anthony scalia on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 12:17 pm 



one unsolicited advice – follow how Erap was impeached

the one-complaint-deliberated-by-the-justice-committee-then-referred-to-the-plenary-for-approval just doesn’t work

first get 1/3 of the House members to sign a verified complaint, then file it. upon filing, it has to be sent to the Senate right away (Art. 11 sec. 4, 1987 Constitution)

you can leverage the concerned House members’ receipt of fertilizer money

Alleba Politics » Blog Archive » Impeachment Intervention to Add the BJE-MOA as an Impeachable Offense on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 1:03 pm 

[...] Quezon has read a Panawagan (Call) during the press conference explaining the intervention and challenging the congress to [...]

Intervention for the Prosecution: Why the BJE-MOA is an impeachable offense | blog @ AWBHoldings.com on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 1:09 pm 

[...] If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!UPDATE: Here is MLQ3’s account of the events that had transpired earlier today. [...]

candy on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 1:12 pm 



i fervently pray the intervention you submitted succeeds. its about time!

loy on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 1:44 pm 



Holy cow, let’s throw everything to the president, including the kitchen sink.

Liam Tinio on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 2:09 pm 



we may all have different views, but i admire your resolve to proactively mold a better country.

Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 2:11 pm 



Why are you still supporting an impeachment? why are you still trying to impeach her? because of moral grounds? fuck you all!!! impeaching her at this time is not the best way to solve our problems!!!

fuck your moral grounds!!!

Jeg on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 2:12 pm 



Good job, bloggerfolk. You and the intervention are now part of the public record. How does the intervention work, by the way? How, for example, can it not be construed as a separate complaint?

(I find the bit about the secretary-general wanting to read the document first before accepting it hilarious. Maybe she thought it was a practical joke.)

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 2:14 pm 



really what are your reasons for impeaching her??? the only thing you’re good at is impeaching people!!! do you really think thats the best way of solving our problems??? impeaching that bitch arroyo??? com’on guys!!! wer’e smarter than that!!!

I hope i get some reply on why impeaching arroyo at this time is beneficial to us all!

Jeg on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 2:33 pm 



Isnt it obvious, khris? Their reasons are the reasons everybody has for impeaching Arroyo. To further their political ambitions. They want to rule in her place. What else could they be?

Seriously, the reasons are in the complaint itself. Culpable violation of the constitution that the office of the prez swore to uphold among other things. Is it beneficial? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not. We dont suspend the law of the land on considerations about whether it is beneficial to do so or not. Will it succeed? Who knows? Probably not. But like I said, the complaint is now part of the official records and future generations can see that not all people stood idly by because they thought enforcing the law at that time wasnt ‘beneficial’. Did I answer your question? If not, Im sure there will be others perfectly happy to do so.

(See what happens when you ask nicely? )

Bert on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 2:51 pm 



seems the LULLI BRIGADE active again, hehehe.

mlq3 on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 4:01 pm 



because no one has a monopoly on the rule of law, khris. read the documents and dispute the issues, if you like.

hvrds on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 4:08 pm 



Bill Clinton went through an impeachment process for committing fellatio in the Oval office and trying to cover up his indiscretion.

Here the Queen has been “sodomizing” the Constitutional process with her wrap on dick and people complain why so many impeachment complaints?

Why Not?

Some wise old Justice once wrote that the most important office is not the Office of the President but the Office of Citizenship.

The majority who participate in politics as citizens apart from simply voting are the true principals of the representative agents within the state.

The silent ones do not count.

nash on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 4:53 pm 



Hurray!

Yes, let this be on record for future generations to see that GMA was a corrupt and incompetent government official.

No amount of sanitiser can remove the stench on her record. It will be her legacy.

The EQualizer on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 5:00 pm 



More Power Manolo! Courage, like cowardice is contagious!

The impeachment complaint may not prosper. BUT,we should let future generations remember the sins of the infamous PIDAL clan.

Let their apos google their names one day and the results about their famous lola and lolo will certainly shock them!

Let’s engrave in the annals of blogsphere the impeachment complaint for future reference!

missingpoints on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 5:24 pm 



Off-topic but…

I’m sure you need the ad revenue but it’s kinda off-putting to see Indian-babe cleavage right after “Respectfully yours, Manuel L. Quezon III.” (This goes for the other posts, too.) You can specify which types of ads to place using Google ads, right?

nash on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 5:29 pm 



@hvrds

apologies for being pedantic but maybe you mean ‘prostituting’ instead of ’sodomizing’. sodomy is not bad per se (especially if consensual), it’s a normal sexual act that can be enjoyed by hetero and homosexual couplings. if you mean GMA’s ’sodomizing’ was forced upon the people, then the more appropriate term is ‘rape’. Yes, GMA has raped the government.

sorry, just so the impressionable people know that sodomy is not a sin.

cheers

The EQualizer on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 5:48 pm 



Gloria:

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

A.Lincoln

mlq3 on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 6:06 pm 



missingpoints, good grief, will look into it.

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 6:36 pm 



so you’re just supporting the impeachment for the sake of the record, that people filed for her impeachment so other generations can see it. arent you people tired? how many times have you tried to impeach her. com’on guys lets move on.

can we not let her do her job?

have you ever though that the reason she’s not doing her job well coz she has so many things to think other than solving our problems?

put yourself in her situation. she’s trying to solve our problem and at the same time try to stay in power.

all you guys do is blame her for our woes!

its not entirely on the government officials fault why we have problems. its us the FILIPINO people. we’re the one’s who voted for them.

i didnt vote for arroyo last presidential election. but im not blaming her.

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 6:43 pm 



the reason why im really against impeachment process coz:

its such a waste of time.

ill ask you people, who conduct the impeachment process? its the senators and the congressmen right?

dont you think our senators and congressmen have more pressing things to do like passing reform bills for our economy?

if the impeachment reach the senate and congress then they have to hear it. then we are already wasting time.

why dont we just move on. lets not waster their already wasted time.

you want to impeach her. because she is corrupt, immoral. but would impeaching her be the solution? i dont think so. i would only make it worse. coz the cycle will repeat itself. the former administration will now become the opposition. and here we go again! back to the cycle!!!

so please think first, what could happen during the impeachment process and after we have impeached her!!!

think guys! think!

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 6:51 pm 



i do believe that bitch arroyo is corrupt and immoral president but impeaching her wont do us any good! we’ve tried so many times already. lets move on. she’s on her way out!

lets not repeat the cycle!!!

nash on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 6:52 pm 



“we’re the one’s who voted for them.”

Excuse me, baka ikaw.

GMA “won” a plurality of votes and not a majority ano.

Think? Eh impeachment is a legal and non-violent process. At least some people are not stooping down to GMA’s level – using violence to suppress genuine dissent.

To paraphrase sister Stella: KUng hindi ngayon, kailan…kung hindi tayo, sino?

We must APPLY HIGH STANDARDS for leaders and if we do it now, and not tomorrow we have a higher chance of stopping the vicious cycle that you describe.

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 7:01 pm 



[To paraphrase sister Stella: KUng hindi ngayon, kailan…kung hindi tayo, sino?]

you and your moral grounds!!!

you’re too emotional! you try to impeach her without thinking of the consequences! she’s leaving in two years! c’mon!

can you recall what happened during the impeachment of erap? its too chaotic!!! and weve successfully impeached erap! and then what? we’re stil trying to impeach the next president? impeaching erap didnt do us any good. so why do we wanna go through that process again? huh?

if impeachment will do us good. then why not. but impeachment will not do us any good! recall erap’s time man!

nash on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 7:11 pm 



Duh, impeaching a corrupt and incompetent president does not hinge on moral or emotional grounds ano.

And stop twisting history, Erap was not SUCCESSFULLY impeached. The private prosecutors walked out throwing it into chaos.

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 8:17 pm 



ok fine. impeaching arroyo doent hinge on moral or emotional grounds.

but do you really think impeaching her would do us good?

and ok fine again. my mistake! erap wasnt impeach. but the fact that the process of his impeachment is too chaotic should make you guys think twice of going through that again.

try to reply on my arguments not on the irrelevant technicalities

UP n grad on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 8:25 pm 



Practice makes perfect.

The more often the Philippines impeaches its presidents, then the better the Philippines gets at it.

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 8:30 pm 



[Practice makes perfect.

The more often the Philippines impeaches its presidents, then the better the Philippines gets at it.]

really? i consider this statement a joke! hehe!

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 8:35 pm 



i hope mr. manolo quezon can reply to me. either privately or here. that would be nice.

john marzan on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 8:41 pm 



“we’re the one’s who voted for them.”

I probably have my vote counted for GMA, thanks to Garci.

“The more often the Philippines impeaches its presidents, then the better the Philippines gets at it.”

i’d prefer have a civilian-military style overthrow of her administration ala 2001 “people power”.

mlq3 on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 8:49 pm 



khris, let’s start with something we all learned in kinder. you can get away with being naughty a lot of the time but if teacher catches you, you have to sit in the corner.

i’ve done my share of being naughty and when you get caught and run out of luck, you get punished one way or another. in the end you hopefully get to see it’s better all around if you’re not as naughty as you’d like to be, specially if it has to do with things people gave you responsibilities for.

but if you see the kid who gets away with it and you want to get away with it too and you will want to try to be as brilliantly evil as that other kid.

that’s the whole issue at it’s most basical level. of course ap resident is something entirely more complicated. we elect our president for fixed terms. it has to take something pretty serious to basically fire a president from the job ahead of time.

what would make firing worth it? consider the times you’ve been fired and what went into that decision, or the times you’ve seen someone fired. consider that some pretty high level people end up fired. and why.

you’re jumping the gun of course. the process is actually to stop bitching about the president and to find a way, short of an armed mob and a revolution, to put lay the cards on the table and tell the employee, hey, this is too much. what the hell is going on? everyone has a right to defend themselves.

so you charge the president. you ask congress to bring in both sides. you have to consider the possibilty on one hand the charges are bogus and on the other, what if theyre serious.

in the case of the bje moa guess what -the whole deliberation on wheether there is evidence or something wrong has already been done. by the supreme court. no ifs and buts about it. she undertook a policy thats utterly wrong, because its utterly beyond the parameters established by the constitution.

so then the only question left for congress to determine is this: since the supreme court said she did something wrong, should she be punished? should she lose her job?

it’s a job that is a special one: she asks soldiers as their commander in chief, to die for their country. isnt it relevant that she does so because of violence due to policies of her own making -policies that betreayed the very constitution she’s sworn to uphold?

her job is to ssupervise and administer the bureaucracy. she claims she wants to grow the economy. when people start thinking there may be christian versus muslim ethnic cleansing does that help the economy, does that not put forward problems and concerns that she herself caused? and there should be no consequence?

consider the lack of consequences for betraying your job description: no one else holding that job will consider that job description as anything more than a suggestion. and when that happens how is anyone else supposed to know where they stand?

but again: can you find any better way to sort out these issues, short of ignoring them and guaranteeing, by doing that, that those problems arise over and over again? and without someone deciding this is all so much foolishness they should just do the country a favor and plant a bomb somewhere? where does that leave the ecobomy the simple desire to live quietly, and the whole stability of society?

mlq3 on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 8:55 pm 



jeg, rep. mat defensor has openined that the majority will consider it a second complaint. surprise, surprise. the point is the issue was absent, it is now present, it can be made to disappear by a legislative legerdemain but the issue hopefully will haunt them, somehow. it at least won’t imperil the original complaint, which would have to be dispensed with before the intervention is tackled.

the committee of justice has informed it’s people that the impeachment hearings will be from nov. 18-21 so they have set aside four days to do their dirty deed.

The Marocharim Experiment » Fist in the Air in the Land of Hypocrisy* on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 8:58 pm 

[...] The intervention is downloadable here; coverage links include Inquirer.net Current, Filipino Voices, AWBHoldings, Alleba Politics, and The Daily Dose. [...]

AdB on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 9:07 pm 



Hat off to you and all the other bloggers who signed the impeachement complaint…

Maraming salamat!

the warrior lawyer on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 9:09 pm 



The complaint-in-intervention is an eloquent and masterfully written (and thoroughly researched) document which lucidly spells out the reason why GMa’s complicity in the junked BJE-MOA is an impeachable offense. The House ignores it at its peril. i doff my hat off to the bloggers (if I had a hat to doff) who put this “unprecedented” move forward.

And unlike missingpoints, I don’t mind seeing a Bollywood babe right after “Respectfully yours, Manuel L. Quezon III.” Sort of puts an emphatic, cross-cultural exclamation point to the arguments set forth above.

BrianB on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 9:11 pm 



What has the Bollywood hottie got to do with the complaint. Is she one of the signatories?

BrianB on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 9:13 pm 



I was a little disappointed Brian Gorrel didn’t join you.

BrianB on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 9:16 pm 



Wait, unprecedented pala ginawa nyo. Ang galing.

UP n grad on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 9:27 pm 



Well-written, this comment:

The complaint-in-intervention is an eloquent and masterfully written (and thoroughly researched) document which lucidly spells out the reason why GMa’s complicity in the junked BJE-MOA is an impeachable offense. The House ignores it at its peril.

But my expectation ??? the House will ignore “it”. Fr. Bernas one of the cool-headed experts had already written many weeks ago that there are many instances where it is constitutional to work for an agreement even when an act of congress or a con-con is to make some terms of the agreement work. Treaties and all such stuff make good examples.

manuelbuencamino on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 9:27 pm 



khris,

I agree. We shouldn’t distract GMA from looting the country. More power to you.

Uniffors- Life in Gloria’s Enchanted Kingdom » If 6 were 9 on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 9:31 pm 

[...] ALSO Check out Manolo Quezon’s brilliant gambit [...]

mlq3 on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 9:33 pm 



thank you warrior-lawyer, it was tough merging my prose with that of the lawyers.

JayD on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 9:34 pm 



khris wrote: so you’re just supporting the impeachment for the sake of the record… can we not let her do her job?

for the record khris, she’s being impeached precisely because she hasn’t done her job. The BJE-MOA was a violation of her job to uphold the Consti and the integrity of the Republic.

Add that to the list of GMA’s broken promises, i.e. the building of a strong republic.

impeachment is the citizens’ termination letter for a president who has failed to do her job.

UP n grad on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 10:21 pm 



While I sense that it will fail, I agree that it is worthwhile for members of Congress (with encouragement from metro-Manila civil society) to pursue impeachment.

And while romanticist Abe Margallo would disagree, my preference is the constitutional process (impeachment that conforms to the constitution) over 2001-Philippine-brand People Power.

Most of the times, “Take it to court” is better than gunfight at OK corral.

Why Intervention in the Impeachment Case is Proper and Should Be Allowed » The Warrior Lawyer | Philippine Lawyer on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 10:33 pm 

[...] this morning during the filing are set forth in revealing detail in Manolo Quezon’s blog. I especially enjoyed reading about the discomfiture of the House Secretary-General, Marilyn Yap, [...]

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 10:54 pm 



you’re very all hyped up by the impeachment of arroyo.
yeah arroryo is corrupt and all.

can the economy still recover after going through another impeachment process?

and after successfully impeaching her who would succeed her?

you people are all concerned on the impeaching part. you’re all present on that part with all your signature.

now after impeaching her what are you gonna do? saan ko ba kau makikita?

“I agree. We shouldn’t distract GMA from looting the country. More power to you.” –> not a good reply. i hope you have proofs of your accusations.

i hope you consider that the people who wants PGMA removed from her position are as dirty as she is.

you want her to be removed coz its the moral thing to do. but the moral thing is not always the right thing!!!

khris on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 11:01 pm 



think of the consequences. think about the chaos and what its effect on the economy. PGMA wont go down easily. she would bring many people with her. she will fight to stay in power.

and it would really be very chaotic once its started. do you really wanna go back to the time of erap? to the time when the economy was really really down and the situation is very tense? even though the economy is not that well now with the impending global recession. at least the climate is a bit stable.

be intelligent! dont just think of the impeaching her. think about the consequences of impeaching her. would it be good for all or not…

cvj on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 11:36 pm 



Well done Manolo and Company!

number cruncher on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 11:39 pm 



ah, the old refuge, “do you really wanna go back to the time of erap?”

i hate to put erap in a comparative pedestal, but i don’t remember erap being accused of amassing billions of pesos in pocketed loans, loans that salaried workers like myself will be paying for years to come through our income taxes.

as for stability and poverty incidence? the gap between the rich and poor have been widening. and is our only recourse to go abroad? because the corrupt are gobbling up more of the shrinking pie? this has been going on for years, before erap, but man, this is now as worse as it gets.

and the brazenness of all these functionaries. they don’t even act as if they care about their constituents. they’re downright condescending! write your congressman, pfft. when has one letter to your congressman ever mattered to him, after gobbling up more and more pork? it takes a concerted effort for them to hear you and make it harder to ignore you.

I cheer you on and will pledge my support; hopefully something good will come out of it. how do we sign up?

Bert on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 11:43 pm 



GMA is in a dilemma regards the new impeachment move. The piggy bank is drying up…no more Bolante fertilizer, no new ZTE deal, she is a lame duck so Pagcor will surely keep it’s distance from her. No more milking cow this time.

She has her savings alright, but that’s for the rainy days ahead when finally she’s out of the bank vault where she is now.

Her only way of getting out of this impeachment threat is to invite the congressmen, again, to the palace guesthouse.

If she uses her savings this time then she might not have enough money to fly to Hawaii to enjoy the sunny weather there.

So, where will she get those glossy,glossy paper bags this time?

Who knows.

inodoro ni emilie on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 11:50 pm 



Holy cow, let’s throw everything to the president, including the kitchen sink.

–loy

DON’T YOU TOUCH THE SINK!

Just get rid of that stink.

The EQualizer on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 11:53 pm 



This is what we can expect from the Senate Blue Ribbon hearings on the fertilizer scam with Joc Joc Bolante:NOTHING.

Expect Bolante’s lawyer,Antonio Zulueta to invoke Bolante’s right to privacy.

The OMERTA code of the Pidals will be strictly enforced!

inodoro ni emilie on Wed, 12th Nov 2008 11:57 pm 



and ok fine again. my mistake! erap wasnt impeach. but the fact that the process of his impeachment is too chaotic should make you guys think twice of going through that again.

–khris

the process at all was not chaotic! it just wasn’t followed. or did you yourself not follow the erap impeachment process which power grabbers didn’t follow. do you follow me?

mlq3 on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 12:07 am 



number cruncher ther best that can be done is to contact your congressman; to write to the papers, to send text messages to the news and public affairs shows, or phone in to radio shows. and talking to friends particularly in civic organization. make your support tangible. thank you.

baycas on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 12:22 am 



to the interventional bloggers:

i salute you.

our prayers will work wonders.

d0d0ng on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 2:44 am 



Khris on, “be intelligent! dont just think of the impeaching her. think about the consequences of impeaching her.”

I am a supporter of MOA-AD. So I take a different position than MLQ3. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the MOA-AD violated the constitution. That being the case, it is up to the House to take up the impeachment complaint, rule on it, if necessary pass it with required vote and constitute the impeachment court with the Senate to hold the President accountable for the violation.

There is a lot of work to be done to get from point A to B. Let Democracy spin its wheels. That is the proper thing to do. Philippines have gone through a lot of troubles because of shortcuts. The President is notorious of shortcuts from Garci tape, 2004 election Bolante funding to Esperon MOA-AD.

Even if you jump ahead to exaggerated fear of impeachment consequences, there is no guarantee that the House will do its job. Equally notorious of shortcuts is the house kill of impeachment complaints for the last 4 years.

d0d0ng on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 3:01 am 



Khris on, “PGMA wont go down easily. she would bring many people with her. she will fight to stay in power.”

That is exactly why impeachment is needed. The house had not been up to the constitutional task of impeachment – the only solution to corruption in the highest office. Until the house can do its job, the next Philippine president can only rule with exploitation like in the pasts.

Pedestrian Observer GB on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 3:03 am 



Hats off to MLQIII and the rest of the conspirators errr signatories to the intervention…… you just raised the bar on blogging, keep it up.

nash on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 3:14 am 



so khris, let’s turn this thing over its head.

what are the consequences of NOT impeaching her?

pray, do tell.

hawaiianguy on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 3:45 am 



Whoa! I admire your guts, Manolo. But filing another case against her at this time is like, hmmmmm… suntok sa buwan.

Just look at how the attack dogs of GMA have reacted. From the mighty halls of congress to the bloggerspace, they see it as nothing but an attempt to wreck a house that is now moving well (kuno).

But one point I totally agree with you is this: punish the guilty! And one cannot determine the guilt unless the process is allowed to reign, rather right killing it at the start (including shooting the messenger).

supremo on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 4:39 am 



During normal times this kind of maneuver is effective. I’ll still give you guys an A for persistence.

leytenian on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 5:42 am 



If the President cannot deliver, she has two options, voluntarily resignation or be impeached.

The move is an awareness.

UP n grad on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 6:37 am 



leytenian: There is always more than just two options.

GMA can also attempt a Putin. Putin chose the option of orchestrating an election that put a Putin-puppet into the presidency with Putin pulling the strings.

Or…. GMA can attempt a Mugabe. Mugabe chose the option of getting himself re-elected with the help of persuasive shock-troops unleashed by some of Mugabe’s friends.

And I don’t how you had fogotten (because many have not forgotten) another option is for GMA to attempt a Marcos.

And then, there is the “Musharraf-option”, about which the UK-Newspaper Telegraph commented — : Musharraf’s departure is certainly a victory for democratic forces, but it will not necessarily pull the country together.

And the “let’s move on”-option — end-of-term-2010 per Constitution IS an option.

Bafil on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 6:56 am 



UP n grad:

I don’t think she can do a Mugabe unless the constitution is changed to allow her running for another term. As for all of the other options, they are certainly on the table and my personal guess is that she may be tempoted to do a Putin by having useless harmless Noli annointed to take over and warm the seat for her until she comes back in 2016 (possibly for two terms if Noli is to do a Medvedev) .

d0d0ng on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 7:11 am 



GMA is already looking what diminish capacity after term expiration would mean to her. At best, she will no longer enjoy executive privilege or immunity. And that would be a nightmare easy to imagine.

Her best option is the Putin solution.

baycas on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 7:55 am 



it’s the day of Untruth for JOCELYN ISADA BOLANTE.

if only the JAILED CLAN BOY ATONES

(literally and anagramatically),

his marred reputation can be saved.

anthony scalia on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 8:27 am 



if the complaint is sent to the senate, the impeachment is deemed accomplished.

thus, erap was impeached.

impeachment per se does not necessarily mean removal. the desired end result of an impeachment is removal.

“impeachment” is more like the formal filing of charges, placing the person charged in jeopardy of losing his/her post

anyway, to those supporting the latest impeachment complaint – asa pa kayo. sabi nga ng isang comment sa taas, “suntok sa buwan” lang yan.

puro engot talaga ang opposition (redundant na nga ang ‘engot opposition’). hindi pinaghandaan ang latest impeachment complaint, as the info on the BJE-MOA was left out. kanya-kanyang diskarte pa rin.

mga engot talaga

anthony scalia on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 8:42 am 



what will the latest on bolante accomplish? nothing but:

- something for media people to write about/cover
- giving media reason to raise ad fees
– giving our honorable senators media mileage
- delaying the passage of pending urgent bills
- something to blog about

in short, we are given something to fill our daily routine. especially the senate hearings, they make for good listening on the road!

lalo na if bolante does not give the kind of answers our honorable senators are looking for!

Bert on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 8:47 am 



khris,

your ‘bitch gma’ won’t fool anyone, you are as terrified as your tita of this impeachment move, hehehehe.

istambay_sakalye on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 9:22 am 



“have you ever though that the reason she’s not doing her job well coz she has so many things to think other than solving our problems?”

hahahahaha…..hahahahaha…hahahahaha….best joke ever!
much better than joc-joc! lol!

istambay_sakalye on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 9:26 am 



“have you ever though that the reason she’s not doing her job well coz she has so many things to think other than solving our problems?”-

–better yet…like…ummm….cheating?!…lying?!….stealing?!…
yes i would think those things gets in the way of solving problems. and she is the biggest problem!

leytenian on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 10:10 am 



If there’s more option for Gloria out there, then that option is not acceptable nor suited for our culture.

Bloggers Join The Impeach-GMA Drive | A Filipina Mom Blogger on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 10:24 am 

[...] Manolo Quezon and bloggers filed a complaint for intervention seeking to include the thwarted Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) to the charges in the impeachment complaint against President Arroyo. I admit I am not knowledgeable of the political situation but thanks to my dear husband he explained to me Why The Intervention in the Impeachment Case is Proper and Should Be Allowed. [...]

Geo on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 11:32 am 



Group 1 — leftists militants who will never shut up.

Group 2 — politicos (including their biz backers) who are not in power, but want to be. This includes military and church types who have grand political dreams.

Group 3 — politicos who hold positions but are in the minority…and want to maximize their exposure while making as much noise as possible against the majority.

Group 4 — political groups who won’t fair that well in regular elections in 2010…or fear they won’t…and need to get into power BEFORE the elections can be had.

Group 5 — some of the media, who want as much noise as possible…as this is good for their business.

Group 6 — some of the media, who are politically aligned with anti-administration, and are surrepticiously promoting regime change.

Group 7 — characters who need/want attention and claim to represent the general population, God, justice, and/or The Truth (based on their unique moral authority).

MLQ3 — At least you are not pretending to be from Group 5 and have now even openly moved on from Group 6 to Group 7.

A successful Philippines (at least for now) is not helpful to the agenda of these groups. Hence, expect wasteful, purposeful distractions at an even louder volume…as these groups need to reach their goals before 2010.

Too bad. We all lose.

Jeg on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 12:05 pm 



I can only respond to geo’s groupings of what I assume to be people who are motivated to oppose the present regime with the only sensible comment I can come up with, and the only comment it deserves:

Pfsh!

Geo on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 12:27 pm 



Well who do these groups represent? Who have asked them to take any actions? In toto, do these groups represent the majority? If not, what fraction of the general population do they represent?

