tactical" moves can do little the way they are now to effect change. It's like standing on some beach and trying to send the ocean back using only a pail, when you need a dike to hold back the stormy seas. And lots of people. But the strategy appears not there, and the people scattered.

I have a fear. Sometime when I'm ten years older, someone who is a kid now will be in their late teens or early twenties, old enough to understand the world he or she is moving in. And then that young person will ask me, why is the world a darker, crueler, messed up place? What did you and your fellows did to prevent this?

I could probably give a dozen excuses, but perhaps there isn't. Because we who will succeed those in power faltered sometime in the first decade of the 21st century. Because we were swept under by the forces of reality and pragmatism - the newest ugly word of Philippine politics, a convenient replacement for Trapo, since it sounds far more real and palatable than the latter but actually connotates the same - and were unable to put up a unified enough stand.

So there ends the Age of Reform.

Well, who knows? In Tolkien's Silmarillion, the forces of Good, represented by the Eldar and the Edain, were decimated. Yet one couple won over to the Powers and got them to rescind their Ban and thus Evil was defeated. I love that book, Silmarillion. It's one of my all time favorites. Who knows, someone or someones will be our Earendil and Elwing, find the way to our Aman the Blessed for us, and bring us the necessary reinforcements to end this age of darkness that has swept the country once again.

Ruminations on some rather... inconvenient events

2006-01-06T20:58:00.000+08:00

Where was I when I heard that?

Okay, I know: I have not posted anything on this blog for quite a while not. Part of me says, "ha, like anybody cares?" But then, the intent wasn't to be an ace blogger like, say, MLQ3 (an aside: the man is good. I've had the honor of working with him a couple of times in the course of my duties with the LP, and his mind works wonderfully. Basta. I will probably write something about some of the things he discussed some other time). No, no. This a place online where I can stuff these... thoughts. Mentats have problems staying silent. If for no other reason, my blogs are my sounding boards, so there.

Anyway:

Hearing about Ariel Sharon's stroke should have a cause, more or less, for minor concern for me. I'm not one of his fans; ha, ha, I am part of the legions of people who, though understanding the need of the people of Israel for a measure of peace and security, think that the late, great Yitzhak Rabin and maybe his chosen successor Shimon Peres had the best idea in securing an end to the decades-old Palestinian conflict.

That was until I realized something: Sharon was the one who called - and managed to pull off - the Gaza Withdrawal. Its pros and cons are not the issue here; that an Israeli leader would do so is an act that can be called... courageous. The IDF withdrawing from Gaza and allowing the Palestinians to govern it. The sheer... audacity of the move was so unlike the conservatives of Likud, much less its leader.

I am not a pacifist. I fervently believe that a people who destory their weapons simply to make a point about peace will be the first ones to die - if they're so lucky - under the bootheels of people who think in socially-darwinian terms. I am a firm believer of the concept that people have a right to defend their way of life if that way does not necessarily impinge on the ways of their neighbors, and that being sheep is nice, but there are always wolves on the prowl outside of the fence.

But I do believe that Men of Peace are the ones who truly make a difference when it comes to bringing solid results in the realm of conflict resolution. We Guardians are just there to allow them the opportunity to tame the lions. Peacemakers are effective because they change people in the place that matters: in their thinking, in their outlook.

How badly has the cause of peace suffered because of the untimely deaths of its leading lights? Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a delusional conservative fellowman of his at a crucial moment in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. John Paul II and Mother Theresa were given their rest at a time when the world needed men and women like them the most.

I think few people would call Ariel Sharon a man of peace. The man was from Likud, after all. But he was perhaps the only one with political will enough to enforce measures that would push the peace in Palestine, regardless of the cost to Israel. And given that Gaza, because of so many factors, is fast becoming a balkanized mess where the Palestinian Authority has no authority at all and the radicals hold sway, would the people of Israel follow another man who calls for a peaceful resolution to their ages-old problem? It is a mess there: hate feeds on hate.

And the people who have the capability to break that cycle of hate... are falling one after the other...

*sigh* Sometimes, it really is a weird world, isn't it?

Marriage in the Season of (Filipino) Discontent

2005-11-07T14:52:00.000+08:00

This incident happened about... a week or so? Sorry, bu tmy PC at the house crashed and I don't like making blog posts in public.

Anyway, I was on my way back from Makati. There were three girls behind my seat and I couldn't help overhearing their conversation because they were so loud about it. I was tuning them out, of course, but the Mentat Protocols works on trigger-terms, so when a set of triggers related to immigration cropped up in their conversation, my Mind simply refused to tune them out.

It would seem that one of the three was leaving for a European country, ostensibly to immigrate. All along, I thought she was doing it either as a nurse (and I will have an entry on that later on) or under petition from relatives. Then I heard she was marrying a national of that country she was going to.

Nothing unusual with that. Many Filipinos have tried the marriage route to get a "Green Card" or citizenship in another country. But what really caught my attention was the way this marriage was to be brought about: it would appear that relatives of that woman paid another cousin 70k euros to make it look like he was marrying her. Legally, there would appear to be nothing wrong; the "husband" would be picking up his "wife" here on January and then she'll be a naturalized citizen of that country by virtue of marriage. When she gets there, she told her friends they wouldn't even be living in the same house.

If I was a tad bit more conservative. I'd be scandalized. As it was, Liberal Catholic that I am, it still shocked me, especially with the casual, almost nonchalant way the woman viewed marriage, even more so with a cousin of hers, if only to ease the entry into a new country.

This is not to judge the woman; I don't intend to, scandalized as I am at the way something I was brought up to regard as sacred could be treated so casually. In a very real sense, who can blame people like her for acting the way she did?

But my Soul is... "profoundly disturbed" by this little incident. I brought it up with my Dad about a few days after, and I was surprised to find out that not only was this "practice" more prevalent than I thought, but is quite an old phenomenon! It's been going on since at least the mid-80s so it's not as if it's a product of our globalized world.

I was just wondering... what the hell has this world come to that marriage could be reduced into something so... simple as a means to an end? That people could be so... cavalier in their attitudes towards this most sacred of sacraments?

Martial Rule and the Law

2005-10-26T03:45:00.000+08:00

According to the 1987 Constitution, the President can declare Martial Law, but (a) several things remain in effect, like the Consti, the civil courts, nor is the writ of habeas corpus necessarily revoked, and (b) it needs Congressional approval to extend it beyond one month.

When I was born, Martial Law was only just about five years old, so my first-hand recollections of the event are rather nebulous, to say the least. Like most of my generation, all we know of the... horror when Proclamation 1081 was announced is through history books, teachers and professors, tales from our elders in CivSoc, and the occassional docu. Heck, we all thought Erap was going to do something to that effect - I mean, with Lacson and all - but it seemed the guy, in fairness to him, was a lot nicer than we gave him credit for. In fact, as one pundit described him, Erap was, despite everything, in awe of the law.

But from what has been handed down to us, a grim picture emerges. If the docu they showed us at the Ninoy Aquino Center is true, and so goes with history taught to us, Marcos actually acted even before 1081 was proclaimed. That while Tatad was reading 1081 the opposition and activists were being arrested. And there was also a ConCon going on at that time whose provisions would have severly limited Marcos' powers, and that of his cronies.

A lot has been said about the 1987 Consti as a reaction to Martial Law; in fact, many of its provisions that either enshrine civil liberties or prevent the concentration of power on any branch of government, is a clear indication of where the framers of the '87 were coming from.

Before Gloriagate was even on the radar, there were already talks about the charter being changed, especially during the (first) Philippine Political Parties Conference in 2002. As I've recounted before, I had this memorable conversation with Dr. Jose Abueva over Federalism. I wasn't sold on the idea, being a student of history myself, and nothing I've heard from the presentors - including Dr. Abueva - allayed my fears that the inherent extreme parochialism among some Filipinos, alongside political greed, could lead to the dismemberment of a Federal Republic of the Philippines.

So I asked Dr. Abueva: sir, what would prevent ethnic tensions (or something like that) from escalating to the point that States within a Philippine Federal Republic would secede, ala-Confederacy or Yugoslavia?

Dr. Abueva looked at me as if I was such a slow-witted student and said: that's impossible; it will be illegal.

I just sat there and said, "ah, ok." I wanted to pursue the matter, because I knew for a fact that there are some people - and some can be found here in the Philippines - will care less for the law, much less one drafted by academics in Imperial Manila, if it suited their purposes - whether personal or parochial - to leave the Philippines. I wanted to tell Dr. Abueva, "that's well and good, sir, but isn't there more? Because I'll be one of the persons who'll have to lead the charge to restore such 'rebellious' States to the Federation, and I'd like to know if, pretty soon, I'll have to risk my life because of you and your federalista cohorts who seem to be dominating the discussion on ChaCha."

The same line of thinking struck me as the idea of Martial Rule being reinstated by La Gloria went through one avenue of my Mind. Sure, '87 says she can't just declare Martial Law because Congress can nullify it anytime and impeach her for sure. Sure, the '87 has so many legal impediments to Martial Law...

... but the law could never really stop people who are determined not to follow it.

Nor could the law, as shown during the opening hours of Martial Rule, stop a person or the forces at the command of that person, if said entity cares nothing about the law.

Let's assume certain members of the military remain loyal to their Commander-in-Chief. Part of the thinking here is over the fact that (a) many senior officers remain loyal to Gloria, and (b) the military culture of not questioning orders. Of course, many soldiers have shown that this isn't entirely the rule in the AFP, but it still has to be disproven if men like the Oakwood Mutineers (bad example, but i hope you get the point) are the exception rather then the rule, troops who do question certain of the decisions and commands of the higher-ups.

What's to stop Gloria from using the immense powers of her position to tear down Congress, make the Supreme Court dance to her tune at gunpoint ("dance, judges, *bang* *bang*!"), and to haul off ala-1972 all of her opponents?

One of the things I try to teach my proteges is the necessity of taking things into context. And one of the comparisons I use to illustrate my point is that of EDSA I and Tiannemen Square. Ver wanted to bomb EDSA, but Marcos said no. Believe me when I tell you that no amount of heroism will prevent civilians from runninig away when really big explosions surround them and body parts and blood are flying around. Persons not trained for war or for killing follow the most basic of preservation instincts to run from a threat, and people would have run if Marcos had agreed with Ver and unleashed the power of the military on EDSA. Then maybe things would be different.

