Don’t bother to think

My Inquirer Current entry today in a sense, takes off from my Arab News column for this week, Blunders Allied With Crimes. An article in Slate today tackles how the United States tackled the Philippines and you can contrast this with an article in The Objective Standard as to why the United States is bogged down in Iraq, with no successful end game in sight. The analogy here is that neither America nor the AFP are countering insurgencies here at home or Iraq as they did at the turn of the 20th Century: and thus both are failing to meet their objectives.

Using force isn’t necessarily proof of either will, or genuine strength. It can be a sign of weakness or, something just as bad, a kind of selective blindness.

Take the President’s response to the latest survey on self-rated poverty. The President suggests people should take a second look at how their prioritize their spending, but at the same time, the government announces more casinos. And along the way, contradicts the very things that enabled the economic statistics in which she takes pride: had people not been smoking as much, or sending it out zillions of text messages, her raising taxes (not a reform, as she claims, but the logical question of her over-spending) would not have been able to compensated for what came before. Her laying it on thick on Tony Lopez also belies her claim to not being obsessed with politics, when as any president does, so does her cabinet: and what are Raul Gonzales (whose job is the Justice Department) and Ricardo Saludo (whose job is to be Secretary to the Cabinet) doing but politicking?

But of course it all makes perfect sense if you don’t deviate, one bit, from Palace-supplied talking points. It depends on a literal reading of the laws and an unsophisticated attitude towards the exercise of power. But we all know what is legal isn’t necessarily right, and what is possible isn’t necessarily what should be done. See the account in Newsbreak of where the culpability of the executive department lies. In cops misrepresenting themselves. In delays that are in themselves, violations of justice. the point is not that people have no right to sue, they do -but should they be suing all the people who get sued, and on the grounds used to justify the suits, and should the manner in which cases are filed and the police enforce warrants and so forth, be accepted without any questions? I think not, and that’s the whole point.

there’s an interesting editorial from Business Mirror, on the chance the President might veto portions of the national budget, which has been waiting for the President’s signature since February 22, but which will only be signed today (after the campaign has started, which meant the campaign began with budgetary breathing room for the Palace).

A whole slew of commentaries on corruption: overall, from Marvin Tort; from Jarius Bondoc, referring to school teachers; Bong Austero on mulcting cops.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

145 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Bencard on March 22, 2007 at 6:05 am

    mlq3, your incessant attack on the president has apparently become an obssessive compulsion whose provocative value has worn out, at least to this observer. I’m sure there is a few out there who has gotten sick and tired of the same nitpicking against PGMA. I’m not expecting you to cut it out, but please don’t insult the intelligence of discrening people who can see for themselves the opposite of what you are talking about.

    • inidoro ni emilie on March 22, 2007 at 6:19 am

    “don’t insult the intelligence of discrening people who can see for themselves the opposite of what you are talking about.”

    bencard, youre the one who’s insulting your own intelligence. this is mlq’s blog. if you can’t take the heat in the kitchen, saunter off some place.

    or would you rather have praise releases, like in the marcos era? then come up with your own blog. but make sure to invite “discerning people who can see for themselves the opposite of what you [will be] talking about.”

    write on manolo.

    • Francis on March 22, 2007 at 6:57 am

    Bencard if your one of the intelligent and one of the discerning people who see the opposite you won’t be insulted.

    Intelligent people don’t get insulted.

    • Bencard on March 22, 2007 at 9:51 am

    inidoro & Francis, obviously you are not the “people” I was referring to as sick and tired of endless muckraking, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
    How can I miss it – there are individuals who thrive on anti-GMA diatribes to assuage their personal frustrations and failures. The question is: what are they trying to accomplish? Haven’t they tried and failed miserably, again and again, to stir up a national (even international) outrage against PGMA? Is it personal vendetta for some imagined wrong done to them? Or is it just simple jealousy – because they cannot even come close to what PGMA has achieved in life. I wonder.

    • james on March 22, 2007 at 10:03 am

    you’re behaving more than just like a spurned lover mlq. can you set your ‘mode’ to something other than GMA? you have lost all sense of objectivity.

    Abaya writes:
    “trying to overthrow the state disqualifies anyone from running for any position in the government of that state. And that applies to Independent Gringo Honasan as well as to the GO’s Antonio Trillanes”

    how sensible is it for you to throw your support to people who are facing various charges in court or who are in jail?

    • UPn student on March 22, 2007 at 10:03 am

    Francis…. A priest told me once to claim that intelligent people don’t get insulted is an insult to priests and nuns and other slow-witted who can’t get the jokes quickly enough to not get insulted by the insults. Inidoro can explain this to you if you don’t understand or if you are not insulted.