If these groups can only prove a teeny backing, then why is it OK for them to derail the country’s economic and national progress?

Seems to me that a selfish minority are negatively affecting the much wider population…with no possible positive result available!!!

That, my friends, is an ugly and immoral waste.

istambay_sakalye on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 12:44 pm 



“Seems to me that a selfish minority are negatively affecting the much wider population…with no possible positive result available!!!”

–and…your claim is?….you represent the much wider population(majority)? hahaha… another comedian!

anthony scalia on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 1:01 pm 



Geo,

ikaw naman oo. pagbigyan mo na.

in case you are forgetting, dito sa atin, political rights are much much more desired than a full stomach

better yet, if a stomach can be filled by the exercise of political rights! just ask those who attend rallies

ayaw na ayaw nila yung set-up sa beloved Singapore ni cvj, na wala ngang political freedom pero full stomachs naman!

Geo on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 1:09 pm 



I claim no such things. But those groups do. However, there is no evidence which supports their claims.

Noise, noise, noise. But nothing positive gained. By now, I think it’s a fact that 4 years of this junk has been a waste of time….

…oh, unless one believes that we have narrowly averted martial law and dictatorship.

anthony scalia on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 1:10 pm 



istambay_sakalye :

“Seems to me that a selfish minority are negatively affecting the much wider population…with no possible positive result available!!!”

–and…your claim is?….you represent the much wider population(majority)? hahaha… another comedian!

————————————————————————–

bakit nakaupo pa rin si gloria? bukod sa it highlights the obvious fact na engot ang mga opposition, it shows that the majority really does not back up this ’selfish minority’!

oh yes! nakakatawa talaga! di na nga umubra ang isang type ng diskarte, pinagpipilitan pa ring gawin uli! tapos magtataka pa kung bakit pareho pa rin ang resulta!

Geo on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 1:19 pm 



scalia,

I’m all for open political expression. (And I am opposed to Singapore’s system).

I’m also all for responsibility. All rights come with responsibilities.

There is a big difference between “Opposition” and “Loyal Opposition”. Note the smooth, amicable (publicly, at least) transfer of power in the US, for ex.

Anyway, one can express themselves freely. No prob there. But knowingly helping to repeatedly slow the country’s growth is going too far.

grd on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 1:33 pm 



anthony,

shall I continue w/ my countdown now?

Bert on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 1:41 pm 



Geo,

your group is the ‘move on’ group, right? so is khris’ and loy’s, right? your ‘move on’ group aka ‘gloria forever’ very afraid of impeachment, right?

don’t be afraid of impeachment, after all, your country’s interests is more valuable than your tita gloria’s, if that be any consolation to you guys. Hehehehe.

Bert on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 1:46 pm 



“anthony,

shall I continue w/ my countdown now?”-grd

yes, yes, grd. please do. and make it fast before it’s too late, heheh.

grd on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 1:48 pm 



bert,

too late for what? for 2010?

Geo on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 1:51 pm 



Bert,

Don’t be silly — the impeachment is dead in the water. It is being launched for other reasons.

I am not from any movement or group. I speak only for myself. I do not want Gloria to be in power after 2010. I want fair elections. I’d prefer cha-cha, actually, but that must wait for less politically-charged days in the future. (And no, I would not want a return of Gloria later)

If one worries/cares about this country…”it’s the economy, stupid”. (No offense, that’s the saying). This is a time for national survival…not circuses.

baycas on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 2:06 pm 



The ’s abdomen is in his chest because he testified under oath that he had abdominal pain when he arrived.

His many years of having “erratic” blood pressure would mean uncontrolled hypertension. I guess he only needed to replace his doctor.

His long-standing evasion of Senate summonses, and even arrest warrant, is not true because of circumstances beyond his control. In fact, he filed for asylum in the U.S. so as not to avoid the Senate inquiry. He chose to be deported in order for him to tell the truth.

Being a rotarian gets in the way of being a patriot…or, vice-versa.

gloria and the is not to be blamed for their underlings were responsible for the scam…if ever there was really a scam.

It’s a matter of semantics when you become confused with terminologies like “funding” or “program.” It’s not actually a cover-up but only a misinterpretation by the unwise.

Bert on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 2:10 pm 



“–and…your claim is?….you represent the much wider population(majority)? hahaha… another comedian! ”

istambay, you have to remember that anthony thinks surveys and statistics are figments of imagination so not credible therefore he thinks gloria is loved by 80% of the Filipino people and more positively popular. hula ko lang ito, pero baka hindi naman.

ang sigurado ako inis siya kay mahar mangahas kasi ang lakas kumita.

anthony scalia on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 2:11 pm 



to grd,

“shall I continue w/ my countdown now?”

oo nga pala? yes, please. what day is it?

——————————————————————-

to Bert,

para masaya, mag-countdown ka rin like grd. if yung kay grd eh counting forward, ikaw naman, counting backward (parang counting to lift off, 10, 9, 8 ,7…)

matagal mo nang tinaningan ang pag-upo ni gloria, eh bilangan mo din.

you have to start with a number,like 100 days from now. so bukas day 99, makalawa day 98 etc. parang ultimatum kay gloria

————————————————————————–

to geo

“…But knowingly helping to repeatedly slow the country’s growth is going too far”

for them, removing gloria is much much more preferable than the country’s growth.

yet they are the same people taking the lead in ousting gloria. ugh!

thats why our country is in very deep sh*t – those wanting to get rid of gloria are no better than her! puro papogi, wala namang substance! like that joke of a senator Jinggoy! and media hogs Cayetano and Escudero! yikes!

anthony scalia on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 2:18 pm 



Bert,

“ang sigurado ako inis siya kay mahar mangahas kasi ang lakas kumita.”

korek! of course! sinong di maiinggit kina Mahar at Felipe!

all you have to do is (1) find a rich opposition guy willing to fund a survey that will confirm his prejudice and (2) find 1,200 people who are willing to affirm that prejudice!

tapos kuwarta na! sinong di maiinggit diyan! Mahar and Felipe have a lock already in the survey racket I can’t form a new competitor to them!

Geo on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 2:34 pm 



Bert,

The majority of the people clearly does not love Gloria. I agree.

But the majority has also not heeded the calls from these same groups calling for GMA’s ouster. What support existed before has consistently dwindled over the past couple of years.

Impeachment is a dead end and unconstitutional means have been clearly rejected. The never-ending “scandals” being raised and pursued — with no results — have become circuses.

But here we go again. All these groups, in unison, coming out again. One final assault, I guess. This has always hurt the economy, but My Lord — this is the one time that it’s suicidally crazy to be fooling around instead of scrambling to man our economic battle stations.

My analysis is (until I hear a better one) is that these groups are scared of 2010.

They have whittled themselves down to a meaningless, foolish, anti-progress…and ultimately scorned minority. Perhaps they realize that the future is not theirs.

grd on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 3:13 pm 



“oo nga pala? yes, please. what day is it?” anthony scalia

it’s DAY 290. malapit na….

anthony scalia on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 3:20 pm 



thanks grd. inaabangan ko naman ang countdown ni Bert

Bert on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 3:20 pm 



“The majority of the people clearly does not love Gloria. I agree.”

Shhhhst, Geo, don’t say that pleeeeze, the ‘move on’ aka ‘gloria forever’ crowd will surely impeach you from their group.

Bert on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 3:28 pm 



“They have whittled themselves down to a meaningless, foolish, anti-progress…and ultimately scorned minority. Perhaps they realize that the future is not theirs.”

Now, now, Geo, your slip is showing. 80% of the the Filipino people scorned minority? And the future not theirs? Do you mean your future is with Gloria?

huhuhuhuhu, hikbi.

Geo on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 4:43 pm 



Bert,

Sorry, I don’t know if I can make things clearer for you.

1. Fact: I am not part of any group. I definitely do NOT want Gloria in power after 2010.

2. Fact: GMA has been supported by ~1/4 of the population during her tenure and has been disliked by ~1/2…with another ~1/4 floating. A majority don’t love her.

3. Fact: A sliver of the population has ever responded to calls for her removal; has ever taken to the streets. The crowds have steadily declined since 2006.

4. Fact: The House had repeatedly proven that impeachment numbers are impossible to achieve.

Therefore, it is safe to assume that the impeachment (and other actions) are a waste of time, slow or stop the legislature from doing it’s primary functions, create a lot of media noise and accomplish nothing….

Nothing except diverting attention from crucial issues, creating a negative environment and other non-productive results.

So who are these people in these groups? Not 80% of the population. Probably not .8%. But I’d even concede 8% for argument’s sake. All the militants, all the Magdalo leftovers and old generals, all the Cruz and Lagdameo Bishops, all the B&W’s, all the Lozada caretakers, all the Hyatt 10, all the media, etc are a tiny group.

That’s the minority I’m talking about.

That’s the minority which has been roiling the waters for several years…with absolutely nothing to show for it.

That’s the minority which was never elected by anyone and which repeatedly failed to get the open and clear support from the general population.

Yes, many don’t like Gloria, but many also don’t approve of all of this BS.

And they may even understand that this stuff is counter-productive. That’s why they throw up their hands and just get back to their personal lives.

The only ones left banging their pots and pans look silly.

But they continue. They say the people are stupid and are being fooled and that’s why they keep telling us that they know what’s right for us.

And the media eats it up and spews it everywhere…including overseas.

Gee, I wonder why the OUTSIDE world things the Philippines is screwed up. But who needs foreign investment anyway????

anthony scalia on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 5:22 pm 



Geo,

di nila ma-gets ang motivation of those people.

they have to step into the shoes of erap – sino ba naman ang hindi magagalit sa interrupted na pangungurakot?

sino ba naman ang di magagalit – dati anak ng diyos ngayon hindi na?

sino ba naman ang hindi maglu-lust after the nakurakot nina gloria at FG? “Amin dapat iyon!” ‘ika nila.

Kaya ganun na lang ang pagka-poot nina Jinggoy at JV kay gloria.

ang nakakainis pa dyan, Jinggoy, JV et al. are hiding behind a facade of “righteous indignation.”

lalo na si Binay!

the nerve of those people

talagang galit ang magnanakaw sa kapwa magnanakaw. so its true there’s no honor among thieves.

siguro mas effective pa sina Binay, Jinggoy JV et al if they don’t present themselves as anti-corruption crusaders

istambay_sakalye on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 5:22 pm 



“That’s the minority which was never elected by anyone and which repeatedly failed to get the open and clear support from the general population.”

-…you forgot….gma never got elected as president!
and all those tong-gressmen get away by playing the so called numbers game!

“Gee, I wonder why the OUTSIDE world things the Philippines is screwed up. But who needs foreign investment anyway????”

–yes the Philippines is screwed up!!! you think?!
sad but the Truth does hurt…and if there is any pride left in every Filipinos ,we should do what is right!

istambay_sakalye on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 5:28 pm 



….and at least MLQ, B&Ws and et al have the balls to stand up and shout against gma! against the oppressive governmnet! against plundering!against lying!against cheating!

di gaya ng iba dyan…antay na lang sa 2010…may eleksyon daw?…ok naman ang ekonomiya..daw?!

jayvee f. on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 5:42 pm 



dear manolo and bloggers,

good luck!

anthony scalia on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 5:46 pm 



“…we should do what is right!”

and the right thing to do is to focus on the economy, create jobs!

“…ok naman ang ekonomiya..daw?!”

di nga ok, pinalalala lang lalo!

buti sana kung job creators din sila. e they are good for nothing other than being anti-gloria

talagang the country is screwed up! the supposed saviors of the country are good for nothing beyond being anti-gloria!

kaya Binay, paki-usap lang, kung hangad mo ang kapakanan ng bayan, hangggang mayor ka na lang!

istambay_sakalye on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 6:23 pm 



“and the right thing to do is to focus on the economy, create jobs!”

–first job vacancy…presidency.. palayasin ang squatter sa malacanang!

“buti sana kung job creators din sila. e they are good for nothing other than being anti-gloria”

manolo, good for nothing daw kayo other than anti-gloria?!

Bert on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 9:50 pm 



Geo, your fact no. 1 is reassuring but it’s not fact but just a statement, the same kind of statement representing the views of this administration you are trying so hard to cover up and deny. Statement like, for example, ‘there will be presidential election in 2010′ but they keep on pushing and attempting to dance the Cha-Cha which as everyone knows just a ploy to perpetuate Gloria in power forever.

I’m sorry I might have been misjudging you but you are talking like a duck so I’m thinking you are a duck.

mlq3 on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 10:00 pm 



geo, you were for her when the economy was doing relatively well, you’re now for her when the economy is going to have some hard knocks, just say you’re for her and be done with it.

but yes, i do think a dictatorship and martial law has been narrowly avoided thus far.

Why I signed the complaint-in-intervention | blog @ AWBHoldings.com on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 10:02 pm 

[...] Intervention for the Prosecution: Why the BJE-MOA is an impeachable offense [...]

mlq3 on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 10:06 pm 



istambay, yes. i merely juggle several jobs instead of being poised to take over meralco and having poised to control transco, and so forth. and my partnership in a modest publishing company that has at best managed to break even for five years is as nothing compared to incurring multimillion dollar losses in the states (gsis, sss, landbank) which is a tremendous help to the economy.

mlq3 on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 10:08 pm 



but i’m being a bad host. i’m glad to have the legionnaries back here, it will once more enrich the conversation and long live diversity.

MLQ3, Pinoy Bloggers filed impeachment complaint against Gloria : OTWOMD | Bluepanjeet.Net on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 10:29 pm 

[...] Manuel L. Quezon III, a Philippine Daily Inquirer Columnist and one of the Philippine’s foremo…. The one of a kind impeachment complaint and the country’s first ever in history contains another reason for ousting Ms Arroyo regarding the deal on the MILF Memorandum of Agreement which was considered by the High Court last month as unconstitutional. Activist and Representative Satur Ocampo said that many of the congressmen are not endorsing the complaint for fear of doing prejudice to the other complaints filed prior to Quezon’s Intervention. Rep. Matias Defensor, chair of the justice committee, in the same vein with Ocampo’s claim, said that he did not think that the intervention would reach the House justice committee since it raised a new issue, the Bangsamoro deal, and was thus prohibited. [...]

Geo on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 11:08 pm 



mlq3,

You know that I’m anti-anti and I have always called for the rule of law.

I dislike what the anti-GMA types have done. It has been bad for business, bad for the people, bad for the country.

From Day 1 it was “oust Gloria”…and doing things legally/constitutionally only became a resort when the overthrow didn’t occur. Henceforth, it was noise over reason, accusations rather than proof.

This has never really been about anything other than a power grab. It was pursued by using the media to amplify the various small groups who harbored various fantasies. That wasn’t obvious before…but it has increasingly become clear.

All this noise, all of this wasted time…for nothing.

“Boxes and boxes of evidence” never appeared. Yet the only scrap of paper ever produced by Cayetano led to his gross embarassment.

The Supreme Court’s recount of the vote debunked the legitimacy charge…though people keep slinging the accusation despite hard evidence to the contrary.

Scandals after scandals are never shown to be more than recriminations.

mlq3 — You and the BMW gang keep warning us of things that don’t ever happen… and claim things that are never proven to exist. For how many years will you be wrong until you admit you might be wrong?

Sadly, I fear you are being mislead — and are being misleading — at the same time. You are feeding a moster which has no appreciation of your lofty goals and inspirations.

BTW, I am no one’s legionaire. I am my own Caesar.

Gloria is not my master. She is simply the current President…who will soon finish her term and make way for a new Prez.. If ever there is proof that she did eggregious wrongs, then jail her for all I care.

But the same cast of characters screaming the same old stuff…sheesh.

mlq3 on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 11:51 pm 



geo, then let’s begin with your definition of the rule of law. and from there go on to whether your definition permits any of things, say, i’ve done. it will be pointless to keep hammering away at things without our figuring out if we’re arguing apples and oranges.

and from there go to your single-sided assertion that all damage to the economy is done by the critics of the president, as selective a mentality as scalia’s “they don’t even create jobs” which immediately has him cutting off any non-entrepreneur, non-big business owner since most people are employees and not employers.

abd i’m sure interested of warnings of things that didn’t happen -might there be a cause and effect there? or do you, a priori, refguse to recognize that possibility?

istambay_sakalye on Thu, 13th Nov 2008 11:52 pm 



there is no shortage of proof that gma committed all those crimes she being accused of! there are/were several attempts to show or prove these to the filipino people by legal means. however, all these were being blocked by gma’s minions in congress who said nothing about the truth but impeachment being a numbers game!

if gma has nothing to hide then why use every means and resources in congress and SC to hide the truth. let neri talk. don’t intimidate witnesses. let he opposition present their argument and proof.

if she and her minions allowed the truth to come out and proved to all that the oppositions are nothing but noise after all. give them the venue to present their case and be heard and then we can all move on. why stone wall and prostitute/bastardize the law of this country.

gma is bad for our country, bad for economy and bad for us filipino people, actually an embarrassment!

if you doubters still don’t see this then nothing we can say or do here will make you see the truth. “mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan”!

Pedestrian Observer GB on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 12:36 am 



MLQ III,

How about starting a meme on this? I think this will catch on pretty well with bloggers………

PJ

d0d0ng on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 1:02 am 



geo on, “Impeachment is a dead end and unconstitutional means.

Wrong. You should read your constitution. It is the only legal remedy against corrupt president and ease transition of power to the vice president for the remaining term.

There is also no need for people to go to the streets to remove sitting president if the House do its mandate. Pork checks, however are proven more important to lawmakers than their constitutional duty.

In addition, the constituents(you) continued to support lawmakers that tolerate corruption. Borrowing your “its the economy stupid” is a good enough reason for the general population to swallow GMA selective handouts to majority poor while she is milking the country with 12%VAT.

With general population preference to do nothing, the cycle of corruption continues to the next president.

For us who cannot tolerate, we left the place a long time ago. But we continued to support our families who are left behind with our foreign remittances.

UP n grad on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 1:18 am 



Because of constitutionalist-Bernas-opinion on MOA-Ad (constitutionally sound, no different than treaties that are inoperative without consent of Congress), I believe that the better places to put efforts to nailing GMA-to-the-wall will be evidence-re-Garci, evidence-re-Macapagal-highway, evidence-re-Lozada. Also because the intervention-CD arrived just days ago, I agree with Activist and Representative Satur Ocampo [..and any other congressmen who] are not endorsing the complaint for fear of doing prejudice to the other complaints filed prior to Quezon’s Intervention.

d0d0ng on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 1:42 am 



“I dislike what the anti-GMA types have done. It has been bad for business, bad for the people, bad for the country. ”

GMA is running the whole country. You can only blame her, if it is bad for business, bad for the people and bad for the country.

During the rice crises, foreign business analysts blamed GMA for driving up the rice prices with her huge rice tenders of whatever supply in the open market.

UP n grad on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 1:44 am 



And “nail-to-the-wall” is less of “—bring in 20 more boxes of evidence” than it is to getting to get the members of the lower house to vote to forward the impeachment process to the Senate.

MOA-Ad, to me, is not only the same as “bring in more boxes”…. MOA-AD is not as heavy-duty a box as “Garci” is.

d0d0ng on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 2:34 am 



Geo on, “All this noise, all of this wasted time…for nothing.”

True for passive Filipinos and the general population who let others (the likes of Marcos, Estrada, Arroyo, et al) determine their fate. There is a saying “Beggars can’t complain” much less scrutinize same old stuffs. Unfortunately such self-inflicted wound can’t define the brave few like MLQ3 who chose to do the right thing.

Bert on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 9:02 am 



“You know that I’m anti-anti and I have always called for the rule of law.”

Wrong Geo. You mean you have always called for the rule of GMA, it’s on record, read them again, even right on this thread.

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 9:48 am 



mlq3,

“…just say you’re for her and be done with it.”

as if one has a choice. whether for her or not – nakaupo pa rin si gloria

all the anti- people can shout and blog ‘patalsikin na now na’ ad nauseam and the result is still the same – nakaupo pa rin si gloria

as if being anti- can move gloria one centimeter close to falling off from her seat.

you can’t blame the ‘anti anti’ school. they (we) see the ‘anti’ school as no better than gloria.

and the worse nightmare of them all – all presidential wannabees are good for nothing beyond being anti gloria

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 9:54 am 



Bert :

“You mean you have always called for the rule of GMA, it’s on record, read them again, even right on this thread.”

I wonder who’s really doing the country good.

The people who maximize the time waiting for 2010 by helping create jobs. or

The people who say “the heck with job creation lets kick out gloria first and worry about jobs later”

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 10:02 am 



UP n,

tama nga sina Satur dun. baka ma-technical yung impeachment complaint.

sayang, if the allegations on BJE-MOA were included in the JDV-endorsed complaint, the “complaint-in-intervention” can serve as supporting evidence.

kaso hindi eh.

haay naku. for all we know, baka makasama pa yung “complaint-in-intervention” sa complaint already filed.

bulilyaso na naman. it really shows how fragmented the anti gloria school is. wala man lang coordination. di man lang pinaghandaan since last year. di na natuto sa “Pulido complaint that’s not pulido”

Geo on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 10:29 am 



mlq3,

Sorry for the delayed response, it was past my bedtime.

The rule of law is the rules on the books…and not what an individual (or group) claim is “justice”. The law includes what some people call “the technicalities”.

I’m not aware of you breaking the law.

I’ll accept that the political screeching and illegal activities and legislative inaction can not be the ONLY negative effects on the economy. But perhaps you can accept that those activities did not create positive effects on the economy in the last 4 years.

Did your warnings of imminent Martial Law actually prevent it from occuring? I guess you can argue that. I recognize the possibility. But that’s a pretty shaky argument; it is improbable. You’d have to *prove* that martial law was about to be implemented it, but the leaders called it off because of your article or BMW’s stroll down Roxas Blvd.

Bert on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 10:30 am 



“I dislike what the anti-GMA types have done. It has been bad for business, bad for the people, bad for the country.”

But, Geo, it seems you like what GMA have done, even if it has been bad for business, bad for the people, bad for the country, inspite of your denials, else why your hate for the anti-GMA types?

Why bad for the people, you may ask. You ask the Filipino people themselves, your countrymen, why GMA is not their favorite, unless you are like anthony who don’t believe in surveys and statistics. Or you are blinded enough by your admiration for your idol you are not able anymore to discern and feel the pulse of your country and your people.

This is neither an accusation, Geo, nor a lecture, just an observation lurking in my head, asking the likes of you why, because I am puzzled. Why Geo?

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 10:46 am 



Bert,

“…unless you are like anthony who don’t believe in surveys and statistics.”

why should I? SWS and Pulse Asia surveys are less than poor yardsticks

“…because I am puzzled”

me too! Im puzzled for your persistence on “patalsikin na now na” , “people power” and “impeachment other than Art 11 sec 4″ which are becoming synonyms for “running in circles” and “broken record”

loy on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 10:46 am 



Filipinos never learn.

Why don’t we follow the examples of the USA? Bush is extremely unpopular there, but they bided their time and waited for the elections. They have a very strong democratic system that’s why they’re able to wait until Bush ends his term.

Impeachment, in this tough, trying, dangerous times, will make things worse. It’s bad timing. The new impeachment filed against GMA is nothing but a rehash of the old version, with the BJE-MOA and Bolante scandal added as sweeteners. The House will throw it to the garbage bin just like the previous ones.

Why not wait for 2010? It’s just around the corner. Sure, it does mean that GMA and her allies can enjoy their stay in power until that time (and some say will continue to loot the treasury and commit grave abuses). But in my opinion that’s preferable to seeing this country going to, God forbid, civil war.

Just my thoughts.

mlq3 on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 10:49 am 



scalia, ther anti school needs to go back to school because you cannot see the frest from the trees.

there is only one president. there may be many comparisons to make but only one person holds the job and so there is only one set of standards by which that one person can be judged.

you can do better than give me the sort of sneering argument marcos noted in his diary: “nothing succeds like success.”

mlq3 on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 10:52 am 



Geo there are many ways to achieve a meeting of the minds, even between people asserting polar opposites. but it begins with trying to meet half way, which you never do. you are welcome to review this blog and see that I try to do that from time to time.

Geo on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 10:52 am 



istambay,

You do not seem to know what “proof” is. There hasn’t been much proof ever offered (only referred to).

Let’s review:

1. A copy of a tape which could have easily been edited vs the Supreme Court’s opening and counting of the ballots. Which one is “proof”?

2. North and South Rail — no proof.

3. ZTE — The only facts to emerge was that Lozada is a thief and, according to the Supreme Court, was not kidnapped or under threat by the government..

4. The JMSU and territotrial issues were non-issues…not treason.

If there is any real proof, it is still lacking.

Claiming that it is all being blocked (which would a hell of a feat), doesn’t make it so. One can’t run a country based on your claims of knowing the truth.

mlq3 on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 11:00 am 



scalia, i’ll say this: satur and casino are operating from a party position they have espoused clearly and forthrightly. i respect them for that not least because they haven’t tried to deceive anyone about it. no one should ask of them to betray a party position, particularly since they are some of the rare politicians who generally act according to the party stand and not individual scheming.

and again, i criticized the non-inclusion of bje-moa and this intervention was meant to do something about it. what the rules do not forbid, they can be assumed to allow.

the assertion of other oppositionists is -well, i have yet to see their views. this is what we’ve challenged them to do. indeed if one problem is that if there are undesirables in the administration there are also undesirables in the minority bloc, then it’s best for all concerned for the public to see if they are all cut from the same cloth or not.

you can read the following, by lawyers:

http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2008/11/12/why-intervention-in-the-impeachment-case-is-proper-and-should-be-allowed/

mlq3 on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 11:01 am 



geo, let me ask you, a supreme court decision, is that proof?

Geo on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 11:15 am 



Bert,

The rule of law says that GMA is the President. It also says that Bayan Muna is a political party and that Teodoro Casiño is a congressman. Like it or not.

I have liked some of GMA’s policies, but not all. I certainly appreciate that passing the VAT — though politically damaging — was a crucial and beneficial move which turned around the country’s balance sheet.

