Freedom’s marching off to prison in Pakistan
November 6, 2007 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
In his blog, Jove Francisco gave an account of the situation as the weekend broke: an administration distracted so that it forgot to blow its own trumpets for a change:
I will wait for Secretary of the Cabinet Ric Saludo to once again blame media for the administration’s woes because we only cover political intrigues and conveniently snub good news stories like their economic strides.
Hey sir, there we were, trying hard and “risking our lives†(muntik kami maaksidente eh hehe) covering the good news about the strong peso because we all wanted to get the President’s reaction and official statement about this particular economic development … look at what we got… nothing.
Anyway, no horn-blowing at the Palace because the President was tending to her garden:
But despite her calls for a halt in politicking….palace insiders believe that the administration is doing its own brand of politics again.
Vehicles of local government officials from Pampanga were seen outside the Palace this afternoon.
No palace official would like to explain the presence of these officials, which is unfortunate because the visit came at a time when known pangalatok leaders FVR and JDV are at odds with Mrs. Arroyo.
While Scribbles Etc. points to the activities of the President’s Living nightmare, her predecessor. But was there a deal between the ex-con and the incumbent future con? Randy David, on Saturday, wrote,
The reality is that despite his detention and conviction, Estrada is far from being a spent political force. Ms Arroyo knows this. In detention, the ex-president could continue to sponsor destabilization efforts against her. Pardoned, he could be persuaded not to lend his name to any attempt to oust her.
This is political realism in a society where roughly 60 percent of the population remains under the spell of traditional political patrons and mass media celebrities. Ms Arroyo will pass into political oblivion after 2010, but not Estrada. He will be a force to reckon with, a figure to court for those with presidential ambitions, so long as the majority of our voters are rendered politically vulnerable by extreme poverty.
Realizing its marginal role in Philippine elections, the middle class, the harbinger of modernity, has favored non-electoral modes for effecting transitions — people power, impeachment, coups, calls for resignation, etc. It is this class that gave the country its two women presidents: Cory Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, both of them the beneficiaries of people power.
But people power is caught in a paradox, which limits its potency. Its spontaneous and unorganized character, driven by a strong moralism, is the source of its vitality. It is also its fundamental weakness. Middle class activism seldom leads to anything sustainable, like the formation of mainstream political parties. Even when, to its own surprise, it scores electoral victories, as in the case of Fr. Ed Panlilio’s successful run for governor o fPampanga province, the engagement tends to stop at the polls. Without a party on which to anchor itself, the middle class espousal of modern governance is quickly drowned out by the pragmatics of political patronage. No wonder, in the end, “trapo†[traditional politicos] like Ms Arroyo and Estrada will always find it easier to deal with one another.
One thing is sure: both the President and her predecessor, don’t care about the lot of most prisoners, which Sunday’s Inquirer editorial tackled.
I attended a meeting over the weekend of various opposition groups, to discuss what to do about the Pulido impeachment and so forth. The lawyers, many of whom stayed home and gave up family time to try to put together a fortified impeachment complaint, were glum over the prospects of their legal labors amounting to anything.
Rep. Ronaldo Zamora discussed the case filed with the Supreme Court some years back, challenging the impeachment restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court when then Chief Justice Hilario Davide was facing an impeachment attempt. According to Zamora, in the case they filed, they predicted what has come to pass, today: that to head off a proper impeachment, potential targets of an impeachment would cause weak or bogus complaints to be filed, to innoculate them against genuine impeachments. Zamora said that while the Constitution grants the Congress supremacy in cases of impeachment, in reality, because of the Francisco case, the Supreme Court intervened, tied the hands of Congress, and along the way, violated a fundamental tenet of law: that no man may be a judge in his own case (the Supreme Court, in this case, intervening in a case involving the potential impeachment of its own Chief Justice).
So he said, their case predicted what has come to pass, but when they asked for oral arguments, the Supreme Court refused, and the case continues to mold away in the dockets of the Supreme Court. Until the previous ruling is overturned, he said, there is no point fussing over impeachment, the moment an official causes a bogus case to be filed. My sense is that he was speaking from the point of view of a pretty thorough lawyer, who is professionally affronted when a half-assed case ends up substituting for a case which can’t be rushed, if completeness is to be achieved.
He also had some pretty interesting things to say about how political math works in the lower house, the magic number being 60. With 60, an impeachment is in play; anything below that, and don’t even bother. He was also prescient in suggesting that the President would refrain from trying to oust the Speaker, at least until the impeachment complaint was formally junked, and not earlier than January. But in the meantime, he said (to comfort the lawyers, I think) he said it was a good exercise to put together a meaty impeachment complaint, and draft articles of impeachment.
Anyway, he told the group, and as it emerged in the discussion (animated, even heated, at times), we would see what happens when amendments or supplements or what have you are filed. But he and other opposition congressmen like Roilo Golez are of the opinion that at the very least, the moment the administration-controlled Committee on Justice shows no inclination to even consider amendments to the complaint or supplements to it, then the opposition should simply boycott the proceedings.
Why dignify a farce? Why legitimize a mockery of the process? A wise tactic and one I hope the opposition will stick to. I’d love to see the administration coalition reduced to arguing among themselves about a bogus case of their own making.
On the sidelines of the meeting, a congressman went up to me and made an observation I found particularly intriguing. He said, one should not over-plan things, but rather, work out a scenario for every eventuality, including a sudden, unexpected favor from Lady Luck. Such as what, I asked. The congressman replied, well, it makes sense for the President to hold her fire with regards to the Speaker, but if she decides to topple him, the Speaker has one last master-stroke left.
And what would that be, I inquired.
The Speaker, according to the congressman, upon seeing one of the President’s men taking to the floor to make a motion to declare the leadership vacant, and knowing at that instant, that it was now war to the death, could then suspend the session indefinitely. Chaos would ensue, the congressman said. I asked, suspend the session, as in, simply end the session, for ever? Not for ever, the congressman replied; the Constitution actually imposes a limit to such moves of three days. But imagine that, the congressman said. Three days of furious jockeying and wheeling, and dealing, of confusion and recriminations.
Why so, I asked. Because, the congressman said, the moment the President makes it known she wants a new Speaker, do you know how many candidates would arise? You would have to make each one happy. And if you topple the Speaker, you must replace all the senior leaders of the House, that’s 20 instant allies turned disgruntled enemies. In such a situation, things could change very fast and suddenly, a suitable number for impeachment could possibly be within reach.
But, the congressman remarked, while we should be prepared for such moments of divine intervention, one shouldn’t actively work for it, or even expect it.
What the President and her people, were up to, is covered by Uniffors and who kindly adds the blog’s voice to the call I and other made in my column for today, Save the day. We’re going to get together on Friday, at lunchtime, to walk together to the Makati Central Post Office to send the President a postcard.
Here’s the postcard design (click on the front and back design to enlarge and save to your desktop).
Or, if you want to save postage, you can email the President.
For information, see The Black and Whire Movement blog for additional details, including simultaneous protests in Riyadh, San Francisco, Seoul, Tokyo, Cambodia, and Hong Kong.
But of course over the weekend the really big news took place overseas: ‘Desperate’ Musharraf declares martial law. Or was it? A “state of emergency,” he said, and as his own prime minister said, “definitely extraconstitutional.” Global Voices Online has a roundup of online reactions; the blog Teeth Maestro, established by a Pakistani gentleman I met in the regional blogger’s conference held a couple of years back in Manila, has a blow-by-blow account of the creeping martial law in that country. It is, as commentator Ali Eteraz puts it, Musharraf’s mini-martial law.
For Americans, concerned over their own economy (see Asia Sentinel’s report on window-dressing by the US Federal Reserve) as Prarie Weather points out, the Pakistani president’s declaration left Washington looking impotent. As for everyone else, as Rising Hegemon eloquently put it, instead of a new dawn of democracy in the Islamic world thanks to Uncle Sam, George W. Bush’s legacy is the opposite: it “Looks like Freedom’s Marching off to Prison.” Instead of a brave new world, it’s more apocalyptic by the day. As History Unfolding points out,
When the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006, many of us, I think, thought tha the Bush era was over and a change would begin. The voters in particular had clearly rejected the Iraq war–as had Washington’s traditional establishment, embodied in the Baker-Hamilton commission–and we now expected de-escalation to begin. The resignation of Don Rumsfeld (who was actually fired, we can now see, because he opposed escalation in Iraq) encouraged this illusion. But that was not what happened. Nearly a year after the election we have more troops (but less casualties) in Iraq than ever. More importantly, it seems that the course that the Bush Administration set us on five or six years ago–a futile attempt to rule the Middle East, if not the whole world, by force–may be so firmly entrenched that even another election will not reverse it.
I am glad that I managed in 2002 to recognize how revolutionary the new foreign policy was, and to reject it on fundamental grounds. (Anyone who is interested can find what I had to say on the H-Diplo internet list archives for the fall of that year.) Our new National Security Strategy had proclaimed that we had the right and the duty to overthrow any unfriendly regime that was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and that we would do so alone if necessary. Meanwhile, President Bush announced that Israel would (in effect) keep whatever land it had settled and wanted to keep in any peace with a new Palestinian state. Each of those stands, in different ways, repudiated critical provisions of international law and flung the door open to international anarchy. Both were far, far more important than the President’s attempts to promote democracy. Indeed, it is partly because the President has proclaimed that both the United States and Israel will take, and keep, whatever they want, that elections in the Middle East have turned out so badly for us.
One blogger, Naeem, is so discouraged about the whole thing that the views of the blogger sound eerily familiar.
Incidentally, my column today quoted a phrase from The Economist editorial, which bears reading in its entirety.
A synopsis of a Newsbreak report on the ill-fated NAIA3 Terminal, by Torn and Frayed. Oddly enough, the President’s two predecessors came across better than the incumbent:
However, since NAIA 3 is a major public works project, history will also judge the three presidents who oversaw the project: Ramos, Estrada, and Arroyo.
The building of the terminal did not start to unravel until after Ramos’s term and he escapes relatively unscathed. Ramos had the foresight to realize that the country needed a new international terminal, invited the six taipans who constitute AEDC to bid for it, and, when a better bid was proposed by Piatco, oversaw its acceptance.
Perhaps surprisingly, Erap also comes out of the story quite well. Concerned that the AEDC suit against Piatco would derail the project, in his best Don Corleone fashion Estrada tried to reconcile the warring parties: “Among the new president’s moves within two months of assuming power was to call AEDC and Piatco to a meeting in Malacañang. In that meeting held September 3, Estrada made an extraordinary request: for AEDC to drop the civil suit pending before the Pasig RTC against the award of the Naia 3 contract to the Paircargo group, now Piatco.†There’s a time for Don Corleone and I think this was it—AEDC did indeed drop its civil suits and for a while the project proceeded, shakily, but it did move forward…
The president who comes out dreadfully from the debacle is Gloria. Admittedly, the airport was already a problem when she assumed office, but through her characteristic indecisiveness and lack of political will she made it into a catastrophe. The strap line of one of the Newsbreak articles sums it up perfectly: “Incoherent policies and failed quick fixes mark Arroyo’s response to NAIA 3â€. Here is one example. The Office of the Solicitor General filed an expropriation suit (meaning that the government would attempt to take the new terminal into public ownership) before the Pasay regional trial court on 21 December 2004. As Newsbreak points out, the timing was “unfortunateâ€, since “just a day before the Philippine government’s lawyers in the ICSID arbitration proceedings in Washington, DC, had made a filing stating that Manila had not taken acts amounting to expropriation.â€
Speaking of the President, Stella Arnaldo’s Blogspot says her former professors are, well, embarrassed.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, economy, elections, House of Representatives, impeachment, internet, journalism, law, media, philippines, politics, president, society, Washington DC
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
Bencard on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 2:05 am
mlq3, even as one holding the title “chief justice” davide was not the supreme court. correct me if i’m wrong, but did not davide participate in the hearing and adjudication of the francisco case? i should think not since that would be unethical, if not illegal. wouldn’t it?
regardless of whether davide participated or not, i would think that the required majority of the justices would “vote” in violation of the constitution to favor one of its own. i don’t think i’m prepared to question the integrity of each of the members of the davide court.
btw, impeachment, like any other prosecution, is addressed to the personal act of the impeachable officer, not as a vicarious liability for the illicit act of another. even if the pulido complaint can be amended to include the zte deal and the alleged “bribery” in malacanang, i doubt it can prosper without a showing of personal culpability of the president.