    • mlq3 on March 22, 2007 at 10:28 am
      Author

    james, i don’t agree with abaya. trying to overthrow the state can lead to punishment, but it doesn’t disqualify anyone from running. in fact, running in itself can be considered a vote of confidence in the system you once tried to overthrow, and in such cases should be encouraged. and i’d rather vote for people facing charges or who are in jail than for members of the government that led them to rebel in the first place, and who are committing continuing crimes by squatting in office. the so-called objectivity game is a self-defeating one the powers-that-be want us to play.

    • mlq3 on March 22, 2007 at 10:34 am
      Author

    bencard, did my observations somehow unnerve you?

    • Jeg on March 22, 2007 at 10:45 am

    I’m sure there is a few out there who has gotten sick and tired of the same nitpicking against PGMA.

    If it were nitpicking, I too would be annoyed. But MLQ3 keeps fishing out tyrannosaurii.

    • x on March 22, 2007 at 10:53 am

    Bencard and James, what is so wrong about mlq3’s desire for decency in philippine politics?

  1. x,
    will there be decency in politics?

    • hvrds on March 22, 2007 at 11:20 am

    I wonder if anyone would appreciate the writings of the acolytes of Ayn Rand in thier justicfication for the War of Civilization.

    The principles of individual economic, political and cultural rights were imbedded by the founders of the U.S. as the overiding principles developed around the ideas of the Moral Philosopher Adam Smith when most people still lived in small farming communties.
    However his world of small communities have long ago past. Technologies have in fact caused the creation of what J.K. Galbraith had labeled “The Industrial State.”

    The attempt of present day economic theorists and moralists to go back to the days of Adam Smith in the face of the existence of modern industrial states with all its implications is analogous to Pol Pot’s attempt to restart history for the people of Cambodia to day one.

    Today states and corporations make strategic decisions that have implications for all. WTO, IMF-WB are only for states and corporations.

    Corporations have been given all the rights and benefits of living humans. But they cannot be held to account.

    Case in point for the U.S. which masks its state sponsored capitalist system through the repeated development of technology for military and commercial applications.

    Even the world’s financial technological systems evolved to benefit the Government of One. Adam Smith had said that the two most beneficial technologies that mankind had invented was writing and money. Todays digital forms of communication has made so much information available to so many but it has also made reading and writing a little obsolete for many.

    Case in point: from the History of Wealth, Robert Sobel, Ph.D., Senor Fellow at the Milliken Institute

    The Creation of Radio Corporation of America

    The most conspicuous example of government-business collaboration was the creation of Radio Corporation of America. Marconi Wireless, the largest and most successful company in the wireless telegraphy industry, organized American Marconi Wireless in 1899, and soon the technology was in use on American ships. Marconi Wireless owned only 15 percent of its shares, and most of the directors and officers were American. Nonetheless, in Washington it was viewed as a foreign company. It was not a particularly large firm. In 1914, American Marconi had revenues of $760,000.
    Two days after the United States declared war in 1917, Wilson ordered the U.S. Navy to take over all wireless operations in the U.S. The British did not protest, believing that after the war, the property would return to its earlier status. The wireless technology proved an important factor during the war, and the company grew substantially, reporting revenues of $1.9 million in 1918. With the end of the war in November came pressures from London for the return of the company to private control. The navy wanted to continue operation of American Marconi, however, and there were supporters for its position in Congress who held that the government had a monopoly of postal services, and that there was no reason why the same could not be the case with wireless communication. That the telegraph and telephone were in private hands was a fact not raised at the time. Wilson had a different idea, and desired to bring business into the picture. Having worked more or less harmoniously with the private sector during the war, Wilson had shed much of his distrust of business. In this he had the support of J.P. Morgan & Company, which was the dominant factor at such manufacturers of electrical gear as General Electric and Westinghouse, among others.
    In early July of 1919, Congress passed a resolution ordering the return to their original owners by March 1, 1920 of all telegraph, telephone, and cable systems seized by the government during the war. With this, Wilson pressed ahead with his plan, his point men in the project being Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt for the government and Owen D. Young of General Electric, Who represented the private interests to be drawn into the company. In the end, the British shareholders agreed to accept $1.5 million for their stake, the only condition being that American Marconi remain open to the British. So it would be. Radio Corporation of American (RCA) received its charter on October 17, 1919, with a majority of the stock owned by General Electric, Westinghouse, AT&T, and United Fruit. Under the terms, RCA was to sell equipment manufactured by its principal owners, with GE to have 60 percent of the market and Westinghouse 40 percent, for which RCA would pay costs plus 20 percent. The western Electric subsidiary of AT&T would have a monopoly in transmitters. The RCA board was restructured and now compromised four members each from the old American Marconi and GE, three from Westinghouse, two from AT&T, and one from United Fruit. Thus was born a government-sponsored monopoly in wireless, one of the more promising new technologies of the early years of the century. In time, it would become more than that, but even in 1920 it was clear to all concerned that the American government had bestowed the opportunity for great wealth upon the participants.”

  2. who are committing continuing crimes by squatting in office.

    shall we go back to the time when there was an opportunity to impeach her. People did not believe me when I wrote that Imee was not sticking her neck.