Many investors have hesitated and/or by-passed investing in the Philippines because of the images formed in their mind — this is a politically unstable country with leftists, puschists and political oppositionists all trying to unconstitutionally remove an elected President using unconstitutional means.

This negative perception means less investment, less jobs, more poverty. That’s bad for the people and bad for the country.

You understand?

GMA is not my idol and I am not blindly supportive. The surveys you cite don’t have any relevance — liking her or not is by no means a reasonable metric for measuring the effects of her policies.

The claims of GMA being “bad” for x, y and z have been screamed loudly and often. But the intelectually/logically sound analysis to support such claims has been lacking. Emotions have ruled over facts.

mlq3 on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 11:23 am 



and this is what really bugs me about those critical of impeachment. it completely ignores how this is one way things could be resolved once and for all.

when president quirino became the first president to face a serious impeachment attempt, his reaction was swift. he instructed the malacanan records office to immediately make available any records his critics wanted. he personally asked the leadership of the house to convene a bipartisan panel to investigate the charges and asked for an opportunity to vindicate himself.

the house, to its credit, convened the panel and invited everyone concerned to present their evidence first, and then, in a public manner, collated and went through the evidence and then went through the proposed charges one by one to see if the evidence was there to back the charges up.

then, and only then, did it end as everyone had expected it to end, with a party vote the president won. but guess what. the process by which it was handled cleared the air and accorded quirino a venue to defend himself.

now if the technicalities exist there are many who can take the blame, opposition and majority both for putting them in and in anything involving lawyers the technicalities are par for the course. but it does not lead to a satisfying conclusion which is what any political process is meant to achieve. because a technicality invoked by lawyers can never clear the political air like a forthright prosecution and defense.

if you sneer about the boxes of evidence the opposition claimed previously you can’t ignore the refusal of the majority to call their bluff. they never did. and no prosecutor will tip his hand particularly if outnumbered in a political matchup.

the whole strategy has been for the palace to assert it is also defending its interests by not tipping its hand and providing testimony or access to anything until things reach the point of the adversarial confrontation of defense and prosecution -while relying that the house majority will never even call the bluff, if it’s indeed a bluff, of the president’s critics. it prevents things reaching the point that a formal presentation and rebuttal of evidence ever takes place.

note that carefully. and stop wondering why this only fosters the strong impression that the president could not withstand a scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence presented in a public forum. because the precedents are ample and its in the nature of an impeachment process to disqualify invoking executive privilege.

remember the process does not necessarily require or will ultimately lead to, the passing of articles of impeachment. but a thorough andc public review and confrontation might just possibly expose which are baseless charges and which charges are ironclad. now why would someone confident they have right and justice on their side, decline to take that opportunity? considering that the bedrock of any presidency’s effectivity, is the appearance of legitimacy.

Geo on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 11:56 am 



mlq,

Sure, the Supreme Court’s rulings are facts.

Impeachment is an inherent right. The rules were designed on purpose — it is not easy to impeach because a system cannot operate if it is constantly attacking/defending its managers.

If there is ample hard evidence…and one knows that the House will vote down impeachment…I would assume that the evidence would find the light of day after several years.

Where is this proof, mlq?

You say it’s still being held in secret. Please. There is nothing there or we would have seen it by now. You even hint that you just want to go through the process even if nothing comes out of it. Perhaps because the proof is sorely lacking?

But isn’t it that you want it to make it all the way to the Senate? And the Senate has been the paragon of virtue during these past several years, right? And they can be trusted to be the blind arbiter of justice, right?

From the very beginning, ousting GMA was more important than facts, processes or whatever. And the Senators made their prejudgements and political predispositions obvious.

The Senate doesn’t need facts. The anti-GMA’s don’t have facts. Many Senators are oppositionists and/or want the Presidency themselves. A match made in heaven. That’s why the Antis, the Media and the Senate have all been in bed together.

Now if you were the President and were innocent, would you want the impeachment to go to the Senate? If you were a Congressman and you thought that the anti-GMAs were full of hot air and bad intentions, would you vote to pass the ball to the Senate?

Conversely, if they were all guilty, they wouldn’t want an impeachment to go to the Senate either.

I understand your desire to clear the air and put this to rest, but impeachment ain’t the way. That’s why the anti-GMAs need hard evidence..and to show it. But still…to date…wala.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has shown that the 2004 voting was legit. But you still throw around the “legitimacy” question. Can you see how you seem to be spinning in circles, making a lotta noise, proving nothing and ignoring the proof that DOES exist?

You demand a forum which will oust GMA without hesitation, that’s all. When you don’t get it…and can’t show any proof…you get frustrated. You scream louder. Rinse. Repeat.

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 12:04 pm 



quezon the 3rd,

“scalia, ther anti school needs to go back to school…”

oh yes!

“.. because you cannot see the frest from the trees.”

takes one to know one sir

“there is only one president. there may be many comparisons to make but only one person holds the job and so there is only one set of standards by which that one person can be judged.”

true. whether the leader falls by that standard or not, she is still the sitting leader

“you can do better than give me the sort of sneering argument marcos noted in his diary: “nothing succeds like success.”

my goodness, the anti gloria school insists on doing the same things all over again yielding the same results!

now let me see something which really results in gloria’s ouster! its been 8 years!

by golly, don’t tell me you’re not aware of the glaring fact that gloria’s continued 8-year stay in malacañang is courtesy of the competence of the bright boys of the ‘united’ opposition

(now what is that quotation on a person expecting a different result yet not changing what he’s doing?)

“scalia, i’ll say this: satur and casino are operating from a party position they have espoused clearly and forthrightly. i respect them for that not least because they haven’t tried to deceive anyone about it. no one should ask of them to betray a party position, particularly since they are some of the rare politicians who generally act according to the party stand and not individual scheming.”

true, but did you ever think of the consequences of filing that “complaint-in-intervention”?

“and again, i criticized the non-inclusion of bje-moa and this intervention was meant to do something about it. what the rules do not forbid, they can be assumed to allow.”

noted. but that will be treated as a new additional complaint.

seems you didn’t clear that one with Harry Roque.

“the assertion of other oppositionists is -well, i have yet to see their views. this is what we’ve challenged them to do. indeed if one problem is that if there are undesirables in the administration there are also undesirables in the minority bloc, then it’s best for all concerned for the public to see if they are all cut from the same cloth or not. ”

but still, the desired result of kicking gloria out is not realized.

and may i remind you the public does not need to see now if the undesirables from both sides are cut from the same cloth. they already know that they are! that’s why all efforts of the ”united’ opposition in unseating gloria go pffft because the public does not want to support them!

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 12:07 pm 



quezon the 3rd,

i hope you’re not grouping me with those “critical” of impeachment.

i made the very first comment on this thread.

i suggested how to do an impeachment right

what i am critical of is the “one-complaint-deliberated-by-the-justice-committee-then-referred-to-the-plenary-for-approval” approach

balatucan on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 12:20 pm 



I salute you Manolo and my fellow bloggers for your courage to do this thing. In a time where most Filipinos wanted to play safe, you made the bold move.

I have lost hope of ousting GMA but with your action, my flickering hopes rekindled.

I support you all the way especially the lone Mindanaoan on the list, Ria Jose of Alleba Politics.

Mabuhay Kayo!

Geo on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 12:21 pm 



mlq,

Maybe I should clarify something. I am not against an impeachment effort, per se. I am not sure if you can add your BJE-MOA, but it seems futile either way…especially since the treaty was never implemented.

I am against the same old groups trying the same old thing — with nothing new to add — when the end (negative) result is already known.

The 5 Bishops, the left, the Hyatt, the BMW, the Man/Sundalo, etc, etc are launching a unified attack again, knowing that the only thing that can be accomplished is to muddy the waters and to cast Gloria — AND THE COUNTRY — in a bad light.

Bert on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 12:26 pm 



“If you were a Congressman and you thought that the anti-GMAs were full of hot air and bad intentions, would you vote to pass the ball to the Senate?”

Geo, you intentionally have forgotten that the congressmen never said the anti-GMAs were full of hot air and bad intentions. You also deliberately forgot that the reason the congressmen voted not to pass the ball to the senate was because they were invited to the palace guest house bearing with them glossy, glossy paper bags when they went out of the guest house. This is documented, but knowing your penchant for not seeing true facts, of course you did not notice.

mlq3 on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 12:34 pm 



geo, scalia. there are only a few ways to do things, when it comes to politics. there are only a few ways to both retain power and kick someone out of power. this is why things often end up eerily similar to whats happened before. and why the arguments often end up echoes of arguments that took place long before. the arguments we are having now are quite similar to the arguments that took place during the time of marcos. then, as now, what will probably break the logjam isn’t anything actually planned, but something totally unexpected.

at the heart of your assertions is that evidence does not exist, that if it does, it’s not enough, but that overall you think there’s no real evidence and it’s all a bluff.

i say otherwise and this blog has pointed to where they’re concretely there and where a strong circumstancial case can be made that with further inquiry would reveal them. the best you can do is simply assert that it’s not there, and using the argument that goes, she is there, therefore there is no evidence because if there was, she wouldn’t be there, and besides which there shouldn’t be such a search because i’d rather have her there than anyone else so don’t bother me please.

that’s a total rinse lather and repeat cycle right there.

to geo’s point, a president armed with counter-evidence -and this where her supporters conveniently become blind, because if you doubt the existence of evidence for the prosecution then why not do us a favor and enumerate the evidence for the defense? but that’s too much of a bother when you can sit back and ignore everything everyone’s been doing because you can simply shoot it down by saying there’s nothing and i don’t believe you- will move to kill an issue once and for all, knowing it can be fully and indisputably killed once and for all. for her part it doesn’t have to reach the senate but it doesn’t have to be in a perpetual state of limbo, either. now why would you prefer limbo to a forthright resolution? again, a lawyer will be happy with technicalities but that isn’t how the political process works. dubya won on a technicality and one could argue filipinos ended up like americans, content to stay within the parameters of the system and building up for the day of reckoning later. indeed that’s generally the opinion here at home, except the day of reckoning seems once more to be a moveable goal post but that’s a different story (though one related to many other things, including the bje-moa which suddenly moved forward when the president sensed it gave her an opening by justifying constitutional amendments).

of course i want her out. i thought she had to go when she began refusing to make a categorical assertion of innocence and instead began laying down a legal smokescreen to both buy time and to reduce the fight to one she could win -by technicalities, which is a form of victory but leaves everything where it is -a wasteland of political scorched earth. by now, even if her other options work, either to amend the constitution and continue as pm, or ensure the victory of a pliable presidential candidate in 2010, our institutions have been so enormously weakened from within as to make rational and effective governance that much more difficult in the years ahead.

she should go. she should have gone by relinquishing power herself. she should have gone by being stripped of her job and then fight for the preservation of her life, liberty, and property in the courts she no longer controlled. she should have been vomited out of office by a great upheaval among the people. she remains in office as much because of an instinctive desire to remain within at least broad parameters of peacefulness among her critics because she has been far less shy about respecting those limits herself, for which it was foreign pressure more than domestic opinion is to be thanked. the europeans and americans accomplished what domestic opinion could not: challenge then severely curtail the intengan-gonzalez scheme of liquidating the left, imposing martial law, etc. things that domestic public opinion raised in foreign venues becuase it was hard-pressed to find ways to use domestic institutions to work as they should (though at times they still do).

geo, even if one believes the supreme court settled her 2004 elections, for my part if you review what i’ve written, i believe there is ample reason enough to demand accountability for everything she has done since 2005. things have moved past that particular question too much for you to pin any hope on recognizing the validity of her election by means of a supreme court decision on that. for the same reason that nixon won by a landslide but had to leave office for a cover up he undertook after that landslide, out of anxiety over the acts he undertook prior to it.

mlq3 on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 12:37 pm 



geo, scalia, in addition, for the record, i respect you both though we obviously have different views. and i don’t think you’re stooges of anyone, but i do think we are arguing apples and oranges most of the time.

mlq3 on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 12:48 pm 



geo, incidentally i’m also quite curious regarding your assertions re: investors. or scalia’s fetish for thinking the president creates jobs.

regarding investors: the high cost of power, the vulnerability of official policies and regulations to regulatory capture, the weakness and corruption of our justice system, the weak coordination between national and local, poor infrastructure in general, too high labor costs, a lack of predictability in official policies and unreliability on official decision-making, are what are often cited. political noise and so forth are par for the course anywhere and you don’t see investors backing out of south korea where the clashes are more violent, or malaysia or thailand indonesia and taiwan for such superficial reasons. nor have i encountered any foreigner anywhere who thought the president or her critics are reasons on their own to have blanket opinions of filipinos or their country.

regarding scalia, the lack of regulation on our educational institutions means theyre more nimble in adjusting to market demand, eg. the shift from pt to nursing when those were hot, now to programming, multimedia and even biotech as these occupations get hot; the bpo industry too is more of a case of entreprenurial innovation and timing in the space accorded by a vacuum in government regulation and thus, interference. yet take cebu, with its well established export industries that were hard-hit by the president’s fetish for a strong peso, which may have good reasons behind it but which the cebuano exporters, fairly enough, complained was killing them and killing the jobs people held in them. to be sure cebus economy compensated for it but as one such businessman told me, you had workers who had steady jobs, were paying taxes, were productive citizens here at home and what do you do, you wipe them out, throw them out of work, and just hope they or their kids can scoot abroad and become contractual laborers somewhere. not a good way to take care of your own, and there were concrete steps the president could have done to help keep those productive jobs at home, but she didn’t do it.

and while the president got credit for the e-vat, you have to look at the reasons she had to impose it, and it had less to do with rational economics and more to do with pandering in aid of election. namely, bloating the debt of napocor rather than let public irritation over electricity costs harm her election chances in 2004.

Geo on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 12:55 pm 



Bert,

I certainly do recall hearing many Congressmen stating that the anti-GMAs were full of hot air and bad intentions. You don’t? Din’t you watch the all-night debates in the House?

The glossy bags thing was inconclusive. Anyway, that wouldn’t explain the 1st impeachment go-around. Also, I think a Congressman’s vote to stymie an impeachment would be a whole lot more than the figures being thrown around about those bags.

Oh, and wasn’t that at a meeting of LGU types, not a meeting with Congressmen? Anyway, claiming that the House was bribed to not impeach is a claim, not a fact.

But go ahead, tell me what was “documented” exactly.

Geo on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 1:28 pm 



mlq,

Now you have a better approach than Bert. I agree that the lack of enough solid evidence does NOT mean that GMA is innocent.

But I take exception to what you wrote:

“the best you can do is simply assert that it’s not there, and using the argument that goes, she is there, therefore there is no evidence because if there was, she wouldn’t be there, and besides which there shouldn’t be such a search because i’d rather have her there than anyone else so don’t bother me please.”

That’s not at all my argument. Mine is: If you really have evidence, let’s see it. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If you don’t have any, then don’t pretend you know for a fact that someone is guilty. And maybe after 4 years, you should step back and re-evaluate.

I don’t recall seeing the concrete proof you’ve presented (I probably disagreed about it’s firmness), but I’ve seen many attempts at trying to connect various circumstances in order to demonstrate something ot other.

I’m sure our differing opinion on those “facts” is one of the very roots of our overall disagreement. Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure you haven’t shown any facts that could withstand a formal trial. But go ahead, remind me…..

Here’s another quote of yours: “…except the day of reckoning seems once more to be a moveable goal post but that’s a different story”. Once again, this is an accusation that has no merit in facts. Just who is proposing to move 2010 back? Just who is proposing to keep her in power after 2010?

This is just like saying “Martial Law is around the corner!!!” Fear mongering. Accusations that can never be proven to be false (but have never proven to be true).

Here’s another of yours: “i thought she had to go when she began refusing to make a categorical assertion of innocence and instead began laying down a legal smokescreen to both buy time and to reduce the fight to one she could win -by technicalities,”

She said that she did not cheat in the elections, but she admitted she called Election Officers (as did many others, it seems). Her office and spokespeople have repeated that often.

The antis were in the street demanding an immediate removal from office without any due process. So she said: “take it to court” (impeachment proceedings). What the hell do you want an innocent (or guilty), bona-fide (or not) President to do??? Her actions did not reveal innocence or guilt.

But you — and your pals — immediately claimed — with full confidence — that she was guilty. Based on what, exactly? Ahhhhh, the Garci Tapes. That, my friend, is the height of naivete…or perhaps you (like many) were just looking for any, ANY, excuse to oust her. I don’t know.

A bunch of idiots and criminals and savvy power players took to the streets first. How can anyone be shocked that the accused resorted to safer, calmer, less-emotional avenues?

And when the accusers didn’t provide any evidence, they went back to the streets again!!! As if that is their right! Problem is…it turns out that the antis had very little support in real life. So now it’s been accusation after accusation, noise on top of noise. All without facts, proof.

And again you write: “she should have been vomited out of office by a great upheaval among the people.” Ummm…even though the vast majority of the country has proven that this is unacceptable? Once again, you and the BMW types claim to be able to rule the country properly…and as Leah Navarro has said — the rest of us are too stupid to understand what’s right and wrong.

Lastly, do you now agree that the Supreme Court reviewed the ballots and that the vote cheating charge was shown to be without merit?

The EQualizer on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 1:34 pm 



“What if I swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth but I LIE ? “Joke2 BOLAnte

Geo on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 1:54 pm 



mlq,

I am aware that you are more a student of history than of business. I am a businessman who studies history/current affairs as a hobby. First, let me respond to your words…..

You wrote: “regarding investors: the high cost of power, the vulnerability of official policies and regulations to regulatory capture, the weakness and corruption of our justice system, the weak coordination between national and local, poor infrastructure in general, too high labor costs, a lack of predictability in official policies and unreliability on official decision-making, are what are often cited.”

Exactly. Same during Aquino, Ramos, Erap and GMA1 and 2.

Post-9/11, also include islamo-terrorism.

Now, add the ouster of Erap and the counter-demonstrations up until 2004. And throw in on top of it all the street scenes and screaming faces on ANC (which leads to more CNN and BBC coverage) who demand the elected President be ousted and….voila! This country looks to be CHRONICALLY and DANGEROUSLY unstable.

Demonstrations after demonstrations, soldiers and tanks in the street, impeachments after impeachment, frothing politicians and Harry Roqueses and Trillaneses on TV, threats of coups, revolution….. This is much different than the other countries you mentioned, as you know. Only recently does Thailand look worse (a lesson for us here).

I certaily know many foreigners who have not invested here because of the perceived political instability…and who WOULD invest here if they felt those days were gone for good. Many.

I take it you are aware of travel warnings repeatedly emanating from foreign embassies, yes?

mlq3 on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 2:00 pm 



i think those who challenge others to present evidence pledge to do their bit and present their own evidence, too to assert their own claim.

magdiwang on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 2:00 pm 



nakakatawa itong bolante fertilizer scam, another circus in the offing. just like other senate investigations it will come down as a flop once again.

liquidation of the money from the fertilizer funds was done by local government officials and congressmen. how come those presidentiables are not screaming for the heads of those local executives. hmmmm they are probably afraid of not being supported by them come election time eh…. what a waste of time, they want to blame GMA and yet they come embarassingly unprepared for joc joc bolante. they look so lost as joc joc run circles around them.

Bert on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 2:15 pm 



Geo, you are a very good lawyer, if you are a lawyer, and you know how lawyer goes, they have a reputation. Please take this as a compliment.

But this forum is not a courtroom even if you treat it like one. The fact remains that you are a defender of GMA, your president, even if you consistently have been denying it.

We, the vast majority of the Filipino people, not to forget that you agreed we are the majority, do not approved of what your president had been doing to our country and to our people. In time there will be a period of reckoning. If it be the 2010 presidential election, or other, so be it.

But patience has its limit.

justice league on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 2:48 pm 



Geo,

PGMA once issued PP1017.

It was supposed to be calling out power of the President to the AFP and PNP and was NOT a declaration of Martial Law.

Yet with it the President and her cabinet/agencies sought to perform or performed acts ONLY allowed under a declaration of Martial Law or suspension of writ of habeas corpus. (With some acts/act NOT allowed EVEN under Martial law in the present constitution though previously allowed under Martial Law in the Marcos Constitution)

But yes. Not even all the articles assailing it nor all the marches including those strolling down (Paseo De) Roxas could prevent PP1017 from occurring.

People eventually had to go to court.

Off topic.

With regards to the Indian “boobies”. It’s really the highs and lows that make life interesting!

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 4:49 pm 



quezon the 3rd,

“…or scalia’s fetish for thinking the president creates jobs.”

excuuuuuuzzzzzzz me. please! i never ever categorically stated that. nor did i ever hint at it!

my “fetish” is the obvious manifest collateral damage the anti gloria school is gratuitously inflicting upon the economy everytime it exercises its constitutional rights.

even scarier is the equally obvious manifest fact that the anti gloria school is oblivious to the economic damage
it is generously creating each time it enjoys the constitutional freedoms

“geo, scalia, in addition, for the record, i respect you both though we obviously have different views. and i don’t think you’re stooges of anyone, but i do think we are arguing apples and oranges most of the time”

no sir. the issue is always the propriety of prioritizing gloria’s removal over and above anything else. the anti gloria school says its the top priority, the anti anti says nay. (though the anti anti school is open to impeachment)

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 5:03 pm 



quezon the 3rd,

THE BRIGHT SIDE TO THE “COMPLAINT-IN INTERVENTION”

if you bring its denial to the Supreme Court, there’s now an opportunity for the SC to review its doctrine on Francisco vs. House of Representatives (the Davide impeachment case), and possibly reverse it.

the doctrine that “initiated’ means the mere filing of a complaint should be abandoned and given a new meaning – that ‘initiated’ should mean an impeachment complaint duly transmitted to and received by the Senate.

because as we all know now, if ‘initiated’ means mere filing, then an impeachable official can escape impeachment by just causing the timely filing of a weak impeachment complaint, which will bar any later impeachment complaints (hintay na lang next year)

(though I agree with the result of the case, the junking of Davide’s impeachment)

istambay_sakalye on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 5:52 pm 



“The people who say “the heck with job creation lets kick out gloria first and worry about jobs later”

-what wrong with this statement? are you implying that because we want gma out, that we don’t care about the economy? it is because we care more not just about the economy but also, we care about the country and it’s people. all three we care and that is why gma should go. she is, was and will always be bad for everything good for this country!

istambay_sakalye on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 6:02 pm 



“Why don’t we follow the examples of the USA? Bush is extremely unpopular there, but they bided their time and waited for the elections. They have a very strong democratic system that’s why they’re able to wait until Bush ends his term.”

-hahaha. USA ha? they impeach clinton for getting a felatio in the office! you must have forgotten that! and we can’t impeach gma for cheating during the elections? plundering? mass murder? lying? now that’s what i called maturity!

reason bush never got impeached is part his cause for war against terrorism actually is partly good. only when they invaded iran and the war dragged on that american got frustrated. even that is nothing compared to what gma has committed. and not until the the economy collapsed that sealed the repblicans fate during the last USA elections and not solely because of bush.

the comparison is not even close as comparing apples to oranges!

istambay_sakalye on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 6:06 pm 



“Why not wait for 2010? It’s just around the corner. Sure, it does mean that GMA and her allies can enjoy their stay in power until that time (and some say will continue to loot the treasury and commit grave abuses). But in my opinion that’s preferable to seeing this country going to, God forbid, civil war.”

–now the only reason civil war may happen is if gma insist to hang to her throne! and not otherwise.

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 6:14 pm 



Bert,

“But patience has its limit.”

oh yes! 6 years, to be exact.

malapit na mag 4 years and 5 months. so what’s 1 year and 7 months of waiting?

mukhang di mo pa na-notice, nobody has to defend gloria. nakaupo pa rin sya.

sa ellenville nga, walang nagde-defend kay gloria, pero nakaupo pa rin si gloria.

para namang each ‘patalsikin na now na’ is a step closer to kicking her out.

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 6:19 pm 



“-what wrong with this statement? are you implying that because we want gma out, that we don’t care about the economy?”

oh yes! because if you do, you’d put the economy ahead of removing gloria

” it is because we care more not just about the economy but also, we care about the country and it’s people. all three we care and that is why gma should go.”

no my friend, if you really care about the country, you’d put job creation ahead of kicking her out

“she is, was and will always be bad for everything good for this country!”

para namang ang ipapalit ay directly inverse to gloria!

istambay_sakalye on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 6:28 pm 



“The glossy bags thing was inconclusive. Anyway, that wouldn’t explain the 1st impeachment go-around. Also, I think a Congressman’s vote to stymie an impeachment would be a whole lot more than the figures being thrown around about those bags.”

–i got a song for this one and it goes like this…’three blind mice, three blind mice, three lind mice…” and that is what i call being blind to glaring facts!

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 6:43 pm 



“-hahaha. USA ha? they impeach clinton for getting a felatio in the office! you must have forgotten that! and we can’t impeach gma for cheating during the elections? plundering? mass murder? lying? now that’s what i called maturity!”

the only reason why impeach complaints vs gloria went pfft is the kaengotan and kabobohan ng ‘united’ opposition. each one gustong magpakabayani

tapos sisisihin pa ang Palace! asus! mga Pinoy talaga, ang galing sa sisihan.

tapos gusto pang i-entrust ang country sa kanila! diyos na mahabagin!

nung time ni erap, next to impossible ang impeachment nya at the onset. pero the anti erap forces did their homework, and the rest is history

face it. the anti-erap forces in the year 2000-01 are much much better, united, fluid, and have brains, than the anti gloria splinter groups of 2001-onwards. not to mention that almost the whole country is behind the anti-erap forces

eh ngayon, what/who constitutes the anti gloria subcontinent? they’re a huge colossal joke!

konkretong halimbawa ng kaengotan is the type of questions asked by Roxas and Jinggoy to Joc Joc, and the honorable senators being disappointed not hearing from Joc Joc what they wanted to hear! mga bobo!

naghearing pa sila! eh alam naman pala nilang magsisinungaling din naman.

adjudged na sya as guilty, so all resources should have just been directed towards building a case against Joc Joc, and eventually against gloria. walang mararating yang senate hearings! just one freaking committee report!

what can one freaking committee report do?

istambay_sakalye on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 6:46 pm 



“no my friend, if you really care about the country, you’d put job creation ahead of kicking her out”

–and so my friend you must assume that all we do is shout and march in the street and that we do not contribute to the economy of this country? if that is what you believe then you are very wrong. we can do both at the same time, kick gma out and at the same time contribute to improve our economy.