Bencard on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 2:35 am
in interpreting the spirit and intent of the consitution, the sc is upholding the constitution pursuant to its provisions. it is not a naked exercise of power, rather it is a recognition and affirmation of the supremacy of the consitution under our system of government.
baycas on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 3:26 am
hmmm, still no post on macarambon…
the guy recently sworn into comelec office as commish…
the guy quoted as saying:
the guy who, as RTC judge, handled his son’s lawsuit…
talk about favoring one of (its) own…this sure is one hell of an example…and to think he’s now a comelec commissioner!
BrianB on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 3:42 am
Musharraf is an example of a good man being overwhelmed by the times.
David on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 7:20 am
“A synopsis of a Newsbreak report on the ill-fated NAIA3 Terminal, by Torn and Frayed. Oddly enough, the President’s two predecessors came across better than the incumbent:”
mlq3,
Isn’t this spin or propaganda? If one reads the Supreme Court decision nullifying the NAIA-3 contract, one would find that the contract was modified a number of times making it grossly disadvantageous to the government (not to mention to the commuting public, i.e. exorbitant terminal fees) under Estrada’s watch. And guess who in Estrada’s cabinet approved the modifications.
sparks on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 7:30 am
About Pakistan, bizarre as it may sound, Musharraf, by holding on to power, may actually be the only force strong enough to keep Pakistan secular. The legitimate opposition groups (at least in the eyes of the underclasses) are hard core Islamists. But then, there’s always Benazir Bhutto.
BrianB on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 8:08 am
Yep, a good man in a tough situation. Benzir bhutto sucks her own you-know-what. Why can’t they all be like thatcher and hillary… I mean, manly.
BrianB on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 8:14 am
sparks,
about the quote in your blog. Totally correct. The monetary system should be eliminated by 2050. The market system ended by 2020. What are they waiting for, another depression? Technologically, we can already feed all the hungry, educate all, etc. It’s superstition to think that people only work because they have to survive. Work will change somewhat. There definitely would be less sales people and marketing people. More of what we now consider “hobbies” and science can focus on the betterment of mankind, instead of helping tobacco companies sell more tobacco. The capitalist class effectively eliminated. Many would retain their old power and influence but they will have a hard time passing it on to their stupid children.
leah on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 8:49 am
postage is not required when writing to the President or Members of Congress
patsadakarajaw on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 9:55 am
mlq:
I am delighted to read the game plan of the Speaker in case, a move to oust him is initiated. But in writing it, are you not giving comfort to the enemy considering they will now know how to react in such a scenario?
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 9:58 am
The prevailing culture of impunity gives a wrong sense of power or creates a situation conducive to the abuse of power without any legal consequences. The prevailing feeling within the GMA administration is that they “can get away with anything” by simply issuing denials, making cover-ups or creating distractions ( example: the new “Cha-Cha” move) , distortions by the usual spin doctors and ,of course, bribery attempts.
Jon Mariano on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 10:25 am
Musharraf took a leaf from Gloria’s book in declaring a state of emergency. What was it that Gloria used?
Jon Mariano on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 10:27 am
If the speaker has a masterstroke, Gloria has many. One of them is declaring the same thing as what Musharraf did, or even Martial Law.
j_ag on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 10:39 am
“I will wait for Secretary of the Cabinet Ric Saludo to once again blame media for the administration’s woes because we only cover political intrigues and conveniently snub good news stories like their economic strides.”
“Hey sir, there we were, trying hard and “risking our lives†(muntik kami maaksidente eh hehe) covering the good news about the strong peso because we all wanted to get the President’s reaction and official statement about this particular economic development … look at what we got… nothing.”
It is so interesting to note that a large group of pinoys even journalists believe that a storng peso is sign of good economic fundamentals. Meanwhile China and Japan the two notable leading Asian economies who strive hard to keep their currency weak against the dollar as a sign of theirs strong economic fundamentls.
If one trumpets the strong dollar regime as a fundamental government policy then that means we should strive for Php 25 to 1 soon. But that would be a disaster for the economy since the economy is based primarily on earning more dollars.
So should we celebrate or not the economic strides (success) of GMA in sending more people abroad?
I am lost in all these seeming paradoxes.
Abe N. Margallo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 11:26 am
Until the previous ruling is overturned, (Rep. Zamora) said, there is no point fussing over impeachment. – mlq3
Zamora and company have to take a bolder stand. If the required number to impeach Arroyo is not insuperable to attain, they may just forget about Francisco for it is not even a settled doctrine yet; on the contrary, it is also constitutionally grounded that the Supreme Court may be denied “judicial supremacy†when broad constitutional principles involving major political controversies are at stake, and in such cases, a decision is final only for the immediate parties involved in the case.
Additionally, even Fr. Bernas whose opinion had been relied upon by the SC in Francisco wrote in his PDI column post-Francisco the following:
“(The Constitution) prohibits the initiation of more than one ‘impeachment proceeding.’ It does not necessarily prohibit more than one complaint. More than one complaint would be prohibited only if the multiple complaints would require more than ‘one proceeding.’ But if they can be logically and conveniently combined into one proceeding, there would be no violation of the Constitution.â€
In the end, it’s a numbers game. The opposition should do the “political math†first and then ignore Francisco altogether. If the requisite number is present, it would “tie the hands†of the Supreme Court instead, not the other way around; after all, the ruling in Francisco is a culpable violation of the Constitution (for it has the effect of rendering the impeachment process inoperative) and therefore an impeachable offense on the part of the current justices who participated in it.
mlq3 on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 11:52 am
david, spin or propaganda implies a partisan position. you can determine if there’s a partisan position coloring thihngs by going over torn and frayed’s blog in general. i think you are confusing spin and propaganda with interpretation and opinion, which everyone should undertake, and which the blogger in question provided (interpretation and opinion).
note that the two predecessors according to torn, aren’t saints, but still come across better than the incumbent. and these are background events not necessarily covered by, or interepreted according to the law, by the supreme court.
j_ag on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 11:57 am
A good link for an intervew with Jim Rogers on the fact that the U.S. government is deliberately debasing the value of the U.S. dollar. His advice — Everyone should short the dollar. Sell the dollar………..
He actually wants to froce the Chinese to revalue the renminbi upward faster as he has gone long on the Chinese currency.
He is a smart SOB
http://www.ft.com/cms/893ac9c8-757e-11dc-b7cb-0000779fd2ac.html
mlq3 on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 12:06 pm
patsada, that is, assuming the speaker would be toppled and he would fight. it’s a legislative trick (the suspension) every congressman who knows the rules knows, so i don’t think we’re aiding and abetting the palace, because it’s an exclusive power of the speaker. so there’s absolutely nothing anyone else can do, if he decides to suspend the session indefinitely.
mlq3 on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 12:15 pm
abe, then the math simply isn’t there. the opposition can count on 30. with an additional 2 that are iffy.
in case of a sudden jdv-oppo alliance, the speaker’s true numbers are estimated from 15-30.
Abe N. Margallo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 12:41 pm
mlq3, in that case, GMA has a better hold to power than Musharaf, unless the people do their own math by the principle of the “last say.†But then per David “their engagement tends to stop at the polls†or, as I have also noted, even at the exercise of people power for in the latter case there’s that process of re-entrusting too – to those who, they think, are better equipped to govern.
j_ag on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 1:29 pm
PetroChina just breached the $1 trillion mark for market capitalization in China’ stock exchanges. That means today on paper it is worth more than Exxon Mobile and General Electric put together.
But both companies are making more money than the Chinese company in dollar terms. Petro China is majority owned by the state.
Which is make believe and which is real?
qwert on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 1:46 pm
“so there’s absolutely nothing anyone else can do, if he decides to suspend the session indefinitely.”-MLQ3
_____________________
I think GMA is smarter than that possibility. She will not “rock the boat” unless all the “bases are covered”(plantsado na).It is now too late for JDV to make any move, he should have moved with dispatch at the height of the ZTE-NBN deal controversy.Once the committee on justice officially throws the Pulido complaint in the “thrash can”, that’s it.
The “sudden jdv-oppo alliance” must happen before the committee on justice decides with finality the rejection of the Pulido complaint.The projected “15-30 true numbers of the speaker” will become moot and academic and no congressman will throw his support to the speaker if there is no impeachment to be voted upon and no congressman will wait for one year to make his vote politically relevant, he would rather vote for the Malacanang endorsed speaker now than wait for one more year and besides not withstanding the “perk and the pork” that the congressmen will enjoy from GMA,leaders want their leader to be smart,astute,decisive and knows “how to use the sword”.They can’t see it in JDV.
The opposition calls GMA a “lame duck” President, now the administration can call JDV a “sitting duck” speaker. Sayang na sayang ang pagkakataon!JDV sometimes is referred to as “sunshine Joe” but if he will look at the political clock it says:”5:59 p.m.”(time for the sun to set).
The Speaker can suspend/adjourn the session of the lower house but only for three days (unless the Senate gives its consent to extend it)and for what reason? I cannot think of any except to delay the inevitably inevitable.
“Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.” – Article VI Section 16 paragraph(5)of the Constitution
Sayang, Sayang talaga!
mlq3 on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 2:03 pm
qwert, i agree with you, his time was before the president opened the door and showed him she had 180 plus congressmen in her pocket. but then if he was a fighter, he would have fought it out, but he’s not a fighter. so, he’s a decoration and worse (for him) powerless, moneyless, and only a decoration so long as the president finds him useful.
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 2:08 pm
I’m 100% convinced that Gloria will do a Musharraf and declare martial law to perpetuate herself in power for the following reasons:
1)George W. Bush will not disagree.Therefore she must do it while he still in power.(The next President may be a Democrat and may not tolerate her move).
2)The Neocons and ex-generals dominate the cabinet (Gonzalez, Puno, Ermita,Mendoza,Ebdane,Reyes,etc.).
3)The “Genuine Opposition” AND Erap have been co-opted.
4)$100/ barrel cost of oil will have very adverse economic consequences.
5)She will use the “threat of terrorism” as a pretext.
mlq3 on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 2:10 pm
bencard, my understanding is in the estrada resignation case and in the impeachment attempt vs. davide, in both cases he himself inhibited himself.
my understanding of the criticisms of the francisco decision are basically two important ones:
1. was the decision an usurpation of what should be congress’ exclusive powers re: impeachment?