    Do I sense desperation that the opposition will not get enough number to be elected and carry out the impeachment as agreed upon as a platform of the TEAM GO ? As I have said, Erap is going to discontinue the financial support the moment JV is out. It’s happening.
    The truth is no one likes JV even the Team Go senatoriables. No JV, no money. No Erap in the ads, no money. Ganyan lang yan kaDECENT.

  3. At ngayon pa lang kaniya-kaniya na silang diskarte. if i know , sarili na lang nila ang kanilang kinakampanya.

    • x on March 22, 2007 at 11:34 am

    The Ca t: Ha! you got me there. decency might be a pipe dream, but as mlq3 has always tried to show us, we have had leaders who have displayed some sense of decency, unlike this adminstration, who is not even attempting to put up any semblance of decency at all.

  4. mlq3, your incessant attack on the president has apparently become an obssessive compulsion whose provocative value has worn out, at least to this observer. I’m sure there is a few out there who has gotten sick and tired of the same nitpicking against PGMA. I’m not expecting you to cut it out, but please don’t insult the intelligence of discrening people who can see for themselves the opposite of what you are talking about.

    bencard, didn’t you the last time vowed never to post in MLQ3’s blog again because you claimed to be sick and tired of his blog?

    Why are you still here? shouldn’t you be hanging out at austero or cathcath’s blog instead?

    • hvrds on March 22, 2007 at 11:55 am

    More on The History of Wealth by Sobel. It is important the mostly young people in this country know that governments in Industrial States play a strategic and pivotal role in the economy. Politics rule the economy.