Geo on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 6:48 pm 



mlq3,

You wrote: “i think those who challenge others to present evidence pledge to do their bit and present their own evidence, too to assert their own claim.”

Is that adressed to me? If so, sure I’ll pledge that. Is there some evidence that you want me to provide? For what argument?

You also wrote:
“while the president got credit for the e-vat, you have to look at the reasons she had to impose it, and it had less to do with rational economics and more to do with pandering in aid of election. namely, bloating the debt of napocor rather than let public irritation over electricity costs harm her election chances in 2004.”

I’ve heard this one before. It’s called “spin”. However, the history of how this macro-economic landscape developed might put your claims in a better — and different — perspective.

By the time Marcos was ousted, the economy was already in tatters. That’s the starting point. What happened in the energy sector after that is front and center in our story.

Marcos’ Westinghouse nuclear reactor had been designed to provide for a huge portion of the country’s energy needs. Many of the old plants were ready to be closed, and they would not only be replaced by the reactor, but there would even be more power available.

Problem is — the Aquino administration closed the reactor…and never addressed the oncoming energy crunch.

That problem fell squarely on FVR’s lap. That was a horrible time, eh? Ramos had to get short and medium term solutions and that’s when the IPPs came in and got great deals. I think we are still paying for them now.

Erap and GMA1’s term didn’t do much to solve the problem either.

Then 2004 arrived. The energy sector had killed us by then. Borrowings were built high. The country’s balance sheet was screaming “disaster!” Do you remember when GMA stated that we were in an economic/financial crisis?

Realistically, only two choices were available — repudiate the debts or attack/reduce them with vigor. EVat was a necessary evil. And it cost GMA dearly (it’s still being used against her to this day).

Saying that EVat was simply a solution to GMA’s own, self-created problem is inaccurate at best.

istambay_sakalye on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 6:53 pm 



“mukhang di mo pa na-notice, nobody has to defend gloria. nakaupo pa rin sya.”

–what do you call all those tong-gressmen, defensors, kenkoygremen, SC jsutices kuno, general kapal at general kupit, at iba pang mga alipores nya. daig nya pa ang fort knox. masyadong syang fortified. tingnan mo nga naman ang magawa ng VAT oo.

Geo on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 7:08 pm 



istambay,

You wrote: “–now the only reason civil war may happen is if gma insist to hang to her throne! and not otherwise.”

Says who? You? You and who else? How many are there like you? Do you represent the majority in this country? Were you elected or something? Is there some reason why your version of truth is superior to other people’s versions of truth?

Yes, much of the country does not like GMA. But it has been repeatedly shown that it rejects civil war, a coup or any unconstitutional removal of GMA from office.

So because you “insist” her to leave, even though she “insists” not to…means we have to have a civil war? Started by who, you? Your personal desire does not overrule the laws, sorry. And even if you get all the other anti-GMAs together, it’s still not enough.

Opinions are opinions. They do not warrant overthrowing the entire country’s system. No matter how convinced you are.

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 7:27 pm 



“–and so my friend you must assume that all we do is shout and march in the street and that we do not contribute to the economy of this country?”

oh yes!

may kasabihan sa tagalog – kung ayaw nyong matulog, magpatulog kayo!

stated differently – kung ayaw nyong gumawa ng trabaho, hayaan nyo kaming gumawa ng trabaho!

“if that is what you believe then you are very wrong.”

no my friend. i am right. you’re in the wrong. pray tell me – how many jobs have been created by the bright boys of the opposition (di kasama ang rally attending ha)

“we can do both at the same time, kick gma out and at the same time contribute to improve our economy.”

no my friend. if you’re not doing job creation now, you won’t be doing it at all

“–what do you call all those tong-gressmen, defensors, kenkoygremen, SC jsutices kuno, general kapal at general kupit, at iba pang mga alipores nya. daig nya pa ang fort knox. masyadong syang fortified. tingnan mo nga naman ang magawa ng VAT oo.”

di ko alam.pero one thing for sure -

ang ‘united’ opposition ay puro engot at bobo! gloria has to thank them for staying much longer than erap.

istambay_sakalye on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 8:13 pm 



just like during the marcos years, no one thought it would end like it did. so many good and bright souls sacrificed themselves in figthing his evil regime. also, a lot of fellow filipinos benefitted from marcos’
crimes, just like today.

gma’s reign will end. she and company will dearly pay for their crimes and transgressions. it may not happen right away but still it no excuse not keep on fighting. laugh and insult all you want.

anthony scalia on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 9:27 pm 



“gma’s reign will end”

oh yes! in 2010

Jologs For Jesus on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 10:17 pm 



Impeachment should be an Olympic sport so that the Philippines will finally win Gold!

UP n grad on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 10:42 pm 



The Philippines sure is on a tear to go for gold.

Just look at the number of times that cadres inside metro-Manila have tried to kick out a Malacanang resident.

justice league on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 11:01 pm 



Anthony Scalia,

Do you consider members of the Makati Business Club like the Ayala’s as opposition.

Their Trinoma mall alone provides employment to thousands. Their Corporation is currently Constructing a large area in Sta. Cruz District of Manila that currently employs a large amount of laborers and once finished will provide employment thousands more.

Do the Lopezes of ABS CBN count as opposition? I passed by their soon to be finished Rockwell business center in Ortigas. It currently employs a lot of laborers and will also provide employment to thousands when it is finished.

Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.

Bloggers’ historic act in Arroyo impeachment, nay or aye? | Filipino Voices on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 11:13 pm 

[...] foregoing concerns notwithstanding, should I still support the Complaint-in-Intervention filed by our colleague mlq3 et al in the pending impeachment proceeding against President [...]

d0d0ng on Fri, 14th Nov 2008 11:21 pm 



Geo on, “The 5 Bishops, the left, the Hyatt, the BMW, the Man/Sundalo, etc, etc are launching a unified attack again, knowing that the only thing that can be accomplished is to muddy the waters and to cast Gloria — AND THE COUNTRY — in a bad light.”

This is the typical Filipino nonsensical argument – the country is bad because of the government critics instead of the government itself.

No wonder, there is no solution to myriads of Philippine problems because of the blind remedy other than cause itself.

HeHe.

d0d0ng on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 12:15 am 



loy on, “Why don’t we follow the examples of the USA? Bush is extremely unpopular there, but they bided their time and waited for the elections. They have a very strong democratic system that’s why they’re able to wait until Bush ends his term.”

Unpopularity of Bush stems from RESULTS of Iraq war. Bush is unimpeachable even for wrong WMD information because WMD is only one among other reasons listed and approved by both Democrats and Republican lawmakers. Approval of Iraq war is clear from the very beginning. No violation of constitutional duty.

In the Philippines, GMA has repeatedly violated her constitutional mandate: Garci tape & public admission, Bolante-agrarian-fund election, china-for-tong, MOA-constitutional-violation, etc. GMA also ensures any impeachment bill is killed at the committee level for the last 4 years.

It is apple and oranges as MLQ3 had repeatedly said.

In the US, democracy is naturally respected. In the Philippines, GMA is the law and demands respect. Respect can only be earned not demanded.

Hence, there is a lot of Filipinos like Geo barking at the wrong tree (the critics) as noises, circuses and wastes.

d0d0ng on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 12:22 am 



Bert on, “Geo, you are a very good lawyer”

Geo on, “Impeachment is unconstitutional means.”

A lawyer would not have a serious blunder that impeachment is unconstitutional. He does not even know his constitution.

supremo on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 12:56 am 



‘Marcos’ Westinghouse nuclear reactor had been designed to provide for a huge portion of the country’s energy needs.’

The BNPP was designed to produce 600 MW at the most. The Sucat 1-4 power plants can generate 850 MW.

d0d0ng on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 1:28 am 



mlq3 on, “sneering argument marcos noted in his diary: “nothing succeds like success.””

This is probably why democracy is not the right political model for Philippines. Success done through corruption and public expense is taken up as justification for continued existence. The general population is willing to embrace the status quo and shun the critics.

For the politicians and lawmakers, this remove fear of accountability from constituents essential for democracy to work.

TonGuE-tWisTeD on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 4:18 am 



Well done, Manolo. I salute you and our blogger-friends.

On the Leftist Congressmen’s rejection of endorsement, they are in favor of dismembering the country. They fantasize that the same thing will be offered them after Bangsamoro. Satur was probably toasting champagne with Kirstie Kenney on their flight to Malaysia I believe their party stand was the reason it was not included in the original complaint.

I hope it will be included so we’ll see how the leftists will argue whether for or against the whole impeachment.

TonGuE-tWisTeD on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 4:26 am 



Supremo is right, it was not merely the mothballing of BNPP that brought us the energy crisis, it was the scrapping of Marcos’ energy policy as a whole and with it, the Min. of Energy.

“stated differently – kung ayaw nyong gumawa ng trabaho, hayaan nyo kaming gumawa ng trabaho!”

naks, malaki sigurong kumpanya ni scalia?

anthony scalia on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 7:00 am 



“naks, malaki sigurong kumpanya ni scalia?”

di naman. almost as big as yours lang.

anthony scalia on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 7:56 am 



justice league:

“Do you consider members of the Makati Business Club like the Ayala’s as opposition”

no.

“Their Trinoma mall alone provides employment to thousands. Their Corporation is currently Constructing a large area in Sta. Cruz District of Manila that currently employs a large amount of laborers and once finished will provide employment thousands more.”

true. but Ayala is not MBC

if you will notice, Jaime, Jaime Augusto, Fernando, and no one else from Ayala are enjoying the constitutional right of free speech. its always the MBC speaking its mind out. Bill Luz is now quiet, because he is now an employee of the Ayalas (he’s with the Ayala Foundation now)

wait, there’s an issue whenever the MBC exercises the constitutional right to free speech, as the expression might be just the speaker’s (the executive director) own beliefs, and not necessarily the MBC’s.

“Do the Lopezes of ABS CBN count as opposition?”

no.

same thing. did you ever hear Gabby or Oscar or any of the Lopezes say ‘patalsikin na now na’? i haven’t heard that lovely slogan from the lips of erap’s son-in-law

(the Lopezes are surely coursing its expression through ABS-CBN)

“I passed by their soon to be finished Rockwell business center in Ortigas. It currently employs a lot of laborers and will also provide employment to thousands when it is finished.”

noted

“Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.”

noted. your point?

now who is the opposition – those who call themselves the ‘united opposition.’ those good-for-nothing-beyond-anti-gloria, its-our-turn, worse-than-gloria, self-righteous, pompous, no-better-than-Mike-Arroyo politicians

look no further than the UNO’s president – Jojo Binay – to see what kind of people they are

there’s only one opposition group I truly respect – the likes of Satur and Casiño. because i am assured that these people are really after the nation’s interests

ever wonder why no one from the likes of Satur and Casiño gets to be president of UNO or at least are influential in the oust gloria movement?

The Ayalas and the Lopezes may be opposition at heart, but their main pre-occupation is still business.

who do you think is doing the country more good? the job-creating opposition or the just-noisy opposition (UNO)?

(side note – for cvj, the Ayalas, the Lopezes et al . are elites, oligarchs, people who stifle development)

the country will not experience growth (new jobs, new businesses) if the growth is sourced only from the Ayalas’ and Lopezes’ expansions

rich as they are, all the money of the Ayalas and the Lopezes (put it all the taipans as well) isn’t enough to cover the investments necessary to create millions of jobs.

off-topic (lets have some light moments naman):

who will win Superman vs. Thor?
for me – without his hammer, Thor will lose

anthony scalia on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 8:03 am 



d0d0ng :

“A lawyer would not have a serious blunder that impeachment is unconstitutional. He does not even know his constitution.”

no my friend. a lawyer will legally find a way to have an impeachment complaint declared unconstitutional.

its not impeachment per se that is unconstitutional.

anthony scalia on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 8:08 am 



“This is the typical Filipino nonsensical argument – the country is bad because of the government critics instead of the government itself.”

an equally nonsensical argument. the zeal of government critics in enjoying their constitutional freedoms forces government to just focus on firefighting than on moving forward.

always made by people who have not been in any form of governance

anthony scalia on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 8:31 am 



dodong,

“GMA also ensures any impeachment bill is killed at the committee level for the last 4 years.”

regardless of the committee decision, the final say is the plenary vote. a committee report of dismissal can be reversed by a vote of just 1/3 of the plenary and that suffices for impeachment

leytenian on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 8:33 am 



on my goodness: still stuck with impeachment ?

It’s also Congress that is responsible for the biggest scam in the history of this country.

Therefore, I am looking for citizens who have had enough of this current Congress and their inbred concern for their own interests. I am calling for impeachment of the body of Congress with a special election to be held within 60 days of that impeachment to limit the amount of Bullshit and Bias we will inevitably be subjected to in order to elect new Congress members.

Hopefully, we can put in “real” people who have not sold out to the ruling elite and are a little more in touch with reality and the damage which was inflicted upon us.

We can’t be apathetic any longer. If you don’t act now, you will have no right to complain about anything.

think about it

justice league on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 10:18 am 



Anthony Scalia,

What the heck!

So they not only have to be opposition by heart or simply opposition but card/placard carrying members of the opposition as well?

If so, where does the distinction of “the job-creating opposition or the just-noisy opposition” come in?

How about when the MBC shouldered a sizable part of the expenses on the interfaith rally in Makati sometime in March because of NBN ZTE deal?

“noted. your point?”- What the heck again!

You can stop your preccupation on who produces jobs for this and that because this government has shown that it can whiff it OUT OF THIN AIR!

Off topic.

Being a collector of comics back in the last century, I firmly believe that Superman would beat Thor even if the mighty Thor had his Mjolnir hammer.

Because Thor would have a hard time beating the Incredible Hulk on his own and in the DC vs. Marvel comics; Superman beat the living crap out of the Hulk.

DC would have won the war for the Universe if underdog Storm had not surprisingly beaten Wonder Woman.

mlq3 on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 10:19 am 



geo, the origins of the power crisis is not the issue, the issue is, the president ordered napocor to lower its costs in 2003, in preparation for the elections, bloating the debt and making it one of the largest components of the deficit. but she could not afford to either put the squeeze on the lopezes because she was courting their support, and she could not keep rates high as it would antagonize the people. after the elections she could tighten things up and institute a bailout for napocor through e-vat. ironically gaining praise from domestic and foreign business for her political will.

geo you also have to consider that perhaps those investors you speak of, if so skittish, aren’t the most suitable though every instance of a foreign investor being spooked is to be regretted. but the reports and studies of domestic economists also points to the collapse in morale that prevents domestic investments which is as much because of the unchecked mafiosi tendencies of our officials up and down the line and the general inability of the top to moderate the greed of anyone below.

in the particular case of foreign advisories that is due to terrorist behavior that antedates even the president and is not within the ken of the oppo-admin dynamic. i can’t recall a travel advisory regarding metro manila.

KG on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 10:40 am 



leytenian,

yung 8:33 am mo, kala ko pa naman original thoughts mo.

wala ka pa ding kupas

cut and paste na naman from a letter sender.

kinalat mo pa pa,pati sa FV nabasa ko din yung comment.

what is the point?
you cannot impeach congress, at pinahaba mo pa snap; election din naman ang proposal mo.

Geo on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 10:45 am 



Dodong,

I never wrote “Impeachment is unconstitutional means.” You keep trying to say that I did, but I didn’t.

I wrote “Impeachment is a dead end and unconstitutional means have been clearly rejected.”

I took it that you were either prurposefully distorting my words…or you are just one more of the types who yells and screams but doesn’t listen, read or think.

Either way, now you know why I don’t respond to you.

And now…stop misquoting me, purposefully or otherwise.

leytenian on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 10:49 am 



KG,
“you cannot impeach congress”

that’s exactly my point. we don’t have a choice. akala ko hindi mo maintindihan. so who is most powerful? congress or the president?

leytenian on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 11:06 am 



only a third from the House of representative are required to approve the motion to impeach but we don’t have a third. even if the motion was approved by the house, the senate will still have to vote 2/3 for convictions.

KG on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 11:07 am 



Leytenian,

depende eh.

kung di nya hawak congress tanggal agad sya via impeachment.

pero kung hawak nya lahat,ibang usapan na yan.

sorry for those who are not fans of the senate, pero buti na lang di hawak ni gma ang senado,kahit na circus ang tingin nyo sa institution na ito.
i too sometimes question lacson’s investigations dahil sablay ang mga witness nya at walang nagyayari,pero mas mabuti na may kumekwestyon,kesa wala.

==========

about these cases,
kung walang mangyari before 2010, sana naman meron pa din magfollow up after 2010 at wag pansinin kung pinardon si erap o hindi.

leytenian on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 11:19 am 



KG,

SC is impeachable. we could have done that first but how?
and we can impeach governors and congressmen thru federalism.

it’s too corrupt. majority are sold out.

leytenian on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 11:42 am 



maybe the only way we can weaken the power of the Senate is to decentralize. the local people represented by majority of the House can impeach its representative. it’s probably the only route to democracy.

Geo on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 11:48 am 



mlq3,

Though I want to concede a point to you, let me first reiterate that the country’s debt burden was huge, was huge for a long time, was huge much because of a failed (nonexistent?) energy. This debt, left as is, was about to drown the Philippines. Hence the evat.

EVAT was a method to reduce debt. Debt was not just due to any 2001~2003 policies.

OK, that said, I agree that GMA was pretty weak about Napocor and the pricing…and that this definitely worsened the situation.

Furthermore, I’ll concede that she probably made some political calculations in avoiding addressing the Napocor issue head on. The way I see it, she did what a lot of politicians worldwide do — pick and choose her fights.

GMA was inherently weak after she replaced Erap as she could never claim a mandate. I wouldn’t be surprised if she calculated that she’d wait until she could win in 2004 before launching such a politically difficult program.

One might find that distasteful, but that’s politics anywhere. Heck, look at the US and the unwillingness to address their Social Security timebomb head on. The issue is a political bomb as well and few want to attempt to defuse it.

Geo on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 11:52 am 



Speaking of Senators….

This hearing re the PNP Euros is being conducted much better by the Senators than the Bolante, ZTE, etc circuses. Why is that? Seriously.

leytenian on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 12:47 pm 



Geo,

At least the majority of the people in the US are in the middle income earner, compared to our Philippine majority of poor and unemployed.

It will be wise to focus on our own affairs rather than comparing. it’s not the right solution nor even the best strategy for awareness.

The ZTE and Jocjoc are both an inside crime committed by the most corrupt institution. The ball has never been on our side.

mlq3 on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 1:42 pm 



Geo, fair enough and as you pointed out par for the course. The complications then arise from her inability to finally govern with a mandate, though she was poised to do so from 2004-2005. though even then i’d pointed out that the way her proclamation was handled was inappropriate, no one could have known just how inappropriate until the bombshell of the garci tapes, which, the merits or demerits of their quality as evidence aside, certainly caused a perception problem -when in politics, sometimes perception is everything.

but then this brings us to our disagreement on my view that from the time the bombshell exploded the president then undertook a nixon-style coverup that even were the bombshell to be proven fictitious, are enough grounds to deprive her of office. which then brings up the question also debated by us, whether it is a deprivation called for considering the other priorities of other people.

Bert on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 1:44 pm 



justice league,

will you enlighten me what kind of needle and thread did superman’s foster mom used to sew his uniform, you know, the blue one with an S in front? as you know, it is still in use today and as invulnerable to canon shots as ever. thanks.

mlq3 on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 1:45 pm 



Geo, I think the depressing possibility is that there are too many people involved in the Bolante thing to probe too deeply or too thoroughly.

mlq3 on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 1:51 pm 



Geo you know what, I think part of it is that since cops and such are involved, everyone is trying to be polite so it makes for less posturing. which is one of my personal frustrations with senate investigations, they treat people like shit which is just plain wrong.

Geo on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 2:30 pm 



Before returning to the GMA discussion, mlq, I rather discuss this Senate probe that’s in front of me right now.

Yeah, the Senators are being more composed, less dramatic, and definitely less rude. Ever Loren’s frustration was muted.

Allow me to be cynical for a moment (borrowing from my usual opponents.)

Maybe they are being “nicer” and more professional because:

a) This is a lot easier for the Senators to understand (the process of getting and liquidating simple funds) compared to a much more complex system (DOA) or compared to a technical program (ZTE).

b) This case cannot be traced back to GMA no matter what. So less reason to make drama.

c) The PNP and AFP will be needed if one is to be a future Prez.

d0 The PNP and AFP are needed if ever GMA can be ousted.

mlq3 on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 2:49 pm 



Geo, speaking of pragmatic politics, we have a meeting of the minds on this one.

Geo on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 3:19 pm 



Yes. Yes, we do. Must be because I was being temporarily cynical. Juuust joking. I think we’re just looking at, as you said, a case of pragmatic politics.

See? You were saying I’m single minded. I’m not. My own view of myself is that I can analyze without all the emotional baggage. I may be wrong about that…but I diligently try to be that way.

That’s why my knee-jerk reaction to the fury and frothing mob during the Garci days was — “Stop it! Get a strong case together and do this right! Meanwhile, we better see the original tapes or this thing isn’t going to be easy.”

In the ensuing weeks and months, it became obvious that rule of law was inconvenient to those leading the charge and that there was a clear decision(s) to whip up the frenzy and shortcut the system.

After the huge mistake in the methodology of ousting Erap (I think it was unconstitutional, even though I was anti-Erap), I thought doing it again to Gloria would be national suicide.

By then, you were probably already on the other side of the fence. As were many others. But my side was anti anti-GMA, not pro-GMA (though, admittedly, that was my choice in 2004…like many who post here).

I believe the anti-GMA positions taken then, by (justifiably) angry people, have unfortunately hardened and have remained set in concrete since then. Everything is seen through that one prism. Facts are still secondary to the emotional anger initiated by the Garci Tapes.

That’s why it’s notable that many still shout the “illegitimacy/cheating” slogans. They either have no idea about PET, refuse to believe it, or purposefully sweep the whole reality under the rug.

As each of these “scandals” have come up, I’ve tried to look at all the evidence first. But the anti-GMAs just come in swinging from their heels…facts be damned.

THAT’S my problem with the anti-GMAs — They made up their minds (based on faulty info) 4 years ago and fanatically stick to those views no matter what comes up. It’s frustrating. It scares me. It threatens my income and thus my family. Aaargh.

Refreshingly, though, YOUR take is a new one to me.

Is it: “OK, maybe she didn’t cheat, but her cover-up of her not cheating is reason enough”???

Huh? Can you clarify, please?

hvrds on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 3:42 pm 



“EVAT was a method to reduce debt. Debt was not just due to any 2001~2003 policies.”

Clearly ignorant pundit…

Big Mike and GMA have added more debt to the country than Marcos in all his years.

The national debt which is a part of the public sector debt
is larger than what Marcos had left the country saddled with. GMA has the dubious distinction also of incurring more debt (national government) than her three predecessors combined.

It was the research paper done and released by the U.P. School of economics pointing out that the country was already at the point of having no more tax revenues to cover debt payments. (Primary surplus) Please note we have two yearly appropriations act – Automatic and the general Approriations Act..

The financial markets took notice and that would mean a severe credit rating downgrade necessitating even higher interest rates.

She was lucky that at that period in the world’s financial markets the Federal Reserve and other central banks were lowering interest rates to battle recession.

That together with lax regulatory oversight of investment banks and mortgage banks have brought the world to this present financial crisis.

For an emerging economy strategically dependent on debt finance the coming years will prove to be most interesting. Already GMA is lobbying our Asian neighbors for a quick response emergency funding scheme to help out without conditionalities.

It does not take a genius to figure out why. A COUNTRY THAT HAS SIMPLY RELABELED DEBTS IN A PRIVATIZATION SCHEME will be hard pressed to fund projects that will be necessary to maintain sustainable growth that will have an effect on wide broad sectors of the economy instead of a very narrow and shallow front.

She has been a disaster on the economic front. The economy is even more deeper in debt than at any time in its entire history.

The G-20 meetings ongoing in Washington are groups of countries that the G-8 have labeled systemically important in the world today. Only one S.E. Asian country was invited, Indonesia. Even Singapore was not included for obvious reasons.

Geo on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 4:16 pm 



“Clearly ignorant pundit…”

Clearly pompous and rude poster,

Thanks for restating my point — there was a huge debt long before GMA…and EVAT was the solution.

Thanks for also adding the part about how EVAT did that, in part, by demonstrating to global creditors the government’s resolve to take the actions (and getting the results) which they believed to be crucial…and beneficial.

In turn, the country’s credit rating went up, the borrowing rates went down and more debt was paid down.

Meanwhile, you are wrong — the Fed’s interest rates were going up rapidly by the time EVAT came around.

You’re also way off base about lax bank regulations.

The local banks, in fact, have been forced to clean up their books here. And have done quite well at doing so. It’s one of the reasons the present financial crisis hasn’t overwhelmed the country.

The status of American investment banks vis-a-vis any lax regulations there, meanwhile, had zero impact on the Philippines, debts, ratings, or whatever.

Sorry, hrvds, you ramble a lot and throw out sometimes-incorrect and usually-discombobulated bits and pieces of statements and predictions. I don’t much read your posts anymore.