2. since a chief justice was being impeached, could the high court in any way serve as an objective judge in a case where one of their own was before the bar and where any of them, all of the sc justices being impeachable officials, had a potential conflict of interest?
add to this, if its true, that in their pleading before the sc the lawyers precisely predicted what has come to pass: that if some damned fool files a superficial impeachment complaint, it basically nullifies the prospects of a solid case being filed.
i’ve sat in a couple of meetings of the lawyers for the various impeachment complaints and the latest seems pretty solid, but the current rules makes it improbable the house will give its proponents the time of day.
hvrds on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 2:26 pm
This analysis of Pakistan is so so close to home relative to the Philippines. The Philippines though more a construct of empire with a very short history of people coming in from the neighboring areas with a relatively small number of indigenous tribes very much somewhere between the stone age and the bronze age.
Pakistan a part of Central Asia the crossroad between Europe and Asia.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_ettefagh/2007/11/why_not_dissolve_pakistan_too.html
“Pakistan is a relic set up as a counterweight to India — and its tendency to tilt towards the Eastern Block. I think it is high time to revisit the old composite structure of five provinces combined into one artificial country. A redrawing of borders might serve useful and to cut through the farce. Let each province mature and declare independence. Some will eventually join their long-time tribal allies, leaving two or three independent lands and a more transparent political agenda.” Ali Ettefagh
broadbandido on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 3:12 pm
What can we expect from Yoda de Venecia? Nothing, nada, zilch.
He will sell his mother and his children just to fulfill his life-long ambition to be the leader of this country, which will not happen since he will never, ever be elected on a national level.
Did he learn anything from the death of his daughter, or somehow think that it is karma as payment for his sins to the citizens of our country? No, he didn’t.
ronin on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 3:14 pm
Musharraf’s ace-in-the-hole comes with a bonus: He can shout ‘Islamic militants!” and Bush won’t think twice to support him. What about Arroyo? What would compel Uncle Sam to back an imposition of emergency rule/martial law? The Reds haven’t been that threatening lately, the ASG bandits are getting gunned down, the putschists are either in jail or coopted, and only a handful of anti-GMA rallyists are going out on the streets. That is, unless Arroyo resorts to a wag-the-dog scenario and imitate Marcos’ tactic of orchestrating bombing campaigns to justify emergency rule. On the other hand, would a showdown with JDV precipitate Martial Law? That would be the funniest excuse Gloria would ever have.
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 3:22 pm
ronin: we are just a “fake ambush” away from Martial law.Remember Enrile?
Gloria has to do it before a Democrat President takes over in 2008.
At least she still has Bush,as partner in crime,until the U.S.elections.
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 3:25 pm
“Did he learn anything from the death of his daughter, or somehow think that it is karma as payment for his sins to the citizens of our country? No, he didn’t.broad bandido”
That also happened to to Abalos(the death of his grandaughter)and to Gloria(the near-death experience of Mike.)
Did they learn? MANHID?
ronin on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 3:43 pm
equalizer: I think so too, especially now that Erap apparently has reneged on his word (if the two had a deal), Arroyo is getting cornered. Enrile said Gloria is more cunning than Marcos. Perhaps, instead of a fake ambush, she’ll conduct a live-fire exercise, with lots of casualties to boot, hehe.
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 4:02 pm
Ronin:
American elections will held on November 8,2008.
1)So the exact window of opportunity for Gloria to declare it is just 12 months.
2)I don’t think she will do it right now(November/December 2007).She will look like a cheap copycat of Musharaff.
3)Oil is expected to hit $100/barrel by December.
4)I think the most logical timing for a martial law declaration will be around March 2008 when summer vacation begins(so the activist youth will not be in school).
I hope I am absolutely wrong!
BUT,the most compelling reason is that the departure of Bush will force her hand.It will be difficult for her to do it with a President Hillary or Obama.
cvj on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 4:05 pm
Equalizer, i don’t think a Democrat in the White House would result in a policy change towards Gloria and/or the Philippines.
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 4:15 pm
CVJ: Republican Presidents have generally been more lenient to Philippine autocrats.
Remember VP George HW Bush’s infamous quote to Marcos “we admire your adherence to democratic principles and practices. … “
cvj on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 4:27 pm
Equalizer, actually the Republicans have both been good and bad for our democracy. True, Reagan tolerated Marcos because he was anti-communist. However, then Vice-President Dan Quayle (of all people) was the one who authorized the F-4 overflights that saved Cory Aquino when the outcome of the 1990 Coup was still in doubt. My speculation is that action saved us from a Honasan/Danding Cojuangco-led junta.
holyfather on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 4:38 pm
I am with you mlq3 and I will be sending a postcard on the 9th.
Manila Bay Watch on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 4:55 pm
Agree with Sparks.
ronin on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 4:59 pm
Equalizer: Being branded a copycat might not appeal to Gloria (or anyone for that matter) but she would be motivated by her survival instincts. If Erap and the opposition gets its act together, if the rift within the admi gets wider and wider, who knows, she might try her best to find a pretext for wearing that gauntlet sooner. Besides, she must also be wary about the loyalty of her generals. If the rats start sniffing trouble in the ship…
Manila Bay Watch on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 5:02 pm
Abe,
I refuse to compare Gloria to Musharraf (insult to the latter).
Most of Pakistan’s population still live in the feudal world, half illiterate and virtually caught in the stone age of Islam.
Musharaf lives and breathes Pakistan whereas Gloria lives and breathes for herself. That’s a huge difference. We may compare her to Bhutto though. They are both corrupt.
alas ka dora on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 5:04 pm
“Perhaps, instead of a fake ambush, she’ll conduct a live-fire exercise, with lots of casualties to boot, hehe.”
Isn’t the Glorieta blast a live-bomb exercise already with lots of casualties?
Geo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 5:04 pm
Still talking of martial law??? How many times does that need to be incorrectly predicted before the notion is dismissed with finality?
Impeachment? How many times does one need to bang his head against the wall?
Junta? Carekeeper government? THAT is a solution to the Philippines’ problems??
Endless Senate investigations? Fact-less fact-finding endless journeys.
The inanity of the opposition continues to be the single most powerful force in keeping GMA in Malacanang.
Of course, the opposition tells us non-partisan types that we don’t rush to join them because we are all too stupid, too lazy and/or too cowed.
A government should never be fully trusted…but, in this case, the opposition is even worse. Both sides are full of BS.
ronin on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 5:13 pm
alas ka dora:
If you’d believe the PNP and Malacanang,the Glorietta blast was nothing more than a gas explosion caused by negligence.
Geo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 5:20 pm
ronin — what was the cause of the blast?
ronin on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 5:27 pm
Geo:
Well, the official (i.e. Malacanang’s) version is that it was a gas explosion.
Geo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 5:43 pm
But I thought people were saying that Malacanang wanted to create a fake attack so that martial law could be invoked…..
What happened to that analysis?
Joselito Basilio on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 5:44 pm
I have tried to open the postcard design and got the following notice :
“We apologize the site you are attempting to visit has been blocked due to its content being inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political and moral values of the United Arab Emirates.â€
Is there a way to view this postcard?
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 5:49 pm
The issue about martial is not “IF” but WHEN”.
That’s Gloria’s last ace.
But ,unlike the Marcos declaration,the gloria version will not last as long and will eventually FAIL :
1)We are now an interconnected-global village.There is now more “connection” among concerned people of the world (not among nations).
2)The power of blogs.(“Free Burma”)
3)8 million OFWs abroad.
4)It’s not a monolithic military.
5)CNN,BBC
6)Most importantly,the power of one who will really say “NEVER AGAIN” and mean it.
broadbandido on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 5:58 pm
Joselito :
Just sent you the postcards via e-mail.
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 6:27 pm
AMAZING COINCIDENCES of Two Presidents
(Gloria and Bushie)!
* Both are children of former Presidents.
* Both assumed power in 2001.
* Both have resorted to lies,deceptions and cover-ups.
* Both have relied on master spin doctors( Karl Rove,Ronnie Puno)
* Both have big credibility gaps with their respective people
* Both have been widely critised in terms personal dishonesty & dishonesty in government.
* Both have have record low job-approval ratings.
* Both incumbents will face the harsh judgment of history(worst presidents ever?)
Geo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 7:14 pm
Equalizer — You sure seem to know a lot…and seem very sure of your knowledge.
Can you pls advise me when this martial law thingie is supposed to happen? I can make a killing on the stock market with that kind of advance info…..
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 7:29 pm
GEO: protect your capital in these uncertain times.
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 7:31 pm
GEO:I hope and pray that I am 100% wrong for the sake of many.
Geo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 7:35 pm
You can bet on a downturn as much as an upturn.
It’s not IF martial law, it’s just WHEN…right? March 2008, you say? Cool.
Hey…how much are you betting?
Geo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 7:46 pm
You “hope” you are wrong?
Have you predicted this before? Were you wrong then? How many times have you been wrong?
If it’s good for you to be wrong (since you hope and pray you are wrong), why are you predicting this again? Is this “forewarning” somehow helpful to us all? Even if it proves to be false…again?
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 7:53 pm
GEO:I don’t play in the stock market THAT way.I am not a gambler.
I take a long term position on the stocks in my portfolio.
Suggest you do the same.
The market is always wrong as Warren B.would say.
Geo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 8:11 pm
Actually, equalizer, I don’t play the stock market at all. I actually create or invest directly in a budding business.
Unfortunately, there are those who run around and constantly yell about how the sky is falling. Not helpful. “It’s martial law, it’s martial law!” isn’t good for business. So I hire less people. So I invest less money. So I pay less performance-based bonuses.
In my opinion, entrepreneurship is the way forward for this country. Outsourcing and exporting are key drivers (as is the rapid improvement of farm-to-market infrastructure). But…these avenues for growth are being blocked.
By people yelling BS and making everything more difficult.
But, hey — Thanks for your contribution.
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 8:12 pm
“Can you pls advise me when this martial law thingie is supposed to happen? I can make a killing on the stock market with that kind of advance info…..GEO”
Here’s some serious advice on the stock market:
Think of buying stocks as buying fractional interests in whole businesses.
Construct a focused low-turnover portfolio.
Invest only in what you can understand and analyze.
Demand a margin of safety between the purchase price and the company’s long-term value.
Most importantly,dont invest in the stock market based on the latest political vagaries.
cheers! thanks for asking my advice.Good Night.
Willy on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 8:13 pm
Just now read the story under today’s Inquirer headline “US aid tied to RP action on killings”, wherein one incredible item caught my attention:…
“He (UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston) also criticized the Ombudsman for its failure to act on even a SINGLE case of the 444 complaints filed before it between 2002 and 2006 regarding killings attributed to public officials”.
(caps mine).
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 8:18 pm
GEO:
There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots – suspicion.
Demosthenes
Geo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 8:29 pm
Equalizer — I agree wholeheartedly with maintaining a healthy level of “suspicion”. No government should be blindly trusted.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t have anything to do with pronouncements from people that martial law is imminent…or any other such unsubstantiated garbage that ultimately results in a negative for this country.
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 8:42 pm
GEO:the real negatives are coming from the administration
itself.
Since the start of the GMA administration in January 2001, it has been one scandal after another.
They generated all these “GARBAGE”
*the hasty pardon of ERAP
*attempted briberies of governors
*attempted briberies of congressmen.
*ZTE/NBN deal.
*Hello Garci election cheating
*The Diosdado Macapagal blvd.overpricing
*etc.etc.etc.
The great destabilizer of this country is Gloria herself.
Geo on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 9:09 pm
So you are saying that it is OK to spew unsubstantiated garbage — to the detriment of the nation — because you are convinced that someone else did something wrong?
Makes no sense.
If you think some woman is hurting your brothers and sisters, then you’re going to go ahead and hurt some more people?
