Comments on: Mama Mary moved the Muslims

By: maricar

maricar — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:16:59 +0000

ano po ba talaga ang ibigsabihin ng parliamentaryo???

By: cvj

cvj — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:40:09 +0000

Jeg, that’s supposedly what Nick Joaquin wrote but i would take exception to his ‘All‘. Never good to generalize as you can see by its effect on impressionable minds like Benign0’s.

By: Jeg

Jeg — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:32:34 +0000

â€œAll Pinoys could see in that otherwise virtually unlimited resource is nothing more than lapidas (headstones) and dikdikans (mortar and pestle).â€

Sad, but true.

Is it? Really?

By: Devilsadvc

Devilsadvc — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:21:36 +0000

“Let me add to the confusion. It does not take a genius to see that the Germans as well as the Japaneses were spread thin which in war is almost synonymous to defeat..”

Which is what happened. The only way to win in war when your troops are spread very thinly is to have your opponents always on the defensive until you’ve conquered them all. Then is the only time you stop and bunker in your new territories.

“All Pinoys could see in that otherwise virtually unlimited resource is nothing more than lapidas (headstones) and dikdikans (mortar and pestle).”

Sad, but true.

By: cvj

cvj — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:04:55 +0000

Beancurd, i agree with your observation regarding our banks and their overly conservative stance. Local development banks played a key role in the industrialization of our neighbors.

By: Beancurd

Beancurd — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:40:32 +0000

Let me add to the confusion. It does not take a genius to see that the Germans as well as the Japaneses were spread thin which in war is almost synonymous to defeat, especially considering the number of countries arrayed against them.
I do not agree with Benigno when he says “The problem lies in our utter lack of the imagination and thinking faculties required to turn potential into money in the bank.” The creativity is there for most people but realities hamper their progress or the realization of their dreams, the foremost reason being their poverty which banks use against them. Have you heard of banks bankrolling risky but promising projects or investments in the country? There is generally lack of support, whether by government or the private sector or even the consuming public, to our inventors such that they would rather sell their products to foreigners than let their invention and whatever they have saved go to waste.

By: benign0

benign0 — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:47:50 +0000

Same as this whole war between Apple MAC OS and Microsoft Windows back in the 80’s. Apple had a superior product but Microsoft had a superior business model for mass producing and distributing an inferior (but commercially viable) product.

In fact, Pinoys have been known to come up with great products. The problem lies in our utter lack of the imagination and thinking faculties required to turn potential into money in the bank.

As Ambeth Ocampo once observed about the rich marble deposits in Romblon. All Pinoys could see in that otherwise virtually unlimited resource is nothing more than lapidas (headstones) and dikdikans (mortar and pestle).

For that matter:

All we could see in our once rich forests was a raw materials export industry.

All we could see in our highly-educated labour pool is a raw labour export industry.

All we could see in surplus GI military gear left behind after their pullout is a pathetic caricature that dominates our mass-transport system today.

All we could see in democracy is an opportunity to gossip and watch candidates dance the ocho-ocho.

etcetera, etcetera.

The list of our capability for lack of imagination is poignant in its length.

By: Jeg

Jeg — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:28:43 +0000

In tank warfare at least, Overy’s point (as commented on by MLQ3 above), is correct. The Germans were obsessed with engineering perfection such that the Panzers and Tigers were delayed and not many were produced. The American and Russian tanks were clunkers that were simpler to operate and they were churning them out of the factories. (In the case of the Russian T-34, the design, although unsophisticated by German standards proved so efficient–effective?–such that it became a prototype for modern tanks.)

By: cvj

cvj — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:23:57 +0000

Mlq3, thanks for the explanation. My concern about Overy’s approach (and this i say as someone who has not yet read the book) is that he seems to attribute success and failure, in an activity that is full of contingencies such as war, to a set of traits that a given people are supposed to possess, where in reality the outcome of these things usually depend on a messy set of factors. If the outcome were the other way around, the same set of traits could then again be used to explain the alternative results.

This article by James Surowiecki on attribution errors as explained in Crooked Timber states this better.

Nevertheless, i suppose my conclusion is not really fair until i give the author a fair reading to see whether my concern applies.

Yes Benign0, you need to be more specific and not just cry that you want ‘results’. Any 5-year old can do that.

By: Ka Enchong

Ka Enchong — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:11:27 +0000

Just my thoughts:

* There is a Tagalog word for efficiency- BISA; efficient – MABISA.

* Japan, China, Korea and other countries with solid historical foundation for culture are often cited as countries that are now successful owing the success to their glorious past. Isn’t Egypt a much older civilization? In fact, the pyramids are a source of Egyptian pride. But, where is Egypt now? If one believes that a nation’s glorious past is directly proportional to the efficiency of its citizens at present, try visiting Cairo. You’d be glad you’re just a visitor. What’s more, you’d be thankful you’re a Pinoy living in Manila.

* It is not enough that we demand the best from our government. Neither is it enough that we demand the best from ourselves. We have to demand the best from both if we want to succeed as a nation.