“He got caught with his hands inside the cookie jar…”

any one can make up charges against any one. a thousand alleged anomalies (in addition to djb’s list, as recited by mbw,) are all non sequitors as far as pgma is concerned without judicially admissible evidence directly involving her. if there is an iota of such damning evidence, do you think panfilo, cayetano, etc. (with their protective privilege), or erap’s minions (with their seemingly bottomless pockets), would not have already shouted it to any one who would care to listen, even if they could not make it stick in a court of law or any other proper forum?

Actually such damning evidence has already been shouted out, and the great majority has already concluded that GMA is indeed damn guilty of cheating, lying, and stealing. Others have just chosen to condone it, look the other way, or just give up trying to make GMA accountable. Pero may mga mang-ilan-ilan pa din na patuloy na nagtatanga-tangahan at nagbubulag-bulagan. Damning evidence are already staring them in the face and they still continue to go, “Huh? What evidence?” At this point, these GMA die-hards are pretty much hopeless, they’ll only see what they wanna see and disregard evrything else.

aw shucks, cvj. and i was plannin’ to study how to be a wall street hippie..

“in the classical sense”

is that good or bad? or ambivalent?

“or at least a social reformer”

except when you encounter my hyde pro-revolution character
isn’t it? i took the test as well, cvj. was on the dot as you. a left leaning liberal somewhere bet Gandhi and that other guy. I’d prefer to be called a socialist democrat except I dnt know what the hell that means. My personal motto is: decide with reason, act with conviction. And yet I show my schizophrenia by not hewing to Ayn Rand’s objectivist theory fanatically. (as my “the poor isn’t the sole reason to blame for their own poverty” rant shows) My bipolar political views shows even more when a part of me somehow agrees with the likes of Benigno, Bencard, and Rego (all objectivist fanatics, it would appear). And I only somehow retain my “sanity” in the views of the liberal majority, by showing that I value my heart more
than my mind. Perhaps reason should be tempered with
compassion in order not to go down that road of madness and egomaniacal tendencies, eh?

But of course, if one were reasonable enough, one should’ve understood that dispensing with ethics and adhering only to legalistic and objectivist views, would only lead to more anarchy, not less of it.

Ah hell, what do I know? Am just a budding political commenter who’s just learning to view the world through other’s theories. Duh. And all along I thought my ideas were original.. gaah. lol.
—
Specialists are different from elitists. Sure, they maybe the elite in their field, but if they don’t think so highly of themselves, and remain down-to-earth, they can hardly be elitists don’t u think? jz ur regular ’spert on their chosen field.It’s the self-proclaimed elitism I’m railing abt. The elitism that enslaves. People striving for excellence can do so without all that shit abt being better than anyone else. Sure – in the natural course of events, hierarchy would develop so that everyone can determine their pay grade. But can we do it in a way nice? Ah well, there goes my bleeding liberal heart bein’ exposed and all. Perhaps, in the near future Jekkyl would take over, when bouts of hopelessness envelop me again. Until then, keep ur nice impression of me, won’t you cvj?

As for elitism, i believe the very concept itself is incompatible with the way modern society is organized (i.e. functionally differentiated, and not hierarchical as it was in pre-modern times). Modern society cannot survive without specialists and it sorely lacks good generalists, but it can do well without elitists, especially the self-identified ones.

Cvj, perhaps the middle class is not really oblivious to the plight of the poor. They only force themselves to look away. Men are not evil by nature. Even the most evil has a heart. To say the middle class are not moved by the poor is not right. As you have pointed out, the main reason the well-to-do (and the somehow OK) refuses to help the poor is that they believe in the school of thought that charity promotes mendicancy. I believe in that as well.
Another reason the middle class doesn’t help the poor is they themselves are probably busy working to keep them and their family remain middle class! Just a bit more of selfishness to keep their heads above water. There is anger in this 2nd grp of people. Kung ako nga nagpapakahirap maghanapbuhay para lang kumita, ba’t kayo di rin gawin yon?

But the idea that the poor only have themselves to blame for their poverty is wrong. Any schmoe who says that should try being born as one. And then let them find out the range of opportunities a poor person can get to lift themselves out of poverty, and still shout that ideology. You know, sometimes, the poor are only poor bec of fate.
Consider: if you are born dirt poor, you have less chances at education. Less chances of acquiring employable skills. Less chancing at knowing the right people to help you. Less chances at everything! And to compound that, if you are born poor, you’re automatically gifted with a whole set of environment conducive to keeping you poor! Exploitation at every turn bec you are ignorant, bad influences everywhere, allure of crime just around the corner. Should I continue? All it takes is a little imagination, and a little common sense to know that not all poor people have only themselves to blame for their poverty. There are some of them who do only have themselves to blame, but not everyone.
And we should be interested in helping these people. You know, GK has started a different kind of charity. It’s a charity that isn’t one way. For the charity workers to help them, the poor has to agree to help themselves. Not a free lunch, but a helping hand. It isn’t a quick buck. An effortless acting pitiable, and then some coin, but a real effort to give opportunities.
Yes. The key to “social mobility” is not really to flood the poor with money. Money can only get them so far. The key is to help open up opportunities for them. With opportunities, they themselves can do the work and lift themselves out of poverty. Sometimes I think charity should be more about giving one’s time and abilities rather than just a guilt-absolving trip of money giving. What if there’s a foundation that doesn’t accept cash, and only accepts those who are willing to part with a little of their time, and expertise? An NGO that is pure volunteer work. An NGO that facilitates volunteership. Welcomes anyone wanting to help, and identifies where these people can help the most, and then teach these people how. What I’m envisioning is an organization that is like just being middle-men for buyers and sellers. A well-to-do individual wants to help. He goes to this organization and signifies his intention to do so. He is not asked for cash. He is asked for his schedule. He is not asked for a check. He is asked for his skills and expertise. Perhaps the individual says he is a banker, or perhaps a businessman. He is then asked how long he intends to offer his help. Perhaps the man was just taken by a flight of fancy and says he’d just like to try it out for a few days. His schedule is taken and matched to a database. Somewhere near his area, a benificiary group is in need of his skills and expertise. This group have just finished classes equivalent to that of HS (also given by volunteer teachers) and are wanting to learn abt business. Perfect match. If the man decides to continue with his volunteer work, then its just another convert for this organization. If not, then the organization has set-up a system covering the relief of temporary volunteers with permanent ones.
What we have is a one-stop-shop charity arbiter. Welfare is so outdated. And foundations who bank on them equally so.

–no, i don’t. that may have been true during the Spanish era or probably 40 years ago but not at the present time. except for those living in imperial manila or maybe cebu, the distinction between the so-called middle class and the masses has been blurred by the same economic hardships suffered by both these two “groups”. in other words, the economic gap between the two has narrowed, such that the middle class nowadays no longer have that altruistic motive of “leading the masses” or “bridging the gap” between the elites and the poor. Those who identify themselves with the middle class have become more individualistic and selfish, thus making themselves less critical of the powers that be.