But, you know, just call me ignorant…..

mlq3 on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 5:18 pm 



Geo, let me try to review the points I’ve raised since 2005 (you can review this blog if you wish, particularly in the first months of the 2005 crisis). the crisis basically began when talk began to circulate that there was a pretty embarassing tape somewhere concerning the 2004 elections. what brought the rumor front and center was when the president’s own press guy presented two cd’s to the media, saying one was genuine, the other fake. the opposition, at the time pretty much moribund because it had lost (and its candidate was dead) came back to life and for the part of supporters of the president and others in neither camp, the question then became, if there’s smoke, is there fire?

the palace presenting the tapes undercut its standing before the law, since it could not then say it was an aggrieved party under the anti-wiretapping law; applying the law without fear or favor would have scooped up admin and opposition figures alike; so instead, threats were used which only galvanized the public. for the pre-2004 opposition, the tapes were proof the 2004 election had been stolen. as for myself, i operated from the assumption the president had won, though now it was a question of whether she’d won by a slim margin or by a million votes as originally claimed.

my main concern in those rollercoaster days and weeks was how the president could go about maintaining the confidence of those who’d campaigned and worked for her, and voted for her, in good faith. i felt that she had to react strongly, unequivocably asserting her innocence, and using the moral authority of her office to immediately resolve the issue, trusting in the public and her supporters to see how she’d been framed. instead, i felt that her reaction was shilly-shallying and worse, that what was obviously unfolding was a conspiracy to keep her from being exposed. she was trying to weasel her way out of it and i remarked on how her coming out fighting, after she learned her cabinet was divided and many of her most prominent backers had decided she should go, was what should have been her original and proper response, but it wasn’t the one she made -her “i am sorry” was, in fact, what made so many, including me, decide she should quit.

the simplest solution, her quitting, having been taken off the table by a combination of factors, mistrust of the veep, FVR not having been consulted so sensing how he and JDV could save the President’s ass while extracting a commitment to essentially neutering her and instituting parliamentary (or essentially, Lakas) government in her stead, the gutlessness of the archbishop of Manila, the overconfidence of the Edsa Dos veterans who wanted the President out, the innate conservatism of the military, etc. meant she lived to fight another day and the round 2 of impeachment began.

in the case of the first impeachment effort, i also pointed out i agreed with teddy boy locsin who sneered at the opposition for what he said was more of an obsession with “manufacturing a people power moment,” with the estrada impeachment in mind. according to him the opposition in the house was so overconfident, that they approved house rules that gave the majority a chance to reject the charges not on the basis of their merits, but on technicalities. this fatally hampered the effort and as the president gained breathing room, she marshaled her forces and stemmed the tide of desertions. she also had no compunctions utilizing the armed forces and when the armed forces looked like it was having second thoughts, using the police which made the armed forces and everyone else blanche at the thought of armed confrontation. add to that the division of the old edsa forces, who were split on the question of the veep, the pre 2004 opposition, and its identification with the relicts of the marcos era and you had the making of what we have had since: a war of attrition.

but my main point, was that you do not have to look to 2004 specifically, to determine whether the president should remain in office. the whole handling of the crisis pointed to conspiracy, obstruction of justice, violations of human rights, and a whole slew of survival-related actions that were laying a bad precedent for accountabiluty of all future presidents, and so badly eroding the bureaucracy and out institutions that if we are to salvage anything she has to go.

when the president tried to go back on the offensive after once more having her back to the wall in 06 (including the late 2005 visit of negroponte to tell the president washington wouldnt tolerate a martial law scenario), and when a state of emergency led to a public tug of war between one camp that wanted her to wield de facto martiallaw powers anyway and another that publicly thwarted that option, not to mention public opposition to her, the president’s counteroffensive included buying into the fr. intengan-and gonzalez scheme of liquidating civilians they considered part of the communist network of agitators, sympathizers, and fund raisers, etc. opposition in europe, the us and the un stopped it.

at the same time in terms of evidence i felt the critics of the president were being held to too high a standard of evidence since impeachment etc are political processes and that what is required isn’t a standard of evidence required in courts of law where life, liberty, and property are at stake. all that was at stake is political office.

for the determination of that fitness and whether the president had engaged in acts that made her unfit for office, i felt the evidence was ample, but only later, in late 06 and to 07, did i come to the conclusion, too, that a strong case for electoral fraud could be made regarding 2004, to made too.

meanwhile the public and myself, too, had to mull why the war of attrition was taking place, why after the battleines were formed, they haven’t really budged. i’ve explored that often, ranging from the opposition having 50% give or take, but hopelessly divided among themselves, to the presdident having a failr solid 25% wityh only two divisions (the hard core loyalists and the conditional, only till 2010 or cha cha is achieved supporters, to another 25% mainly the middle class i think, who are paralyzed by the trauma of the urban insurrection of may 2001, to a fear of the unexpected and a lack of a qualified successor, and who thus essentially support the president by not casting their lot with the opposition, because you have a 50-50 parity in society.

and there are many reasons for this, part of it laziness and double-dealing, a lack of imagination on the part of many oppositionists, to the economic climate allowing us to coast along, to demographic changes that simply made it irrelvant to many filipinos oriented abroad, already abroad, or living off the hard work of relatives abroad, to care one way or another. there are times the logjam has come close to being broke -in 06 by the military, the zte thing, cha-cha round 1- but from a combination of these factors and the president learning from experience how to home her defense and divide her critics, the great division remains.

i added further that there might be wisdom in the public essentially sending the message that they wanted a peaceful resolution, an institutional arena, and for the opposition to get its act together even as they made no bones about most of them being appaled and disgusted by the president’s behavior and that of her people. and my personal belief that the logjam can’t be broken by giving up or letting things alone because if she, at a minimum, steps down on june 30 2010, the damage will be permanent to our institutions and the political culture. it would be a very clear underlining of the fundamental lessons from martial law: that nice guys finish last, it’s not how you play the game but winning that only matters, etc. while her leaving office prior to 2010 will at least provide the opportunity for a gradual though long term pushing back against the degenerate political system already degenerating before her, but whose degeneracy has accelerated because of her fight for survival and the advantage her supporters have taken from her weakness.

Geo on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 6:04 pm 



Actually, mlq3, I’m well aware of your views since the 2005 days. You’ve done a nice job in summarizing them in that last post…which meshes facts, astute observations and what I think are falsehoods and misinterpretations.

I think I can’t post again for many hours, so let me ask you the same thing I asked you (and Ricky) back in 2005 — if you are wrong about the tapes being authentic and adequate…can you imagine how much damage will be done going forward?

Take your story, mlq3 and now retell it from the perspective that GMA never cheated and that she and her entourage felt the attempts to oust her from power were unfair, illegal and connived. GMA and crew knew that the country was split 50-50, but that their own 50% contained many who could switch allegiances in a flash. They knew emotions were being stirred up to help get the job done…to get her booted.

If that was the case, re-read history from that perspective. I have read yours (and similar ones) for months and years…please try to spend a long time with an open mind and go through the events. I wonder if you can appreciate the different perspective if you start with the premise that Garci was a doctored weapon meant to do exactly what it did.

Geo on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 6:08 pm 



sorry…that should have been “…authentic and *accurate*…”

mlq3 on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 6:43 pm 



Oh, I always try to consider things from the perspective of the President and also, what if she is the victim of a left-right conspiracy. Not least because I know genuinely good or sincere people who believe she has finally wielded strong executive authority as it ought to be wielded, that despite being misunderstood and blocked, she has exercised formidable political will and an astounding political dexterity, and that she has accomplished a lot more in her time of office than perhaps all her post-marcos predecessors combined. hence not every person supportive of the president does so because they were paid, or are a stooge, or are cynical or criminal.

but the inability of anyone to persuasively make this case is as much due to the sheer impossibiliity of doing so, as it is to the central dictum of propaganda that at the heart of every lie lies a grain of truth. there is simply too much in the way of weaving a tale along the lines you desire. what i think is more logical and more possible is that she has had a shrewd appreciation of the powers, both legal and moral, both formal and informal, of her office, a keener grasp of detail, much more luck, than all those who thought they had her, the institutions at play, and the population, figured out.

from a purely amoral perspective she is truly remarkable and accomplished. but even if i were to play devil’s advocate, the situation that unfolded was more a case of luck -and in history this is the true unponderable in the destinies of leaders and nations- than any rightness in her cause. you see, the tape, adopting the most generous interpretation, was selectively edited to leave out the culpability of the opposition and to retain only the things that would cast the president in the worst possible light. yet she failed, for whatever reason, to produce the full tape: either because it was in the hands of forces she could not influence (say, the united states), or because while indicting the opposition, it would still indict her.

the best she could ever argue was that it was her voice but not her speaking; and that even though she introduced it into the public arena everyone would henceforth be forbidden from accessing it or introducing it into the political equation. there were so few cards in her hands that she was prepared to flee the country but the intervention of fvr and jdv is what saved her. then the bishops, who blanched at the idea of being responsible for a new government they didn’t want.

there is no way this story can be told other than from the most basic level of a president who has lost the benefit of the doubt in a significant portion of the ruling class, of the institutional mandarins, and the population but who at least had more spine and gumption than an ailing marcos or a befuddled and in the end, timid estrada. but that’s it, in the end that was the position they were in in being discredited, fairly or not, in the eyes of the public; except she eventually refused to cut and cut cleanly, and summoned more spiritual, financial, and legal reserves than those two men.

i’d love to see you lay the case for the president as persecuted, misunderstood, and utterly innocent of all the accusations, though, at your convenience and leisure. it’s beyond my imagination, however much i try.

anthony scalia on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 9:54 pm 



justice league :

“What the heck!”

yeah what the heck

“So they not only have to be opposition by heart or simply opposition but card/placard carrying members of the opposition as well?”

i don’t know. i only look at who’s doing some good.

“If so, where does the distinction of “the job-creating opposition or the just-noisy opposition” come in?”

who’s doing the country some good – those who create the jobs and business (for suppliers which also create jobs) or those who strongly believe shouting ‘patalsikin na now na’ is the only patriotic thing to do?

“How about when the MBC shouldered a sizable part of the expenses on the interfaith rally in Makati sometime in March because of NBN ZTE deal?”

i don’t know. still MBC is not Ayala. it would be different if one of the Ayala brothers was there speaking at the interfaith rally

” “noted. your point?”- What the heck again!”

to a big fan of the Distinguished Competition – i could not see the point why you wrote “Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight” especially when you began your post with references to the Ayalas and the Lopezes

“You can stop your preccupation on who produces jobs for this and that because this government has shown that it can whiff it OUT OF THIN AIR!”

oh really? are you satisfied with that? im not. because as you stated, only hundreds of thousand of jobs are created by the whiffing. the country needs at least 10 million jobs.

the government can only whiff out so much

“Being a collector of comics back in the last century, I firmly believe that Superman would beat Thor even if the mighty Thor had his Mjolnir hammer.”

but Thor can use enchantment, which is Superman’s biggest weakness

“DC would have won the war for the Universe if underdog Storm had not surprisingly beaten Wonder Woman.”

i thought that was not surprising. i expected DC will win 3-2. i never expected the mutants to lose due to their popularity (i can’t take Lobo losing to Wolverine). i correctly predicted that Superman and Batman will win. for me, the turning point was Spiderman’s win over Superboy

btw try visiting

http://www.comicboards.com/comicbattles

anthony scalia on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 10:42 pm 



oh no that walang kamatayang ‘Hello Garci’ pa rin!

there are soooo many reasons why ‘Hello Garci ‘ did not snowball into gloria’s removal

1.premature disclosure – eager beaver Allan Paguia wanted a place in the history books like Chavit Singson so he went public with his adulterated version of the tapes

erap’s lawyer coming out with a supposedly smoking gun vs gloria which is not even the tape as given to him! – who would believe that!

sayang. Kit Tatad must be fuming mad at Paguia

2. they’re “incredible” – those gung ho to remove gloria using “Hello Garci” are well-known to be “its-our-turn” politicians. a big huge turn-off to the people.

back in 2001, the anti-erap forces are not perceived to be “kami naman!” politicians hence the public’s support for them

the messenger is the message. what a terrifying message (of the “Hello Garci” proponents)

that “pekeng presidente” was always uttered by people linked to erap and other “kami naman! pols really did not help the “Hello Garci” cause

3. “Hello Garci” isnt enough. all it shows is that gloria talked to a COMELEC official. for dagdag-bawas evidence, actual proof of cheating that actually changed the outcome is essential.

if you add up all the supposed documented instances of cheating and counted the votes in favor of FPJ, the result is still the same – GMA won, bolstering the view that all cheating is on the winning margin.

one can say that gloria cheated. but its wrong to say that FPJ was cheated out of a win (votes for him changed into gloria votes). it wasn’t like Enrile’s win over Pimentel in the 1995 Senate elections.

4. the ‘united’ opposition is still romanticized by people power it thought that its disclosure of “Hello Garci” will naturally result in people power.

how presumptuous.

maybe people power could have resulted if the neutral third party Kit Tatad had in mind did the disclosure of “Hello Garci”

5. the ‘united’ opposition was sooo eager to prove cheating it forgot that mere talking to a COMELEC official is already an impeachable offense. even gloria admitted that! no need for “Hello Garci” to show that she talked to a COMELEC guy.

6. the unity of the ‘united’ opposition ends with its name

7. FPJ’s death. his protest died with him

anthony scalia on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 10:59 pm 



“i’d love to see you lay the case for the president as persecuted, misunderstood, and utterly innocent of all the accusations, though, at your convenience and leisure. it’s beyond my imagination, however much i try.”

hey me too I’d love to see the anti gloria school finally getting their case in the proper forum. you know, the one that can result in actually removing gloria

but knowing how bright the boys of the ‘united” opposition are and how such brightness helped their kick-gloria-out operations for the past 8 years, i don’t see that taking place. a PBA team getting an Olympic gold is easier to visualize

the ‘united’ opposition is the living embodiment of the saying “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”

anthony scalia on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 11:08 pm 



Geo,

“I think I can’t post again for many hours, so let me ask you the same thing I asked you (and Ricky) back in 2005 — if you are wrong about the tapes being authentic and adequate…can you imagine how much damage will be done going forward?”

i suddenly remembered the saying “my mind is made up don’t confuse me with the facts” – a fitting description of the “Hello Garci” fans

UP n grad on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 11:31 pm 



and you should read Abe Margallo’s post in Filipino voice. Abe’s post is that the the Executive Department should have authority to negotiate in order to bring peace…. BUT…. but if this MOA-Ad can be used to kick out GMA, then he agrees with the intervenors.

UP n grad on Sat, 15th Nov 2008 11:53 pm 



Side-topic: Sri Lankan government forces dislodged Tamil Tiger separatists from Pooneryn, a large base that the separatists have held since 1993. Illustrates what a determined Executive Department can accomplish (and maybe the president-after-GMA can make it happen).

mlq3 on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 1:05 am 



scalia, you’re welcome to take a stab at working out an alternative universe history where your president is lily-white in her innocence, too and share it with us.

justice league on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 2:24 am 



Anthony Scalia,

“i don’t know. i only look at who’s doing some good.”

“who’s doing the country some good – those who create the jobs and business (for suppliers which also create jobs) or those who strongly believe shouting ‘patalsikin na now na’ is the only patriotic thing to do?”

Well at least we can safely say that you accept that there is actually at least some opposition that is doing some good.

“i don’t know. still MBC is not Ayala. it would be different if one of the Ayala brothers was there speaking at the interfaith rally”

Hey, if you have an interpretation of their non speaking in the interfaith rally then I can have mine on their non protest over MBCs (of which Jaime Augusto is Vice Chair) expenditure’s on the interfaith rally.

“i could not see the point why you wrote “Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight” especially when you began your post with references to the Ayalas and the Lopezes”

If we can’t agree on whether the Ayala’s and Lopezes are really opposition then its best to just limit ourselves on issues that you have already accepted.

And that there is a “job-creating opposition” (your term way back in November 15, 7:56 AM) which unfortunately you do not respect since the only opposition group you truly respect is the group of Satur and Casino and I certainly don’t think you refer to them as the job creating ones.

And so my point then is that the “job creating opposition” will never match what PGMA’s government can do in “creating jobs” because the government can come up with new “definitions” on what the National Statistical Coordination Board will use in the survey of who are employed and unemployed like what they did in 2004.

“oh really? are you satisfied with that? im not. because as you stated, only hundreds of thousand of jobs are created by the whiffing. the country needs at least 10 million jobs.
the government can only whiff out so much”

Oh really yes, they actually did it. And no, I’m not satisfied with it and I don’t see how I can be possibly satisfied with it.

They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!

Whiffed out of thin air! MAGIC!

I’m sure if the Government comes up with a new definition to use, ie. like instead of 6 months the period is shortened to 2 months or so; millions of jobs are going to be magically lopped off that 10 million jobs you stated.

You can read that definition here //www.nscb.gov.ph/resolutions/2004/15.asp

just add the http: part

Off topic-

“but Thor can use enchantment, which is Superman’s biggest weakness”

I presume that both Kent and Blake have already transformed themselves respectively into Superman and Thor for the fight.

So no more of that “This is a job for …..” or the striking of the cane.

Even if Mjolnir is magical, what I know of Thor is that not only does he speak in old english but he also speaks dramatically.

Which makes him speak slooooow and loooooong.

And not only that, he times his hammer strike on the zenith of his dramatic speech.

Like instead of saying “NO!” with accompanying hammer strike, he likes to say things like ” I SAY THEEEE NAAAAY!” and times his hammer strike on the NAY part.

Against superspeed with superstrength, Thor is going down for the count whether he has enchantment and Mjolnir on his side.

Regarding the DC vs Marvel, both Spiderman and Superboy were clones. But I was looking at it on the “iconic” side.

The character of Spiderman (to me) was more iconic than Superboy because clone Superboy (with the original growing to be Superman) was a fairly new recreation of the character coming from the “reign of the supermen” series while the Spiderman clone was coming from a continuous character with practically 4 or 5 comic magazines in his name.

Wonder Woman was created way back in the 1940’s. Storm only appeared in the X-men in the 1970’s. Wonder Woman had a regular comic magazine in her name. Storm had none. I picked Wonder Woman over Storm. But yes. Being DC had some effect on my choice too.

Bert,

Things get retconned so what is canonical now might not be canonical in the future.

But the best explanation put forth is that Superman exudes an aura of his invulnerabilty a few millimeters above his skin and so protecting his costume even though his costume is made of earth cloth. That’s in the comics and is also stated in the TV series Adventures of Clark and Lois.

BTW, he had a change of costume once when he had a change of his powers into an electrical form. He has since reverted back.

Philippine SEO on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 2:37 am 



I really appreciate the act Mr. Manolo it gives both, faith in the search for good governance and integrity in the government.

I just have a feeling that this will still be all in vain.



justice league on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 2:38 am 



Anthony Scalia,

Ty for the comic site. I’ll browse it sometime later.

Bert,

Oooops.

Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman pala.

justice league on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 2:47 am 



Anthony Scalia,

Oooopss. As well as spelling errors.

“They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!”

Should be stated as

They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. Beyond a 6 month term, other discouraged workers are not considered unemployed!

grd on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 4:15 am 



interesting…

justice league vs justice scalia.

but i think justice league will prevail…

i’m referring to our favorite comic superheroes.

cheers!

baycas on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 8:21 am 



to this day, i still have in my aging N6230 a clip of bunye’s “original” tape containing the tapped voices of gloria purportedly speaking with a so-called gary, a palace-stooge, on election matters. somewhere in the end of their conversation at that particular time you will hear garci’s voice. obviously, gary’s voice was recorded (copy-pasted?) on top of garci’s voice but they failed to completely overlap the latter’s voice.

(it was the palace who introduced that manna of an evidence which landed on bunye’s lap.)

well, i considered the sound bite 3G in my lowly N6230 (move over iPhone).

—–

the above was just one of the many of gloria’s cover-ups. to this day, she’s still perpetrating them.

does the Philippine Nixon deserve to reign forever? certainly not.

Geo on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 11:27 am 



mlq3,

I promise to respond at length (write out the entire sequence of events), but I want to watch the UFC fights, Nonetheless, you didn’t do your assignment . You didn’t use your (obviously vivid) imagination to contemplate a “GMA didn’t cheat” scenario (which doesn’t require considering Gloria as being “lily-white” either).

You have to start with the premise that the Garci tapes were concocted, were doctored. That was GMA’s voice, that was Garci’s voice and she has admitted that she called an election official.

But…she didn’t ever commit electoral fraud. The tapes are fakes; the charges wrong.

The events, the universally accepted facts (minus your extrapolations, assumptions and outright creations) fit and make sense in this plausible scenario (or “alternative world”, according to you). You just have never tried very hard…..

Wanna try once more? Can you actually see things from that perspective?

justice league on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 12:55 pm 



Grd,

Cheers.

There is also an issue of whether magic or kryptonite is Supe’s biggest weakness but then it would also be between the kinds of kryptonite (green, red, white, …. ) also as well as distance from it.

Bert,

I just realized that I don’t know the explanation for the cape.

Bert on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 2:19 pm 



“Bert,

I just realized that I don’t know the explanation for the cape.”

justice,

Maybe our current top government officials know, could be that their face skins are made of the same stuff considering they are of the same invulnerability.

anthony scalia on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 9:05 pm 



quezon the 3rd,

“scalia, you’re welcome to take a stab at working out an alternative universe history where your president is lily-white in her innocence, too and share it with us.”

appreciate the gesture.

from your (and the rest of the anti gloria school) end – how about the case against gloria finally reaching the proper forum become a reality in our universe?

it seems the case against gloria is still in the alternate universe that’s why it can’t get real in our universe!

i have yet to create a reality in the alternate universe, the anti gloria school’s case against gloria is already there!

and for all we know – “Hello Garci” is a reality from an alternate universe just trying to be real in our universe!

and im really curious by your use of “your president.” talaga ha? (for one thing i did not vote for her; i voted for Bro. Eddie)

(if not gloria, who could be mlq3’s president at the moment?)

anthony scalia on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 9:52 pm 



justice league :

“Well at least we can safely say that you accept that there is actually at least some opposition that is doing some good.”

yes. but not of the ‘united’ opposition kind

“Hey, if you have an interpretation of their non speaking in the interfaith rally then I can have mine on their non protest over MBCs (of which Jaime Augusto is Vice Chair) expenditure’s on the interfaith rally.”

silence means acquiescence? three things:

1. the expenditure did not require the Board’s approval, the amount being at a level that can be disbursed by the Executive Director

2. the expenditure requires Board approval. Jaime Augusto voted no, but the rest of the Board said yes

3. the expenditure requires Board approval. Jaime Augusto voted yes

to verify no. 2 or 3, we have to see the minutes.

if you can cite minutes of the meeting (where the appropriation was approved) which states that Jaime Augusto voted yes, then i’ll agree with you

but it seems all you can cite is “non-protest”

again. Ayala is not MBC. Even if Augusto is the Vice-Chair, he can still be outvoted by the rest of the Board members

“If we can’t agree on whether the Ayala’s and Lopezes are really opposition then its best to just limit ourselves on issues that you have already accepted.”

ok. again, why did you cite that?

“And that there is a “job-creating opposition” (your term way back in November 15, 7:56 AM) which unfortunately you do not respect since the only opposition group you truly respect is the group of Satur and Casino and I certainly don’t think you refer to them as the job creating ones.”

oops my friend, you forgot one qualification why i respect Satur et al. – i am assured that they are acting only for the country’’s interest. something which can’t be said with the ‘united’ opposition

you can say that the capitalists like the Ayalas and Lopezes pursue self-interest ahead of national interests. but as they pursue their self-interest they create jobs and business opportunities for suppliers along the way

“And so my point then is that the “job creating opposition” will never match what PGMA’s government can do in “creating jobs” because the government can come up with new “definitions” on what the National Statistical Coordination Board will use in the survey of who are employed and unemployed like what they did in 2004.”

in one sense – yes the JCO will never match PGMA in that aspect. thats why the task of job creation falls on everybody. so what if the JCO creates only say 5% of the jobs needed to be made. it means 5% had been reached already, 95% to go

“Oh really yes, they actually did it. And no, I’m not satisfied with it and I don’t see how I can be possibly satisfied with it.”

noted. so you’ll agree that the next move is, the actual creation of jobs?

“They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!”

“Whiffed out of thin air! MAGIC!”

“I’m sure if the Government comes up with a new definition to use, ie. like instead of 6 months the period is shortened to 2 months or so; millions of jobs are going to be magically lopped off that 10 million jobs you stated.”

well lets wait for it muna my friend.

“You can read that definition here //www.nscb.gov.ph/resolutions/2004/15.asp”

its seems you misread it my friend! here’s its definition of unemployed:

—————————————————————————–
—————————————————————————-

The unemployed include all persons who are 15 years old and over as of their last birthday and are reported as:

1. without work , i.e., had no job or business during the basic survey reference period; AND
2. currently available for work , i.e., were available and willing to take up work in paid employment or self employment during the basic survey reference period, and/or would be available and willing to take up work in paid employment or self employment within two weeks after the interview date; AND
3. seeking work, i.e., had taken specific steps to look for a job or establish a business during the basic survey reference period; OR not seeking workdue to the following reasons: (a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date; (b) awaiting results of previous job application; (c) temporary illness/disability; (d) bad weather; and (e) waiting for rehire/job recall.

——————————————————————————
——————————————————————————

nowhere is it saying ” After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!” because those who have been unemployed by more than 6 months will fall under
” 1. without work , i.e., had no job or business during the basic survey reference period” or “2. currently available for work ,”

besides, the government is seeking concrete data in how many of the unemployed are seeking work or not seeking work. The NSCB IS NOT saying that if the person is still unemployed for more than 6 months he is deemed employed already. The NSCB just defined, for purposes of statistics gathering, who should be deemed the “unemployed not seeking work because he is tired or believe there is no work available” – they are the ones who actively sought work within 6 months prior to the date of the interview

“The character of Spiderman (to me) was more iconic than Superboy because clone Superboy (with the original growing to be Superman) was a fairly new recreation of the character coming from the “reign of the supermen” series while the Spiderman clone was coming from a continuous character with practically 4 or 5 comic magazines in his name.”

yes i agree with your insights.

but the Superboy clone is more powerful than Spiderman

anthony scalia on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 9:59 pm 



grd,

Avengers Forever!

try visiting

http://www.comicboards.com/comicbattles

justice league on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 10:07 pm 



Anthony Scalia,

Hmmmmm……..

I believe that the two of us are reading the same thing differently.

As far as I understand it; the criteria are supposed to be satisfied SIMULTANEOUSLY.