Is this a contest to see who can destabilize more? What kind of game is that?
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 9:17 pm
“If you think some woman is hurting your brothers and sisters, then you’re going to go ahead and hurt some more people?
Is this a contest to see who can destabilize more? What kind of game is that?GEO”
non sequitur.
i think I know who you really are.
Enough!
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 9:24 pm
“My father thought that with the end of martial law, things would be better for all Filipinos. He would have been upset with, but challenged by the recent worsening of events in the country,†said Maria Socorro Diokno, sixth child of Senator Jose W.Diokno and FLAG secretary general.”
The more things change, the more they stay the same in this country.
sparks on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 9:25 pm
Maybe you’d care to explain how citizens airing their speculations about what could be attempts for the Arroyo administration to assume “emergency” powers “result in a negative for this country”?
A “negative” for whom exactly? I, for one, see it in a positive light. It means citizens are watchful, which means, they give a shit.
So back to my question, a “negative” for whom?
rego on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 10:05 pm
To me it become negative when it produces negative thoughts, feelings and action, such as anger, paranoia, panic, rumor mongering, hate mongering, etc etc etc
Its positive when it produces proactive reaction such as preventing Martial Law to happen.
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 10:05 pm
“By people yelling BS and making everything more difficult.
But, hey — Thanks for your contribution.GEO”
DEAN:thanks for your contributions and indulgence.your student
The Equalizer on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 10:08 pm
“To me it become negative when it produces negative thoughts, feelings and action, such as anger, paranoia, panic, rumor mongering, hate mongering, etc etc etcREGO”
I detest Martial Law to the very core of my being.NEVER AGAIN!
triolosbogus on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 10:16 pm
By Maila Ager
INQUIRER.net
Last updated 03:12pm (Mla time) 11/06/2007
there you go, right off the horse’s mouth, finally someone admitted where the “bribe money” came from. expect denials from all corners…again.
Manila Bay Watch on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 10:47 pm
“To me it become negative when it produces negative thoughts, feelings and action, such as anger, paranoia, panic, rumor mongering, hate mongering, etc etc etc”
You seem to have described Gloria’s ‘presidency’ very well.
Manila Bay Watch on Tue, 6th Nov 2007 10:48 pm
Triolosbogus, “there you go, right off the horse’s mouth, finally someone admitted where the “bribe money†came from. expect denials from all corners…again.”
Problem is tomorrow, she might change her tune and deny she ever said that.
ay_naku on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 1:21 am
So the opposition doesn’t have the numbers for impeachment right now. Anything we the people (civil society, business groups, church, NGOs) can do to increase those numbers? How do we apply the right kind of pressure/lobbying to our congressmen?
Abe N. Margallo on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 2:00 am
I refuse to compare Gloria to Musharraf (insult to the latter).
Most of Pakistan’s population still live in the feudal world, half illiterate and virtually caught in the stone age of Islam. – MBW
But the “analysis of Pakistan,†according to hvrds, is “so close to home,†the Philippines being more (of) a construct of empire with a very short history of people . . . very much somewhere between the stone age and the bronze age.â€
If we follow hvrds’ logic, we could claim quite plausibly that “most of Philippines’ population still live in the feudal world, half illiterate and virtually caught in the stone age of Catholicism,†with one notable distinction – Philippine warlords sometimes carry US Ivy Leave schools diplomas, an added negative against Filipinos, since by such credentials they ought to conduct themselves a bit more “civilized†(i.e., Westernized or Americanized).
Relative to relationship with US, I will agree that the comparison between Marcos and Musharraf is closer than the one between GMA and Musharraf (simply because GMA, to her credit unfortunately, appears more cunning than both dictators for, instead of being just macho, GMA exhibits amazing reflexiveness: she adroitly “backs off†when called for whether what’s on the table is charter change, exercise of executive privilege, the ZTE deal, strong stance on former president Estrada’s incarceration or a showdown with FVR or JDV.)
Now, if we remember the “Kirkpatrick doctrine†(Jean Kirkpatrick served as UN ambassador in Reagan administration) during Marcos time, by which US supported authoritarian governments as long as they were pro-American irrespective of the regimes’ human rights or governance records. The US saw no need to press dictatorships to move toward democracy if it feared that communists groups might triumph. That the conjugal dictatorship survived in the Philippines for two decades is largely attributable to Kirkpatrick’s tenet.
The foreign policy of containing communism is now dated. Following the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush reconfigured the neocons’ professed goal about global defense of freedom and democracy by infusing into the rhetorical mix his “war on terror.†The definition of convenience of democracy however remains the same: it means being pro-American (with free-enterprise capitalism a necessary add-on) regardless of whether on the hand the US dogs are cheating in elections, plundering the treasury and torturing or killing extra-judicially their opponents and on the other, economic growth is benefiting only a privileged few, as long as they are on board on the “war on terror†and advancing the cause of democracy. When it comes to US allies, in the in the so-called Third World anyway, the institutions of substantive democracy such as fair and honest elections, active citizenship, public trust, the rule of law, and accountability of public officials are frosting on the cake or play second fiddle.
So, even 1) Dubya’s call to Musharraf for parliamentary elections (recall that Musharraf came to power eight years ago via coup d’etat, however like Bush senior who had been lavish at praising Marcos’ “adherence to democratic principles,†Bush junior at the White House in 2006 unabashedly paid tribute to Musharraf as “a strong defender of freedom and the people of Pakistanâ€), or 2) the US Senate’s condition that continued military aid to the Philippines must be tied to improvements in human rights, should be taken as mere lip service to the true cause of freedom and democracy.
On the same score, cvj seems equally prescient: a Democrat in the White House would (not) result in a policy change towards Gloria and/or the Philippines.
Meanwhile, wily GMA will not hesitate to play her China card against tougher US foreign policy, when it suits her ambition, an option that was not available to Marcos.
BrianB on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 2:44 am
Martial Law is impossible.
Gloria will fear the consequences of a Martial Law declared by her. One of these consequences is that she and her family’s life may be put to extreme danger. The military will get ambitious, realizing they have an unpopular commander in chief who isn’t going to make the grade even among foreign leaders and opinion makers. What do you think will happen?
rego on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 2:57 am
It is imossible for Gloria to decalre martial law by herself. need approval of congress. Though we all know this
d0d0ng on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 3:09 am
“According to Zamora, in the case they filed, they predicted what has come to pass, today: that to head off a proper impeachment, potential targets of an impeachment would cause weak or bogus complaints to be filed, to innoculate them against genuine impeachments.”
-While this is a negative picture, still this is true to its substance. This is anchored on section 5 of article XI of the Constitution that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. Zamora’s statement showed how the opposition had not made any progress since 2003 Supreme Court ruling on initiation. That is already 5 years or 5 chances to head off any might be bogus complaints. It just underscore the weakness of opposition to be a cohesive force eversince.
“Zamora said that while the Constitution grants the Congress supremacy in cases of impeachment, in reality, because of the Francisco case, the Supreme Court intervened, tied the hands of Congress, and along the way, violated a fundamental tenet of law: that no man may be a judge in his own case”.
Davide is an escapegoat for apparent conflict of interest. The current Supreme Court is different from the Davide’s Supreme Court in 2003. It can overturn the previous decision. In reality, it cannot overturn a clear statement that is based on section 5 of article XI of the Constitution. That is how you can see that Davide’s Court did not made an error.
Bencard on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 3:45 am
kudos to you, geo, for putting this “prophet of doom and gloom” where he belongs. these kind of people are so consumed by hate for gma that they eat, drink, sleep and wake up wishing the worst for the country. like the mechanical monsters and ghosts in a carnival, they do things to scare and terrify except, in this case, they are hoping to frighten the rest of the people into getting rid of gma by hook or by crook.
David on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 3:46 am
“note that the two predecessors according to torn, aren’t saints, but still come across better than the incumbent. and these are background events not necessarily covered by, or interepreted according to the law, by the supreme court.”
mlq3,
I can’t see how Estrada comes across better than Arroyo when the NAIA-3 contract was rendered inutile during the former’s administration (which led to the whole debacle in the first place), unless, we ignore or turn a blind eye to the Estrada administration’s culpability in the matter. Entering into contracts grossly disadvantageous to the government is still a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, isn’t it? If this aspect is ignored completely, my question is why? Is it deliberate? Is it due to some bias? My position is we give an informed interpretation or opinion based on the complete facts. And fact is, the Supreme Court found that the NAIA-3 contract was modified making it grossly disadvantageous to the government during Estrada’s watch. Where is this in the analysis?
viking on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:15 am
Not all is lost in regard to the opposition’s impeachment bid. A UP professor might yet boost the effort.
rom on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:29 am
mlq3: you wrote “better the devil in the duster you already have, to any other devil waiting in the wings.” so who exactly is waiting in the wings? Who will benefit most from this? Renato Constantino once wrote that the halo of righteousness only changes heads; that corruption never really vanishes. Who among those wearing halos now is most likely to trade it in once the halo passes to the fallen?
d0d0ng on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:45 am
equalizer on, “The issue about martial is not “IF†but WHENâ€.”
This is the good news in the Philippines. We don’t have the conditions (when) to impose martial law. The Glorietta explosion showed the paranoia of the opposition (Trillianes, et al) and equally overreaction of the PNP. The Supreme Court is also ready to strike down excess powers of the president as in EO464.
grd on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:55 am
manolo, please allow me to post here this message, an appeal to help save a kababayan. for those who have not signed the petition yet, please do sign and ask your circle of friends to do the same and help Marilou Ranario. No to Another Flor Contemplacion. thanks.
Subject: PLS HELP: Online petition to save OFW in Kuwait
Friends,
Perhaps we could extend our help by spreading this email through-out
your network in order to appeal for the life of Marilou Ranario, an OFW facing death sentence in Kuwait. Below is the link to the article being published by GMANews.tv
www. gmanews. tv/story/67027/Online-petition-to-save-OFW-in-Kuwait-launched
The appeal for Marilou Ranario can be accessed at:
www. PetitionOnline.c om/marilou/petition.html
d0d0ng on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 5:19 am
thanks, grd.
i signed #469. We have low numbers unlike the DH petition. We urge those who read this to sign regardless of what you think.
d0d0ng on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 7:28 am
“Without a party on which to anchor itself, the middle class espousal of modern governance is quickly drowned out by the pragmatics of political patronage. No wonder, in the end, “trapo†[traditional politicos] like Ms Arroyo and Estrada will always find it easier to deal with one another.”
This is the huge void in the Philippine society.
No connectivity between the elected political leaders and the voting public. There is no vehicle like a parent’s organization (who can demand change in education funding & policy or better garbage disposal or mobilize election recall) or business community group (who can leverage incentives and file court action) that can pressure and produce political action. These groups are anathema to elected politicians in congress who can diminish their power of self interest and threaten clever personal political arrangement.
DevilsAdvc8 on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 7:42 am
grd, am #476
still believe charter change will be GMA’s way to hold on to power. and yes. still believe she’ll stay past 2010.
also believe Bush will stay past 2008. and yes, the whole world is inching dangerously close to full blossoming of authoritarian governments due to Bush’s opening of pandora’s box.
well, all of this is in line, and keeping with bible prophecy. so what the heck?
Harion on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 7:43 am
grd, am #476
still believe charter change will be GMA’s way to hold on to power. and yes. still believe she’ll stay past 2010.
also believe Bush will stay past 2008. and yes, the whole world is inching dangerously close to full blossoming of authoritarian governments due to Bush’s opening of pandora’s box.
well, all of this is in line, and keeping with bible prophecy. so what the heck?