    “The emergence of the government as the largest single factor in the economy enabled firms that provided it with goods and services to thrive. In 1968, there were 22,000 firms with prime contracts, who, in turn, let out subcontracts to 100,000 other firms. Approximately 76 industries were classified as “defense” by virtue of having more than half their sales in this area. That same year, 5300 cities and towns had at least one defense plant or company under their jurisdictions. They competed with one another for them, not only because they brought jobs and taxes but because of the multiplier effect on the local economy.”
    “Most literate Americans know that in his farewell address, Dwight Eisenhower warned against the influence of the military-industrial complex. In fact, the General was the only post-World War 11 President to hold the military in check. What is less known is Eisenhower’s admonition against the powers of the scientific-educational elite. The solitary inventor has been replaced by “task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields,” he observed. In the old days universities were “the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery.” No more, he said in 1961. “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” For this reason, Eisenhower warned that “the prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”
    “Evidence to support this view was readily accessible. For example, M.I.T. was, by the end of World War 11, the largest nonindustrial defense contractor. The Electrical Engineering Department there, headed by Donald Jackson, had strong ties with industry and government agencies, and as one measure of such influence, considered that half a professor’s remuneration should be earned outside of the school. Jay Forrester, another M.I.T. Professor led a team that created the nation’s missile defense system and at the same time spun off significant research and development in the area of computer design that had civilian applications.”
    “In this period, too, companies that previously had been oriented to the consumer and industrial markets became military suppliers. Raytheon, for example, had practically no military business in 1940. In the post war period, more than 80 percent of its sales were to the military. By 1961, a Boston bank suggested replacing the textile spindle with the Hawk missile to symbolize the local economy. But the symbol might more fittingly have been the Lincoln Laboratory at M.I.T., which was emblematic of the interrelationships between the companies that festooned Route 128 and the campus.”
    “Even more important than the connection between industry and M.I.T. in Massachusetts was the nexus that came into being in California in what became known as Silicon Valley, centered around Stanford University. The key player there was Frederick Terman, an electrical engineering professor and dean of engineering. Most Americans who knew of Karl Compton, Vannevar Bush, and other academic scientists pressed into government service during and after World War 11, probably never heard of Terman, a professor whose ambition was to make Stanford the world’s premier scientific university. Terman thought the post war years would be crucial for the school. “I believe that we will either consolidate our potential strength, and create a foundation for a position in the west somewhat analogous to Harvard in the east, or we will drop to a level somewhat similar to that of Dartmouth, a well-thought-of institution having about 2 percent as much influence on national life as Harvard.”
    “Terman’s proposal was simple enough. Disregard the undergraduates because they didn’t pay dividends in grants and prestige. Concentrate on graduate programs, but only in the hot departments. It would be wiser, he contended, to build a few superb departments than to seek excellence across the board. Terman pulled it off. In 1946, Stanford’s government contracts came to $127,000. Ten years later they were $4.5 million. After another decade Stanford ranked among the top three universities in government contracts.”
    “Terman also was the mentor of many individuals who would become important in the computer age. In 1955, he convinced William Shockley to establish his company, Shockley Semiconductor, in an industrial park in Palo Alto as a subsidiary of Beckman Instruments. The company did not fare well, and in 1957, eight of its engineers and scientists left Shockley to form Fairchild Semiconductor, the pioneer company in Silicon Valley. Out of Fairchild would emerge dozens of individuals and companies that would lead the way into the electronic age. Fairchild alumnus Charles Spork would become a major factor at National Semiconductor. Jerry Saunders helped found Advanced MicroDevices. And in 1968, Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore, and Andrew Grove founded Intel.”
    “Intel was destined to become the most important of the new companies spawned by Fairchild. By 1970, it had produced several memory chips, with a capacity of one kilobyte, or 1024 bits of information. At about this time, Intel engineer Ted Hoff developed the concept of placing all of the functions needed in microprocessing on a single chip, hence, the microprocessor, or “computer on a chip.” The first of these, the 4004, was considered the cornerstone of the new industry in the early 1970s. Intel’s 8080, introduced in 1974, was used to create the first microcomputer. Noyce noted that the chip, which cost $300, possessed more computing power than the ENIAC, the first true computer, was 20 times faster, and cost one 1O,000th as much as that giant machine. The ENIAC weighed 30 tons and occupied 1500 square feet. The 8080 set the standard for its time and the path for what was to follow.
    Terman also brought industrial parks to Stanford. Alongside the classroom buildings, libraries, and administrative centers are outposts of some of the nation’s most innovative corporations. The synergy is complete. Professors double as researchers at these centers, which also employ graduate students in a form of apprenticeship. Terman also is the reason for Silicon Valley’s location. Dozens of small, entrepreneurial companies were started and staffed by Stanford people.
    Terman made his priorities clear. Education was fine in its place, but there were more important considerations. Commenting on Office of Naval Research contracts, he wrote, “Even though much of the basic research work that these agencies support is carried on in universities, the primary motive is not to aid education but rather to accomplish their mission.” Fair enough, insofar as the government is concerned. But what is the primary motive of the universities?”
    “This mindset was challenged in 1969 by antiwar demonstrators protesting the involvement of the universities in the Vietnam War. By then, government and industry dominated large segments of the research-oriented universities. “We were churning out defense-oriented graduate students,” recalled one M.I.T. professor. “Almost all of our graduate students who didn’t go into university teaching wound up in the missile and aircraft industries.” As a result of the protests, some of the institutes devoted to defense and industrial purposes were spun off by their parent organizations, and others were reoriented toward different ends. That defense was and is necessary is obvious, but the nexus between the universities and its sponsors came at a price. “Were they training a generation of scientists and engineers so addicted to the wasteful culture of military procurement that they could never flourish in the cost-conscious world of civilian technology?” the professor continued. Even Terman got the message. In 1970, he told the Stanford faculty of his hope that the professors would “cease turning out people in their own image but would rather educate engineers attuned to the needs of non-aerospace, non-defense industries by working on research related to the problems of the world.”
    ~ By the 1950s, the web that had been constructed between the government, the corporations, and the universities had grown to encompass many of the nation’s largest firms and schools, and this continued into the 1960s. In addition, institutes and foundations, the “think tanks,” entered the mix. Some of the companies were well known for their concentration on government work-General Dynamics, Raytheon, Rockwell International, Colt, Grumman, TRW, and Lockheed, for example. Others were known to have important military contracts, and these included a host of electronics firmsIBM, Sperry Rand, Texas Instruments, Litton, ITT, and RCA, among others. Companies not ordinarily thought of as military nonetheless received contracts. International Harvester manufactured systems for rocket engines. American Metal Climax turned out
    precision parts for aerospace applications. Scovill Mahufacturing had contracts to provide aircraft parts. Universal Match was also in the missile business.
    These firms, and the government itself, hired professors and other researchers.”
    “Among the schools involved in the one area of chemical and biological warfare, for example, were UCLA Medical School, Baylor, the University of Texas, Johns Hopkins, the University of Maryland, the University of Minnesota, Yale, and the Illinois Institute of Technology. Cornell’s Aeronautical Laboratory was involved, as well as the Stanford Research Institute, which was known in Washington as the “Pentagon of the West.” Of course, not every college and university profited from military contracts. According to one count made in 1968, the number that did came to 52, or one out of every 40 schools. Two-thirds of the funds spent on research and development at universities came from the government, and 90 percent of that came from the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Atomic Energy Commission. The government sought schools whose facilities and faculties were suitable, and it worked two ways: where the facilities were not up to par, they would be constructed and equipped, often with large government grants. Researchers hoping to work on government projects would learn where they were being conducted and then try to obtain a teaching position, especially if (along with the faculty appointment) went an association with a nearby institute, such as American Enterprise, Brookings, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or Hoover. It was not unusual for such professors to earn far more through consulting government agencies than they received for their work on campus. A survey conducted in the mid-1960s indicated that one quarter of the scientists at 12 major universities received portions of their salaries from federal funds, and that at one school, there were 151 professors whose total salaries derived from federal funds. As University of California president Clark Ken put it, “Intellect has also become an instrument of national purpose, a component part of the ‘military-industrial complex.’ “To which Air Force Secretary Robert Seamons, Jr., a former MIT professor, added, “We cannot provide the necessary weapons for defense without the help of university research laboratories.” John Hanna, president of Michigan State and a former assistant secretary of defense believed that “Our colleges and universities must be regarded as bastions of our defense, as essential to the preservation of our country and our way of life as supersonic bombers, nuclear-powered submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.”
    “In this way, fighting the Cold War enabled large segments of corporate America and academia to join forces in the pursuit of wealth.”