So I’m reading it as AND …… AND……

Are you sure about how you are reading it?

Off topic.

Yes. Superboy is more powerful. Like I said, I looked at it on the “iconic” side.

Did you notice how anticlimactic it was?

Marvel was already 2 up when the final fight between Cap and Bats took place. It was already no bearing.

Bert,

Cheers.

anthony scalia on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 10:59 pm 



justice league :

“I believe that the two of us are reading the same thing differently.”

yes.

“As far as I understand it; the criteria are supposed to be satisfied SIMULTANEOUSLY.”

yes.

“So I’m reading it as AND …… AND……”

“Are you sure about how you are reading it?”

oh yes. im not so sure with you.

you are already assuming that the necessary consequence of deeming a person “who looked for work within 6 months prior to interview as unemployed” is already employed after 6 months. thats not the intent of the NSCB.

read it again please.

the NSCB is trying to create data specifically on the “unemployed.” NOT DATA ON THE EMPLOYED.

one thing for sure – the NSCB did not CATEGORICALLY DEFINE THE UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS as employed already!

now if you can find an NSCB categorical definition of employed as including “those unemployed for more than 6 months” then I’ll agree with you

in addition, it seems you missed “OR” in no. 3 and the subcategories of no. 3: (a) to (e). these subcategories are not cumulative; each one is enough reason. an unemployed cannot be said to be tired/believe no work is available if he is awaiting results of previous job application or waiting for rehire/job recall.

by the way, can you cite an NSCB report which categorically states the number of employed Pinoys, and that part of this number is “those unemployed for > 6 months”?

“Yes. Superboy is more powerful. Like I said, I looked at it on the “iconic” side.”

noted

“Did you notice how anticlimactic it was?”

yes.

“Marvel was already 2 up when the final fight between Cap and Bats took place. It was already no bearing”

yes

mlq3 on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 11:01 pm 



geo, there’s a reason i became a columnist and not a novelist. i will leave the novel-writing to you, it’s beyond my ken.

justice league on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 11:15 pm 



Anthony Scalia,

“…………..
to verify no. 2 or 3, we have to see the minutes.

if you can cite minutes of the meeting (where the appropriation was approved) which states that Jaime Augusto voted yes, then i’ll agree with you

but it seems all you can cite is “non-protest” ”

No I cannot cite the minutes.

But in the same way that your criteria in one of the Ayalas to be speaking in the interfaith rally is in “PUBLIC” it is also the same way that I am expecting the Ayalas to show their protest against the interfaith rally to be in “PUBLIC”.

And as far as I gather, they have not.

………………………….. “ok. again, why did you cite that?”

I think that part is already irrelevant since convincing either one of us of whether the Ayalas and/or the Lopezes are opposition or not would be too much of a bother for either of us.

Besides I’m content with your term “job-creating opposition”

“oops my friend, you forgot one qualification why i respect Satur et al. – i am assured that they are acting only for the country’’s interest. something which can’t be said with the ‘united’ opposition”

It doesn’t negate the issue that you DON’T respect the “job-creating opposition” so belaboring on why you respect Satur and Casino means nothing as far as respecting JCO are concerned.

“noted. so you’ll agree that the next move is, the actual creation of jobs?”

If “ACTUAL CREATION” is the operative phrase; of course; I’m for it.

“well lets wait for it muna my friend.”

Hmmmmm…. I’m trying to think of my choices on that one.

“oh yes. im not so sure with you.”

So its definite that we are reading it differently.

I’ll try to summarize the whole criteria.

So here it goes-

The unemployed include all persons who are 15 years old and over as of their last birthday and are reported as without work AND currently available for work AND seeking work.

So I will apply the “or” now and here it goes-

The unemployed include all persons who are 15 years old and over as of their last birthday and are reported as without work AND currently available for work AND “NOT” seeking work due to the following reasons

(a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date;

“by the way, can you cite an NSCB report which categorically states the number of employed Pinoys, and that part of this number is “those unemployed for > 6 months”?”

I don’t think the people of NSCB are that dumb.

But if you want to read the impact of that classification; its in a PCIJ blog.

Bloggers File Complaint-in-Intervention on Arroyo Impeachment | The Manila Blog Times on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 11:16 pm 

[...] bloggers led by Manuel Quezon III on Wednesday asked the House of Representatives to include the scrapped Bangsamoro Juridical Entity [...]

anthony scalia on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 11:37 pm 



justice league :

“But in the same way that your criteria in one of the Ayalas to be speaking in the interfaith rally is in “PUBLIC” it is also the same way that I am expecting the Ayalas to show their protest against the interfaith rally to be in “PUBLIC”.

“And as far as I gather, they have not.”

yes they have not been public with their “politics” (whether anti or anti anti or pro)

“I think that part is already irrelevant since convincing either one of us of whether the Ayalas and/or the Lopezes are opposition or not would be too much of a bother for either of us.”

noted

“Besides I’m content with your term “job-creating opposition””

hey thanks

“It doesn’t negate the issue that you DON’T respect the “job-creating opposition” so belaboring on why you respect Satur and Casino means nothing as far as respecting JCO are concerned.”

but having the nation’s interests IS MY REASON why I respect Satur et al. can you say the same thing with the ‘united’ opposition?

as for “i don’t respect the JCO”? did i really say that?

but nice try in trying to patch isolated sentences/ideas and try to come up with a whole. that works, sometimes

“If “ACTUAL CREATION” is the operative phrase; of course; I’m for it.”

yes! people can shout “patalsikin na now na” ad nauseam AS LONG AS THEY ACTUALLY CREATE JOBS. which is something that can’t be said of the ‘united’ opposition

“Hmmmmm…. I’m trying to think of my choices on that one.”

bring them on my friend

“So its definite that we are reading it differently.”

oh yes

“So here it goes-

The unemployed include all persons who are 15 years old and over as of their last birthday and are reported as without work AND currently available for work AND seeking work.

So I will apply the “or” now and here it goes-

The unemployed include all persons who are 15 years old and over as of their last birthday and are reported as without work AND currently available for work AND “NOT” seeking work due to the following reasons

(a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date;”

***clears throat***

you forgot the opening phrase of no. 3: – seeking work, i.e., had taken specific steps to look for a job or establish a business during the basic survey reference period…

and

you forgot letters (b) to (e):

(b) awaiting results of previous job application; (c) temporary illness/disability; (d) bad weather; and (e) waiting for rehire/job recall.

if you will notice, letters (a) to (e) are not simultaneous

“I don’t think the people of NSCB are that dumb.”

yes. that’s why there is no such report (unemployed > 6 months as employed). and they are not saying that (unemployed > 6 months as employed).

by insisting that unemployed > 6 months as employed you are making the NSCB guys dumb!

“But if you want to read the impact of that classification; its in a PCIJ blog.”

now i know where you’re coming from – you read that PCIJ blog entry first before you read that NSCB resolution. you are already reading into the that resolution the PCIJ’s incomplete reading of the same resolution

hope you can cite something more credible than a PCIJ blog!

without a categorical statement from NSCB that unemployed >6 months is employed, you cannot say the NSCB intended that definition

Bert on Sun, 16th Nov 2008 11:59 pm 



grd,

this is a fight to the death, justice scalia giving justice league a hard time, are you sure you are still betting on justice league?

justice league on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 1:08 am 



Anthony Scalia,

“hey thanks”- You’re welcome.

“but having the nation’s interests IS MY REASON why I respect Satur et al. can you say the same thing with the ‘united’ opposition?”

I can’t answer that because I don’t know their entire roster.

“as for “i don’t respect the JCO”? did i really say that?
but nice try in trying to patch isolated sentences/ideas and try to come up with a whole. that works, sometimes”

Awhile back you stated the following-

“now who is the opposition – those who call themselves the ‘united opposition.’ those good-for-nothing-beyond-anti-gloria, its-our-turn, worse-than-gloria, self-righteous, pompous, no-better-than-Mike-Arroyo politicians
look no further than the UNO’s president – Jojo Binay – to see what kind of people they are
there’s ONLY ONE opposition group I truly respect – the likes of Satur and Casiño. because i am assured that these people are really after the nation’s interests
ever wonder why no one from the likes of Satur and Casiño gets to be president of UNO or at least are influential in the oust gloria movement?
The Ayalas and the Lopezes may be opposition at heart, but their main pre-occupation is still business.
who do you think is doing the country more good? the job-creating opposition or the just-noisy opposition (UNO)?”

So if the ONLY ONE opposition group you truly respect are the likes of Satur and Casiño; what does that make for the JCO?

Or are we going to be nitpicking on the word “TRULY”?

“***clears throat***”

I think we are going to need to clear minds as well. I think the best way now is to have a case example.

Let’s say Andres is a 16 year old who hasn’t worked before and who SEVEN MONTHS AGO was seeking work but failed to land a job and now is discouraged to find work because he is tired/believes no work is available so he is NOT seeking work.

He is NOT awaiting results of previous job applications. He has been turned down by all of them.

He is NOT temporary ill/disabled.

The weather is NOT bad.

And he is NOT waiting for rehire/job recall. Because he hasn’t worked before.

So he is a 16 year old without work AND currently available for work AND “NOT” seeking work.

So based on the said classification, is Andres UNEMPLOYED?

And I hope you DON’T repeat this kind of answer-”because those who have been unemployed by more than 6 months will fall under 1. without work , i.e., had no job or business during the basic survey reference period” or “2. currently available for work ,”

Please remember that you you have 3 “simultaneous” issues to settle to consider whether he is unemployed or not.

If you answer that he is not unemployed; what the heck is his job?

“by insisting that unemployed > 6 months as employed you are making the NSCB guys dumb!”

I guess it will depend on your answer for the above.

“hope you can cite something more credible than a PCIJ blog!”

I may be wrong but I have a feeling that I’ll be able to cite your answer for the above.

Bert,

GRD doesn’t need to bet anymore.

Because the comic superhero issue is over.

leytenian on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 1:27 am 



MOA-AD speaks for itself. Let’s move on

justice league on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 1:36 am 



Bert,

BTW, you are invited to answer the questions on the case above also.

saxnviolins on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 2:38 am 



“nowhere is it saying ” After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!” because those who have been unemployed by more than 6 months will fall under
” 1. without work , i.e., had no job or business during the basic survey reference period” or “2. currently available for work ,” Scalia

You forgot the AND between item 2 and 3 Scalia. In fact, even between item 1 and 2, the word is AND not your OR. The unemployed are those who are (1) without work, AND (2) currently available for work, AND (3) seeking work.

Those who have been discouraged do not seek work, so they are no longer included as “unemployed. So by excluding the discouraged, the government reduces the workforce. That bumps up the employment rates because the base has been reduced.

That is not unique to the Philippines; many countries employ this statistical sleight of hand. Deceit is not the monopoly of the Filipino.

Bert on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 9:34 am 



justice,

just in time, saxnviolins save the day for me, that’s suppose to be my answer but he beats me to the draw, heheh.

mlq3 on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 12:09 pm 



scalia, when people stop looking for work, they are removed from the unemployed statistics, you can refer to the following:

Inquirer Briefing by Cielito Habito

Get your own at Scribd or explore others: Government Business 2008 world

Economic briefing by Cielito Habito

Get your own at Scribd or explore others: Government Business marketing development

Economic briefing by Dr. Michael Alba

Get your own at Scribd or explore others: Business Economics 2008 2007

mlq3 on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 12:12 pm 



Incidentally, I understand that the Aboitizes are poised to get one step closer to obtaining their TRANSCO franchise from Congress, with the following provisions in the proposed franchise. Here is a list of what some legislators consider objectionable features of the franchise:

• Through the provision on related businesses, TRANSCO will be given the right to perform telecommunications businesses even without securing a congressional franchise.

• There are provisions in the TRANSCO bill that are not contained in the EPIRA law, such as the provision on cross-ownership. Thus, the bill effectively amends the EPIRA law.

• Through the provision on cross-ownership, TRANSCO is no longer independent from the businesses of generation and distribution. Note that TRANSCO’s business concerns the transmission of electricity.

• The grant of the franchise for the transmission of power was not done pursuant to the applicable law on public bidding (i.e., BOT Law). Neither is there a framework law for the bidding of said franchise. Thus, through the concessionaire agreement, the franchise may be awarded notwithstanding the lack of public bidding therefor.
• Being a natural monopoly, the business of transmission of power should remain with the government.
• There is no provision as to how much transmission charge will be imposed by the government. Neither is there a ceiling as to the transmission rates that can be charged. Thus, application for higher transmission rates may be done anytime and can be approved anytime by the Energy Regulatory Commission.
• Franchise granted for 50 years but the concession agreement was only for 20 years but may be extended. Thus, the government cannot grant the franchise to anyone else for 50 years.

anthony scalia on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 12:40 pm 



justice league :

“I can’t answer that because I don’t know their entire roster.”

oh really? you have to know their entire roster first? but since thats your answer, ill leave it at that

Awhile back you stated the following-

“now who is the opposition – those who call themselves the ‘united opposition.’ those good-for-nothing-beyond-anti-gloria, its-our-turn, worse-than-gloria, self-righteous, pompous, no-better-than-Mike-Arroyo politicians
look no further than the UNO’s president – Jojo Binay – to see what kind of people they are
there’s ONLY ONE opposition group I truly respect – the likes of Satur and Casiño. because i am assured that these people are really after the nation’s interests
ever wonder why no one from the likes of Satur and Casiño gets to be president of UNO or at least are influential in the oust gloria movement?
The Ayalas and the Lopezes may be opposition at heart, but their main pre-occupation is still business.
who do you think is doing the country more good? the job-creating opposition or the just-noisy opposition (UNO)?”

So if the ONLY ONE opposition group you truly respect are the likes of Satur and Casiño; what does that make for the JCO?

“Or are we going to be nitpicking on the word “TRULY”?

just proves my point on the patchworking.

if you will notice, i placed a qualification on the JCO “may be opposition at heart”

“Let’s say Andres is a 16 year old who hasn’t worked before and who SEVEN MONTHS AGO was seeking work but failed to land a job and now is discouraged to find work because he is tired/believes no work is available so he is NOT seeking work.”

look my friend. our issue is -

DOES THAT NSCB RESOLUTION REALLY CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED ALREADY?

just limit it to that my friend.

“Please remember that you you have 3 “simultaneous” issues to settle to consider whether he is unemployed or not.:

my friend, you forgot how no. 3 is phrased:

3. seeking work, i.e., had taken specific steps to look for a job or establish a business during the basic survey reference period; OR not seeking workdue to the following reasons: (a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date; (b) awaiting results of previous job application; (c) temporary illness/disability; (d) bad weather; and (e) waiting for rehire/job recall.

let me break it down for you:

3. seeking work, i.e.,

had taken specific steps to look for a job or establish a business during the basic survey reference period;

OR

not seeking workdue to the following reasons:

(a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date;
(b) awaiting results of previous job application;
(c) temporary illness/disability;
(d) bad weather; and
(e) waiting for rehire/job recall.

the 6 month period only refers to letter (a)

seems like you never visited the link you gave me!

“I guess it will depend on your answer for the above.”

oops. no categorical answer.

“I may be wrong…”

oh yes you are.

im still waiting for that categorical NSCB definition that unemployed> 6 months = employed

anthony scalia on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 12:47 pm 



justice league,

if i may quote our dear blog owner – when people stop looking for work they are removed from unemployment statistics.

so if the unemployed is still as such > 6 months they’re no longer included in unemployment stats.

thats a whole lot different from “unemployed > 6 months = employed”

employment is not implied.

anthony scalia on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 1:06 pm 



Bert and saxnviolins :

just hold it right there my friends. don’t pull out the victory drinks yet. don’t light the cigars.

okay i generously interpreted no. 3

but my issue with JLA is this:

DOES THAT NSCB RESOLUTION CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED?

I have been asking JLA for AN NSCB RESOLUTION WHICH CATEGORICALLY DEFINES UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED but im still waiting for it now.

implied? only for journalists always on the lookout to say something and thus fill his quota of report for the day

maybe you can help JLA out. in looking for AN NSCB RESOLUTION WHICH CATEGORICALLY DEFINES UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED.

wait, let me quote no. 3, broken down:

3. seeking work, i.e.,

had taken specific steps to look for a job or establish a business during the basic survey reference period;

OR (hey you forgot to see this word saxnviolins!)

not seeking work due to the following reasons:

(a) tired/believe no work available, i.e., the discouraged workers who looked for work within the last six months prior to the interview date;
(b) awaiting results of previous job application;
(c) temporary illness/disability;
(d) bad weather; and
(e) waiting for rehire/job recall.

kindly visit the following site to see how no. 3 is worded:

http://www.nscb.gov.ph/resolutions/2004/15.asp

your (saxnviolins) statement):

Those who have been discouraged do not seek work, so they are no longer included as “unemployed. So by excluding the discouraged, the government reduces the workforce. That bumps up the employment rates because the base has been reduced.

again. please cite a specific NSCB or any govt stat that includes unemployed > 6 months = employed. for sure in any stats on the employed, there’s a definition of who is considered employed. see if unemployed > 6 months = employed is included.

let me set aside my modesty for a few seconds – Im flattered its 3 against one in such a topic!

who else wants to join JLA, Bert and saxnviolins against me on this discussion!?

anthony scalia on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 1:10 pm 



thanks quezon III. but i was hoping someone can cite that an official NSCB/NSO definition of “employed” and see if “unemployed > 6 months = employed” because that’s the only way my discussion with justice league can be resolved

Bert on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 1:28 pm 



i’m not against you, anthony, just happen to agree with sax because his arguments seem plausible enough.

no need for me to join the fracas since, it seems, justice league looks capable enough.

tsaka, baka ako matilamsikan pa ng dugo, mahirap na.

anthony scalia on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 1:57 pm 



Bert,

“i’m not against you, anthony…”

of course i know that, my friend. merry christmas

“… just happen to agree with sax because his arguments seem plausible enough.”

noted

“no need for me to join the fracas since, it seems, justice league looks capable enough.”

true

“tsaka, baka ako matilamsikan pa ng dugo, mahirap na.”

noted. sayang nga naman yung mga Armani mo.

yung mga Armani ko, galing Divisoria

Alleba Politics » Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Mindanao Congressmen on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 4:24 pm 

[...] appeal to you to support, sign, and endorse the Impeachment Intervention. I challenge the congressmen who have called for the re-negotiation of the MOA to stand up and be [...]

justice league on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 5:47 pm 



Anthony Scalia,

I’ll be addressing your other concerns tonight.

“thats a whole lot different from “unemployed > 6 months = employed”

Maybe you’d like to re-read my post on Nov. 16 2:47 AM.

“the 6 month period only refers to letter (a)”

Absolutely! So I think its best that you re-read the case scenario again and answer it this time.

So what are you going to reason out should government claim a lower unemployment rate and a higher employment rate based on the NSCB classification?

anthony scalia on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 6:20 pm 



justice league :

“I’ll be addressing your other concerns tonight.”

im waiting

“Maybe you’d like to re-read my post on Nov. 16 2:47 AM.”:

look my friend. that NSCB resolution is your basis in saying that the government has whiffed out hundreds of thousands of jobs by just ‘redefining’ unemployment.

that was your basis in saying

UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

thats my issue with you. particularly, my issue with you is – does that NSCB resolution expressly declare:

UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

“Absolutely!”

are you sure with that answer? because if the ‘6 months’ only applies to (a) then the unemployed > 6 months can fall in (b) or (c) or (d) or (e)

look again – my issue with you is your insistence that:

UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

“So I think its best that you re-read the case scenario again and answer it this time”

sorry but your case scenario is speculative. it wont help resolve our issue

UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

“So what are you going to reason out should government claim a lower unemployment rate and a higher employment rate based on the NSCB classification?”

i don’t know, there’s no such claim yet. lets wait for it first my friend.

and when stats on employment come out, lets look if your UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED is included in the definition for employment.

again – im waiting for your reply to my request for an NSCB resolution on employment which counts the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS as employed. if you can produce that, i concede

as you reply, please start with our main issue:

DOES THAT NSCB RESOLUTION EXPRESSLY STATE THAT THE UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED?

saxnviolins on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 6:42 pm 



again. please cite a specific NSCB or any govt stat that includes unemployed > 6 months = employed. for sure in any stats on the employed, there’s a definition of who is considered employed. see if unemployed > 6 months = employed is included.
**********************
Scalia:

I said those who are discouraged are taken out of the workforce. I did not say that they are considered employed. They are treated like the kindergartners; they do not belong to the workforce at all.

See the definition states that one must be looking for work. A rich playboy living on a trust account, a six year old, and a 77 year old are not part of the workforce.

So if the population is 10,000, and the discouraged are 1,000, then the workforce is only 9,000. If the employed are 1,000, then the “employed” percentage is improved, because 1/9 is a greater percentage than 1/10.

Bert on Mon, 17th Nov 2008 8:30 pm 



“ever wonder why no one from the likes of Satur and Casiño gets to be president of UNO or at least are influential in the oust gloria movement?”-anthony scalia

Let me offer one guess with regards Satur, anthony. This is purely my personal view but perhaps the opposition has an inkling he is of doubtful loyalty. Latest proof: Satur was caught red-handed “sleeping with the enemy” while on a plane flight to Malaysia during the height of the BJE-MOA controversy.

justice league on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 2:35 am 



Anthony Scalia,

“DOES THAT NSCB RESOLUTION EXPRESSLY STATE THAT THE UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED?”

AND WHERE DID YOU GET THE IDEA OF “UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED in the first place?”

DID YOU GET THAT FROM ME?

You are the one insisting on that issue when my actual claim is that -

“They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. Beyond a 6 month term, other discouraged workers are NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED.”

(If I knew better, I’d say it was a strawman tactic on your part!)

When did I ever equate UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED other than when I already asked you in the case scenario? (Which was long after you insisted on that issue already)

My other claim is that this government can whiff jobs out of thin air.

Are you wondering about those hundreds of thousand of jobs generated overnight by the redefinition of unemployment?

Did you expect a job coming from thin air to be made of concrete? OF COURSE IT’S MADE OF THIN AIR!

So how many times did you note that I equate having a job = being employed in this discussion.

You stated that we need at least 10 million jobs; and I stated that a redefinition can magically lop of millions of those jobs.

If a “redefinition” of unemployment pegs the unemployed at 6 million; are you still going to be saying we need 10 million jobs?

So for that 4 million jobs lopped off from the 10 million; would you care to guess what those jobs are going to be made of?

“just proves my point on the patchworking.
if you will notice, i placed a qualification on the JCO “may be opposition at heart””

Do you think that argument will hold water against the likes of Ramon del Rosario Jr,, Jose L. Cuisia Jr., etc…

They are capitalists. They are not Satur. They are not Casino. They create jobs and they are very vocal on being opposition.

Do you respect members of the opposition like them?

“i don’t know, there’s no such claim yet. lets wait for it first my friend.”

I was surprised when I found out that NSCB made a tabulation of the unemployed and rate based on the old and the new classification.

Its here-//www.nscb.gov.ph/announce/ForTheRecord/06June2006_unemployment.asp

Just add the http: again.

And government actually took/takes pride in the “lower” unemployment rate based on the new classification.

So can we have your answer now?

Or are you going to be waiting for an employment stat to look for a “phrase” that you made on your own?

So let’s look at that NSCB matrix for January 2006.

Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.

Total unemployed persons by the new definition was
2,840,000.

The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.

justice league on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 3:04 am 



What the heck.

Why do we need 10 million jobs when the unemployed persons in January 2006 was only 2,840,000?

hawaiianguy on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 3:14 am 



This debate on defining “unemployed/employed” is really interesting.

…government actually took/takes pride in the “lower” unemployment rate based on the new classification.

Not only on unemployment but also other statistics. We have seen that this govt (and also to some extent the past ones) ride on the more salubrious side of statistical presentations: a meteoric rise in the 2007 GDP, declining poverty, improving peace and order… and oh, the most important, “increasing prosperity.” (Sa NAIA pa lang, sasalubungin ka ng higanteng piktyur ni Gloria na nagsasabi: “Damdam na damdam ang ginhawa!” or, something to that effect.)

Yet, if other quarters give them a bleak image of what’s going on, they quickly retort: “that’s just perception,” “it’s bad statistics based on a tiny sample,” blah blah!”

grd on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 3:24 am 



bert, I was talking about our favorite cartoon superheroes. they are invincible.

for the serious argument, in Dr. Habito’s Economic Perspective of The State of the Nation as posted by Mlq3, both employment and unemployment statistics for the 1st quarter of 2007 were given.

Profile of the Unemployed
• 2.7 million are unemployed under new definition; about 4 million based on old
definition, i.e.+ frustrated jobseekers

based on the above, indeed one of the reasons for the lower Unemployment rate was due to the “new definition” used by NSBC for the Unemployed.

but as for the increase in the Employment rate, nowhere did Dr. Habito criticize the govt data as incorrect or was manipulated due to the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED. as I understand it, he was only critical of the growth in the Job Sector where the fastest growers are the low-job sectors.

so, while justice league made a credible assertion that the new definition for the “Unemployed” particularly 3a) was indeed a factor why we have a lower Unemployment rate, it’s inconclusive to say that the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS was counted as employed.

although justice scalia is more likely incorrect in concluding that those UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS were counted in item 1) “without work”, he has a valid point in contesting justice league‘s assertion about UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED without a confirmation from NSCB that it was indeed the formula they used.

the right thing to do of course for our govt people is to include the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS to item 1. but why in the first place create this new definition if not for the purpose of manipulating the figure and bringing the unemployment rate down.

justice league on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 3:29 am 



Grd,

“he has a valid point in contesting justice league‘s assertion about UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED without a confirmation from NSCB that it was indeed the formula they used.”

Oh bummer, is that for real?

grd on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 3:30 am 



sorry, my mistake. it should have been:

bert, I was talking about our favorite cartoon superheroes. they are invincible.
f
or the serious argument, in Dr. Habito’s Economic Perspective of The State of the Nation as posted by Mlq3, both employment and unemployment statistics for the 1st quarter of 2007 were given.