Maybe it would've been like Tiannemen. Why did the tanks roll over the students and troops gunned them in the hundreds? Because of differences. Because the people who won the power struggle within the Communist Party of China decided there was nothing wrong in killing the dissidents if it would preserve their power. A gamble, sure, because if the Chinese people had been outraged over what happened to their young who were spearheading the call for democracy, no military might or political creed would have prevented the collapse of the Chinese Communists. But nothing of the sort happened.

There was also this alternate story about a world where Britain lost to Germany in the Second World War, and instead of the liberal, democratic British being rulers of India, it was the Nazis that Ghandi faced. In the end, as the author resolved the story, Ghandi was bodily brought to the firing squad for even thinking of going against the Nazis, even if the protest was peaceful. Because the British were different from the Nazis. In fact, it is even said that what made Ghandi so successful in his resistance to British rule was the culture of the British themselves.

How does La Gloria think? How do her advisers think?

Perhaps, as Civil society and the other members of the opposition go about their campaign to take the little girl down, they should be asking those questions. One cannot simply bat against the wind, thinking one's righteousness will make all the difference. This isn't about morals and values anymore, or what's right or wrong because we who have been engaged in this since 2000 are now in the midst of a war.

And in war, some people play only by one rule: to win it all. And nothing, nothing, will stop people like that from doing anything to come out on top. Nothing will stop them. Not morals, not ethics, not "fair play," not deceny. And most certainly not some piece of paper with a lot of legal gobbledygook in it.

A Distrubing Development

2005-10-05T17:04:00.000+08:00

Martial Law is a term commonly heard (at least) among the punditocracy of late. I suppose one cannot fault the Philippine's columnists, writers and bloggers about this: many of them come from the freedom movement of the last Martial Law, and many of La Gloria's recent actions look as if we're headed that way.

I suppose I'm getting worried too. Ever since the Palace came out with its pronouncement of the "calibrated preemptive response," the action on the streets following the defeat of the impeachment has gotten... ugly. As in really ugly. Good Lord, what was Gloria thinking? Saying her government would use "the full force of the law" to prevent "illegal" rallies was like trying to put out a small brush fire with A1 jet fuel. One thinks whether that crazy little girl is asking for it from the Left. Or maybe she really has thrown all the "conventions" and considerations for civil liberties in an effort to silence her opponents: goad the (admittedly gullible) radicals to more street actions and then take them all down.

From what the news have reported, the Left have, indeed, called Gloria's bluff, staging one protest action after another. Two headed for Mendiola have already met with "CPR" anti-riot forces, netting for the government the secretary general of Gabriella and the president of Sanlakas. For the Left, these rather violent dispersals and arrest of several of their leaders and members have netted for them more airtime.

You know, sometimes her strategists and operators really confound me.

But this is, indeed, disturbing. Someone wrote that Gloria, being a Hahvahd-trained economist, would not go the ML route; such an action goes against her training. Yet her government's actions have tested the boundaries of securing the saftey of the state and its people over individual rights and liberties. This is a cause for concern, and I wonder if any of my old comrades in the Union are aware of this. Because we should. We or our succesors in the UCSC should be asking some very hard questions right now about where the country is going, while we still can ask those questions.

The Good Within Us

2005-09-30T11:45:00.000+08:00

I guess it's time for a balancing. Too much negativity here.

One of my favorite columns of uber-pundit Randy David was that one about his plane ride experience from Davao. Although hearing the sorry state of both PAL's fleet and its management makes me more nervous to fly with them (more than, say, the latest horror flick from NatioGeo's Air Crash Investigations), it was what he said about that inherently Filipino trait to be such an exemplar of humanity when crises come that really mattered in the column. Prof. David must surely have given many of his readers a "warm, fuzzy feeling" moment when he related how several passengers in that ill-starred flight helped each other cope with the stress. Something so simple as a person sharing excess food in such a situation can be such a wonderful occurence in this all-too-Darkened world.

(Dammit, did we fail that badly, that something like the aforementioned can be like a ray of light after a storm? Wasn't this what we were precisely trying to avoid, a near-Gibsonesque future?)

For about two or three days now, PDI has been coming out with news on the Vietnamese Boat People who've been in asylum here for the last 16 years. Perhaps as a break from the huge, stinking crap that is Gloriagate, the PDI editorial for today was precisely on this topic, and yesterday Ma. Ceres Doyo talked about "The Philippines' Non-Discriminatory Embrace."

Sometimes, the Filipino can be really... taxing. Everything from as "simple" as chronic jaywalking or people throwing their trash out of a jeepney window, to corruption and selfishness at the highest levels of government can really be a trial for a young person who genuinely loves his country and badly wants to help not only make it better but return it to the pre-eminent position in the international comunity it once played.

But there are really moments when what I consider the true soul of the Filipino shines through. You don't need to look at People Power, or the many battles we fought for freedom against powerful tyrants, or even in the many innovations this noblest of races made. No. All you have to do is look at that smile - warm, welcoming and true - at the hospitality to even the strangest of strangers. Warrior race we may be, but the Filipino can sometimes be too damned nice that we don't think our guests can do us harm (I mean, look at those who recieved Magellan and de Legaspi...). Our doors are barely locked, if at all, outside of the Metro. During fiestas everyone is welcome to partake even to the most modest of feasts (which is usually quite the gastronomical experience; province food is truly quite wonderful, no matter if it was made in the "lowliest" bahay kubo, especially to a palette that grew up on McDonald's).

But most of all, Filipinos would not think twice to extend his or her assistance to those in need, especially to times of crisis. We can't say no; heck, we don't even think of saying no. Yes, yes, I fully am aware that victims of accidents or crimes sometimes lose their valuables even before they get medical treatment, but I think that's something that's chronic only here in the ratrace of a much-Westernized Metro. Out there, where winds are purer, the grass greener, and the river sparkles with light and life, the moment you fall, people will pick you up and help you get back on your feet with nothing asked in return. People are even thankful they were there to help you when you needed the assistance.

New Orleans comes to mind. Perhaps that's why it was so shocking to my Filipino psyche: at the end of it all, what was boggling my Mind and profoundly disturbing my Soul was not the destruction of a major American city in the age of the Internet, but how... horrible was the reaction by people in the face of the crisis. The looting I can reconcile, it happens. Heck, it happens after a World Series or Super Bowl, so what's new, right? But for rape and murder? For a civil defense officer telling someone in distress to go to hell and it's every man for himself? One statement captured it all: "I don't treat my dog that way." Consider how many disasters we have gone through in this country. Now tell me how many degenerated into what New Orleans experienced? Isn't it a convention of sorts that when crap hits the fan, we humans band together to live through the experience?

When the Philippines goes through major disasters like what hit New Orleans, you'll find relief goods and volunteers by the truckloads and they just keep coming. You'll find the people hit by that disaster helping each other; it's rare to see Filipino communities turning on each other in the name of survival during crisis situations. No: something in the Filipino soul finds it anathema to leave others in need to their own devices when the Filipino can help even in the least bit. Like offering pastries to fellow passengers in a very unlucky flight. Or offering a home to displaced people from a foreign land.

In his Republic, Plato (through Socrates), said that people's souls can be likened to Metals. The better the person's soul, the better the metal that serves its analogy. It wasn't that Plato was being discriminatory; he was simply pointing out that, though all metals are important and have uses, not all metals are the same. The Guardians, the ideal humans of his ideal society, were of Silver and Gold.

I can't recall if it was Prof. David or MLQ3 who said it. Maybe both did. In fact, I see it a lot these days in columns: if something will save us from insanities like Gloriagate, if something will explain to the world why this country hasn't become a "Failed State" despite all the crap that has hit it... it's the quality of the "metal" of the Filipino's soul.

Despite our leaders and the world they've brought us into, we will prevail. Because if the good within the Filipino cannot be cowed by the howling wind and driving rain of a super typhoon, or the devastating force of a volcano, or the many guns, goons and gold of a dictator, what can prevent it from shinging forth once again?

This is why you gave up a bright future with the corporations. This was why you wanted to serve the Filipino, why you earnestly believe what Ninoy said, that the Filipino is worth dying for.

Senseless Death

2005-09-29T13:36:00.000+08:00

Last Tuesday, there was a reported case of an 18-year old freshie from FEU figuring in a horrible accident at Pureza, which is the street before Nagtahan here in Manila. The victim was dead on the spot, having been dragged and perhaps - considering the damage done to her - ran over by the 10-wheeler truck that killed her.

When one's job involves dealing with war, famine and all sorts of political chaos, one would think that there is a certain... distance to death. Because death is part and parcel of your job, and your duty to the Republic can call for your taking the life of someone to protect it, you think that there might be a certain level of... insulation to the psychological impact of the loss of a life.

But there isn't. At least so long as one claims to be human. Those who absorb the deeper aspects of the Sword's philosophy know that to draw the blade from its sheath is in itself a failure in the part of the swordsman; all life is sacred, even your enemy's, and if a situation demands that you unleash steel and draw blood, that you end a life, then it only means all avenues to a peaceful solution did not suffice. There must always be sadness at the ending of a life because life is about potential, and when a life ends before its time, it would seem as if a story had been cut in the middle without there being any resolution.

I remember being on the PUJ that evening it happened. Actually, I overheard about it already at the LPHQ; Erick Mante, our sysop, mentioned that his cousin figured in an accident. But it only dawned on me much later, on the jeep on the way to Nagtahan, when two manangs were talking about it.

What is really depressing in this incident is the senselessness of the death. Although it is necessarily the negation of physical life, death need not remove from the human his or her dignity, nor must it be entirely shorn of purpose. Perhaps one eloquent testimony to purpose in one's death is that of John Paul II; in the days leading to his coming to eternal rest and the grand wake and burial that followed, it seemed as if the world had found both a moment of peace and a reminder of the unity in us all, of the good within us. It was a loss that somehow filled you, paradoxical as the statement may be.