    • remedy on March 22, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Somehow I see a president who is prone to prescribing the wrong words for the ailment of this country every time she talks in length, but I admire her persistence that everything should be fine once she’s done with us. Somehow I seem to believe her–that in this one big boat, if she has to go down then everyone have to go down with her in hell.

    • rego on March 22, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    i actually share the same sentiment with bencard about people like MLQ3 who thrive on the Glorias nitpicking. People would easilly lable us as Gloria’s apologist. But thats not really the case.

    Its not that I am a big fan of Gloria. Its just that I also agree with Mita and Ca T. That we shoudl be responsible enough to give credit where credit is due. And If I may add we have to criticize what needs to be criticized, There is so many thing to be criticized about Gloria. But so does the opposition.

    I just could not understand why the eyes of peopel liek MLQ3 are so wide open with Gloria yet soooooo closed with about opposition.

    I believe the people or the voters like us should be the arbiter of this debate. Not the protagonists The politicians are the opposing sides needs a judge. For what is a debate without a judge?

    And the judges shoudl be us! So we have to be responsible eenough to drop our biases.

    Unless some of us have that really “big stake” on either side. Or people like Manuel Buencamino who make a living from criticizing Gloria. And writing positive about Gloria will mean a drop in their income………….

    • mlq3 on March 22, 2007 at 1:47 pm
      Author

    rego, that’s why we have things like this blog. i have my views, i have made my stand, i try to explain why i believe certain things: that’s my role. it’s up to you to accept, reject, question, argue, and counter-propose. and everyone in the end judges for himself or herself what to do. in the end i only speak for my self and i can only hope more people will agree with me than disagree. and again, my attitude is quite simple in the end: for all their defects, and they are plenty, the opposition is the only opposition we’ve got, and i’m much more scared of what it would be like if we had no opposition at all. obviously, you disagree, and at least you and i can disagree here without risking life and limb.

    • Jeg on March 22, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    People would easilly lable us as Gloria’s apologist. But thats not really the case.

    For once I’d like to see someone openly declare himself or herself an apologist for Gloria and her administration. There’s no shame in it if you sincerely believe she’s running this country right. Im sure all the others would respect the opinion of a true believer. (Im not talking about you, rego. I take what you say at face value. When you say youre not an apologist for Gloria, that’s good enough for me.)

    • manuelbuencamino on March 22, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Rego,

    “Manuel Buencamino who make a living from criticizing Gloria.”

    I thought you got the joke when I wrote that. Apparently you didn’t. Your loss not mine.

    Jeg mades an accurate observation.. He wrote, “For once I’d like to see someone openly declare himself or herself an apologist for Gloria and her administration.”

    But I agree with what you wrote -” we shoudl be responsible enough to give credit where credit is due. And If I may add we have to criticize what needs to be criticized, There is so many thing to be criticized about Gloria. But so does the opposition.”

    I’m all for a responsible, mature debate about Gloria.

    Here’s the topic we should discuss:

    Gloria missed her calling. She should have aspired to become a waitress at Malate’s “Hobbit House”

  5. Rego says:
    “… There is so many thing to be criticized about Gloria. But so does the opposition.”

    Sige nga Rego, start listing the many things to be criticized about Gloria. Then we’ll start ours on the Opposition.

    • tagabukid on March 22, 2007 at 5:58 pm

    If nitpicking means:

    -calling attention to the horrific state of the nation by exposing the military’s murderous methods of eliminating leftists and journalists;

    -protesting the State harassment of journalists and leftist parliamentarians;

    -shedding light on the darkness cast by this morally bankrupt and rotten administration by repeatedly reminding the people about the Hello Garci issue and how Gloria Arroyo murdered democracy;

    then by all means, im with mlq3 in this nitpicking exercise.

    For crying out loud, your illegitimate president is a monstrosity that is slowly sucking the life out of this nation — and you all can’t see that!

    Iumpog nyo mga ulo nyo sa pader at nang magising na kayo! Or better yet, join some rallies in Mendiola para ma-bambo kayo at siguradong kayo’y matatauhan.

    Then maybe you will start making sense.

  6. Why are you still here? shouldn’t you be hanging out at austero or cathcath’s blog instead?

    Grow up, John. Why would they join me in my blog which is not even politics.

  7. For once I’d like to see someone openly declare himself or herself an apologist for Gloria and her administration.

    May be because the people here who are accused of being GMA apologists are not blind followers. As rego has said, we should be responsible enough to give credit where credit is due.