Profile of the Unemployed
• 2.7 million are unemployed under new definition; about 4 million based on old
definition, i.e.+ frustrated jobseekers

based on the above, indeed one of the reasons for the lower Unemployment rate was due to the “new definition” used by NSBC for the Unemployed.

as for the increase in the Employment rate, nowhere did Dr. Habito criticize the govt data as incorrect or was manipulated due to the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED. as I understand it, he was only critical of the growth in the Job Sector where the fastest growers are the low-job sectors.

so, while justice league made a credible assertion that the new definition for the “Unemployed” particularly 3a) was indeed a factor why we have a lower Unemployment rate, it’s inconclusive to say that the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS was counted as employed.

although justice scalia is more likely incorrect in concluding that those UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS were counted in item 1) “without work”, he has a valid point in contesting justice league‘s assertion about UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED without a confirmation from NSCB that it was indeed the formula they used.

the right thing to do of course for our govt people is to include the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS to item 1. but why in the first place create this new definition if not for the purpose of manipulating the figure and bringing the unemployment rate down.

grd on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 3:32 am 



justice,

sorry. my apology. you clarified it was not your idea about the UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 6:04 am 



justice league :

“Why do we need 10 million jobs when the unemployed persons in January 2006 was only 2,840,000?”

according to the smart can’t-be-wrong guys at IBON and MIGRANTE, all 8M OFWs are considered unemployed, since they all had to leave the country for lack of employment opportunities here.

hence the need for 10M jobs

anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 6:18 am 



saxnviolins :

“I said those who are discouraged are taken out of the workforce. I did not say that they are considered employed. They are treated like the kindergartners; they do not belong to the workforce at all.”

so you are not aware of my discussion with JLA. im disputing his assertion that the concerned NSCB resolution says

UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED

that’s our discussion!

earlier he asserted that government was able to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, citing that NSCB resolution. but when i read it, all it says is a re-definition of “unemployed” for survey purposes.

so i took issue with him, noting that by itself, that NSCB resolution does not say UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED.

thats why i was asking for an NSCB info on employment figures which include UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS as part of the employed because that would be more conclusive than the earlier NSCB resolution.

up to now, JLA can’t produce that.

“See the definition states that one must be looking for work. A rich playboy living on a trust account, a six year old, and a 77 year old are not part of the workforce.”

same reply.

“So if the population is 10,000, and the discouraged are 1,000, then the workforce is only 9,000. If the employed are 1,000, then the “employed” percentage is improved, because 1/9 is a greater percentage than 1/10.”

well we don’t see that in that concerned NSCB resolution. meaning, lets wait first for actual data to come in, and lets wait for an official govt pronouncement that “employed percentage is improved”.

anyway results of surveys (figures) are not manipulated. the spin is always on the interpretation. anybody can dig deeper into actual figures from NSCB to dispute the spin

it seems that govt has no monopoly on putting a spin on figures

anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 6:24 am 



grd,

“although justice scalia is more likely incorrect in concluding that those UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS were counted in item 1) “without work”, …”

yes initially i thought (1) (2) and (3) were not cumulative

anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 6:41 am 



justice league,

“DID YOU GET THAT FROM ME?”

YES FROM YOU

“You are the one insisting on that issue when my actual claim is that -

“They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. Beyond a 6 month term, other discouraged workers are NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED.” ”

my goodness. let me remind you of the history of our discussion -

you claimed that govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs. your basis? that NSCB resolution, which turns out to be just a redefinition of “unemployed” for survey purposes

(you even cited PCIJ to support your assertion!)

then i took issue with that, saying that you cannot use that NSCB resolution in supporting a view of increase in employment due to a redefinition of unemployed.

thats why i was asking for another NSCB info on employment which includes UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED because if there is such that would be conclusive (and supportive of your assertion) because again, you can’t use that earlier NSCB resolution to claim something on job creation!

to simplify -

you are wrong in saying govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs by mere redefinition of unemployed using as proof that NSCB resolution

you said

“Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm “

justice league on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 7:43 am 



Anthony Scalia,

“my goodness. let me remind you of the history of our discussion -

you claimed that govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs. your basis? that NSCB resolution, which turns out to be just a redefinition of “unemployed” for survey purposes”

Yes and all of those jobs were MADE OF THIN AIR! Since I was doing that based on memory; I even tried to be conservative!

EVERYONE OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS GENERATED OVERNIGHT WERE MADE OF THIN AIR!

You really expected those jobs to be concrete?

“(you even cited PCIJ to support your assertion!)”

I told you about its IMPACT as based on PCIJ.

And that is now supported by the matrix I got from NSCB.

“then i took issue with that, saying that you cannot use that NSCB resolution in supporting a view of increase in employment due to a redefinition of unemployed.”

Why don’t you do your own math then and see if the employment RATE doesn’t go up with that redefinition as the workforce gets trimmed?

“thats why i was asking for another NSCB info on employment which includes UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED because if there is such that would be conclusive (and supportive of your assertion) because again, you can’t use that earlier NSCB resolution to claim something on job creation!”

Be it though even that I have only produced a redefinition of unemployment; your “patchworking” is worse than you can possibly accuse me of as what you really got so far is UNEMPLOYED > 6 months = NOT CONSIDERED EMPLOYED which still standby to and not your UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED.

“you are wrong in saying govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs by mere redefinition of unemployed using as proof that NSCB resolution”

See above!

justice league on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 7:48 am 



Oooopppsss.

It should be

Be it though even that I have only produced a redefinition of unemployment; your “patchworking” is worse than you can possibly accuse me of as what you really got so far is UNEMPLOYED > 6 months = NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED which I still standby to and not your UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED.

anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 10:05 am 



justice league,

may i remind you that to back up your earlier assertion:

“Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm “

you cited that NSCB resolution. thats where you discovered the ‘Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs’ that were ‘generated overnight.’ in a mere redefinition of ‘unemployed’

turns out that the NSCB resolution is just a mere redefinition, without actual figures on the new ‘unemployed’

lets go back to your earlier assertion my friend:

“in 2004…. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.”

and your latest

“EVERYONE OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS GENERATED OVERNIGHT WERE MADE OF THIN AIR!”

where did you get those? from that NSCB resolution? i don’t see figures there my friend

can you give the exact figure? okay rounded off to the nearest hundred. and where did you get that figure? what study, what survey, what year etc.

“And that is now supported by the matrix I got from NSCB.”

are you referring to that NSCB resolution on the mere redefinition of unemployed? is that a matrix already to you? again, i don’t see the numbers there my friend

“Why don’t you do your own math then and see if the employment RATE doesn’t go up with that redefinition as the workforce gets trimmed?”

whoa hold it right there mi amigo. YOU ARE THE ONE ASSERTING THAT.

so are you saying that you’re just assuming the employment rate went up because the number of unemployed was reduced because of a redefinition of unemployment? that that was the result of the WHIFFING OUT OF THIN AIR?

im already helping you out to rebut me successfully:

1. cite an NSCB figure on the employed
2. dig deeper and check if the numbers on the employed include “those left out in the latest survey on the redefined ‘unemployed’ ”

and/or

1. cite the latest NSCB survey on the unemployed using the new definition of unemployed
2. get the figure on the unemployed
3. cite any govt spin on a “trimmed” unemployed population

anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 10:24 am 



justice league,

sorry i forgot the latest NSCB link you cited, that could be the matrix you are referring to.

anyway, on this matrix:

it only says that 1.024M jobless people were excluded from the number of unemployed.

but it does not categorically say that these 1.024M can now be regarded as employed!

it does not support your claim:

“I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.”
November 18th, 2008 at 2:35 am

did the NSCB ever say “its safe to say that those left out of unemployment stats can be deemed employed already”?

mindanaoan on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 10:32 am 



justice league, are you being stubborn, or are you just dense? your statements really implied that the government made it appear that jobs have been created. it was not the case.

anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 10:39 am 



grd,

justice league cited a new NSCB link:

http://www.nscb.gov.ph/announce/ForTheRecord/06June2006_unemployment.asp

which states that 1.024M were excluded from the number of unemployed Pinoys.

thats all it says – how many were excluded fromt he number of unemployed pinoys

it does not say that these 1.024M can now be deemed employed

thats the trouble with JLA’s approach. he quickly assumed that since 1.024M were excluded from the unemployed, 1.024M jobs were created!

he said

“I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.”
November 18th, 2008 at 2:35 am

actually you may not have to apologize to JLA. because if you will read that latest NSCB link, the excluded 1.024M actually came from those unemployed > 6 months. the NSCB had to explain why the 1.024M were excluded

istambay_sakalye on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 12:00 pm 



“THAT’S my problem with the anti-GMAs — They made up their minds (based on faulty info) 4 years ago and fanatically stick to those views no matter what comes up. It’s frustrating. It scares me. It threatens my income and thus my family. Aaargh.”

– with garci tapes, gma herself apologized for calling a comelec official during the election period…” i am sorry”…sorry din but she violated a law and should have been at least disqualified and the rightful winner sitting in malacanang be it fernando poe or the vice president winner!

istambay_sakalye on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 12:35 pm 



“but knowing how bright the boys of the ‘united” opposition are and how such brightness helped their kick-gloria-out operations for the past 8 years, i don’t see that taking place. a PBA team getting an Olympic gold is easier to visualize”

–maybe when the USA sends a team composed of the relatives of gma, hence mga unano, then RP will win an olympic gold, and because the rest of other basketball teams drank or ate something made from china!

anthony scalia on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 12:51 pm 



“–maybe when the USA sends a team composed of the relatives of gma, hence mga unano, then RP will win an olympic gold, and because the rest of other basketball teams drank or ate something made from china!”

talo pa rin ang RP 5 sa Yao Ming-led China. he and his teammates already drank and ate something from China all their lives!

Geo on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 1:05 pm 



Istambay,

You wrote: “– with garci tapes, gma herself apologized for calling a comelec official during the election period…” i am sorry”…sorry din but she violated a law and should have been at least disqualified and the rightful winner sitting in malacanang be it fernando poe or the vice president winner!”

For once, I agree with you. The Garci tapes never did (and never could) prove cheating. (Menawhile, the PET recount demonstrated that massive, systematic cheating did not occur).

That’s the part that mlq3 and many others have trouble coming to grips with — GMA did not cheat in the elections. Despite the evidence, mlq3 et al have created mass-fantasies that many enjoy revelling in.

The reality is that the opposition — if they truly wanted to do things right and not just manufacture a “people power” — should have pursued that angle. GMA’s admission about talking with an election official is a clear offense.

Geo on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 1:11 pm 



I think the reason many govs remove some unemployed from their lists is because they wish to differentiate between those looking for work and those who aren’t. Why?

I think it’s because of the existence of “unemployed” like criminals, lazy hangers-on, those raising/tending children (including men), those who don’t want to work (for whatever reason)), etc.

Isn’t all of this also tied-in with some countries’ welfare programs? You need to prove you are looking for work in order to get benefits, no?

Geo on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 1:40 pm 



mlq3,

You wrote: “geo, there’s a reason i became a columnist and not a novelist. i will leave the novel-writing to you, it’s beyond my ken.”

Sir, you are a columnist…but only in the sense that you have a column, a blog and a tv show in which you can say anything you want and peddle it as truth.

The fact is that you have used your considerable knowlwdge of history and an excellent command of the english language and have become a propagandist.

How can I call this a “fact”? A) Your rejection of known facts — which contradict your story line, B) Your insistence on your interpretations — even though there is scant evidence to support such claims, and B) Your ever-expanding lists of “facts” which are use to prove new “facts”.

I’m just glad that you are now openly political and partisan (the impeachment MOA insertion thingy), rather than pretending to be intellectually driven and “open” (“The Explainer” or you allowing various points of view in your blog).

No sir, you are a very good novelist. You have helped spin a hug fantastical tale which many still believe.

I request you take a look at today’s Sassy Lawyer column, http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=connieVeneracion_nov18_2008.

“The currently acceptable paradigm of political belief” is what I read in here, in this blog.

Geo on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 1:44 pm 



oops…

In my last post, towards the end, that should have been:

“C) Your ever-expanding lists of UNPROVEN “facts” which are use to prove new CONCOCTED “facts”.”

grd on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 9:15 pm 



actually you may not have to apologize to JLA. because if you will read that latest NSCB link, the excluded 1.024M actually came from those unemployed > 6 months. the NSCB had to explain why the 1.024M were excluded… anthony scalia

anthony, the new matrix cited by justice league is similar with the old one I cited from Dr. Habito. that was what I’m saying also about those UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS, excluded from the Unemployed but not necessarily added to the Employed.

Re UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED – going through all the posts again, I agree with you. Justice league indeed made that assertion (indirectly) on his/her earlier comments like the one below:

they pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!

Whiffed out of thin air! MAGIC!

I’m sure if the Government comes up with a new definition to use, ie. like instead of 6 months the period is shortened to 2 months or so; millions of jobs are going to be magically lopped off that 10 million jobs you stated.”
justice league November 16th, 2008 at 2:24 am

==============================

yes initially i thought (1) (2) and (3) were not cumulative… anthony scalia

i take it that you’re agreeable now to justice league and saxnviolins’ interpretation of the new definition of HSBC (November 17th, 2008 at 2:38 am) which I also find to be correct.

mlq3 on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 10:52 pm 



geo, you can go back to my writing since 1994, i have never said a columnist ought not to be partisan, in fact opinion is precisely what it is, opinion. and furthermore, a columnist is required to take sides. “objectivity” while in itself something admirable, when a fetish is the refuge of scoundrels.

it’s interesting to me that partisanship to you is recourse to our institution and their systems and not the call i made in 2005 for the president to resign, or our going to the supreme court in 2006 over charter change. or that your definition of selectivity is to insist everything i assert is a fabrication or wrong while not considering for yourself, what you demand of me: you insist i consider the president is pure as driven snow, that this is all a misunderstanding, while refusing to consider what you demand of me: well, what if i’m right?

you see it leaves us where i’ve always said we were: on opposite sides of the fence.

istambay_sakalye on Tue, 18th Nov 2008 11:52 pm 



here both sides of the fence are claiming they have the facts, hence the truth. however, it cannot be denied that the legal avenues of presenting the truth are not always considered facts as they can be twisted and discarded due to technicalities.

it is up to us common tao to use our common sense ( and not emotions) to sort out the web of lies our politicians spun.

in these times i cannot believe just take the word of any politician as the truth but use my God given common sense. if we are searching or looking for the truth/fact as required by the legal sense then the way politics in the philippines is going we will never find it.

justice league on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 3:30 am 



mindanaoan :

“justice league, are you being stubborn, or are you just dense?”

Neither as of yet. More like unbelievably tolerant.

Anthony Scalia,

“it only says that 1.024M jobless people were excluded from the number of unemployed.
but it does not categorically say that these 1.024M can now be regarded as employed!”

But I never regarded them as EMPLOYED.

What I meant to say was that there were 1.024M FICTITIOUS jobs. And I don’t regard people with such fictitious jobs as employed.

My statement of “Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.” was later clarified by the “whiff it OUT OF THIN AIR.”

If you looked up what “out of thin air” means, you should have realized that those jobs were FICTITIOUS.

And the fictitious nature of those jobs was backed up when you asked me “so you’ll agree that the next move is, the actual creation of jobs?” and I answered “If “ACTUAL CREATION” is the operative phrase; of course; I’m for it.”

“did the NSCB ever say “its safe to say that those left out of unemployment stats can be deemed employed already”

No, but then I didn’t deem them employed either.

Do you actually have a categorical statement from me that I claim that those people are employed or are you just relying from “patchworking”?

As early as Nov. 16, 2:24 AM, I related my interpretation of the NSCB criteria followed by a clarification at 2:47 AM with the clarification stating that “They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. Beyond a 6 month term, other discouraged workers are not considered unemployed!”

Removing the discouraged tag, what can be inferred from that is “UNEMPLOYED > 6 months = NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED”.

Yet instead of exhorting me to prove that claim (which I can); you came up some TWENTY HOURS LATER with YOUR OWN DISTORTED interpretation/counter-interpretation of the NSCB criteria and you are trying to pass it on to me as if it is my interpretation.

The first sign of something like “if the person is still unemployed for more than 6 months he is deemed employed already” CAME FROM YOUR POST on Nov. 16, 9:52 PM with the actual sentence being “The NSCB IS NOT saying that if the person is still unemployed for more than 6 months he is deemed employed already.”

You then refined it into “UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED” and tried to PASS IT OFF as my interpretation of the NSCB criteria and then insisted on me to prove it.

After I tried to correct your reading of the NSCB criteria on Nov 16, 10:07 PM, you started to insist on me to prove YOUR interpretation/counter-interpretation at 10:59 PM.

And your attempt to PASS THAT OFF was OVERKILL on Nov. 17, 6:20 PM when you stated in your post statements like

“that was your basis in saying “UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED thats my issue with you”,

“particularly, my issue with you is – does that NSCB resolution expressly declare: UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED”,

“look again – my issue with you is your insistence that: UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED”,

“sorry but your case scenario is speculative. it wont help resolve our issue UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED”

ETC…………………….

(It looks like a strawman tactic on your part more and more)

Now regarding that HIGHER EMPLOYMENT RATE based on the NEW definition of unemployment; you can see the impact of the new definition in the PHILIPPINE LABOR FORCE SURVEY January 2006
//www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2006/lf0601tx.html

In that survey, they utilized the new definition pegging the unemployment at 2,840,000 with the rate at 8.1%.

The employment rate thus was 91.9%.

However at the bottom before the technical notes; they posted the unemployment based on the old criteria and the unemployment rate was 10.7%.

So if the OLD criteria was used, the employment rate would only be 89.3% instead of the higher 91.9%.

And that is categorical proof that the new criteria leads to a higher employment rate!

Now regarding that respect for JCOs; I have a categorical statement from you that you stated “there’s only one opposition group I truly respect – the likes of Satur and Casiño. because i am assured that these people are really after the nation’s interests”.

And then you asked me “as for “i don’t respect the JCO”? did i really say that?”

So for the likes of Ramon del Rosario Jr,, Jose L. Cuisia Jr., etc… who are capitalists. Who are not Satur and Casino but create jobs and are very vocal on being opposition.

Do you respect members of the opposition like them?

Since you asked me last time to begin my reply with a particular issue, CAN YOU RETURN THE FAVOR AND START YOUR REPLY with the issue regarding your respect for the JCOs?

Grd,
“Re UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED – going through all the posts again, I agree with you. Justice league indeed made that assertion (indirectly) on his/her earlier comments like the one below:”

Can you please clarify how I asserted that and please use also any pertinent parts from the 2:47 AM clarification?

anthony scalia on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 8:42 am 



grd,

yes i agree to the comment of saxnviolins on November 17th, 2008 at 2:38 am

(1) (2) and (3) are cumulative.

anthony scalia on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 9:36 am 



justice league,

“More like unbelievably tolerant.”

just like me! lets drink to that my friend!

pero you skipped mindanaoan’s other comment – “your statements really implied that the government made it appear that jobs have been created. it was not the case.”

“Now regarding that respect for JCOs; I have a categorical statement from you that you stated “there’s only one opposition group I truly respect – the likes of Satur and Casiño. because i am assured that these people are really after the nation’s interests”.

And then you asked me “as for “i don’t respect the JCO”? did i really say that?”

So for the likes of Ramon del Rosario Jr,, Jose L. Cuisia Jr., etc… who are capitalists. Who are not Satur and Casino but create jobs and are very vocal on being opposition.

Do you respect members of the opposition like them?”

ahem. TO BEGIN WITH, when did Ramon Del Rosario, Jose Cuisia etc. and the other capitalists ever become vocal parrots of “patalsikin na now na”?

businessmen being known critics of the sitting president is nothing new. but openly calling for a sitting president’s resignation or removal? i haven’t heard such coming out from the lips of the capitalists. not even Oscar Lopez of Meralco said that in the open

just because of their membership in the MBC? just because MBC funded that interfaith rally? just because they did not oppose that interfaith rally?

IIRC, that interfaith rally is more for “the truth to come out” supporting the ZTE hearings. no “patalsikin na now na.” and I remember clearly that according to my friends who attended that rally, all those present there felt betrayed when suddenly Adel Tamano and other members of that bumbling stupid group called ‘united opposition’ appeared and started talking on stage! that interfaith rally was supposed to be nonpartisan!

so even assuming the MBC endorsed that rally, it did so with the understanding that it would be nonpartisan!

you are forgetting how i defined the opposition I completely loathe (to say it mildly):

now who is the opposition – those who call themselves the ‘united opposition.’ those good-for-nothing-beyond-anti-gloria, its-our-turn, worse-than-gloria, self-righteous, pompous, no-better-than-Mike-Arroyo politicians
(November 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am)

by the way, all descriptions are cumulative

Satur et al never considered themselves members of the UNO. nor are they of the “kami naman” mindset

The capitalists are not members of the UNO. all the more they do not have the “kami naman” mindset

my introduction of the use of JCO is more of an accommodation to you, using your line of argument, your own terms. since you are insisting that the capitalists are also opposition.

my statement:

“The Ayalas and the Lopezes may be opposition at heart, but their main pre-occupation is still business.” (November 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am)

is not an agreement to your insistence that they are opposition!

because their main pre-occupation is still business, they are hardly of the “kami naman” variety.

please don’t forget my correct description of the opposition.

so name one or some ‘JCO’ who openly said “patalsikin na now na” and not some vague motherhood statements like “we need a change in leadership” or something to that effect, then i’ll answer your query if i respect them also like Satur et al.

“Since you asked me last time to begin my reply with a particular issue, CAN YOU RETURN THE FAVOR AND START YOUR REPLY with the issue regarding your respect for the JCOs?”

see above.

anthony scalia on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 10:37 am 



justice league :

“Now regarding that HIGHER EMPLOYMENT RATE based on the NEW definition of unemployment; you can see the impact of the new definition in the PHILIPPINE LABOR FORCE SURVEY January 2006
//www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2006/lf0601tx.html

In that survey, they utilized the new definition pegging the unemployment at 2,840,000 with the rate at 8.1%.

The employment rate thus was 91.9%.

However at the bottom before the technical notes; they posted the unemployment based on the old criteria and the unemployment rate was 10.7%.

So if the OLD criteria was used, the employment rate would only be 89.3% instead of the higher 91.9%.

And that is categorical proof that the new criteria leads to a higher employment rate!”

——————————————————————————

you should have cited than census link from the onset

you will agree, that latest link is more definitive than the two NSCB links you first cited

but don’t hold your breath:

1. that same study acknowledged a different figure if the old definition is used. said differently, the presence of that disclaimer puts to rest allegations of manipulation by that study

2. that study came up with employment figures by actual count of employed people, not simply by deducting the 8.1 from 100. that study was able to account for the 91.9 employed by industry and by job category

thanks for the census link. appreciate the effort

would you have the latest study by the census dept on the same matter?

Geo on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 12:07 pm 



mlq3,

Fine, you are an opinionated columnist. To be honest, my pet peeve with you has more to do with how you have previously presented yourself and certain topics on The Explainer. In those instances, it seemed you were acting neutrally analytical, while careful attention could discern the partisan spin. Much like Ricky, Pinky and Pia on ANC. Or like many “straight” reported articles in PDI which are definitely NOT supposed to be partisan.

Wow, it seems you have a mistrust of “objectivity”! But non-partisan analysts and historians do (or attempt to do) just that. That’s their “fetish”, but I don’t think they are scoundrels.

Yes, I think that the institutions and systems are purposefully non-partisan. It’s the players within the poliitcal arena who are partisan. So yes — your call for resignation and your opposition to Cha-Cha are partisan (and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that), while I consider my call for respecting the systems and institutions to be non-partisan (remember, I also don’t approve of the Erap ouster…despite my partisan dislike of him).

No, I don’t think everything you assert must be false. Nor have I ever asked you to consider GMA to be as pure as the driven snow. I don’t see her as anything but human…which means she has the capacity for good and for evil.

The situation here, though, is that she is also the President. She is a critical part of the system; not just a stand-alone human. This makes rendering any judgements about her more sensitive than usual. One needs to remain as objective as possible, as the institution of her office is a pillar of this country’s democratic system.

So I asked you to go back to the beginning and to look at the charges of electoral fraud…to look at that with a clean slate. That doesn’t mean I want you to accept any point of view (yet), but just to step back for a minute. You can do that, can’t you? After all, this is the first step during an intellectual analysis, isn’t it — to discern the known from the unknown?

What we know is that edited copies surfaced with bits and pieces of recorded conversations. The original tapes have never surfaced, rendering the copied ones as legally immaterial. But that means that there’s no proof one way or the other.

Of more import is the polls taken repeatedly before the voting and during exit from the voting stations. It was pretty much all the same — a ~1m vote victory for GMA. But again, this is not hard proof. It’s possible that they were all wrong.

The best way to evaluate the validity is, then, to actually open up ballot boxes. And that’s what the Supreme Court did. And they found no evidence of massive, systematic cheating.

The likely, scientifically-valid, factually-supported conclusion is: GMA didn’t cheat. That’s what the hard evidence says.

By saying that, I don’t automatically become a blind GMA lover; I do not automatically fall on the “other” side of those who are anti-GMA (i.e. the pro-GMA side)…I AM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THOSE WHO CLAIM GMA CHEATED (i.e. the go-by-the-evidence-especially-in-such-a-sensitive-case side).

This is a hard thing for some screechers (bert, dodong, istampay, for ex) to understand. My guess is because they stopped listening, thinking and analysing a long time ago…it’s all emotional fury. But that’s OK, they admittedly reject facts and evidence and have formed their opinions based on some inherent grasp of the Truth which they possess.

I would expect you to be better than that, mlq3. Moreso that you can have an effect on the general population, who is looking towards the media for getting an accurate presentation of the issues and facts.

Alas, you are only a spinmeister. So I can now only hope that you keep first telling the public that you are very partisan before you say anything.

(BTW, I often try to walk through a new “controversy” by first taking one extreme position and then repeating the process from the other extreme’s viewpoint. I then actually look at the concrete evidence. So, yes — I have often put myself in your shoes and have wondered “what if they are right?”)