HarionV on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 7:44 am
grd, am #476
still believe charter change will be GMA’s way to hold on to power. and yes. still believe she’ll stay past 2010.
also believe Bush will stay past 2008. and yes, the whole world is inching dangerously close to full blossoming of authoritarian governments due to Bush’s opening of pandora’s box.
well, all of this is in line, and keeping with bible prophecy. so what the heck?
inodoro ni emilie on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 8:09 am
“Kampi gave cash gift to solons–party exec” – pdi
baboy.
qwert on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 9:04 am
grd,
#483
sparks on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:27 am
Did I miss something? Geo was merely saying speculations about declaration of Martial Law are “negative” for the country. I don’t think s/he said anything about getting rid of anyone.
There’s hating the person, then there’s hating the office. I don’t think Filipinos who are sick and tired of her administration necessarily “hate” her. Most of them probably don’t know her in person at all. She is, however, the most powerful (at least symbolically) public figure in the land. She is the head of State. She represents US. She symbolises our best and our worst.
Apparently, what WE are, are a bunch of corrupt, greedy sods who are willing to wallow in our own filth. Apparently WE are more than willing to fuck everyone over to make a quick buck. So much for hard work and merit. So much for responsibility and accountability to our fellow Filipinos. The past few years, her office has cast down the Filipino’s dignity and pride and peed and shat on it like someone suffering from incontinence.
If we have continue to have this line of thinking, if we sit down and do nothing, we deserve what we get.
hvrds on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:31 am
Advice from Alexander Hamilton to Bush, Musharaff and our own Big Mike/GMA and our fourth branch of government the Armed forces
From Federalist #8, “Consequences of Hostilities Between the States:
Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free….
They [these institutions] would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority 
The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government [of a localized confederacy] to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionally degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military powe
hvrds on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:34 am
By the way even the Iraqi Dinar is gaining strength versus the U.S. dollar in Iraq.
cvj on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:54 am
Sparks, correct me if i’m wrong since you’re more familiar in this area – i think GMA and her apologists are hung up on negativity because her regime is made up of and supported by Postmoderns who believe that perception is reality.
sparks on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 11:19 am
chuck,
Its pretty easy to separate reality from perception. I think there’s plenty of hard data to illustrate how miserably her administration has performed. The lowest measure would be subsistence living. If 1 in 4 is “involuntarily” going hungry, then we can probably all agree she has really royally fucked up.
Watchful eye on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 11:42 am
Come to think of it. Percentage wise, there are more hungry Filipinos than hungry Pakistanis.
Just wondering if Bencard considers the lawyers’ protest in Pakistan as laudable.
Would he take to the streets too assuming he’s in the Philippines if Ate Glue declares martial law?
cvj on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 11:50 am
Sparks, that’s true, but that is not the reality that Geo is experiencing and by refusing to admit such reality by avoiding any negative talk, s/he is ensuring that this remains the case. I think Arroyo and her political strategists are banking on this kind of mindset from the otherwise decent folks of the middle and upper classes to sustain her. The only reality that matters is the one that is perceived (aka constructed) by the docile public. Puno, Remonde et.al. are postmodern in that way.
cvj on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 12:22 pm
I’m glad you also see it as a void. That is why i believe you were being simplistic when you claimed earlier that Congress is the ‘voice of the people’ which cannot be the case given the existence of this void. These are the same groups that make up the Public Sphere and drive People Power which you mistakenly conceptualize as a mob.
mlq3 on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 12:23 pm
david, we’re arguing apples and oranges. what i pointed to was one blogger’s take on the article(s) of newsbreak, where he pointed out that the problems started with fvr, that jee tried to hammer out a deal in the style of a mafia don, and the president bungled things.
but that blogger points to the various articles and your particular bone to pick is really apropos of them, so you are free to subscribe and see if the point you consider so essential was overlooked or not:
http://newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=88888990&Itemid=88889310
hvrds on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 12:25 pm
Do not mistake “market economies” under a plutocracy and under a democracy.
Under a plutocracy the Cult of GDP growth is superficial. It plainly goes to the top 10% of the population. The most to less than 1 %.
In the Philippine scenario there is no fundamental difference in the administrations of Erap and BigMike/GMA. It is imply the top fighting amongst themselves for pole position. Erap a popular right winger who never had an iota of progressivity. GMA a former so called “progressive” who still does not get what economics really is.
Why Plutocracy Endangers Emerging Market Economies
By Martin Wolf
Published: November 6 2007 19:56 | Last updated: November 6 2007 19:56
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d372b7e-8c9e-11dc-b887-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
“Yet concerns remain. A capitalism that generates vast wealth, partly on the back of political connections, and rewards those who resist competition is likely to generate the social and political drawbacks of the system without many of the offsetting gains. Not all capitalisms are created equal. Those who support the market economy must never forget this.”
qwert on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 12:27 pm
Arroyo, De Castro resign campaign launched
Snap polls pressed
By Thea Alberto
INQUIRER.net
Last updated 11:49am (Mla time) 11/07/2007
MANILA, Philippines — President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Vice President Noli de Castro should resign and a snap election be called in 60 days, incumbent political, former military, and media personalities declared in a manifesto they released Wednesday.
Among those who signed were Senate Minority Floor Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr.; Senator Antonio Trillanes IV; Former senator Serge Osmeña, Lieutenant General Romeo Dominguez, former chief of the Northern Luzon Command of the Armed Forces; Renato Constantino Jr; film producers Armida Siguion-Reyna and Bibeth Orteza; Bishop Leo Alconga of the Philippines for Jesus Movement; former ambassador Roy Señeres; columnists Conrado de Quiros (Philippine Daily Inquirer), Ellen Tordesillas (Malaya); and lawyer Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines-College of Law.
mlq3 on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 12:29 pm
re: martial law.
one flawed assumption pros or cons make is that a future martial law would be similar to that undertaken in 1972. having been done before, and with the country and society being different from what it was then, that is a wrong assumption to make.
another flawed assumption is that the current safeguards in the constitution are both meaningful and would be a deterrent. they aren’t, if we are to believe that aside for then defense secretary nonong cruz’s objections, it was his calling in negroponte who swooped in and told the president the us would not support martial law, that actually scuttled the plan to impose it in 2006.
two things are certain to me: congress, both the house and the senate, would fall in line with a martial law declaration. as would the supreme court. the pakistan example also points to something i’ve mentioned for some time, an autogolpe scenario. there would be cheering, i think, if the president simply padlocked congress and dismissed the supreme court.
but she doesn’t have to. as everyone knows, between 2007-2009 the president will be, by sheer attrition, able to appoint majorities in the sc and the comelec, a new civil service commission chairman and a chairman for the coa, etc., etc., she is less sure of the new crop of generals but what if she extends good ole esperon?
mlq3 on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 12:29 pm
grd, i signed the petition.
ronin on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 12:33 pm
So, if Gloria and Noli agrees to step down, what happens next? does the Senate President take over (as the Constitution provides)? Or would a junta/caretaker government take charge? If it’s the latter, who will compose the junta? Where will the junta get its mandate? I guess that’s where things can get murky. It might end up as a free-for-all.
ronin on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 12:37 pm
Manolo, so the probable game plan of Gloria is to ensure her flanks and rear are covered before she declares Martial Law. But would she risk declaring it (say, in the next few weeks) if her hand is forced (and her ‘assets’ not yet in position)?
mlq3 on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 12:40 pm
ronin, i signed the petition after reading it. the constitution requires congress to call a special election within 90 days of the resignation of the president and vice-president. no power vacuum, a campaign period with all that entails, which includes by provision of the omnibus election code, a moratorium on government contracts, etc. -nothing we’re not used to during a campaign season.
the potential benefits are: the comelec has a chance to redeem itself, and we finally have a chance to reunite if we all pull off a credible presidential election. and since no candidate is going to declare against whatever succesful programs the present administration has achieved, we’d finally be poised for a real takeoff with a new administration armed with a genuine mandate.
levi on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 1:03 pm
Equalizer,
I’m glad you also see through that Geo/DJB double personae.
This Dean is so intellectually dishonest i wonder what kind of twisted indoctrination he is giving his students.
levi on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 1:08 pm
– Abe M
Marcos also played the Soviet card that’s why Reagan has to cut him.
tonio on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 1:25 pm
for this to work, those two really have to resign. legitimacy must be paramount for whoever will step in after GMA. the process must respect the constitution, now more than ever.
and all these wrongdoings must be heard in the proper forum: a court of law.
mlq3 on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 1:47 pm
much as i often vigorously debate dean, he doesn’t hide behind any handles other than the ones he always uses, rizalist, djb, etc. and dean isn’t a dean, his name is dean because his dad was well, a dean.
Jeg on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 1:48 pm
Can we at least persuade Noli De Castro to resign? He still is comparatively untainted and an appeal to him might work. This will cut one of the legs out from under the ‘Sino’ng papalit?’ crowd and persuade some of them to join the call for GMA to resign.
levi on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 2:25 pm
mlq3,
DJB uses more than two handles. what could prevent him from using still yet another one to make it appear neocon voices are aplenty in the blog zone?
Over at Ellen’s blog he uses the GodSaveTheConstitution handle.
ronin on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 3:16 pm
“ronin, i signed the petition after reading it. the constitution requires congress to call a special election within 90 days of the resignation of the president and vice-president. no power vacuum…” – mlq3
Manolo, clarification: So, who’d be acting president if these two step down? The Senate President? Or barring that, the House Speaker (yikes!)? Thanks.
mlq3 on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:18 pm
ronon, it would be the senate president as acting president for a maximum of 90 days. then again, if the vp took over, the senate president would be acting president in everything but name, anyway…
grd on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:20 pm
thanks guys for signing the petition.
mlq3 on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:20 pm
levi, who knows. but dean has a distinctive style of writing.
grd on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 4:46 pm
re gloria and de castro resigning and calling for a special election, i think the chances are nil for that scenario to happen. gloria could have done it much much earlier if she ever entertained the idea (resigning) but not at this stage when 2010 is near. i just don’t think gloria is bothered or pressured at all by this ongoing petition.
grd on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 6:31 pm
agree with manolo. djb, rizalist or GodSaveTheConstitution has a distinctive style. he’s definitely not geo and he never hides his true identity specially when confronted. his style can’t be mistaken with someone else’s… just like “the equalizer, tdc or mavâ€.
Geo on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 6:32 pm
The Catholic Bishops in Mindanao said…
“Of late, certain controversies regarding the morality and legality of government contracts like the one on the alleged broadband facilities as well as the issue on the monetary expression of political patronage have challenged some high officials of the government.”
“We declare our solidarity with those who expect moral integrity ad fiscal transparency from our leaders, including ourselves. We believe that the whole truth about any moral issue must be ascertained first before subjecting it to moral scrutiny and judgment, otherwise, any statement on the matter maybe premature and counterproductive. Hence, the need for thorough and impartial investigation as prescribed by law, truth and honesty, and a sense of patriotism.”
——————————————
They are saying what I am saying — premature judgements are counterproductive.
I guess DJB says the same thing, if I understand levi and equalizer correctly (caveat: I myself have no idea what DJB’s positions are). If various people have a different attitude than “oust Gloria now!”, they must be a) the Luli Brigade, b) paid by the government, c) stupid/lazy/cowed, or d) DJB. LOL!
A lot of the screaming, accusing, media-cuddled conspiratorialists still don’t realize that a lot of us are simply tired of the same BS.