    I for one, am waiting for someone who can tell me who can replace Gloria, now. Can we not wait until 2010? or the elected “senators and congressmen” to initiate another impeachment?

    We should hear both sides of the argument, so John, wipe your nose.

  8. we have had leaders who have displayed some sense of decency,

    Go ahead tell me one name.

    • Jeg on March 22, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    I for one, am waiting for someone who can tell me who can replace Gloria, now.

    Noli de Castro. Because people voted for him. If I remember correctly, even more people voted for him than Gloria. Whether or not I think he’ll be a good president is irrelevant. One, because we dont know the answer to that, and two I got outvoted and I have to honor the decision of the people who did vote for him.

  9. How can I miss it – there are individuals who thrive on anti-GMA diatribes to assuage their personal frustrations and failures. The question is: what are they trying to accomplish? Haven’t they tried and failed miserably, again and again, to stir up a national (even international) outrage against PGMA? Is it personal vendetta for some imagined wrong done to them? Or is it just simple jealousy – because they cannot even come close to what PGMA has achieved in life. I wonder. –bencard

    You definitely missed it, bencard. It is not a question of stirring up national outrage against GMA. The various scandals rocking her administration — from the hello garci to the fertilizer funds scam to the extrajudicial killings — are issues that cannot and should not be forgiven and forgotten on the mere pretext of “moving on”. If these scandals were merely concocted, made up or imagined, then they would have died a natural death. But they did not and stil continue to hound the administration up to this time. It takes a little intellectual honesty to admit that these issues need to be addressed which the above comment does not seem to have.

    • tagabukid on March 22, 2007 at 11:09 pm

    Bencard, you gotta see a doctor because you’re sick. Worse, you might have even become what Conrad de Quiros describes as zombie in his columns.

    You’re alive, but your soul is deadened by the poison unleashed by Gloria Arroyo, her husband and all the leeches in her rotten administration.

    The fight to oust Gloria Arroyo is not about personal jealousy, vendetta or an unsatisfied fetish. It is, in simple words, a fight to right a wrong. Gloria Arroyo stole the vote – only an idiot will doubt that. And since we are supposedly in a democratic country, stealing the vote (and conniving with election commissioners) is a high crime that must be punished.

    But what do you and your kindred say? Everybody cheats, so let her finish her term. I say, you’re alive but your soul is already dead – you’re a zombie.

    Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown: Gloria Arroyo chose to defend her illegitimacy by force and has called on the military to prop up her illegitimate rule. What has happened since then? Hundreds of dead activists and journalists. Is it only coincidence? Do you honestly believe Gloria Arroyo doesn’t have anything to do with all the killings? Do you honestly believe Gloria Arroyo is not responsible? Blood is in her hands and this nation is bleeding profusely.

    If you believe that Gloria Arroyo is not responsible for this, then I say you’re alive but your soul is already dead – you’re a zombie.

    If you take satisfaction at the failure of the moves to impeach and oust Gloria Arroyo, then you are a unique zombie because zombies don’t do that.

    And for a zombie to think that Gloria Arroyo achieved so much that people should be jealous about it, that really takes the cake! But do zombies eat cake?

    I would be thrilled to hear Gloria Arroyo’s sterling achievements. Please enlighten everybody by enumerating it.

    But how can zombies enlighten? Just die.

    • Bencard on March 22, 2007 at 11:21 pm

    mlq3, it isn’t that I was “unnerved” by what you wrote against PGMA – as I intimated, they are just more of the same negativity that, to me, serves no beneficial purpose to the nation. To echo James’, Ca t’s and Rego’s sentiments, PGMA is not the only game in town. She is not even a candidate.

    We have an election coming up in a few weeks. I don’t want to be presumptious as to tell you how to run your blog and what you want to put in it. I just wonder if, instead of PGMA, our focus could be on the wanabee leaders of our nation. For example, why should a blabber-mouth fabricator of scandal, who cannot show any substantive accomplishment for the nation, be voted as senator to form yet another political dynasty in the much-demeaned senate. Why should a group of self-seeking aspirants be elected on avowed “platform” of trying (again) to impeach the president without even mentioning a single positive plan for a better economic, political and social agenda for the country.

    With respect to the incorrigible coup plotters who had sought to destroy our democracy by force, a dismissive statement as “running in itself can be considered a vote of confidence in the system they once tried to overthrow” is a classic illustration of the truism, any proposition can be slanted the way you want it no matter how untenable the premise. In any event, this matter should be discussed in a forum such as this where, thanks to you mlq3, there is no censorship, actual or perceived.