Yet even with 15 units in Jesuit theology, and 16 units in Atenean philosophy, incidents like this seem to challenge your ready-made answers to the "why" questions. Why did that girl have to die, and in such a violent manner? Perverse as it may sound, but a Mentat can more readily "understand" the why in a person who died as a result of war, even if that person suffered much first before expiring. C'est la guerre. But for a recently-turned 18 year old who just went to the corner 7-11 to buy something before meeting her boyfriend at school (who even texted her, as her cel showed, "ingat ka") to die, and die like so... it not only boggles the mind but profoundly disturbs the Soul.

Is not the world, even on a quantum mechanical level, a place of causality? Except for the philosophical "Uncaused Cause," is there not supposed to be a reason for everything?

Disturbing. And for a measure of comfort - and I dearly hope the family of that girl finds more than a simple measure, and that her soul rests in peace in God's embrace - I turn to Kant: beyond this small circle of reason, is the realm of faith.

That should suffice, I suppose. Even though your Soul still sits uneasily in the seat of your Being.

Idealism on a Slow Dive (or is it slow...?)

2005-09-28T02:00:00.000+08:00

Answering a simple query from old comrades in the Union showed that this topic definitely is what's occupying large parts of my consciousness, to the point that my typos and miss-spells are becoming more and more frequent and I seem to be having a hard time expressing myself, and despite my demeanor I am actually a rather irritated person right now.

And wasn't I at the Gesu not two nights ago? No Questions were answered that night; God refused to take any and told me to sit there and not think for a while. Before I left, I saw the inscription on the statue of Jesus in front of the Church. It was the passage for those who labor on coming to God and laying down one's burden. It was the first time I deigned to read the inscription in all the time I went to the Gesu, and it was somehow kind of apt to what I was feeling.

Idealism. From the word "ideal," a situation where the grand majority of the elements, if not all, are right or at their best. If the young of this world subscribe to any ideology, if one were to interpret that term at its broadest, then this is probably it. Idealism marks the young, is commonly found with them, what fuels their activism and even their rebellion, their desire to bring about change - mostly positive - to the staid order of their parents' generation.

It's also an "age-dependent" worldview. In a world where the term "naive" is a pejorative, idealism is often viewed by the "elders" as something of a phase. Like pimples, hormonal surges and rebellions against the established order. From personal observations, this would seem to start even while the young person is in college; the demands of graduation during senior year - the thesis, job fairs, a foreshortened school year, senior syndrome, etc. - begins the long road for the idealist to a life of pragmatism and, yes, compromises. Although there will always be exceptions to the rule, the minute a young person tightens that necktie or straightens that power blouse and skirt spells the beginning of the end for idealism. Heck, how many student council officers have I seen shine brilliantly during their first three years of service as young leaders only to fade to near-obscurity at their senior year because of the demands of their "other life" as students? And unless these selfsame SC officers join an NGO or major service department upon graduation, many would be eaten up by the demands of their corporations, relegating their advocacies and ideals to little more than weekend jaunts, if ever.

Such a negative view from me. In truth, I understand where they're coming from. And at the same time I don't. Actually, in moments like this, I really don't. In really horrible moments I ask, rather loudly, how can they so easily give up the fight when (a) they're much, much, richer than I am (and thus should be able to weather the low salaries of most NGOs and government agencies), and (b) given the context of what we all fought for during our time in college. Mine was the generation that stood on the Second People Power. I and my contemporaries were the field officers for civil society, their generals and shock troops. Where are we now?

I am constrained both by my upbringing and Training to (further) castigate my generation. But then, I am, actually, putting the cart before the horse, in a manner of speaking. My idealism is in tatters not (solely) because I feel as if my generation "disappeared" after People Power II (or the May 1 Mayhem, at least; that incident seems to have badly injured the psyche of most young moderates), but because of the fallout from Gloriagate. The above is simply a rant that should have followed the reasons for my idealism's death and not the source of its demise.

Idealism, as with any worldview, depends on certain concepts for its foundations. There must be something you believe in that allows you to take such a contrary point of view with the rest of the established order. A word usually linked to Idealism is Disillusionment. There is a word that reeks with so much pain, bitterness and negativity. Disillusionment is the negation of idealism. It is the poison that can quickly kill not only the desire to effect change but also shatter the lens that allows you to view life from a more-or-less positive light.

Actually, Gloria herself is not the source of my... disillusion. She is merely acting the way she was expected to act; there was hope she wouldn't, but it’s hardly surprising she didn't. Too bad. It isn't the antics of the (original) opposition; that was also expected and is really nothing new. Nothing extant can be the source of the fall of one's idealism. It is always sourced from much closer, to the things, people and concepts that really matter and therefore define that idealism.

There are three things that define my Soul. These are my lenses. These define the way my Being relates to and tries to affect the world around me. I am a Catholic Christian, an Atenean, and a Liberal. These three are the pillars that support my world, and (largely) determine how I act and react to any given situation. They are also the reasons for the paths I took that led to where I am right now: at nine years, I swore an Oath of service to God; all the conceptual, ideological, philosophical and theological training of years of Jesuit education led to one fateful morning in Liberation Theology class when, in a mentally-unguarded moment, Ateneo's "Bug" decided to bite me and therefore make me strive to realize that Oath; a Question to God on how I could continue serving Him after college led to one morning when I would be recruited into the Liberal Party, and although hesitant and skeptical at the beginning, I realized that here was a good way to effect the change I wanted, for what better way is there to reform society than through the power and resources of a fully-fledged political party that was not only far-less trapo than the rest but has the potential to be a real political party that is the vehicle for the realization of the dreams and aspirations of those who agree to its philosophy?

One of those pillars is badly undermined right now. I am not alone in the disillusionment with that one; indeed, it is the death of the idealism of my comrades there that weighs heavily on my own moribund belief that we can still make a difference in this country. For the first time in my life I contemplate leaving this country, not only to find better opportunities abroad but simply because, in my worst moments, I can't seem to stand it here anymore and neither do I feel welcome and at home.

I remember a talk Dr. July Teehankee gave us. He said that the reason why a new People Power hasn't happened is the fact that no single institution retains the necessary clout to call the people to the streets. My thinking during PP2 was this should be the last time this would be done. People Power leaves you with a warm, fuzzy feeling after, but it isn't the solution to the ills of society: indeed, it is merely the beginning of its rehabilitation, and it is a long and often painful way to go. People Powers are enemas at the very least, and usually they are akin to subjecting your country to chemotherapy since the "disease" has become so malignant the normal mechanisms for check and balances in a society are already ineffective.

And where are the people who can command one's respect, the men and women who stoke the fires of idealism in the young? Brilliant as we are, the young, by virtue of age and (as many elders will look at you) "inexperience", do not hold the levers of power in society. Powerful as our voices are, these are oftentimes not enough to bring about the change that we want. The Philippines is lucky to have leaders nominally scared of the public; in other countries, the powers-that-be will not bat an eyelash to ask their soldiers to fire on you or their tanks to roll over you if you disagree with them. Yet, our elders are prepared to go only as far as lip service to the demands for reform. True, substantive change has barely seen the light of the liberating sun in the 19 years since the end of martial rule. Even those who appear as paragons for the young oftentimes fall short of the image they wish to project.

In warfare, one of the worst things that can hit an army is demoralization. In fact, the school of thought that does not subscribe to the idea of victory-through-annihilation revolves around the ways in reducing the enemy's morale. Even the largest or most advanced technologically of armies will wither in the face of determined opposition if the morale of that army is low. If you are going to ask people to die for a cause, then they should believe in that cause, enough that they would be willing to sacrifice their very lives for it.

Idealism is a lot like that. It has to be sourced from a strong belief that what you are doing is both effective and worth the sacrifices you give. It is not that you ask for something in return for your efforts, no: it is simply having something that you can tell that natural, pragmatic aspect of humanity that all this is worth it even if your life is a wreck. Or that the cause is worth your life.

But when things happen that undermine the foundations of your idealism, where do you find the reasons, the rationale, for continuing the struggle?

When the ideology and principles you were made to love and respect are paid lip service by those "above" you, by the ones who taught you those beliefs, what can you believe in?

When your leaders and elders not only fail you but even force you to subsume your principles for personal gain or even for their intramurals, who can you look to for inspiration and guidance?

When your colleagues leave you alone to stop the rush of your country to oblivion for their careers and personal lives, can you still hang on? Especially when you are made painfully aware that your own life and future is a shambles because of this struggle, while theirs is so much brighter in the corporations?

Even worse: when the people and organization(s?) you have served for so long abandons you without any explanation, how are you expected to feel then? Especially when they are making hash of everything you've built and paid blood for?

I was old enough to remember how the world felt when the Wall fell. It was even nicer because it happened on my birthday. That was a time of much hope, when despotic regimes - whether of the Left or Right - fell one by one, the nuclear threat was ebbing, and prosperity seemed like the name of the game. It was a brave new world. Somewhere along the way, something happened to bring us all to this world of darkness, despair and disillusionment.

And with your idealism in bloody tatters and twisting in the gale force winds of pragmatism and personal agendas, how can you still lift your sword and slay that dragon that is before you?

To tell you the truth, Death looks much more inviting...

Blah, Blah, Blah (or the prelude to the more serious posting that SHOULD follow this one)

2005-09-21T18:25:00.001+08:00

Pardon me for this post. I just spent the just-concluded workday either re-compiling data for the new LP website or transcribing the proceedings of our last Democracy Forum. In short, my brain is a rather mashed mass of material that might be in very little if any condition to discuss the serious stuff that's been percolating in my consciousness for the last few days.

So, to give myself a mental break, I shall skim through a lot of "light" topics.

A note to my proteges: yes, we MUST have such mental breaks. Yes, even the most formidable of Mentats must take these mental equivalents of pausing and taking a breath, otherwise the sheer load of processes our minds take on as Analysts might crash those same minds.

Okay, first off: Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. It rocks. Big time. This isn't Spirts Within, people, but the real thing. Squaresoft - er, Square Enix - has always been known for its cutting edge tech and excellently-crafted role-playing games for the console games. Final Fantasy VII still stands as the RPG for consoles, even though its successors generally have better tech. Like I've said a dozen or more times before, no RPG has involved me so much, has taken me into its world as much, as FF7. I kept playing the game over and over again, whereas I didn't even finish FF8, FF10 and X-2. I didn't even play FF9. The only other console RPG I finished was Xenosaga I, I think.