The anti-GMAs have created the anti-antis.
What’s so hard about following the rules, laws, procedures? What’s so wrong about letting people do their job? If you want things right, you must have the patience and strength to do things the right way. There are no short cuts.
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 7:30 pm
Re: “What’s so hard about following the rules, laws, procedures? ”
Shouldn’t be hard at all if only this government of moral dwarves were doing it, shouldn’t be difficult at all.
Geo on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 8:49 pm
“Moral dwarves”
Perfect. A perfect demonstration of why the anti-GMA crowd can’t find resonance after all of their words and efforts. The use of invectives greatly detracts (or ruins) any legitimate argument being offered.
And the anti-GMA types wonder why the rest of us don’t rally around their cause……
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 9:05 pm
Re: “And the anti-GMA types wonder why the rest of us don’t rally around their cause……”
And why should you? You are rallying around a petty moral dwarf — don’t expect you to rally around those who don’t approve of her immoral governance, you can’t very well rally around two opposing views now, can you? Would be the height of hypocrisy to do that.
If the term moral dwarf offends you, an apt and therefore not really a mean term for such an infinite lil moral pygmy then I am not surprised that you aren’t shocked at all by the moral dwarfness of her governance.
torn on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 9:52 pm
David
NAIA 3 is a many-sided prism and it could be argued in many different ways. No doubt that is why the only people to have benefited from the mess are, as usual, the lawyers.
Perhaps you are right that the roots of the problem lay deep in the Estrada presidency. Still, on the Supreme Court ruling I’ll just quote one para from Newsbreak:
“Not a few laymen and experts alike found it extremely odd for the Supreme Court to conclude that Piatco was not financially qualified when it was able to build a new international passenger terminal that was 98% complete at the cost of over $500 million.”
On the question of contracts that were “grossly disadvantageous to the governmentâ€, the grounds on which Gloria Tan Climaco threw out the contracts in 2002, I wonder whether they can possibly have been as “grossly disadvantageous†to the government as what eventually resulted: the Philippines’ reputation as a partner in infrastructure projects fatally damaged and the half a billion dollar terminal still not open 5 years later and literally rotting away as we debate its future.
It seemed to me from reading Newsbreak that Erap tried to knock heads together and that his approach was more practical than his successor’s. Gloria seems to have to taken the worst option at every turn in the road.
sparks on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 9:56 pm
Now upon further reflection, I sincerely doubt that most Filipinos are apathetic, even the “move on” crowd. I just think they are trapped by the discourse of “what’s the alternative?” which means the only escape routes available to them (that they can think of) are shaped by the rules of the game at present.
But if we’re supposed to be maabilidad, then why can’t we break away from the mindset, stop playing the game and write new rules?
Also, I sincerely think the Filipino is much harder to fool than the American public. Which probably owes to the fact that, aside from us being traditionally wary of government and even if many of our journalists have died recently, our press has not (YET) been co-opted. But only probably because the government machinery is not strong enough to do so at this point. But it has been done in the past – under martial law.
rego on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 9:59 pm
“And why should you? You are rallying around a petty moral dwarf — don’t expect you to rally around those who don’t approve of her immoral governance, you can’t very well rally around two opposing views now, can you? Would be the height of hypocrisy to do that.”
——————————————————-
This kind of thinking is actually doing Gloria a big favor. This is like pushing the people in the center or the non partisans, to her side.
This is really makes me sad. Because I for one is not a big fan of Gloria. However, I dont agree with the actions or action plans of the opposition. so I should be non partisan. But this rabid anti Gloria crowds is liek forcing me to take a sides. ” If you are not with us then you should be Glorias”.
rego on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:02 pm
Another thing that makes me really really sad.
I am beginning to feel that eventually I will go with Martial Law. Becuase right now I dont have that very strong feeling of abhoherence towards it.
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:08 pm
Rego,
Feel sadder that there’s a liar at the helm…
Geo on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:22 pm
MBW — You continue to prove my point.
Those of us who are sick of the extremists aren’t automatically rallying around GMA either. You are attempting to create a false “us/them” dichotomy. And when your response is just to increase the volume, that just makes it worse. You attack people like me…and then can’t understand why we don’t rally around youe cause.
Way too much emotion; way too little civility.
I get it, though. From where you sit, you have a good reason to be mad. But if your arguments aren’t gaining much support for action, maybe it has something to do with style.
There is a right way and a wrong way. There is effectiveness and there is noise signifying nothing.
But maybe I’m mistaken. Tell me: Why do YOU think the Oust Arroyo crowd can’t get any momentum?
cvj on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:26 pm
Sparks, i do agree that the discourse of no alternative is a major sticking point. I think it another way of putting it would be a valid fear of unintended consequences (which Rom eloquently expresses in her blog). After all, Gloria is one such unintended consequence of ousting Erap.
However, i also think there is an element of an elitist attitude since FPJ was the masa’s choice. More importantly for the postmoderns in power, there is also an ostrich-like head in the sand mindset prevalent among decent folks. For example, I recently had dinner with my friends in Manila and one of them said that she preferred to believe the accidental gas explosion theory in the case of Glorietta 2 because the alternative would be too much to contemplate. One of my born-again sisters also told us that Gloria may be evil, but God has put her there for a purpose. I suppose that’s one reason why, when faced with people like MBW above who calls things as they are, there are those whose instinct is to shoot the messenger(s) and become what Geo would call anti-antis. That accounts for Geo’s emphasis on civility as well as Rego’s appeal above for the anti-Glorias to break it to him gently.
triolosbogus on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:35 pm
“Moral dwarvesâ€
As description used by MBW does not pertain to the physical attributes of the President but her Morality as seen by the commenter and most of her critics. It would be the same as calling her Immoral, but that would denote something else like relating to committing sins of immoral nature, which nobody knows if she may have committed, but “moral dwarfness” of her governance and the conduct of her people is without doubt there were and are plenty of evidence (allegations not proven in court of law yet) that had surface and are surfacing in a daily basis..
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:47 pm
Re: “”But maybe I’m mistaken. Tell me: Why do YOU think the Oust Arroyo crowd can’t get any momentum?”
But I do think you are seriously mistaken, Geo!
Just look around you. People who once were inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt and even voted for her have already deserted her and have started to campaign for her resignation.
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 7th Nov 2007 10:50 pm
As someone I know would say, “Let’s not piss around. Either she is or she ain’t (a moral dwarf)!”
Bencard on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 5:02 am
sparks, if you have no idea how much the “hate-gloria club” hates pgma, just read, analyze and digest most, if not all, the comments of mwb, cvj, equalizer, m. buencamino, ay_naku, inodoro n.e., chiabelli, etc., etc. i must concede, the gma haters in this blog overwhelmingly outnumbers the gma-supporters, defenders and neutral commenters combined.
Manila Bay Watch on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 6:41 am
Bencard,
You on your own more than make up for the number of GMA lovers and defenders so what’s your problem? Your foaming at the mouth-like drivel is omnipresent in all of your posts. Re-read your own posts. You simply have outdone and continuing to outdo your dreaded Gloria bashers! Congratulations… Now, let’s move on, shall we?
Your constant whining and whimpering over how badly you believe your adored moral pygmy is treated in this blog simply is getting so boring and tiresome in the extreme.
In the final analysis, you should ask yourself if your tactic is perhaps not the right tactic if you have your glorious “client’s” interest at heart. I’m saying that because you have managed to alienate even the more reasonable of the Gloria bashers.
My advice, take it or leave it and I have no doubt you will choose to discard it (but I’m an optimist so you might just surprise us all here): Why not take this whole thing positively — would add useful minutes to your life. Be honest, do you really believe Gloria is worth dying for? (I bet you she wouldn’t give a hoot if you died defending her.)
Cool it man, watch that blood pressure now. Cheers!
Bencard on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 7:26 am
mbw, was that a death threat or what? are you really getting that desperate? you must be watching a lot of mafia movies , huh? no my child, you are not scaring me even if you were an operative of a liquidation squad. what’s next, you will put a horse’s head on my bed, or a dead fish wrapped in a newspaper? be my guest!
Manila Bay Watch on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 7:49 am
Bencard, Bencard… hush now… Take it easy, cool it man!
See what I mean? You find evil in everything that even a friendly advice triggers such dark thoughts in your mind. Was frankly worried about your health, you getting yourself all worked up over this Gloriamania business not worth it — had no other thought but your blood pressure going berserk.
By the way, I’m no movie buff and hardly watch TV or the movies. The last and only movie I saw was Pirates of the Caribbean no. 1 with my kiddies. Before that, the only meaningful movie I saw was Lion King. I fell asleep watching a movie recently, can’t honestly remember the title but the lead actor was the Forrest Gump fellow and the setting was in Paris and London (I think), a detective story of some kind…
Take it easy Bencard… nobody is after you (frankly, if you didn’t exist someone would have to invent you, you’re a worthy Gloria defender in my book so why should one think of getting rid of you, simply beyond me.)
Bencard on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 8:23 am
mwb, thanks for your concern and assurance. now i feel ’safer’. btw, i may be a “little” older, but i’m in good health. no known health problems, thank God.
Manila Bay Watch on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 8:42 am
Keep yourself fit and healthy, Bencard because I’m pretty sure, Gloria will need the service of a good and very devoted lawyer (you for instance) one day …
Bencard on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 8:48 am
mwb, i kind of think gma could not “afford” my fees unless she does an erap (lol).
Manila Bay Watch on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 9:38 am
Bencard,
Don’t ever underestimate Wily Arroyo (term borrowed from Abe) … There’s no doubt in my mind that she’s cunningly stashed funds to spend for her defence, would be the height of naivete to think she hasn’t surpassed Erap yet that she will be able to afford to hire law offices left, right and center not only in Pinas but also in the old US of A when investigators start quizzing her on her or her family’s assets there, you know under the Ricoh law, not to mention properties in her brother in law Iggy’s name in London (one of the most expensive real estate investment areas in the world, where a garage in the Mayfair area could cost as much as 300,000 British pounds).
rego on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 10:45 am
And dont ever understimate, bencard. Fo all you he might be richer tha Gloria. lol…
The Equalizer on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 10:56 am
“if you have no idea how much the “hate-gloria club†hates pgma, just read, analyze and digest most, if not all, the comments of mwb, cvj, equalizer, m. buencamino, ay_naku, inodoro n.e., chiabelli, etc., etc. i must concede, the gma haters in this blog overwhelmingly outnumbers the gma-supporters, defenders and neutral commenters combined.”
Old Geezer:To be honest,I respect your views,no matter how diametrically opposed they are from mine.
I worry more about the apathy of the masses.I think they feel the hopelessness of the situation.
That is what angry people feel..the lack of HOPE.
sparks on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 12:02 pm
If you remember I was lambasted by micketymoc for even insinuating that the Arroyo administration (i.e. certain elements in the AFP) may have been responsible for the marine beheadings. He accused me I wasn’t helping any by fueling the fire.
Most of us good folk prefer to live our lives assuming everyone else also function with the same moral compass we do. We were, after all, raised by our parents to be good people and so we expect the same of others. Such naked avarice, such unchecked thirst for power and the indiscriminate use of it, are thus an affront to our genteel sensibilities. Most people stay away from politics because they say its a dirty business. Its probably a lot dirtier than they can imagine.
But if we all bury our heads in the sand scared shitless, if we prefer to think the best of people even faced with evidence of the contrary, if we refuse to confront the seedy underbelly that is our fucking government – the embodiment our will as a people – then we deserve what we get.