  10. Abaya writes:
    “trying to overthrow the state disqualifies anyone from running for any position in the government of that state. And that applies to Independent Gringo Honasan as well as to the GO’s Antonio Trillanes”

    how sensible is it for you to throw your support to people who are facing various charges in court or who are in jail? –james

    –james, the premise of abaya’s statement is defective in itself. overthrowing gloria does not mean overthrowing the state simply because gloria is not the state and vice-versa. at least in political science and constitutional law, the state is composed of 4 elements: people, territory, government and sovereignty. gloria does not even represent the government for she only represents its executive branch. at least for trillanes, he never espoused the overthrow of the government. he, together with other junior military officers were merely “voicing out”, though in a rather violent way, their grievances against a corrupt AFP.

    besides, being in jail or facing charges in court does not necessarily mean they’re already guilty. they are still presumed innocent because they have yet to be convicted.

  11. I just wonder if, instead of PGMA, our focus could be on the wanabee leaders of our nation. For example, why should a blabber-mouth fabricator of scandal, who cannot show any substantive accomplishment for the nation, be voted as senator to form yet another political dynasty in the much-demeaned senate. Why should a group of self-seeking aspirants be elected on avowed “platform” of trying (again) to impeach the president without even mentioning a single positive plan for a better economic, political and social agenda for the country. –bencard

    It cannot be avoided to not talk about GMA, bencard. First, the midterm elections can be a form of referendum for GMA and her policies, ie. whether or not she still deserves the trust and confidence of the people by electing into office the candidates she support. Second, the candidates you are so pissed about were obviously anti-gloria even before they made their intentions to run for the Senate known. Third, their avowed platform of impeaching the president can be the first big step to eradicating the biggest obstacle to economic development — a vindictive, immoral and corrupt presidency. Lastly, are you really sure that the candidates of the other side have positive plans for a better economic, political and social agenda for the country? What do you think Chavit Singson, Cesar Montano can offer to the economic progress of the country?

  12. I just wonder if, instead of PGMA, our focus could be on the wanabee leaders of our nation. For example, why should a blabber-mouth fabricator of scandal, who cannot show any substantive accomplishment for the nation, be voted as senator to form yet another political dynasty in the much-demeaned senate. Why should a group of self-seeking aspirants be elected on avowed “platform” of trying (again) to impeach the president without even mentioning a single positive plan for a better economic, political and social agenda for the country. –bencard

    It cannot be avoided to not talk about GMA, bencard. First, the midterm elections can be a form of referendum for GMA and her policies, ie. whether or not she still deserves the trust and confidence of the people by electing into office the candidates she supports. Second, the candidates you are so pissed about were obviously anti-gloria even before they made their intentions to run for the Senate known. So, it is of no moment if they continue to criticize GMA while campaigning. Third, their avowed platform of impeaching the president can be the first big step to eradicating the biggest obstacle to economic development — a vindictive, immoral and corrupt presidency. Lastly, are you really sure that the candidates of the other side have positive plans for a better economic, political and social agenda for the country? What do you think Chavit Singson and Cesar Montano can offer to the economic progress of the country?

  13. May be because the people here who are accused of being GMA apologists are not blind followers. As rego has said, we should be responsible enough to give credit where credit is due. The Ca t

    –Who do you think are the blind followers, Ca t?

    • Bencard on March 23, 2007 at 12:36 am

    the bystander, I don’t mean to ignore you, or your comment, but why don’t we let mlq3 speak for himself? I’m sure he welcomes the opportunity to explain his anti-GMA crusade beyond the generic “my heart bleeds for the oppressed in my country”. Your own pontification just doen’t do it, I think.

    • mlq3 on March 23, 2007 at 1:04 am
      Author

    bencard, please refer, in particular, to my june-july, my september-december 2005 and february 2006 entries here, where i’ve explained where i’m coming from at length. you can go over my thought process in deciding to stop supporting the president.

    • mlq3 on March 23, 2007 at 1:21 am
      Author

    bencard, with regards to your concerns re: the coming elections, my views are as follows:

    1. the president proposes laws, the senate decides whether to adopt in part or in toto, the proposals. on essential policy you will find the opposition has been amenable (evat, security legislation, etc.) and when not amenable, outvoted (generally in the house). the criteria for the senatorial election to me is, should the senate adopt the president’s official attitude to the senate (she resists what is, to my mind, an equally important aspect of senatorial work, oversight and investigation) and simply be a passive collaborator or not.
    2. congress also approves appointments, and its a contravention of generations of executive-legislative relations that the president basically insists on her way even when appointments are rejected (the sec. of justice is a scandalous example, in any other administration and any previous era, no president would have been so stubborn about her appointee).
    3. constitutional change, etc. etc. in my opinion will be up for discussion and voting in congress.
    4. as for your “Why should a group of self-seeking aspirants be elected on avowed ‘platform’ of trying (again) to impeach the president without even mentioning a single positive plan for a better economic, political and social agenda for the country” i happen to think it’s tremendously positive to insist on accountability and putting to rest once and for all, and not through technicalities, issues that should have been addressed in 2005. and i’ve explained at length my views that the president is not deserving of credit for the improvements that we’ve seen in the economy, not least because they’re not her doing, and because she may actually be reversing some positive gains (see the business mirror editorial i linked to thursday), and that furthermore the succesful policies that are in place are the kind that every government, not just the president’s, will have to continue.
    5. with regards to other candidates on whom we disagree, esp. cayetano, we differ on where dynasties are unhealthy. i don’t really consider it a problem in the case of national office like the senate. it’s more of a concern in the house, and there the president is poised to have what, 3 to 5 family votes vs. cayetanos in the upper house? and recall the only reason her son isn’t running for the senate is that he would lose. that being said, i refer you to the president’s executive secretary who seems in agreement with koko pimentel.
    6. with regards to your objection to trillanes, he’s facing his charges unlike his former commander-in-chief, and i have expressed my view that an election is the surest way a person can achieve vindication politically -so we should welcome his running. for that reason i’d also expressed the opinion that if the president didn’t want to resign or face impeachment, she should have called for a referendum on her staying in office. charles de gaulle would have done that -and did.