When Square came out with FF: Spirits Within a couple of years ago, many of us otaku and RPG fans eagerly awaited it. For some, it was okay. For some, it was a disappointment, much like the Star Wars prequel was to fans of the franchise like me who've read the books in between (or the Lord of the Rings fanatics - like me - who've read the books, plus Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, who screamed at some of the things done in the movie, like what they did with Arwen. Aragorn was cool, though). So when news of this "continuation" of the FF7 storyline came out, fans were understandably on edge. But expectant. The demos were cool, but will Square deliver?

Very much so, in my opinion. The CG was smooth; in fact, I think Square was bragging a bit on what they can do now when you see the end credits. But not just the CG, the story was right on the money for the FF7 franchise. It was just as epic and as engaging as the game. And the fight scenes... You just have to see it.

And if for nothing else, their treatment of Tifa Lockheart in FF7: AC made it all worth it, especially her "pa-cute" scene at the end. Good Lord, but that is one beautiful virtual lady... And, yes, she kicks butt. I've always had a weakness for those strong-yet-caring types...

*sigh*

(I told you this was light stuff...)

I also purchased this book titled "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius." I've barely started, but the way the author crafts words and sentences has caught my attention, aside from the humor.

I've also designed this character in White Wolf's Exalted in the pattern of a Jedi. Ewan ko ba. I really have this fascination with the Jedi, more than the psychokinetic push that people kept doing after watching Episode I.

I've also not set foot in pROSE since Sunday.

And I've been trying to get a date since Saturday, too (",)

Oh, well.

Listening to Stonefree. Listen is playing, my new fave song. I don't like the fact that it's so similar in theme to "Would you be my number 2?" - I've always been of the opinion that, if you can't give a lady your Heart's full attention, you shouldn't because that lady deserves nothing less and so much more - but it captures my mood.

Basta.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

(bear with me. My Mind is currently doing the biological equivalent of a memory dump)

Funny, but Apt

2005-09-09T16:48:00.000+08:00

I'm actually having a bad day, mitigated only by texts to my "princess" and a nice chat session with my Little Sister, Rhea.

When all that's horrible today got through my psyche's defenses, I decided to wallow a bit, since it was definitely impinging on my work. I have something I wish to discuss over this blog, but maybe later.

Meanwhile, I kept scanning news sites and blogs for anything on the Party; despite what I feel right now, I am an officer of the LP and I love this Party and I will defend it as much as I am able given the circumstances. While browsing through MLQ3's blog, he mentioned something Newsboy posted. So I checked it out.

I still feel bad, but I got a good laugh out of the post. Since I am in no condition to tackle that big question on why I am not an active participant in the anti-Gloria movement (despite my earlier participation in PP2 and my admitted dislike for her), and since Newsboy did a much nicer job of explaining, more or less, what I feel and think about this whole sordid mess that is Gloriagate, then I suggest you check it. Click the link above. It's soooooo similar to my sentiments...

And I got to admire MLQ3's... courage to say what he did over ANC to the anti-Gloria people. check his blog out, to see what I mean.

Marriage and the Paradox of Commitment

2005-09-08T12:19:00.000+08:00

Ha, ha: Blooey can really come up with the nicest-yet-deepest things. Must be all of those people who taught her at Ateneo; I've always admired Bloo's set of Mentors, who are some of the best and (coolest!) professors of our school. We're not just talking about those who were her in-class teachers, but also those profs she had a friendship with (and, yes, that is very much possible and common in the Ateneo, to forge lasting friendships with our professors, even if they're not your in-class teacher or they gave you a grade below B).

One of those is the legendary Eddie Boy Calasanz, philo prof and heir apparent to Fr. Roque "Padre" Ferriols. Both professors always, always, have long waiting lists of students wanting to get into their classes, and this is considering they're not known for giving really high grades, especially the good Padre. Prof. Calasanz is the only person ever to get an A+ from Padre Ferriols.

Bloo posted an article in her blog Prof. Calasanz wrote on Marriage. I read it through and found myself smiling. What was written was, technically, nothing new to the Atenean: one of the core concepts in Jesuit theology is the Paradox of Commitment. The Jesuits and their theologians at the Ateneo teach us Blue Eagles that, contrary to popular belief, commitment sets you free. Because, at its simplest, commitment gives one a solid foundation for Action and decision. No more is the future a confusing and ambigious mishmash of possiblities because you now have a point of reference to choose which possiblity to take. You are better able to plan your future within the context of your commitment.

Prof. Calasanz' discussion on the issue of Marriage, or what makes a good one and why it doesn't seem to go right many times is truly quite intriguing. Check it out in the link above (or post a comment if it refuses to link and I'll try to post it here), and let's see what you think about it.

Which reminds me about a little incident today. Urban Bank called to verify my intent to apply for the Ateneo Alumni Association Visa card. The caller asked, as is expected for a confirmation profile, if I was single or married. I nearly answered, "wish ko lang married na ko..." (",)

Ah-ha-ha-ha.

La lang. Just an aside. Actually, I just wanted to share that post Blooey made.

Doronilla and Monsod speaks... and I don't think CivSoc will like it...

2005-09-07T18:19:00.000+08:00

Forgive any irrationalities and/or confusion in this post: not one hour after returning from Makati from a meeting, the 5th (!) batch of FEU students to research on the Party came around so I had to answer their (rather insightful) questions and give them the tour of the HQ. Suffice to say, I'm kinda tired and the day isn't over yet.

I'll Recharge first: check the blog of my "little sister," Rhea. Quite a sharp, observant, aware and insightful young lady. Her most recent post about her Socio 10 class is a very, very interesting read. If I was part of the "elder" population - the genealogical one - I'd be inspired to hear that a member of the youth can not only appreciate a course of hers but truly learn from it. If more of the young that followed my age group thought and feel like her, especially regarding what's happening with the country, then there truly is still a reason to hope.

And she isn't even 18 yet. Truly amazing...

On to the serious stuff. Today is Wednesday, the day after the latest protest march against GMA. So what has happened?

Data is still streaming in (and it's hard to fully use the analytical protocols of a Mentat when you're tired), but what caught my attention was the columns of Amando Doronilla and Winnie Monsod. Partly because both expressed in far better ways than I could the reasons and rationale for my actions - or rather, my inaction - since the Gloriagate began. As one of the "field officers" of K2Y during the Erap RIO, as someone who is known as a "passionate fighter" for his causes and beliefs, shouldn't I have been the first to loudly call for La Gloria's resignation?

It looks like Gloria may have survived this latest assault after all. There are no massive crowds. No outrage at the killing of the impeachment. Her foes batter at the walls of her fortress yet it seems not enough, even to make a significant dent.

As I said, the two writers above said it better than I could, especially in this condition, so just look them up. I'll just comment more later. But let me just say this: I don't think a lot of people in Civil Society will be pleased to see those columns...

Siege Warfare

2005-09-05T16:28:00.000+08:00

As i write this, former President Aquino is at the Batasan, sitting alongside Susan Roces. As one columnist said, the image of the Republic's two most famous widows is statement enough for the war that is Gloriagate.

This morning, Madame Cory also announced that she will lead a march to the Batasan tomorrow, Tuesday, to... encourage recalcitrant congressmen to side with the Truth. This is akin to a throwing down of the gauntlet from the foremost icon of democracy this country has. This only means that Pres. Aquino has taken up the challenge of leading the pro-impeachment forces, and has joined her still-significant clout and drawing power to that of Fernando Poe's widow.

Truly, this is a very powerful force to send against the walls of Gloria's Jericho.

I can hear the Catholic schools mobilizing; I may not be involved anymore with the operations of the Union, but I have guided its strategies and policies for so long, and trained so many of the current SC officers and operators, to not know how the UCSC member-schools will react. In this they are truly our heirs, as it was our generation that provided the numbers during PP2. Although it pains me to see our successors take to the streets once again against a sitting president not four years after we did - I genuinely thought PP2 was the last time we would do such a thing - it also makes me proud to know that the Union's leaders do not balk when the clarion calls.

Gloria should be afraid...

I just spent a whole day sifting through various columnists and news reports. As usual, Fr. Bernas was informative, and Randy David sets it straight (while de Quiros never fails to raise my ire one way or another; what a cheap jab at Ateneo, Ateneans and the Jesuits in his column today. Can't he praise the La Sallians without having to throw mud at Loyola Heights?). Meanwhile, Sec. Bobby Tiglao gives an interesting piece from the point of view of the Palace.

Again, Gloria is under siege. Once more the forces seeking her ouster bring their trumpets to sound around her walls hoping to see them fall like they did with Erap and Marcos. This time, it appears they are united under the leadership of Cory and Susan, and where few from the moderates joined the earlier actions, perhaps more will this time, if Sunday at DLSU-GH is any indication.

Will she fall this time?

This would be interesting to see. This would be, what, the fifth time she has been challenged? This would also be the first time she is assaulted without a solid backing from civil society, and there seems to be a tacit, if hush-hush, support from the Church, at least from the major religious orders. Remember that the orders run the Catholic Schools, which provided much of the manpower for the moderates during the RIO and PP2.

Will she fall?

In siege warfare, there are merits and demerits for the position of both defense and offense. For the former, there is the advantage of prepared positions, of strongpoints of defense and knowledge of the terrain. For the latter, there is that undisputable fact that the defense has no way of resupply or reinforcement. The defense would either (a) try to sortie and break the invader's ranks to lift the siege, or (b) tough it out until substantial relief forces come to break the siege. The offense, meanwhile, assuming their own lines of supply and reinforcement are secure (isn't Napoleon a genius, when he emphasized that a crucial factor in warfare is the state of one's supply?), has all the time in the world to whittle down the defense through attrition and demoralization.

Gloria's ability to repel this latest assault depends on just how well her own forces are at this juncture. As Prof. David said, she has been waging a multi-front campaign but few if any deal substantially with the issues facing her. Instead, she has fallen back on politics - and the bad side of it, in fact - to save herself. Instead of "feinting" the opposition with a "breakthrough" in her "defences" from an impeachment in the House, she has decided to kill it instead, calling on her political allies and more to buttress her defenses. The opposition, meanwhile, has gotten so incensed over the admin's tactics that, to continue battlefield analogies, they've gone berserk over what happened and now lash out in anger seemingly without the benefit of strategy or tactics.