The argument goes, they’re all the same. The administration, the opposition. There is no alternative (TINA), but fuck it. I demand alternatives.
cvj on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 1:01 pm
Anna, i believe that’s the most scathing critique of The Da Vinci Code movie that i’ve ever come across.
cvj on Thu, 8th Nov 2007 3:14 pm
Sparks, yes now that you mentioned it i do remember reading your exchange with micketymoc. Early on, he also lambasted Dinky and company for their Baywalk rally so i guess he’s just being true to form. As i mentioned in my blog, i believe that the B&W folks (and by extension you, me and all like-minded folks) are our Society’s immune system. Micketymoc, Geo, Rego, Austero et. al. tend to blame the fever (i.e. the negativity, the traffic jams, the ‘noise’) but as hvrds has said:
In the immediate aftermath of the blast, someone even suggested that perhaps it’s better for us not to know the truth.
Bencard on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 2:25 am
“Post moderns who believe that perception is reality”. cvj.
yeah, like those who conclude that gma cheated in the 2004 election based solely on the perception arising from an illegally-wiretapped conversation.
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 3:02 am
cvj,
“Anna, i believe that’s the most scathing critique of The Da Vinci Code movie that i’ve ever come across.”
Hehehe! Indeed. But honestly, I couldn’t remember the title of the film and was trying very hard by typing away the follow on words in my “critique” and to think that I had read the book but in heavily staggered fashion that took me months which shows you I hadn’t liked the “script” from the very start (or maybe the book was better than the film and so promptly dozed off when I saw its film version, don’t really know) — knew title had to do with an Italian painter, sculptor, hehehheh!
Bencard on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 3:30 am
mwb, maybe you would enjoy “Elizabeth”, the sequel, and her supposed romance with sir walter raleigh (mostly in secret). cate blanchette did a good job portraying a very powerful, strong woman but so human in feeling the anguish of unfulfilled love and letting her own sister beheaded. i like brave, strong and powerful women. i really do. and i am neither being chauvinistic nor patronizing.
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 4:35 am
Bencard,
Thanks for suggesting. Funny, it hasn’t occurred to me to watch Elizabeth the sequel; I saw the first one on DVD sometime last year and remember it was good and so, yes, I might do that one of these weekends — will have to find out if it’s showing here already.
I’ve read ‘extensively’, i.e., read a great number of books, on or where Elizabeth I figured – she is my favourite woman leader, perhaps Golda Meir next and then Maggie Thatcher.
Now, I understand why you have a penchant for Gloria, it’s because you “like brave, strong and powerful women.”
I will concede to two of your adjectives of Gloria: strong and powerful but unfortunately, I don’t find her brave in the absolute meaning of the word. True, she has a physical braveness about her as when she goes and meet with the “masa”, the electorate and the public at large but to me that is not what bravery really is in the absolute… to me bravery is synonimous to resolute courage.
Very early on in Mlq3’s blog some 3 years ago I think, I had posted that I would have been very supportive and she would have admirative of Gloria despite my belief that she ascended to power by breaching the Constitution in 2001 if only she had been more resolute, i.e., been courageous and put the generals in check or back to where they belonged, to the camps and to the barracks and by putting political discipline in government instead of back-pedalling at every turn and putting many tom dick harry crooks in government to pay off her “political debts” left right and center… the presidency is a powerful and potent tool. Full stop! I believe she did not use that tool wisely and instead she continues to use it to this day wrongly. And for that she has earned (at least from me) the strongest scorn.
Strangely enough, I would liken her to France’s own Ségolène Royal, the unfortunate highly educated Socialist Party candidate in the recent elections in France whom I genuinely believed to be strong, intelligent, hardworking but not courageous or even bold enough to be able to institute needed reforms in France.
And if I’m not being too inquisitive, pray could you tell me then, because you ” like brave, strong and powerful women. i really do.”, will you vote for Hillary Clinton?
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 4:42 am
Bencard,
I have replied to your comment but Manolo’s minesweeper “”Your comment is awaiting moderation.” is at it still; wonder how I could torpedoe that one…
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 4:44 am
I see, gotta apply the zig zag tactic (short comments) so will try to cut and paste portions of my answere separately… here goes (we’ll see if manolo’s minesweeper can intercept this.)
Bencacrd,
Thanks for suggesting. Funny, it hasn’t occurred to me to watch Elizabeth the sequel; I saw the first one on DVD sometime last year and remember it was good and so, yes, I might do that one of these weekends — will have to find out if it’s showing here already.
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 4:45 am
(It worked! Hah!) Here’s the next…
I’ve read ‘extensively’, i.e., read a great number of books, on or where Elizabeth I figured – she is my favourite woman leader, perhaps Golda Meir next and then Maggie Thatcher.
Now, I understand why you have a penchant for Gloria, it’s because you “like brave, strong and powerful women.â€
I will concede to two of your adjectives of Gloria: strong and powerful but unfortunately, I don’t find her brave in the absolute meaning of the word. True, she has a physical braveness about her as when she goes and meet with the “masaâ€, the electorate and the public at large but to me that is not what bravery really is in the absolute… to me bravery is synonimous to resolute courage.
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 4:47 am
(Hah! It worked again! S here’s the next and last portion:)
Very early on in Mlq3’s blog some 3 years ago I think, I had posted that I would have been very supportive and she would have admirative of Gloria despite my belief that she ascended to power by breaching the Constitution in 2001 if only she had been more resolute, i.e., been courageous and put the generals in check or back to where they belonged, to the camps and to the barracks and by putting political discipline in government instead of back-pedalling at every turn and putting many tom dick harry crooks in government to pay off her “political debts†left right and center… the presidency is a powerful and potent tool. Full stop! I believe she did not use that tool wisely and instead she continues to use it to this day wrongly. And for that she has earned (at least from me) the strongest scorn.
Strangely enough, I would liken her to France’s own Ségolène Royal, the unfortunate highly educated Socialist Party candidate in the recent elections in France whom I genuinely believed to be strong, intelligent, hardworking but not courageous or even bold enough to be able to institute needed reforms in France.
And if I’m not being too inquisitive, pray could you tell me then, because you †like brave, strong and powerful women. i really do.â€, will you vote for Hillary Clinton?
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 4:49 am
(Bloody ‘ell! the thing got sunk… I will nosedive this time and try again.)
Very early on in Mlq3’s blog some 3 years ago I think, I had posted that I would have been very supportive and she would have admirative of Gloria despite my belief that she ascended to power by breaching the Constitution in 2001 if only she had been more resolute, i.e., been courageous and put the generals in check or back to where they belonged, to the camps and to the barracks and by putting political discipline in government instead of back-pedalling at every turn and putting many tom dick harry crooks in government to pay off her “political debts†left right and center… the presidency is a powerful and potent tool. Full stop! I believe she did not use that tool wisely and instead she continues to use it to this day wrongly. And for that she has earned (at least from me) the strongest scorn.
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 4:51 am
(Hahahha! It worked! here’s the next and last portion:)
Strangely enough, I would liken her to France’s own Ségolène Royal, the unfortunate highly educated Socialist Party candidate in the recent elections in France whom I genuinely believed to be strong, intelligent, hardworking but not courageous or even bold enough to be able to institute needed reforms in France.
And if I’m not being too inquisitive, pray could you tell me then, because you †like brave, strong and powerful women. i really do.â€, will you vote for Hillary Clinton?
(End of blogsubmarine operation!)
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 4:52 am
(It worked! here’s the next and final portion:)
Strangely enough, I would liken her to France’s own Ségolène Royal, the unfortunate highly educated Socialist Party candidate in the recent elections in France whom I genuinely believed to be strong, intelligent, hardworking but not courageous or even bold enough to be able to institute needed reforms in France.
And if I’m not being too inquisitive, pray could you tell me then, because you †like brave, strong and powerful women. i really do.â€, will you vote for Hillary Clinton?
(End of subblogmarine operation!)
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 4:54 am
Bencard, that’s not the end of the subblogmarine operation but will post final portion which is actually a question later on when Manolo’s minesweeper runs out of steam.
Bencard on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 5:25 am
in 2005, when pgma was being attacked from all directions, e.g., the media, lower house and senate opposition (cayetano, escudero, et al., lacson, pimentel; the “hyatt 10″, cory, drilon, roxas, the clergy, some “civil society” turncoats; the erap loyalists; the leftist/communists; the extreme right coup plotters, i didn’t think she could withstand what appeared to be an irresistible force arrayed against her. her small stature was deceiving. it was hard to believe that she could endure the onslaught and not surrender. she faced every challenge, every attempt at power grab, every threat to her personal safety, every attack on her personal morality. now, her vision for the country’s economic future is beginning to bear fruit. and she perseveres with head unbowed.
that to me, mbw, is “resolute” courage.
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 9:41 am
Bencard,
But your view of her ability to withstand what you say as the onslaught by an “an irresistible force arrayed against her” or endure it, to me is only heavy political infighting.
I didn’t view it as resolute courage because those incidents that you named were a consequence of her own underhanded political gambit, i.e., first when she chose to deceive people sometime on a Rizal Day to tell the nation by declaring solemnly that believing she was the ultimate cause of the divisiveness in the country decided not to run for the 2004 elections only to break her promise, and second when in 2004 she was caught ‘en flagrant delit’ (don’t know how to translate it in English), speaking to a notorious Comelec dagdag bawas official about dagdag-bawas, therefore to me her subsequent reactions were born not of resolute courage, although her demeanour then could give an appearance of physical bravery but on the contrary, of a meaner trait and lack of moral courage also known as cowardice.
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 9:55 am
Allow me to correct the first paragraph with: “But your view of her ability to withstand what you say as the onslaught by an “an irresistible force arrayed against her†or endure it, to me is only a reflection of her great ability to waddle through heavy political infighting.
Bencard on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 10:27 am
but she ended up the winner, mbw, didn’t she? and still the winner up to now. the point is her enemies never gained any ground and are still on the outside looking in, and she never budged an inch. she could have just gave up if she were faint-hearted but she was not so she didn’t.
the way it looked, not enough people thought changing her mind about not running for president was such an unpardonable sin as the opposition wannabees would want to portray it. also, the alleged phone conversation did not cause enough outrage as to drive people, in sufficient number, to whip up a successful “people power” imitation. not even the mythical popularity of cory aquino, the “famas” award dramatics of susan roces, and the fire and brimstone exhortations of e. villanueva and other religious characters, could do the trick.
cvj on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 6:16 pm
What does the illegality of the wiretap have to do with the reality of the conversation?
Bencard on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 9:11 pm
it is not the illegality of the wiretap nor the reality of the conversation that is the issue. it is the PERCEPTION that gma cheated that is being portrayed as FACT by your so-called post-moderns, whatever that means.
cvj on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 9:27 pm
Bencard, if you listened to the tapes or read the transcript, i’d be interested in your interpretation.
Manila Bay Watch on Fri, 9th Nov 2007 10:26 pm
Bencard,
RE: “but she ended up the winner, mbw, didn’t she? and still the winner up to now.”
Winning does not always equate to resolute courage in my book as I’ve said time and again. Winning is simply the result of having quashed one’s opponents. The winner could have used one or two or both types of tactics to win, i.e., evendhanded or underhanded tactics and so to my, Gloria’s winning over her oponents does not determine her possessing resolute courage.
Resolute courage pre-supposes a strong element of moral courage and not just physical courage, the ability to say the truth whatever the cost, to fight for what is just and right however people may judge her or her capacity to accept defeat knowing that in the end, the truth is on her side. I believe she failed at all of these levels.
