Does that mean that they are any worse than Gloria or better? Doubt though that they can be any worse – oh no sir, impossible to be worse than Gloria.

If they’re better – by golly they will be setting a bad example indeed to pro-Gloria young uns – Escudero and Cayetano are two young men out to get bad bad bad horrid lil Gloria. Just won’t do!

How on earth can frigging gloria stay perched on Malacanang high chair if some good folks are out to get her….

What about the opposition do your realized what they have been doing and intend to do? Do you have control over people like Ping Lacson. Do you realized that the a vote for personalities like Peter And Chiz will be setting a very bad example for the next generation of politicians.?
Open your eyes, Manolo!

It was the foremost conservative columnist Geroge Will who once wrote that W. has a theological belief in the power of the military to fix things.

“Grand ideologies have died,” sayis Magno. How can he say that in the present context of the American Empire’s “Jihad for Democracy and Free trade”

The marketing of Democarcy and Free Markets for all. “Market Fundamentalism” has emerged triumphant over the ‘The Evil Empire’of communism.

The foremost market jihadist in the Philippines is Magno.

For a country created and shaped by empire there is no foundation except that created by empire in a fedual based economy. Hence the ruling class families are trying to cope with the onrush of finance capital from maturing developed economies. Some will disappear while some will merge with the more powerful ruling classes from abroad.

No other attempts at trying to discuss ideas are tolerated outside that basic so called democratic, market fundamentalist framework. Outside that fundamentalist religion you are branded a communist or at the very least a terrorist.

Fatwahs have been issued by state institutions in the U.S. against the enemies of this Jihad for democracy and free trade.

Hence you do not see credible intelligent policy debates. Anyone who does is branded a heretic or the new buzzword a terrorist.

Look at the writings of the Philippine Commentary. Pure American Jihadist leanings vs Islamos. No soft power for this jihad. This neo American Jihadist forgets that for soft power to work you have to have the idea of hard power. For a vassal state you cannot play the diplomatic game since you do not have both.

I cringe everytime I hear Celdrans Business News on ANC describing the ideas of corporate warriors. Emphasis on the word warriors.

Be careful with words that mean jihad. It suggests absoluteness.

Being branded a jihadist is not only limited to Islamos. The sanskrit word svastika the bent cross which was the Indo-European (Aryan)symbol for peace became the
symbol for the jihad for the “Master Race.”
Joseph S. Nye Jr., professor of international relations at Harvard, is the author of “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.”
Just don’t mention the war on terrorism

Joseph S. Nye Jr.
Published: February 8, 2007

OXFORD, England: Britain recently banned the words “war on terrorism.” Late last year, the Foreign Office told cabinet ministers and British diplomats to stop using the phrase. According to the London Observer, the shift marks a turning point in British political thinking and underlines the growing gulf between British and American approaches to the continuing problem of violent Islamic militants.
Why would America’s major ally, a country with troops fighting alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan, take such an action?
Some attribute the change to cultural differences. Terrorism is an age-old technique, and although our shared language is replete with words like thug, assassin and zealot — all residual traces of ancient terrorist groups — it seems logically odd to declare war on a tactic.
Americans have a rhetorical tradition of declaring war on abstract enemies like drugs and poverty, while the British have focused on concrete opponents like the Irish Republican Army. The British also know that waves of terrorism often last a generation before dampening, and that it is best to be specific about immediate causes.
The basic cause of the British change, however, lies in a different analysis of the current problem. Both the United States and Britain have experienced horrific mass murders. The bombing of the London transport system by Islamist terrorists has made the date 7/7 as salient to the British as 9/11 is to Americans.
Today in Opinion

Moreover, the threat continues to grow. The head of MI5, the British security service, recently announced that it was investigating 16 major terrorist plots, and a poll revealed that 100,000 British Muslims believed the July 2005 bombings were justified.
When interrogating arrested terrorists, British officials have found a common thread. Al Qaeda and affiliated groups use a simple yet effective narrative to recruit young Muslims to cross the line into violence. While extreme religious beliefs, diverse local conditions, or issues like Palestine or Kashmir can create a sense of grievance, it is the language of war and a narrative of battle that gives recruits a cult-like sense of status and larger meaning that leads to action.
Al Qaeda focuses a large portion of its efforts on communication, and it has learned to use modern media and the Internet very effectively. Potential recruits are told that Islam is under attack from the West, and that it is the personal responsibility of each Muslim to fight to protect the ummah, or worldwide Muslim community. This extreme version of the duty of “jihad”(struggle) is reinforced by videos and Web sites that show Muslims being killed in Chechnya, Iraq, Kashmir and Lebanon.
This grotesque message uses the language of religion as justification, but its dynamic is like an ideology that seeks to harness the energy from a great variety of grievances. British officials have concluded that when we use the vocabulary of war and jihad, we simply reinforce Al Qaeda’s single narrative and help their recruiting efforts.
A recent conference of British and American experts at Ditchley Park in England concluded that while a hard-power response is necessary against the identified hard cores of terrorism, this might not amount to more than 10 or 20 percent of the whole defense effort. A larger effort should be devoted to public communication with mainstream Muslims.
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once asked what metric we should use to measure success in a “war on terrorism.” He concluded that success depended on whether the number of terrorists we were killing or deterring was greater than the number the enemy was recruiting.
By this metric, British and American intelligence estimates are not encouraging. While there have been important tactical and operational successes in the near term, we are losing the longer generational struggle because the number of new recruits has been increasing rather than declining. Small wonder, then, that even Rumsfeld finally expressed discontent with the term “war on terrorism.”
Rumsfeld was not alone in this conclusion. A little over a year ago, U.S. State Department officials sent a memo to the White House suggesting a shift in vocabulary. President George W. Bush rejected the change.
More recently, when British reporters asked the State Department spokesman about American reaction to the British decision to drop the words, they were told “it’s the president’s phrase and that’s good enough for us.”
But a phrase that was helpful in rallying popular support in the first phase of a struggle, and may serve a president’s political interests, is not good enough for the generational struggle to win hearts and minds of mainstream Muslims and hinder Al Qaeda’s recruiting. It’s time for the White House to realize that sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can really hurt us.”

You have one vote from me!!!!!!

doesn’t matter if I don’t have a college degree, right? actually, i got kicked out at grade school for cheating but it was never proven you know!

does it matter that I’m dumb as a doornail? i’m beautiful daw according to my spoiled husband and 2 year old spoiled little brat of a nephew…papasa na ko!

My party? maraming pupulot sa kin I’m sure….if not, I’m running independently but will welcome any endorsements from both the administration and opposition….

I thank YOU!