The way I see it... if Cory had not come out as strongly as she did the last two days, the opposition would have no chance left. Susan Roces alone would not have sufficed because of the people around her that alienates the grand majority of the middle class, the necessary ingredient to any successful mass action, and because of the presence of the Left. Cory's arrival unifies the forces ranged against Gloria, and gives the middle class that "excuse" they're looking for to join the protests. There are still issues that need to be threshed out among the different forces going against Gloria, but Cory provides all of them - the pro-Erap/Poe, the Left and the Moderates - with a leader who can bring them all along. The oust-Gloria movement has now found its Joan of Arc.

Will it be enough, then?

And I hear some of you asking: why will I not be there tomorrow?

I will answer that one when I am sure as to why. Right now, my reasons are my own, but I wish you all the luck in the world.

Nightmare in New Orleans

2005-09-02T15:07:00.000+08:00

I'm taking a break from Gloriagate to dwell on a situation on the other side of the globe: the flooding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina slammed into it. This is after reading an account of the devastation - there really is no other word to describe it - in the International Herald Tribune website.

Of course I've heard about the storm; I do watch CNN still, every now and then. Besides, it's not everyday you hear of a Category 5 storm, especially one that blew into a major city. I'm not as familiar with the Hurricane Category scale as I am with the Fujita Scale (the one for tornadoes), but knowing that Cat-5 is the highest is info enough for me.

Damage and loss of lives were to be expected. Filipinos aren't strangers to killer storms as we get really rough typhoons every year. We know that despite one's preparation there really is little that can be done against the fury of nature unleashed.

But... the way IHT described the situation at New Orleans you'd think you were watching a post-apocalypse movie. A stadium sardine-packed with refugees, with more streaming in and tempers flaring, sanitation deteriorating, food, medicine and water rapidly depleting. Bodies - thousands might have been killed, despite the early warning, according to government sources - floating in flooded streets. Massive looting. People trying to escape from a city virutally dead in stolen vehicles.

All I could think of while reading the article was, "my God..."

Perhaps it was the fact that the city being spoken of was in America. And not just any city: this was New Orleans. This is the city of cajuns and nice, spicey food. Of vodoun. It isn't New York or Las Vegas or Los Angeles but New Orleans is a city steeped in culture. Heck, it was one of the places I wanted to go to in case I found myself in North America.

But to hear a major modern city being evacuated and abandoned for months on end outside of a warzone is something... new. A city abandoned by its populace becauyse of war or plague is something that seems to still fall under my Training. Those things are nothing new. How many ruined cities stand in the former Yugoslavia, in Africa? But New Orleans...?

I feel for the survivors of this tragedy. The storm may have spent its fury, but their trials are far from over.

Once More, with Feeling

2005-08-30T14:57:00.000+08:00

*sigh*

Okay, first off, this is what I get for doing the ostrich bit. In one very real sense, it is infinitely nicer to jump into Junon and go hunt Aqua King along with the rest of the pROSE population than give a damn about what these stupid polticians are doing to the country. Besides, I think I'm more of a use there than in RL, since other players thank my Escort for healing them and keeping them from losing 3% of their experience points.

Anyway, enough off-topic peregrinations. As I said, this Tuesday seems to be the opening act for the nth escalation of the Gloriagate. If I was still acting as the Mentat for my generation (and not, as mentioned above, going adok over pROSE), then perhaps I would have noticed that there was a political angle to one of the most... confusing "holidays" I've ever seen. "Semi-holiday," as other pundits described it.

Sometime today, Ma'am Dinky, along with Sec. Butch Abad and some of the "Hyatt 10" members (Hyatt TEN, okay, Sec. Bunye?) alleged that the Palace, specifically through Gabby Claudio with orders from La Gloria herself, ordered the filing of the Lozano complaint. This is a serious charge. A lot of people, whether in pol-ops or not, CivSoc or general public, believe that Atty. Oliver Lozano filed the first of the impeachment charges as a ploy from Malacañang to torpedo the whole impeachment. One, it can prevent the passage of other charges because the '87 Consti was clear on there being only ONE complaint, per year. If in case some technicality allows the passage of others, like the Amended Lozano, then the thinking was the Lozano complaint could act as fallback for the anti-impeachment people to either strike the complaint on the Committee level for lack of sufficiency in substance, or it'd be a weak case vs. the President if in case it ascends to a now-seemingly hostile Senate.

There have been rumors going around political and CivSoc circles that the House Committee on Justice will "kill" the impeachment today. In fact, we've just heard that LP stalwart Tony Roman of Bataan will vote "abstain," and this is one of the "hardcore" pro-impeachment reps of the LP. Rep. Vargas resigned yesterday from the Party, officially because he was anti-impeachment (being pro-status quo) and as an objection to the pressure being exerted by the pro-resign Liberals for Party congressmen to sign the impeachment. We've heard that the Palace is using a carrot-and-stick approach to keep congressmen from signing the complaint.

What are the implications of what's happening - and probably will happen - this week? People have been talking about, and looking for, Gloriagate's "Second Envelope." This is, of course, in reference to the legendary trigger event that launched People Power II last 2001. God knows the anti-Gloria groups have tried so hard: the setting-up of Bunye with the first release of the Gloriagate tapes; the coming-out of Samuel Ong; the rallies after the fallout stemming from the President's apology; July 8. That's at least four major assaults on a supposedly unpopular president and she's still there. And as Jove Francisco reported in his blog, the President and her men are still largely, kampante, confident.

Is the killing of the impeachment Gloriagate's "Second Envelope?" Two Sundays ago, the former KOMPIL II groups gathered at DLSU-GH to convene the "Black and White Movement." I was supposed to go but my body thought it was much nicer to oversleep on a Sunday and I woke at past 2:oo p.m. I don't know what happened there, and, more importantly, how the gathered Moderates went about the whole gathering. In such crisis situations, the mood of the people involved is a much better gauge on where the body will go than whatever slogans are chanted or manifestos released. When we held the All-Leaders Conference in January 2001, the mood was rather dark, and some of us in the youth contingent were going for each other's throats during debates because of the sense of impending defeat. In fact, the discussions ended on the option for civil disobedience.

One week later, though, the "Second Envelope" happened and PP2 was well on its way...

Nnnnoooo, we didn't plan that. Well, we were hoping for one, since October 2000, but... Well. C'est la guerre, I guess.

So. Do we have an escalation? Still monitoring. In my opinion, the impeachment is dead outside of an Act of God (like last time?). The oust-GMA movement may be, too. The mood of the general public is... different. What about the surveys, you say? Well, what about them? Although I have an appreciation for such tools of research, I am still skeptical about the claim that what a thousand people say is truly reflective of the moods and thoughts of 80+ million people. And as Heisenberg implied in his celebrated Uncertainty Principle, the mere act of observing the subject of study changes the natural state of that subject. A person who probably wouldn't care less about Gloria on a usual day would probably tell you how horrible he/she thinks the prez is when you ask that person. It's like with Values Ed class: everyone will say smoking, boozing, cheating and pre-marital sex is bad, yet will not think twice about doing the abovenmentioned in the first possible instance.

Again, I am not pro-Gloria; I think she has messed up royally. I am also pro-impeachment and would love to see the proceedings happen again.

But, the rules of this war seemed to be so vastly different from the one we fought so ardently four years ago...

*sigh*

Pleasantly Surprised

2005-08-23T17:10:00.000+08:00

Sometime ago, I made a post about being "pleasantly surprised" by Pope Benedict XVI. It stemmed from the many - and sometimes acrimonous - discussions and debates about the latest successor to the Throne of Peter and the man who had the ill luck to be chosen head of the Roman Catholic Church after the much-loved John Paul II.

My point in that post was that we were prejudging the man; at that point, what did we Catholics really knew about (the then) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger? That he was the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the body tasked by the heirarchy of the Church to... maintain the sanctity of its beliefs. To some, we know that it's the modern-day version of the once-feared Inquisition. To "liberal" Catholics, Cardinal Ratzinger was the figurehead for the orthodoxy that is choking the faith, which also prevents the Mother Church from both being responsive to the needs of its members and relevant to their lives. Especially to the young of the Church.

But, sometime after seeing the newly-elected Pope Benedict XVI give his "urbi et orbi,' I somehow softened, at least, my stance on him. Considering that I am a self-confessed liberal Catholic, I should'v bemoaned his ascension to the Papacy. Instead, I was defending the man, especially in light of the horrible tirades the British press gave. I said that Pope Benedict XVI, instead of being the cause for consternation of us Catholics, just might "pleasantly suprise" us. And what better way to find out than at the 20th World Youth Day in Cologne, Germany.

From what I heard, I was right. Far from being "God's rottweiler," Pope Benedict XVI came across as a lovable, gentle and inspiring figure. During lunch with a dozen young delegates, one of those in attendance even said that she wanted to give the 78-year old pontiff a hug "because he looked like a teddy bear!" Imagine, comparing the Pope, the most powerful religious figure of our time, to a plush toy. But somehow... it was apt. And it brought a smile to one's lips because, of all the imagery one would expect of the new Pope, a teddy bear was the last thing you'd think of.

Yet this says something of the man, of the impression he made to the future of Catholic Christianity. I've always said that we young people, especially the young of the Catholic Church, are not rebels because of some mistaken Western belief that this was de rigeur for young people, but because we're searching for answers and the world of our parents seemed to murky for our liking. We see too clearly, we who grew up on the celfone and internet. We see our elders keep trying to stuff into us values and beliefs that they themselves do not follow. How would you feel if you get so confused at what exactly is right or wrong? Thus the youth rebel; we refuse the sordid, broken and vicious world of our elders, they who wrecked so much of the future that will be our present. But amidst this darkness the young search for the light, for a sure path amidst the pothole-filled roads of our forebears.

That, I believe, is what Benedict XVI is offering to the Christians of tomorrow: not just hope, but the stability of values and ideals that is the bedrock of Catholicism. Does this mean we "liberals" have to sacrifice many of those beliefs we treasure? I don't think so. If I understood his messages clearly, that won't be the case. It's just a... reorientation. A re-centering of our lives and paths to Christ.