There’s one woman leader in the Philippines and although I can’t qualify her as the be all of the greatest of leaders, I still believe that she is admirable for her resolute courage, i.e., moral courage, something which Gloria lacks and will always lack in that department, the one element that sets and defines great leaders in this world.
Bencard on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 12:40 am
mbw, an appeal to an accused’s sense of morality, or fear of hell, is a classic tool of inquisition to extort involuntary confession, or cajole him/her into incriminating him/herself. overzealous cops/investigators, or those who are plain lazy to do their job, thus resort to shortcuts to extort “confession” by subtle promises of leniency or even absolution. why do you think there is constitutional ban on self incrimination?
in my practice of criminal law, my first advice to clients who are suspected of having committed a crime is to remain silent. whether or not he/she is guilty, it’s not his/her obligation to provide evidence against him/her in any manner, shape or form. i don’t think it’s cowardice to be silent or to refuse to incriminate oneself. rather it is cowardice to wilt like a shrinking violet at the first sign of trouble.
i don’t fault pgma at all for not giving her enemies the satisfaction of nailing her to the cross, and providing the nails for the purpose.
Manila Bay Watch on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 1:39 am
“i don’t think it’s cowardice to be silent or to refuse to incriminate oneself.”
Bencard,
Agree but in the same vein, speaking with the intention of obfuscation the truth while deploying underhanded tactics and all for the sake of weathering a storm does not amount to courage either.
Manila Bay Watch on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 6:00 am
Ooooops, “Agree but in the same vein, speaking with the intention of obfuscatiNG the truth while deploying underhanded tactics and all for the sake of weathering a storm does not amount to courage either.”
Bencard on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 6:16 am
mbw, i think we both made our points. let yours be the last word on this exchange though.
ay_naku on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 10:11 pm
Let me just copy-paste one of my previous comments here (posted November 2nd, 2007 at 1:52 am in post “On official allowances”):
Let’s take GMA’s cheating. Some people may still insist that she needs to be somehow legally proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, before the people can judge her to have cheated. Well, it’s not like this political crisis is being played out in a court of law with a private “plaintiff†and a private “defendant†but rather, it is the people demanding honest answers, proper action and public accountability from our highest public official, because fairly credible evidence (the “garci tapes†and subsequent evidences and testimonies) has come out strongly suggesting her knowledge and involvement in electoral fraud, i.e., that she cheated in the elections. It is GMA’s duty to face such allegations fair and square. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. That’s enshrined in our Constitution, isn’t it? If she is innocent, then she could have properly rebutted these. God knows that she has all the resources to do so. But what did she do? She initially tried a cover-up, courtesy of Bunye’s criminal “I have two tapes†tall tale. And when that fizzled out at once because it was so stupid that no one believed Bunye, the cover-up was quickly abandoned and GMA instead decided to just clam up, maybe hoping that if she continues to ignore the issue, it will just go away. All her subsequent actions have been evasive, to say the least. She can’t do that. Again, she’s not just some private “defendant.†She is the highest public officer of the land, tasked to defend the constitution and execute all laws faithfully. She should act in good faith, let the truth come out and ensure that there is public accountability in the face of wrongdoing.
Bencard on Sat, 10th Nov 2007 11:25 pm
ay-naku, any proceeding, be it impeachment, judicial, or administrative, is adversarial in nature. there is an accuser and there is a respondent. the primordial inquiry is whether there is a complaint sufficient in form and substance as determined by pre-set rules. once a prima facie case is determined, both the complainant and respondent are subject to the same rule of fairness, i.e., he who asserts something against the other must present admissible proof of its “truth”. the accuser always has the burden of proof and until he successfully come forward with admissible evidence, the respondent would have the opportunity to rebut it. a defendant has the option of relying on the “weakness” of the complainant’s evidence. so he/she is not required to present rebuttal or counter evidence if he/she decides it is unnecessary.
btw, a prosecutor’s finding of “insufficiency in form and substance” in accordance with the pre-set rules thereby requiring dismissal of a complaint is in keeping with the rule of law.
Watchful eye on Sun, 11th Nov 2007 1:07 am
I’ll say this again Bencard, Arroyo is not just a litigant “in any proceeding, be it impeachment, judicial, or administrative, that is adversarial in nature” who could conveniently hide behind the technicality of some “pre-set rules.” For Almighty sake, she is also the president representing more than 80 million people, and the reality is that up to this very point, the country is still waiting for some modicum of decent explanation from a president (not a litigant) so that if the perception is not a fact, every one who PERCEIVED the FACTS incorrectly would owe her the apology she deserves and thereafter the nation could move on.
Rule of law is not simply about proceduralism. It is also the embodiment of our morality as a people.
Bencard, don’t you see the situation is getting febrile? You really have to remove your legalistic straightjacket.
The Philippine society is a complex system which cannot simply be reduced to a miniature courtroom where you find comfort with your legalese. Isn’t that basic enough?
USpace on Sun, 11th Nov 2007 7:52 pm
.
A nasty and flammable situation indeed…
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
KILL all the lawyers
if they dare advocate
for freedom of speech
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
suspend free elections
set back democracy
light fire under extremists
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
take all girls out of school
they can not be allowed
to achieve more than a man
http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
.
Bencard on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 5:42 am
ay_naku, you make intelligent observation that’s why i’m engaging you in this conversation. please don’t think i’m patronizing you in saying that.
our government exists and continues to exist because of the rule of law. in fact, our nation’s very existence depends on law. without it, there will no philippines as a state but a geographical place populated by millions of independent, self-governing families whose relationship with each other relies chiefly on their respective weaponry and killing machines. you survive by eating what you can produce and protect from covetous neighbors who will take it if you were not strong enough to resist. you cannot sell anything because the only payment you can expect are bullets from a gun’s barrel. your wife, your children, are easy prey unless you have the force to defend them.
we cannot escape law in our life. it is as essential as the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat.
if you think you have no redress for your anger and dissatisfaction with pgma following the rule of law, just be patient and wait for the right process to take its course. her “unwillingness” to help her accusers prove their case(s) against her is not unlawful. if you think it is politically incorrect, let her face the verdict of history. she will not be president for all her life.
Watchful eye on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 8:03 am
There goes our hypothetical again: an armed stranger who broke into your house, abused your wife while you, totally overwhelmed by fear, was made to watch the dastard act, did not commit any crime simply because you are so damn a coward to report what happened to the authorities. No accused, no prosecution, no trial, no conviction, no crime and no criminal. There being no crime of rape, the sex between the stranger and your wife, witnessed by poor Benny boy, was consensual. That’s rule of law for you buddy.
Watchful eye on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 8:05 am
But you’re right “your wife, your children, are easy prey unless you have the force to defend them.†Some people only understand power, either by brute force or by sheer number and they equate might with right, or rule of law for that matter, without any compunction even if they know only they, or their sycophants, believe their own pretenses. Why, they have the power or the numbers anyway. Rule of law? Yeah right, tell that to the victims of power, like your wife in our hypothetical. My sincere apology for it, by the way. I just really want to drive home the point because you are getting hopeless Benny.
Bencard on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 8:52 am
you are being so insolent making your “hypothetical” too personal. “sincere apology” for what? i told you, it could only happen to cowards like you. didn’t i say you would not find me cowering in fear if that happens to me? it looks like you are too dumb to understand my last posting after all, i.e. what would happen if there were no laws that you despise so much? you ought to be living in darfur or rwanda.
Bencard on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 9:11 am
i should not be debating with trolls like you. it’s demeaning. i know just the right place for you!
Watchful eye on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 11:07 am
The equation could be that you are the Filipino People, your wife is our democracy, and the rape is the abuse of the electoral process by cheating and betrayal of trust.
As you can see, so aggrieved you won’t even wait to engage in the niceties of evidence presentation pursuant to the Rule of Law but you would simply take the law into your hands. Would you take that as something equivalent to people taking to the streets because angered by rank abuse of power?
And yet, what many Filipinos are simply patiently asking is an opportunity for the operation of the essence Rule of Law, no more, no less. Why should that be denied by the formalities of your rule of law?
Without the impeachment trial, GMA will continue to claim legitimacy by the Comelec count. Without the rape trial, the sex is consensual by account of your cowardice to come out.
There’s no cheating and betrayal of public trust despite that the whole country heard the president’s voice in the Garci tapes and there is no rape despite that you saw it committed in front of you. If it is not proven in court it is not true.
Am I a coward? Maybe, maybe not. But I’m 100 percent certain of one thing. If I go by your rule of law, I am NOT unless otherwise you prove it in court.
Bencard on Mon, 12th Nov 2007 10:21 pm
if you know anything about law, self-defense and defense of relatives are complete justification for killing a person UNDER THE LAW. why would anyone watch his wife being being molested in front of him “waiting” for the cops to arrive unless he is a spineless coward. if that’s what you think is happening to you, why don’t you do something in defense of your wife instead of cowering in fear?
applying your “hypothetical” to your “problem” with respect to pgma, if you think you are justified to take the law into your own hands, go ahead. let’s see if you don’t end up in jail, or dead in the confrontation with the law, at worst.
please please don’t put me in a malicious “hypothetical” and be “sincerely sorry” for it as though it actually
happened . i think that’s the reason why there’s so much cases of killings arising from deliberate provocations in political discussions in the philippines. can you not argue intellectually without personally infuriating your opponent and then say “sorry” for it at the same time?
Watchful eye on Tue, 13th Nov 2007 12:00 am
I reiterate, my sincere apology again for the hypothetical.
But as you see the purpose of it is to drive the point closer to home because I think you are losing it Benny, allowing yourself to be reduced to one track-mindedness which is not good for someone who claims to be a good trial lawyer. As a trial lawyer, you should be flexible enough to take both sides, shouldn’t you? What happens if “I take the law into my hands†and I hire you as my attorney? How easily could you reprogram your perception of the issues now if your loyalty is to personalities and not to ideas?
You see, just an aggrieved husband in the case of the hypothetical, a society is also entitled to self-defense against those who would undermine its institutions like, well, the Rule of Law.
Think of the Pulido trickery at this juncture. Aren’t you sickened by it at all? Aren’t we letting go a political rapist here because of a technicality, of your rule of law, the law of numbers and brute power? Wouldn’t that be enough provocation in the law of self-defense in the larger context of political competition?
Benny don’t be too hard on yourself. Only fools don’t change their stands. cvj, manolo and others did when called for by their conscience. I honestly don’t believe you are one of the lower forms.
Bencard on Tue, 13th Nov 2007 4:00 am
you have to have your eyes checked. you are seeing things that aren’t there. the difference between you and me is that you see “rape” in what is happening to the country but too weak, gutless and cowed to do something about it besides yakity-yakking. on the other hand, i see no such rape and so are the majority of the people who just are sick and tired of your rantings, trouble-making, rabble-rousing, and belly-aching with no tangible result except, perhaps, give senate seats to mentally-challenged characters.
right now, you are living under the protection of the very “rule of law” that you despise, otherwise you would either be in jail or dead.
don’t you patronize me. i have no reason to “be too hard on myself” and i never would. why should i subscribed to your line of aberrant thinking? believe what you want to believe but i’m absolutely certain i’m not “one of the lower forms” that you are, and love to associate with, sore eyes.
Watchful eye on Tue, 13th Nov 2007 4:45 am
That’s what I’m talking about, Benjie, you can’t comport yourself like that even in a mock trial because you would just sound like arguing for a lost cause.
Any way, Your Honors, I rest my case for now (hand extended to Mr. Advocate).