    • Bencard on March 23, 2007 at 1:49 am

    mlq3, stopping to support the president, and engaging in an endless crusade to demonize her, are two separate and distinct actions. I’m interested to know your “thought process” in deciding to undercut the president every step of the way. And why are you not too keen about focusing on the merits or demerits of each of the “senatoriables” (from both camps). I think you would be doing a great service to the country if only you can help prevent another s.o.b. from getting elected.

  14. the bystander, I don’t mean to ignore you, or your comment, but why don’t we let mlq3 speak for himself? I’m sure he welcomes the opportunity to explain his anti-GMA crusade beyond the generic “my heart bleeds for the oppressed in my country”. Your own pontification just doen’t do it, I think. –BENCARD

    –And who precisely gave you the idea that I was speaking for manolo? i am free to react on every comment that you post here, no matter how juvenile they are at times and unless the blog administrator does not want me to. if you wish to ignote me or my comment, then it’s your prerogative.

  15. Manolo,

    Re “she should have called for a referendum on her staying in office. charles de gaulle would have done that -and did.”

    I would have had a little more respect for this bogus president had she had the courage and the decency to put her power on the line – I too would have wanted a referendum (and posted a comment in your blog to the effect) at the height of the Hello Garci affair. But that’s all water under the bridge. Gloria missed her chance of possibly reversing the tide of history!

    (If ever, her only saving grace may be moral dwarfism, i.e., moral dwarfism is declared a real mental disease, she just might use that for her defence when she’s finally called to task for her crimes against the nation.)

    One thing is certain: Bloria bansot could never ever be a Charles de Gaulle, not by a million years, and certainly not with that midget of a piece of anatomy she calls her brain! Not only is she a midget of the crass variety, she would never be worth the ground towering de Gaulle walked on.

    President Charles de Gaulle didn’t steal to make himself rich; he faced his detractors squarely, in the streets in the National Assembly and everywhere else with enormous courage; de Gaulle had HONOUR, something Gloria doesn’t and cannot aspire to have.

    Let’s not kid ourselves, Gloria is an S.O.B. through and through, a thorough nasty piece of work is what she truly is!

    • james on March 23, 2007 at 8:22 am

    ana,

    don’t kid yourself

    how nice a ‘piece of work’ are you anyway? the way you call names I can smell the stink coming from your orifices.

    • Bencard on March 23, 2007 at 9:27 am

    James, looks like Joma’s minister of hate is on the prowl again. The stench is overwhelming, even up to here in Boston.

    • Bencard on March 23, 2007 at 9:39 am

    bystander, you – you precisely are the one who gave me the idea that you were speaking for Manolo by taking it upon yourself (poorly, in my estimation) to respond to my questions specifically addressed to him. If you consider yourself “juvenile”, go play with the little boys – maybe you can bully your way with them.

  16. Who do you think are the blind followers, Ca t?

    Should I name names here? If you are going to elect even a dog in the Senate just because you like the Opposition, are you deaf or blind?

  17. James,

    Hahhahahah!

    I’m a much nicer piece of work than your dear Gloria Bansot! Ask her!

  18. Bencard,

    Being in Boston doesn’t make you any less of a stinker – Hhahahahah!

    Why are you trying so hard to defend Gloria Pidal? Are you trying to get business from the Arroyo-Pidal family? You that desperate? Business that bad for a two-bit Filipino divorce lawyer in Boston?

    Hahahahahah!

    • Bencard on March 23, 2007 at 8:37 pm

    anna, even Medusa herself thought she was a “nice piece of work”, you foul-mouthed whatever-you-are. For your information, I’m a retired lawyer with independent means. I don’t need anymore peso from anyone.

  19. Bencard,

    “For your information, I’m a retired lawyer with independent means.”

    That’s what Gloria’s liars say…

    • jepo on March 23, 2007 at 10:05 pm

    Anna,

    Is dis u?

    http://web.mac.com/mamle/iWeb/Site/FEELING%20PRETTY%20PHOTOS.html

Load more

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.