In his opening message for WYD '05, Pope Benedict XVI said, "Dear young people, the happiness you are seeking, the happiness you have a right to enjoy has a name and a face: It is Jesus of Nazareth, hidden in the Eucharist. Only he gives the fullness of life to humanity! With Mary, say your own "yes" to God, for he wishes to give himself to you. I repeat today what I said at the beginning of my pontificate: "If we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing of what makes life free, beautiful and great. No! Only in this friendship are the doors of life opened wide. Only in this friendship is the great potential of human existence truly revealed. Only in this friendship do we experience beauty and liberation" (Homily at the Mass of Inauguration, April 24). Be completely convinced of this: Christ takes from you nothing that is beautiful and great, but brings everything to perfection for the glory of God, the happiness of men and women, and the salvation of the world."

Many times - and these days it's more often than not - I hate being right, but only because it is in the context of my work as a Mentat, and analyst. I sometimes complain that it seemed as if the things I see as most likely happening that do come true are the bad ones.

But this time, I'm glad I was right.

An Escaflowne Situation

2005-08-16T13:36:00.000+08:00

Well, maybe not really, but it's probably a lot closer to one than I would deem comfortable.

(This from someone who got a 36% hit rate in a Zener test...)

To those not familiar with anime, Escaflowne is a steampunk-and-fantasy mecha series. One of its central characters, Hitomi, has the power to predict the future - among other things - especially when she does a tarot reading. Of course, Esca is also, in my opinion, a very good example of quantum mechanics at work (watch until the near-to-the-end episodes to get what I mean), but for purposes of this post, the tarot readings in the series will be the starting point of my discussion.

And, oh, yes, I just came back from Davao City last Friday. Wonderful place; it's not my Manila, but it was wonderful, nonetheless. Maybe more on that later.

Before we left for KALIPI's Mindanao Congress Monday last week, I went into a frenzy of searching for programs and other files to download to my recently-crashed palmtop. I thought that, since it just got memory-wiped and I was going to the field again, I might as well "stock up" on neat stuff. Besides, my BB asked for games to be installed once again in my "geekisized" Handspring Visor. So there I was on a Monday evening, surfing Download.com and looking for programs to install when I came across a program for Zen tarot.

"Zen tarot? And it's in the games section? What the..." But with my curiosity piqued, I decided to include it in the packet I was compiling for installation. Heck, I've always wanted to have my own genuine tarot deck (it's right up there in my wishlist's Top Five), so why not try the electronic version for now? When the program opened, I opted to leap straight in and was presented with a screenful of blank rectangles, which I presumed to be the back of the "cards."

Part of me was very skeptical at this point. Understand that I (believe I'm) psionic. My parents got some sort of training when they were younger and the potential seems to be there when I look at the things I and my siblings have done throughout our lives. I also did some studies on the matter during my time in the Ateneo (and I think Fr. Bulatao couldn't see my aura... clouded, he said...), and scored rather well in the Four Aces test for clairvoyance. I used to frequent the websites of the Koestler Parapsychology Unit of Edinburgh University, the Consciousness Research Labrotary, the old Stanford Research Institute, and found some readings and proceedings of Project Stargate. Heck, I'm from Ateneo's Communications Department, where Spirit Questor mentor Tony Perez is headquartered and where a "nexus" of sorts supposedly exists in the righthand wall of the film room. I may not agree with some of what the Questors do, but I never questioned the reality of what they face.

Besides, mysticism aside, tarot readings can be used as a method of introspection and self-inquiry. Sometimes we really are afraid to face certain things about ourselves. I'm one proof of this: I've been aware of some things hounding my mind for some time now, but I refuse to confront them.

So I began to randomly pick the required number of cards for a Celtic Cross reading. Heck, I didn't even frame a question. I just tapped my stylus here and there, and, oh, here looks fine enough... there we go... last one...

Until now, I haven't wiped the reading from the palmtop's memory. I guess the results truly disturbed me... because they seem so apt.

For the last few weeks, if not months, I've been quite... disturbed (there's that word again)... about the things happening in my life (see my "cascade" posts). It comes from quite truly having a world you've known for a long time, and a life you've accepted you'd be living, oh-so-suddenly seemingly come under threat of utter dissolution. On that morning when Bobby Guevarra did that fateful de Mello reading in LibTheo class, my lifepath was (again) changed when I decided to be true to the promise I made to God when I was nine to serve Him. Not as a priest, no (Light's sake, do you want a scandal?), but in whatever capacity a person who said no to the utmost of Calls can still do.

That was 1998. Seven years later, and I suddenly find my life without direction, and therefore for the first time in my life - even in that time from 1994 - 1996 where we lost everything - I realized I didn't know what future I was facing. Even worse, the foundations of my life were being eroded, if not utterly annihilated by the events that seem to coincide with Gloriagate. It was as if my personal life decided to further complicate matters - as if they weren't complicated enough! - by putting the losses I've suffered within the context of this latest of national crises.

It all seemed so... clear... then. Eleven of the student councils of the Catholic schools gathered at Ateneo's ISO to create an organization that was their own, as a message to the ND-dominated NUSP and its ilk that we were taking our schools' destinies in our own hands, and to the Republic at large that the Catholic schools would be engaging more actively with the concerns of our constituency, sector and the nation but on our own terms. Back then, it seemed that when I asked God, "so where do You need me?", He gave an answer that was immediate, complete and, as I would eventually learn, to my liking. So much so that when the UCSC's current generation began to kind of... ostracize me (heck, even my own premier protege did so one time...), it felt really bad.

Understand that I will be the first to defend the Union's right to non-interference, even from its Alumni; I was the one who asked Roben Savares, then the Chairperson of the CORE, to remove any voting rights for the Alumni representative to the CORE, and insisted that we Alumni and members of the Board of Advisors should attend meetings only "upon request" by any of the officers or members of the Union.

But, still... (sigh)

And then I heard that after the... disaster at the Palace, when GMA's handlers pulled a fast one on the UCSC to make it look like we were supporting her, there were calls for its disbandment, for schools to pull out, and even questions about what exactly were the schools getting out of it. I guess the tipping point for me here is when one even voiced that NUSP was better. NUSP! That training ground for idealogues of the communist movement?! I think I was never insulted in all my years of service to the Union, for someone in the UCSC to say NUSP was better in terms of giving back to the schools, in "doing something," and in being democratic.

And there's the Party. During the start of my service with the LP, I was skeptical. But that was understandable, considering where I came from. Eventhough I never mouthed the slogans of the Left, I was still a part of the new students' movement that rose in the late-90's, the ones who eventually became the "field officers" for civil society in the Erap RIO. To me in 2000, the term "good politics" was as oxymoronic as "democracy in a communist system."

But because I was primed by my upbringing and Jesuit education to appreciate systems, and abstractions, the more I engaged in the promotion of the liberal democratic ideology and the Party that espoused it I realized that (a) I was a libdem even before I heard of the term, and (b) what better way to bring about change than for the "good guys" to take hold of the reins of power and guide the Philippines to a Bright Tomorrow? I had been with CivSoc and understood the inherent weakness in it, despite the the power, reach and capability of the "Fifth Estate." I knew of the corruption of the Fourth Estate, and its being a slave to the almighty Bottom Line as much as the Third was (entites like PCIJ being the exception). I believed in the LP, its ideals, its principles and vision. This was where I wanted to be. I thus found the third of the important defining terms for my soul: Catholic, Atenean and now a Liberal.

But now...

I still believe in the Liberal Party. I still think that, especially with Roco's death and the obvious track of the revived Nacionalistas, we're the best chance to reform the political culture. If the Philippines is to get out of the rut it has been in since the Americans stole our independence in 1898 and get moving, then change must come from all sides. And there have been signs of that in all the other sphers of Philippine society, but in the political sphere we Liberals are supposed to be it. If no reform happens here, the Philippines would just be like a wounded person who didn't get fully treated; there's a big chance that wound you left out will get infected and endanger the whole person again.

It's just... hard. I feel the cold claws of apathy clench around my heart. It seems that everyday it gets so hard to care, to find the fire inside that makes you Move, that makes you Act. I keep thinking, I'm going to be thirty in less than three years and nothing I've done in the last seven have made a difference so maybe it's time I looked after my self now? Because no one else seems to care for me anyomre. Not the org I built, the Party I served, nor the people who I stood by whether as comrade, colleague, friend or lover.

There are times I feel even God has abandoned me, a failed experiment, a failed Knight. I don't feel the surety of His hand in my life anymore, like when he brought me to the Ateneo, to the NYC, to the Union, to the LP. Have I lost so many of the battles He has asked me to fight that I think He may be asking me to go to the rear of the front and let others do the fighting? If I'm not being asked already to resign my commission as one of His Knights and become a "civilian."

For that was what I saw in the tarot cards: a slowing down. Although the cards put it in a positive light - a time to introspect, to take stock, that I should be appreciative of this moment given me by God to look, to study, to see where my life is going - I still feel... bad. Sad. Horrible. Confused. Eversince that first day that I met the other schools in the 1st UCSC Congress, I felt that this was my life. I threw away any chance at a financially- and personally-fulfilling career with the corporations when I took this path. Not becuase I hated the rigid structures of corporate life - hello, I grew up in a corporate family - but because... this seemed right. Because it felt as if I was doing something with my life, helping other people. Because I remember how I felt the last time I looked into the eyes of the anawim, how much revolted and angry I felt that people lived in such conditions, that their souls lost so much of their dignity and beauty and that I wanted so much to do something for them. No, alms, the crumbs of a rich table, aren't enough for me to give: they must share the table with me, otherwise it would be unjust!

Yet, yet...

One of the primary precepts of Precogntion, the first in fact, is that we who see the future do not see an absolute; rather, we see the most potentially real of the varied futures, given the current circumstances (Heisenberg's fault, I guess, as much as it was Einstein's for the lightspeed limit).

The Jesuits taught us that there is a profound Paradox in Commitment: it sets you free. Because you have dedicated yourself to something (or someone) the future is no more a state of confusion or arbitrariness because you now have a solid foundation for decision and Action, freeing one from the state of indecision and from being tossed to and fro by chance and chaos.

My future is the cloudiest it has been in all my 27 years. The foundations of my commitment are breaking down or are being taken from me.

And now the cards tell me something I have long been denying.

So what do I do now?

After the Cascade

2005-07-14T15:53:00.000+08:00

And it was a cascade for me in more ways than one...

For the benefit of people asking me about my take on recent events, especially in the light of yesterday's massive (relatively speaking) rally at Makati, I'm posting that part of my email to the Piraeus Group on the latest developments of Gloriagate.

Another thing, before I paste the excerpt: there is a trick in making a rally look bigger on cam. Remember those aerial photos of the rally? It looks like a lot of people were there, right? Although admittedly 30k is a lot of people, it looks bigger shot that way because the "pinpricks" and "dots" that represent the heads of people blend in a mish-mash kind of way with the gray ferrocrete of the street. So it looks jam-packed.

Also, a camera, even one with a wide-angle lens, can only capture so much of a scene. If you take a shot of the central activity area - say, near the Aquino monument - at a certain angle, then it really looks big even with that ground-level shot. But if you pan the cam around, you'll see that the crowds don't go farther than a few hundred meters from the center of the activity.

Now, for the excerpt:

To those of you asking what will happen to the country... my initial read is that, because of what happened in "The Longest Friday" (or "Presscon Friday", as I call it), GMA stands to stay in power at least until the SONA. If we go the impeachment route - which seems highly probable right now - then... 2 months? If she'll get kicked out, it'll probably be early next year or late this year. If this reaches December, then the Oust-GMA movement will be dead at least until the middle of January 2006, and by then many of the politicians would be thinking of May 2007.

Ah. Oh. Oh shit. That's right...

God help me and for once I wish I can be wrong with this... but I think the Oust-GMA groups will try at least one more escalation and cascade situation like with TLF. They have to. Oh my God...

1. If this reaches September, how can you mob any students from the moderate schools? Finals is near.

2. If this reaches December, or even November, the natural calming effect of yuletide on Filipinos will most likely dampen enthusiasm for the protests as much as it did - or even more so - when we did the RIO back in 2000. C'mon, people, we were there, remember? We all know what December did to the RIO.

3. If somehow GMA reaches January 2006... all I see there is either (a) lack of interest as many politicians begin gearing up for the 2007 elections, or (b) fatigue will set in. Revolts and protests on the magnitude of a near-EDSA cannot be sustained overtime in the same way you can't stay angry for a truly long period of time.

So I think the opposition will once again escalate the situation to cascade it like with the TLF. But... that's a dangerous gambit because they've thrown so much against GMA and she's still there! Like someone I admire a lot said last night, this whole "Gloriagate" thing will make a fascinating thesis. I mean, a very unpopular president has managed to hold on to power despite (at least!) three very major cascade situations... amazing... And the last one was throwing everything (and everyone) including the kitchen sink and all the stinky bits at the bottom of the drain. Yet the little lady is still there... how fascinating...

I don't know what the Oust-GMA side will do for another escalation-cascade manuever. Many of the key ingredients were used up last July 8 with little effect except to further damage the economy and give the pro-GMA people a means to circle the wagons and dig in. In military strategy, the one on defense always has the advantage in a war of attrition, even if outgunned and outnumbered. And right now it's fast becoming a war of attrition, with advantage back to Gloria - who's on defense - after TLF fizzled and the CBCP gave out its statement.

But they (the anti-Gloria forces) have to. Because time isn't with them. Aside from the socio-cultural and political angle, there's also the economic. Eventually, the protests will take a toll on the economy that those people asking her to step down will begin looking like economic saboteurs. I'm not kidding: let's say you see that the forex rate is, say, 60:1, then you see the rallyists at Makati / Mendiola / Wherever, what would you think? Especially if you keep hearing the news as, "the political instability is bringing the economy down..." All GMA has to spin it is by saying, hey, I'm trying to do my job here but these (censored) want to be in power and they're doing all these rallies and down-with-gov't acts for that and making the economy go down. She doesn't even have to refute any statements from thereon. When the economy goes really down and people are still shouting "Gloria out" without more solid proof than what's come out now... the protest is dead.

So expect an escalation once again in the next few days

Not Exactly (Another) Gloriagate Post

2005-07-07T03:34:00.000+08:00

Well, yes, I was thinking about doing one. I mean, it's the hottest topic of the day, and I'm supposed to be a Mentat. Like what Thufir said, you can't stop analyzing your data.

Unless, some part of you decides to... take a leave of absence...

Ha, ha, I'm actually irritated at the anti-Gloria forces not exactly out of a sense of indignation over the mess they made of the economy, but because they screwed up my routine. Since when did I complain that I really can't take my frap anymore?

And why is it soo much better to jusy play R.O.S.E (oh, yes, it rocks big time...) and DW4: Empires than listen to another bit of news on this damnable Gloriagate?

Since when did I become so...

Ha, ha, as if I don't know the answer to that.

And maybe because my systems are beginning to realize that we are, indeed, in the "lemmings" scenario. How hilarious that Gloria fell for it, admitting over nationwide media that, yesh, it wash mai voiice in the tapesh. How stupid can the Palace pol and media ops can be? Now it's escalated and all these leaders are taking the "moral high ground" by asking her to resign.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Fucking Lemmings...

It's soooooo... no, not stupid. All those "middle forces" that have called for her resignation on moral grounds, or because, regardless of guilt, she has lost her mandate to govern, do have a point. If you had stood on EDSA during People Power II, how can you condone what the President did?

But, but...

I wish... I wish they'd thought on it some more. Go past the surface issue of morality, legality and propriety. Look at the dynamics and background of the forces moving and contending the Gloriagate. Ask the questions many wouldn't want to hear: yes, yes, morality and all is dandy, but, children, why now? Why was it just revealed? Why is the opposition so hot to get people on the streets when they can use constitutional measures to take her down? Where are the people who actually did the operation? Surely, if it was ISAFP, and with a divided military, someone should have "rescued" these men if they were incarcerated?

There are so many questions... yet so many of those who've come out for Gloria's resignation have not looked past the morality and propriety issue. This is a little bit off tangent as an analogy, but it's like talking peace with a warmonger: do you honestly expect the other side to smile and shake your hand and leave you in peace? People tend to judge other people through their own values and perceptions, but he/she isn't you. It's like the sacking of Baghdad. The Caliph surrendered after a lengthy siege, hoping to at least have his people and the rich culture in the center of the Muslim world spared the ravages of war and plunder. Unfrotunately for the Caliph, he was suing peace from the Mongol Horde. Check your history books to find out how gruesome it was after they hacked the Caliph and his party to pieces right in front of the gates of Baghdad.

Has anyone really asked themselves why the other side(s) are acting the way they are, even if the call is the same? Do they honestly think that

You see, I've gone beyond the "surface" issues beacuse what we have here is a classic struggle for a country's future. We're talking endgame scenarios, of what will happen if Force A gets their wish, or if Force B does this and that. You skip the surface issues because you know all the sides in this war except maybe for yours plays a very, very dirty game and they don't think in terms of what's good for the people or not. The Opposition wants to be back in power through extra-consti means because they know they will never regain it evermore. The Left see in this a wonderful opportunity to inch closer to their goal. The military thinks that this time may be it, after soo many failed coups.

Gloria has failed us big time, that's not under debate. We all know that. But this isn't the RIO. This is post-PP2, where sociocivic fatigue has set in and the world is much, much darker than when the '90s came along. Back then, there were choices.

Now, what are your choices? Do you even have any?

Honestly, has anyone even considered what will happen in a post-Gloria scenario?

Here's one, for the "Phyrric Constitutional Victory" scenario: Gloria resigns, or is forced to, or gets impeached. Let's say Loren's dispute of the elections fizzles, so Noli really is the Prez now. Let's disregard who he chooses as VP.

Ask yourselves: will the Opposition and the Left settle for this? People, they want a junta because there is no other way for them to sieze power.

Noli will be subjected to intense pressure. Maybe he has a chance, if he chooses a Liberal as his VP because the LP has the network, the resources and the people to back him up. How about the Nacionalista's? Maybe a Villar VP-ship will see the NP grow in numbers again, but can you trust political turncoats? And can Villar not take advantage of all that political windfall? But these are turncoats and trapos; when the pressure gets too intense, they'll leave Noli hanging in the breeze.

So who does he turn to? ABS? Maybe, whether or not he disassociates himself from the media giant. So now you can hit him with allegations of Ch. 2 being the puppetmaster this time, and isn't it the Lopezes who own both Ch. 2 and Meralco?

Let's say GMA resigns in... five weeks. Let's give her until August. September she's out, Noli steps in.

In less than six months, he's also going out...

Ah-ha-ha-ha. Why am I so damned pessimistic? Why do I dream of holding the line, alone, for the Union as our forces flee from a surging mass of anti-Gloria / pro-Erap / Radical Left tidal wave?

Why do I soooo much want to...

*sigh*

Does Rock Ed have any activity soon? I need to do something positive and immediate-feedback, because all this is starting to get to me.

And I'm depressed already...

*sigh*

Hope, and the Multiplication of It

2005-07-02T04:00:00.000+08:00

No, this is not a Gloriagate post. Believe me, I've tried several times to do some along those lines shortly after it burst into the scene - and, really, there are times I wish I was wrong when the precog is a bad one - but time and circumstance have prevented me from doing so. You should see the drafts...

Instead, I'd like to talk about a little something I went to Friday evening (it being 3 in the morning of Saturday, 2 July 2005, when I write this). Besides, you want more on Gloriagate, go to PCIJ's blog.

When this person who came by the rather unique nickname of Gang presented Rock Ed Philippines during the June 2005 CORE Session of the UCSC, a lot of thoughts came to my mind, some of them rather not good. I guess I was thinking like some so-called "veteran" of the last four years of intense political warfare and dozens of failed attempts at social engineering: you've seen it all, come through it all, and what have you got to show for it? Another political battle. You've stared into the abyss so long that you think it's beginning to wave back and call you friend...

But my curiosity was piqued. Rock Ed. The concepts behind it - alternative education to bring about upliftment - sounded familiar, maybe all too familiar, and you wonder what could be new here. We stood on EDSA in 2001, dammit. We went through the bloody PUNK and the 2002 NAPC Youth Summit. We defended Davide, remember? And am I not UCSC? Did we not coordinate the (supposed) forces of change as the Coordinating Council of KOMPIL II Youth? What was Youth Alliance, then?

But go I did. And glad I was that I did.

Maybe it was the sheer... audacity of it. As Jaime Garchitorena put it, we were as... eclectic a bunch as you can find, coming from such diverse fields and backgrounds. Many NGOs and alternative educators there - the publishers of Adarna were there, alongside the marketing manager of MTV - but there were artists, theater actors, managers and the occassional lawyer and law student. Heck, we weren't even one-tenth of the forces my groups mobilized in the last four years since the RIO. These weren't the experienced field operatives and commanders of civil society and the student councils.

Yet somehow... it felt good. Maybe even much better than when Danny Javier announced the one millionth soul on EDSA that fateful January in 2001 when you thought a new dawn was breaking on the Philippines. I think I've been too long in the trenches of this War that I've forgotten how it is to be with, as the saying goes, "like minded individuals" that could still... dream and act on that dream. Yes, perhaps that's what's missing; I've contemplated for so long whether I should abandon the War and let it all go hang because... because the realities of life in the front lines of the Movement eventually does takes its toll on you, on the spirit. You get so beaten up badly trying to hold that line you drew on the concrete with your blood that you can't lift your swollen eyes anymore. And in the last few years it has felt like such a lonely battle, what with the Piraeus scattered, the Union (until this new batch came along) rendered moribund, and the LP becoming more like... government...

The energy in the room was palpable. For the life of me I cannot remember the last time I've seen so much... hope, so much enthusiasm in a room full of young adults who were thinking of ways to do the hardest job of all: end poverty. Nationwide. In our lifetimes. Good Lord and a half, but do these guys have any idea of the sheer... scope of their - OUR! - goal? Do they know that we've been at the status quo with everything plus the kitchen sink yet it not only stood firm but co-opted so many of us into its staid and decayed structure?

Probably. Those weren't naive people there, despite their lineage and economic status. But, but...

... there are plans to buy a flatbed truck, paint it all over, turn it into a makeshift stage, and let it go around the country teaching kids in plazas and eskinitas about issues and values...

... Glaxo has agreed to counterpart-fund a vaccination drive, and Batanes is first on the list January 2006...

... how about wrapping three buildings in Makati with white ribbon - the symbol of the Global Action Against Poverty - including, as Jaime added to the idea, Oakwood, to transform it from a symbol of rebellion into one of hope...

... or how about flooding Malacañang with postcards that ask the President to make good her promise to deal with povery...

Personally, I like the roving school idea best, and I'm wracking my brain as to where we can find funding and non-monetary support for it. But the other ideas, some of them even seeming so simple as compared to those bloody "big" projects of ours in the last four years - ah, yes, the PUNK... there are nights I still wonder whether it made a difference or was I just a party to wasting more than P2 million? - yet their probable effects...

And the people themselves... you'd think that everybody has degenerated into versions of the crass politico or me-first entities that either leave the country to earn more or stay here yet waste all their talent in call centers (and, again, let me make it clear that I have absolutely nothing against call centers; they have made the lives of many ordinary young men and women better without the social cost of overseas employment. But to hear so many in my circle who so easily went that way... or went corporate... *sigh*). It was just... great to hear other people ask the questions you've been asking for so long, or think and feel the same way about issues like irresponsible wastage disposal or road values.

And - heh, heh - being with the Rock Ed people made me realize just what kind of creature five years of political work has done to me. I actually wanted to stand up and ask for proposals and concept papers of these projects to be given to me so I can show them to funders... It's a good I've gotten a hold of my leap-before-looking mentality, or I would've probably embarassed myself... I was actually compartmentalizing my new group's dreams in the black and white of bureaucracy, and somehow that felt rather... wrong... Oh, sure, there will probably be a time when we have to do that, show a potential donor a proj prop, but... not now...

I don't know where this will lead; I am still a creature of the World I have lived in and fought (and nearly died so many times) for since the founding of the UCSC in 1998, after all. I did not get my position of Strategic Director because of any other reason save that of my skill as an analyst and gatherer of information. So I can't help but wonder about all these plans when they start coming up against that wall called the status quo. But that's the tired, overly-cynical, and near-hopeless person who's become a casualty of the very forces he tried to harness for the Bright Tomorrow.

But... just how did revolutions start, anyway? With a few men and women who believed in a certain ideal and were willing to fight for their cause. How did the Berlin Wall - and communism - fall? When so many people pushed that no guns or tanks of a repressive regime could cower.

Perhaps that really is what appealed to me: the people. Not too many, yes, not the battalions that we gathered on EDSA... but dedicated all to the ideal of ending poverty, in whatever form it may be from what I can gather from the conversations. And that's what's important: knowing that when you light a candle in the dark, you're not alone. Because so many people lighting their own little candle can banish the darkest of nights... and that wall isn't so big and tough if more than one person is pushing to bring it down...

Absurdity, Chaos, and the State of the Philippines Today

2005-06-07T03:03:00.000+08:00

For, truly, is it not absurd?

Perhaps there is a truth in the analysis that, given the weakness of our fundamentals - economic, social, political - as well as the length, breadth and scope of the corruption of the system - again, economic, social, political and add to that cultural and religious - the Philippines is, to coin a phrase, in deep shit.

The thing is, is it, truly, as deep as either our so-called specialists and - eternally damn them to hell and the creatures that spawned them - the opposition paint it to be?

How much, truly, of the current mess is because Gloria screwed up bad - and, make no mistake, she did, has and still is, wonder of wonders for someone supposedly so brilliant - or simply because some certain of our good citizenry painted it so much worse?

Is there, truly, chaos? Are we as much on the brink as so many voices say these days, or are those same voices pushing us all to that edge?

It is so absurd: Filipinos are inherently hardy, but we all saw - twice! No, in fairness to Jerome, thrice! - what happens when hardship becomes too much. The Filipino's back doesn't get broken by the proverbial straw on the proverbial camel's back... we kick back at the oppressor. Hard. Where it hurts. Enough to bring our oppressor down.

So why are they not kicking back? Oh, c'mon: socio-civic fatigue? Give me a break. Does anyone, anyone, actually believe that, given all the shit the Filipino has gone through, that they'd just either bear with all this crap because there are no percieved options?

Just how much can our so-called "analysts" insult this great people?

Of course, it can't be denied that Gloria has made such a royal mess of everything. I can't think of what she or her surprisingly stupid handlers and advisers have not done wrong. I may not agree with a lot of what Lito Banayo says, but his description of Gloria and her troupe seems right on the money: punch drunk.

Or is this all one massive maskirovka? The little lady making it look like she's all vulnerable so her equally (or more so) stupid opponents would stick their heads out, literally volunteering to have them severed by the headman's axe...

I read the papers everyday. At least three of them. Because its my job. And aside from those columns written by priests, or those by socio-cultural and historical writers, everything seems to be about doomsday is coming. I don't have to read de Quiros' often seditious writing, or those obviously seditious ones in the Tribune to see all that.... negativity....

One of the things you aren't taught outright in Communications is the way anyone who knows information flows and processing within a society can manipulate that flow for a desired outcome. But its there. It is in the core of every theory and principle of communications, advertising, journalism and public relations. The Sender-Reciever Model, when expanded and properly appreciated, is like a manual for the Communications major on how to use that one powerful weapon of modern society: social engineering. You know how information moves from each factor in the system, and how it is processed. You can manipulate that information so that it becomes the stimulus for your intended effect. Isn't that, in its most rudimentary form, how advertising works? You implant a particular stimulus inside the target market's mind, so when he or she comes across the associated trigger, you might have the desired outcome.

I wonder if these columnists think they're doing a service to the Republic by crawing like stormcrows over a storm that, even it hits, may not be as bad as they say it is? Hurricanes happen despite our control of the atom, but when someone knows that a storm coming, what do most sensible people do? They make the ship or house as tight as they can so they'll have a chance to live through the experience. And if they're additionally responsible, they'll help their neighbors prepare.

All this... crawing... what purpose does it serve except to deafen the sound of the church bells calling the people to gather and prepare? Why don't they instead craw against the predators in the midst, those who wish to take advantage of the storm to rape, pillage and plunder once more? ALTERNATIVES! SHOW US ALTERNATIVES! Who, those cowards in the Netherlands? Those bloodthirsty, intolerant, godless lieutenants they left behind who sap the strength of our youth by hoodwinking them to the supposedly historical inevitability of their dead religion?

Who, the so-called "opposition"? Please. I can accept why many among the general public believes these jokers, but... really now. Isn't it soo obvious....

*sigh*

There is nothing that brings me down more than a people acting like... lemmings. Incredible, isn't it? Whatever the hell is happening to the Philippines now, it's not (a) something we can't fix because (b) it's never really too late. Not when a people can bring together their collective energy, talent and skill to put their house in order. Perhaps it is true that travelling gives you a new perspective, and what it has done to me is appreciate the fact, that, yes, God has been kind to the Filipino. We are not Somalia. We are not shattered Yugoslavia. We are not East Timor. We are not, most definitely not, Argentina.

Yet... there is this seeming battle of... perceptions. I can See because my Training allows me to, both that of a regular Communications Major and the more advanced ones of my Mentat protocols. It would seem that the First Estate has bungled badly, and the Fourth is making it look so much worse while elements of the First take advantage of the whole situation to make it look much worse so they can regain power. The Third... is still nebulous to me, which can be fatal for a Mentat. The Second... is everywhere and nowhere, putting fires out, while fanning others to a conflagration, singing hosannas to God all the while.

All this chaos.

Yet the people go on. They strive, despite their leaders, to make little islands of serenity, stability and hope. Despite all the crowing of the Fourth Estate, the people still hear music, still hear laughter. There is, beneath all this chaos... something else. Something, though not exactly the bright tomorrow, is at least a calmer space. A place where there is hope, where people build, or at least try to. Again, despite their leaders.

All this chaos. All of it so... absurd. Like lemmings leaping off a cliff.

Or... maybe not... sometimes, the Human spirit needs chaos in order to leapfrog its growth. It is like spiritual kaingin, burning the dry grass to give a chance for new life to grow.

But... it's all so... disjointed...

How can there be anger and chaos among people who just want to live in peace and security?