Geo on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 1:36 pm 



I think the story is that the RP gov changed its methodologies for a variety of economic metrics. This was done, I understand, as part of a movement towards global standardizations in accounting, both private and public.

When releasing new data — using new methodologies — they have often still reported what the figures would be if using the old measurements and/or comparing them with previous figures, modified via the new methodologies. This isn’t unique to (un)employment figures.

Bert on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 2:21 pm 



“This is a hard thing for some screechers (bert, dodong, istampay, for ex) to understand. My guess is because they stopped listening, thinking and analysing a long time ago…it’s all emotional fury. But that’s OK, they admittedly reject facts and evidence and have formed their opinions based on some inherent grasp of the Truth which they possess.”-Geo

Oh really now, Geo, you are the great thinker and analyzer then? You are not selective in your objective to analyze, are you?

GMA won the election fair and square, you said. Try figuring out why election results in some parts of Mindanao showed Chavit the top vote-getter with some opposition senators doing fairly well then after a few days the final results counted by Abalos’ comelec showed all GMA senators winning, opposition zero, and Chavit nowhere in sight? Do you mean they did it for the senators but not for GMA?

You don’t beleive that? If yes, then you are a believer in magic so how now can I argue with you?

Do you remember who is/was Dimasidsing? He is/was a human being. Now not anymore. You want some facts, go get his birth certificate…or better yet his death certificate. But no, you don’t want that kind of fact, you only chose what you want, of course. Yes?

Bert on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 2:35 pm 



Geo,

Dimasidsing, as you know, was the election officer who was trying to hold on to his copy of the true election results.

Geo on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 2:51 pm 



Bert,

You just proved my point.

Regarding the national Presidential elections, your analysis is based on hearsay, unrelated events and inanity.

Look, the fact is that the PET actually opened the ballot boxes and looked at the VP (and Prez) votes in the areas where Loren Legarda said there was cheating. The court ruled that there were no meaningful anomalies.

On the one hand, the hard evidence demonstrates no cheating.

On the other hand, the edited copies of adulterated snippets of conversations, the accusing fingers of trapos with much to gain and the imaginations of opinionated media “reporters”, all demonstrate cheating.

This isn’t magic, bert. You figure out which position is based on opinion and which is based on facts…..

anthony scalia on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 2:53 pm 



Bert,

“GMA won the election fair and square, you said. Try figuring out why election results in some parts of Mindanao showed Chavit the top vote-getter with some opposition senators doing fairly well then after a few days the final results counted by Abalos’ comelec showed all GMA senators winning, opposition zero, and Chavit nowhere in sight? Do you mean they did it for the senators but not for GMA?”

did chavit run in 2004?

the mere fact of cheating is not enough. you must show that the cheating changed the outcome.

even if Dimasidsing came out with the “true election results” it wont change the outcome

teka wait. by the way, how did you know in the first place that the one Dimasidsing holds is the true one, not false one?

bro. eddie may scream that he was cheated, and there could be some basis for that, but it won’t change the outcome in his favor.

like it or not, our old election laws provide that no protest will be entertained if the protest won’t change the result

the protests of Loren and FPJ are puro pa-pogi, pa-awa effect, wishing a new people power would be ignited.

pero wala rin people power. turns out if the votes Loren disputes are counted in her favor, talo pa rin sya.

and FPJ (bless his soul) died pa.

mga ungas kasi ang mga nagunguna sa remove-gloria movement, ang ‘united’ opposition. akala nila the majority would support them with another people power.

kaya they got the shock of their lives! inuna pa kasi ang people power kaysa paghandaan mabuti ang impeachment

mlq3 on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 3:01 pm 



geo, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but again, the explainer is my view, and my interpretation. again the studious non-partisanship you demand is suitable for a reporter, which i have never been; but all my pieces are opinion pieces and my commentaries are commentaries under my byline, with my affiliations and advocacies certainly well known to the public viewing and reading them.

in history my personal belief and this is not unique, is that there is no objective history, there are differences in interpretation, the process of looking back is by its nature subjective since not everything by way of facts and events can be comprehended.

we have gone down the road of the 2004 elections before. but the permanent fork in the road for us is that from the start my belief the president must go was based on what she did -and didn’t do- in 2005. after that you and i are just going around in circles with each other.

Geo on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 3:08 pm 



Bert,

Yes, I’m aware of some of the shenanigans which go on. I am not arguing that there was no cheating at all, nor was I talking about anything but the Prez/VP elections. I realize there is still some dirty business out there.

I am not trying to defend Abalos, Comelec, Chavit or even Gloria. I am saying that we should be very careful about what we consider to be “The Truth”.

Opinions and groupthink do not formulate facts; they formulate perceptions. These perceptions can sometimes be unsupportable by the hard facts on hand. Mistaken perceptions can lead to unhelpful actions.

In any event, the constitution, laws and institutions are made to ignore and overide the various opinions and perceptions that exist. The Truth is a non-entity; the facts and the laws (yes, including their technicalities) are what count.

Not because I say so, but because that’s how modern democracies work…..

Geo on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 4:08 pm 



mlq3,

You certainly have a right to do all those things. And there is certainly nothing wrong with you airing your opinions.

That said, the term “Explainer” indicates a tutorial role, no? And you often write the introductions (and whatever else) for some ANC shows which are supposed to be “reporting” pieces, not op eds, right?

Many readers/viewers are also not necessarily aware of your extremely partisan views, so I’m not so sure your audiences understand that you are conveying opinions…never mind them knowing that some of those opinions are based on previous opinions (which, when repeated enough, sound like facts).

But you have a problem with proven facts and evidence. Many in the anti-GMA camp do, apparently. Laws are considered to be “technicalities”, courts are corrupt (except when rulings are favorable) and evidence is manufactured. Meanwhile, the LACK of facts to support a position doesn’t render that position doubtful.

Yes, historical analyses get harder as more time passes by and/or because various participants record the events according to their desired image.

But the results of the PET (and the weakness of the Garci Tapes) are clear. There’s no need for much objectivity with that; these are objective, hard facts.

Which is why, I guess, you have now agreed that there was no massive cheating by Gloria.

So let’s move on with the story. You say that the next problem was that she said she was sorry for talking with an official, denied cheating, but never got her hands on the tapes or found any way to prove her innocence. Is that right?

Therefore, she lost the people’s confidence and should have resigned right then and there, correct? And because she didn’t, that’s why you were therefore against her. Is that right so far?

grd on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 5:44 pm 



“did chavit run in 2004?” anthony scalia

hehe. I think bert already got confused. he’s mixing 2004 & 2008 election already.

grd on Wed, 19th Nov 2008 6:07 pm 



I meant the 2004 & 2007 elections.

Dimasidsing was allegedly killed due to the 2007 mid-term election and not the 2004 pres election.

wrong argument for bert.

justice league on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 1:49 am 



Anthony Scalia

“lets drink to that”

Wish I could but I rarely do.

Your arguments are getting shallower and your hole is getting deeper. You should consider ending this.

“ahem.”

You should see a doctor already.

I don’t want to dignify that “vocal parrot” thing but you do ask a lot of questions you don’t seem to know the answers to.

And you’re asking about Ramon Del Rosario, Jose Cuisia, etc.!

BAD MOVE!

Maybe you’d like to read this //www.pcij.org/blog/?p=2186

Oh yes its from PCIJ.

And if you doubt how Ramon Del Rosario Jr. interprets that Manifesto; you might want to read this

“Hyatt 10 resurfaces, asks Cabinet to quit”
//www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_feb18_2008

And don’t think that the story ends with just the cabinet.

“pero you skipped mindanaoan’s other comment – “your statements really implied that the government made it appear that jobs have been created. it was not the case.””

I gave Mindanaoan enough credit to have the mental skills to realize what was implied by my statements if he/she re-reads all the posts.

You obviously don’t think he/she deserves the same credit.

But if Mindanaoan wants to receive any of what you got and getting; he/she can always ask for it him/herself.

“you should have cited than census link from the onset”

Oh so all of a sudden it’s my fault. You should have done your own homework.

“1. that same study acknowledged a different figure if the old definition is used. said differently, the presence of that disclaimer puts to rest allegations of manipulation by that study”

So what now if I claim that the “manipulation” was done when the NSCB criteria was changed in the first place?

“2. that study came up with employment figures by actual count of employed people, not simply by deducting the 8.1 from 100. that study was able to account for the 91.9 employed by industry and by job category”

I believe that is irrelevant. I’m sure members of the opposition who create and even maintain jobs did their own share to account for the actual count of employed people.

“thanks for the census link. appreciate the effort.’

You’re welcome.

“would you have the latest study by the census dept on the same matter?”

Don’t know exactly what you want but you might want to read this //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2007/lf0701tx.html

But I think they did away with the old criteria altogether for that. And the bottom table might interest you. Seems data is derived from old census.

grd on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 2:46 am 



“ So let’s look at that NSCB matrix for January 2006.
Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.

Total unemployed persons by the new definition was 2,840,000.

The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.” Justice league

justice, what exactly do you mean with your above statement? you have claimed that the 1.024m was fictitious jobs. that’s not correct. you have to take note that either you use the new or the old definitions of unemployment, you will still come up with approx. 32.384million jobs as per the link you’ve provided. so where are the fictitious jobs of 1.024m?

what was achieved (or manipulated) w/ the new definition of unemployment was the the rate of employment (increased) / unemployment (decreased) because the total labor force was reduced by 1.024m (that is from 36.248m to 35.224m).

that’s why i am saying that saxnviolins was correct in both of his interpretations about the new definition. the govt simply reduced the labor force but no jobs out of thin air were generated.

to prove my point:

under the new definition:
labor force = 35.224m
emploment = 32.384m (91.9%)
unemployment = 2.840m (8.1%)

under the old definition:
labor force = 36.248m
emploment = 32.384m (89.3%)
unemployment = 3.864m (10.7%)

justice league on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 8:00 am 



Grd,

“so where are the fictitious jobs of 1.024m?”

They are nowhere. Those jobs are fictitious after all.

Basically, those fictitious jobs are “NOTHING” and this “NOTHING” was practically powerful enough to be used as a justification for the removal of several people from being considered as “UNEMPLOYED”.

I don’t know if it is applicable to all the instances wherein I referred to “such jobs” but you can try to replace that term with the “NOTHING” term.

I’ll try to do it to your ENTIRE last post.

So here it goes-

““ So let’s look at that NSCB matrix for January 2006.
Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.

Total unemployed persons by the new definition was 2,840,000.

The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with NOTHING.” Justice league

justice, what exactly do you mean with your above statement? you have claimed that the 1.024m was NOTHING. that’s not correct. you have to take note that either you use the new or the old definitions of unemployment, you will still come up with approx. 32.384million jobs as per the link you’ve provided. so where are NOTHING?

what was achieved (or manipulated) w/ the new definition of unemployment was the the rate of employment (increased) / unemployment (decreased) because the total labor force was reduced by 1.024m (that is from 36.248m to 35.224m).

that’s why i am saying that saxnviolins was correct in both of his interpretations about the new definition. the govt simply reduced the labor force but NOTHING generated.”

If you answered my case scenario, you would likely have ended up with a 16 year old who was NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED and whose job is NOTHING.

“Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally NOTHING was generated overnight.”

anthony scalia on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 8:37 am 



justice league :

“Wish I could but I rarely do.”

okay fresh distilled drinking water na lang

“Your arguments are getting shallower and your hole is getting deeper. You should consider ending this.”

it takes one to know one my friend

sorry but i don’t know what a shallow argument is.

“You should see a doctor already.”

i just did. healthy enough to finish a triathlon

“I don’t want to dignify that “vocal parrot” thing but you do ask a lot of questions you don’t seem to know the answers to.”

okay, that’s your decision.

——————————————————————————-
“And you’re asking about Ramon Del Rosario, Jose Cuisia, etc.!
BAD MOVE!”
Maybe you’d like to read this //www.pcij.org/blog/?p=2186
Oh yes its from PCIJ.
And if you doubt how Ramon Del Rosario Jr. interprets that Manifesto; you might want to read this
“Hyatt 10 resurfaces, asks Cabinet to quit”
//www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_feb18_2008
And don’t think that the story ends with just the cabinet.
—————————————————————————–

my friend, don’t you realize that you were only able to show that the capitalists you mentioned openly wanted gloria to go WHICH WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR FROM YOU?

on November 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am I asked you:

so name one or some ‘JCO’ who openly said “patalsikin na now na” and not some vague motherhood statements like “we need a change in leadership” or something to that effect, then i’ll answer your query if i respect them also like Satur et al.

NOW THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN (FINALLY) THAT THOSE CAPITALISTS HAVE OPENLY CALLED FOR GLORIA’S REMOVAL, THEN I CAN ALREADY RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION -

DO I RESPECT THESE CAPITALISTS WHO OPENLY DEMAND GLORIA’S REMOVAL? – yes

sorry if i doused cold water in your celebration

“I gave Mindanaoan enough credit to have the mental skills to realize what was implied by my statements if he/she re-reads all the posts.”

oh yes he had read them already. thats why he wrote that.

“You obviously don’t think he/she deserves the same
credit.”

“But if Mindanaoan wants to receive any of what you got and getting; he/she can always ask for it him/herself.”

???????????

“Oh so all of a sudden it’s my fault.”

oh yes it is!

“You should have done your own homework”

my friend, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE ASSERTION.
turns out you have been insisting on something without basis

“So what now if I claim that the “manipulation” was done when the NSCB criteria was changed in the first place?”

a look at that same NSCB info does not show an intent to get the reader to believe something else

“I believe that is irrelevant. I’m sure members of the opposition who create and even maintain jobs did their own share to account for the actual count of employed people.”

my friend, employment data are not arrived at by simply deducting the number of unemployed Pinoys from the total workforce

“Don’t know exactly what you want but you might want to read this //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2007/lf0701tx.html”

thank you

“But I think they did away with the old criteria altogether for that. And the bottom table might interest you. Seems data is derived from old census.”

noted

anthony scalia on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 8:39 am 



justice league,

should be “turns out initially you have been insisting on something without basis”

mindanaoan on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 11:37 am 



justice league, you should show why the old method is better than the new one to make a valid claim that the government just made it appear it had generated jobs. if your only problem with the new method is that it gives a better figure for the government, then your argument is bunk.

Bert on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 1:37 pm 



““did chavit run in 2004?” anthony scalia

“hehe. I think bert already got confused. he’s mixing 2004 & 2008 election already.”-grd

hehehe, guys, now I got you, nahilong-talilong ko kayo, heheh.

the operative statement is: “Do you mean they can do it for the senators but not for GMA?”

hehehehehe.

Bert on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 1:44 pm 



Geo is sharper than the both of you, hehehe.

ayan, Geo, ha, that’s a compliment again, heheh.

Bert on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 2:08 pm 



and, grd, there’s no 2008 senatorial election. too confused?

heheh.

anthony scalia on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 3:43 pm 



bert,

grd made the correction at November 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

justice league on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 3:48 pm 



mindanaoan :

“justice league, you should show why the old method is better than the new one to make a valid claim that the government just made it appear it had generated jobs. if your only problem with the new method is that it gives a better figure for the government, then your argument is bunk.”

So you do want to get some.

I thought you could have figured that one on your own but very well.

First, it’s easier for the public to remember a “91.9% employment rate” than for them to remember that it only represents that there are only 32,384,000 persons who are actually employed.

Second and worse part deals with the DISCOURAGED who have not looked for a job in the last 6 months.

In the old criteria, I don’t think it matters if they were ENCOURAGED by the government to look for jobs because the labor force number would have stayed the same.

If the government encouraged them to look for jobs and they FAILED, I believe that they still would have been counted in the labor force.

If the government did no such encouragement and they did not look for jobs, I believe that they still would have been counted in the labor force.

Now consider the new criteria, what would happen if the government encouraged these people to look for jobs and these people FAILED to get one?

Can I leave it at that or do I have to SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU?

Anthony Scalia,

“okay fresh distilled drinking water na lang.”

Absolute and AquaSoft would have been nice. Unfortunately my tolerance does have its limit.

“sorry but i don’t know what a shallow argument is.”

No wonder you keep coming out with them.

“i just did. healthy enough to finish a triathlon”

And your throat is not clear yet. Maybe you should get a second opinion.

“my friend, don’t you realize that you were only able to show that the capitalists you mentioned openly wanted gloria to go WHICH WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR FROM YOU?”

And now you got BLINSIDED! AGAIN!

1)- “DO I RESPECT THESE CAPITALISTS WHO OPENLY DEMAND GLORIA’S REMOVAL? – yes”

2)- “you can say that the capitalists like the Ayalas and Lopezes pursue self-interest ahead of national interests. but as they pursue their self-interest they create jobs and business opportunities for suppliers along the way”

3)- “there’s only one opposition group I truly respect – the likes of Satur and Casiño. because i am assured that these people are really after the nation’s interests”

And so HOW ARE CLAIMS 1), 2), and 3) CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER?

“sorry if i doused cold water in your celebration”

You should use that cold water for your strawman. IT’S STILL BURNING IN YOUR FACE!

“You should have done your own homework”- justice league

“my friend, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE ASSERTION. turns out INITIALLY you have been insisting on something without basis.”

And your decision NOT to do your own homework is why you are getting blindsided.

Your “allies” should cringe at that thought.

And that is a disservice to whatever cause you decide to stand for as well as a disrespect to your “allies”.

“a look at that same NSCB info does not show an intent to get the reader to believe something else”

Intent is no longer relevant. It’s because they have to do it to follow the new criteria. But what still remains is that there is a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate with the new criteria than they would have been with the old one.

“my friend, employment data are not arrived at by simply deducting the number of unemployed Pinoys from the total workforce”

Again that is irrelevant. Because your issue is with the employment figures by actual count of employed people. And included in the actual count are those contributed by members of the opposition who create and maintain jobs and who want PGMA to go.

“???????????”

Well what you got is:

You got exposed as someone who would bastardize your adversary’s position on an issue and then try to pass it off as your adversary’s own.

You got exposed as someone terribly lacking reading skills. No one is perfect. We ALL make mistakes. But Saxnviolins and I tried several times to correct how you were reading the NSCB criteria. You claimed that you were reading it right.

Surely you read it SEVERAL times.

In the end you accepted that Saxnviolins was right and you were wrong. Whether you accepted or not that I was right is irrelevant. What is undisputed is that you have a drastic problem in reading skills.

If you can’t extricate yourself on the issue of capitalist opposition members who create jobs and call for PGMA’s resignation, then you been exposed as someone inconsistent with yourself.

You are exposed as irresponsible in defending your cause. Because it is brought not by inability but because you choose not to do your homework.

Well unless Grd and Mindanaon have something else to say, I guess I would be moving on now,

BTW,

I love the AVENGERS also.

But you have been exhibiting the same mindset that the Avengers displayed that prevented Ash from helping them against the zombie threat. So they got zombified which sent their MARVEL (alternate) universe straight to the dung heap.

anthony scalia on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 9:10 pm 



,

“Absolute and AquaSoft would have been nice. Unfortunately my tolerance does have its limit.”

ok then its those brands na lang

“No wonder you keep coming out with them.”

again – it takes one to know one.

“And your throat is not clear yet. Maybe you should get a second opinion.”

already did. clear enough to record the vocals for an 18-song rock album. death metal pa!

“And now you got BLINSIDED! AGAIN!”

yehey! pour out the champagne! naka jackpot si JLA! bilis, where’s the media?! JLA put one over the great anthony scalia! (even if the effect is like a mosquito biting a turtle’s shell)

“And so HOW ARE CLAIMS 1), 2), and 3) CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER?”

ehem.

again – i asked you specifically who are the capitalists who openly demanded “gloria resign” and once you supplied that, i will respond to your query “do i respect the JCOs?” since i said “the only opposition i respect is Satur et al”

then you gave proof that certain capitalists openly demanded gloria resign. since you supplied that info already, i was ready to answer your query “do i respect the JCOs” and i answered – yes

look my friend. you asked a question, i gave the answer.

don’t worry my friend. i understand where you’re coming from.

ganyan talaga ang nabubutata

nabutata na rin kasi ako in the past, and i did the very same things you are doing now, trying to find a loophole

“You should use that cold water for your strawman. IT’S STILL BURNING IN YOUR FACE!”

tsk tsk tsk tsk thats the effect of seeing 1.024 million jobs – you’re seeing things my friend

“And your decision NOT to do your own homework is why you are getting blindsided.”

oooh. i hope you realized that your approach is – you make an assertion without any bases, then just let the contrarians dispute it with bases. galeng mo man

“Your “allies” should cringe at that thought.”

actually they are cringing at the thought of your arguments on the whiffing out of 1.024 million jobs

sorry i can’t say the same of you – you don’t have any allies.

your sole ally saxnviolins suddenly became quiet

“And that is a disservice to whatever cause you decide to stand for as well as a disrespect to your “allies”.”

according to you

“Intent is no longer relevant.”

OH REALLY? only your interpretation matters for sure, eh?

“It’s because they have to do it to follow the new criteria. But what still remains is that there is a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate with the new criteria than they would have been with the old one.”

no problem with that. the problem is you concluded the creation of 1.024M jobs out of thin air, which is not the point of the studies you are citing

“Again that is irrelevant.”

WHAAAAAATTTTTTTT?????????

“Because your issue is with the employment figures by actual count of employed people.”

****FALLS FROM SEAT****

so….what’s….wrong….with….that….?….(owwww)

“And included in the actual count are those contributed by members of the opposition who create and maintain jobs and who want PGMA to go.”

***yawn***

if you will notice, your proof of “capitalist-oppositionists” is limited to the 71 who signed the manifesto. Cuisia and Purisima are not owners. Only Garrucho and Del Rosario are owners.

and the number of jobs they create? modest, but important nonetheless. oo nga pala, no matter how miniscule compared to the jobs created by call centers or construction of infrastructure, they are still creating jobs, which mean a lot to the previously-unemployed Pinoys holding them now.

“Well what you got is:
You got exposed as someone who would bastardize your adversary’s position on an issue and then try to pass it off as your adversary’s own.”

its because the adversary still refuses to recognize his own position!

“You got exposed as someone terribly lacking reading skills.”

takes one to know one mi amigo.

for me you read well.

“No one is perfect.”

true

“We ALL make mistakes.”

true

” But Saxnviolins and I tried several times to correct how you were reading the NSCB criteria. You claimed that you were reading it right.”

ahem. the rightness of your reading is limited to the following:

a. (1) (2) and (3) are cumulative
b. with the new redefinition, there will be unemployed who will be left out of the count, and who are these people – those unemployed > 6 months

i admitted that i initially thought (1) (2) and (3) are not cumulative

“Surely you read it SEVERAL times.”

oh yes. sorry but i can’t say the same thing with you. because of your insistence on seeing 1.024 million jobs created from you must have read it less than twice

“In the end you accepted that Saxnviolins was right and you were wrong.”

only on the cumulative nature of (1) (2) (3)

“Whether you accepted or not that I was right is irrelevant.”

are you kidding? in the first place- YOU ARE WRONG. YOU KEEP ON INSISTING ON THE 1.024M JOBS CREATED OF OUT A REDEFINED ‘UNEMPLOYED’

“What is undisputed is that you have a drastic problem in reading skills.”

ows, talaga? takes one to know one. ikaw talaga, nandadamay ka pa ng ibang tao.

another manifestation ng isang nabutata.

just focus on our main issue my friend –

____________________________________________
hey pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!

Whiffed out of thin air! MAGIC!

I’m sure if the Government comes up with a new definition to use, ie. like instead of 6 months the period is shortened to 2 months or so; millions of jobs are going to be magically lopped off that 10 million jobs you stated.”
justice league November 16th, 2008 at 2:24 am
__________________________________________

“If you can’t extricate yourself on the issue of capitalist opposition members who create jobs and call for PGMA’s resignation, then you been exposed as someone inconsistent with yourself.”

inconsistent? paano? butata ka lang kasi

di ba i just answered your query – yes i respect the JCO. so i just ‘extricated myself’

pero kawawa ka naman. i won’t rob you of the joy of perceiving an inconsistency on my part. fine with me. tuloy mo lang yan

“You are exposed as irresponsible in defending your cause. Because it is brought not by inability but because you choose not to do your homework.”

tsk tsk tsk. butata ka lang. nandadamay ka pa

you’re losing it my friend.

say all you want. bring out all the ad hominems

ill just stick with what you said:
____________________________________________
hey pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!

Whiffed out of thin air! MAGIC!

I’m sure if the Government comes up with a new definition to use, ie. like instead of 6 months the period is shortened to 2 months or so; millions of jobs are going to be magically lopped off that 10 million jobs you stated.”
justice league November 16th, 2008 at 2:24 am
__________________________________________

and

____________________________________________
Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.
Total unemployed persons by the new definition was
2,840,000.
The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:35 am
_____________________________________________

and leave it to the readers to evaluate your arguments

“Well unless Grd and Mindanaon have something else to say, I guess I would be moving on now,”

about time

“I love the AVENGERS also.”

noted

“But you have been exhibiting the same mindset that the Avengers displayed that prevented Ash from helping them against the zombie threat. So they got zombified which sent their MARVEL (alternate) universe straight to the dung heap.”

and you, you have been exhibiting that same mindset that prevented Hitler from discovering the incoming invasion of Normandy!

grd on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 9:43 pm 



interesting .

justice, one more time.

“ So let’s look at that NSCB matrix for January 2006.

Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.

Total unemployed persons by the new definition was 2,840,000.

The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.”
Justice league

“so where are the fictitious jobs of 1.024m?” grd

They are nowhere. Those jobs are fictitious after all. justice league

Justice, remember it was you not I or Anthony who made a claim about the 1.024m fictitious jobs (made from thin air). My problem w/ your above statement is that you’re equating the 1.024m to fictitious jobs rather than saying those numbers were not counted or excluded from the labor force under the new criteria for Unemployment. I agree that the purpose of the new definition is to manipulate the stats and make it appear that the Employment rate went up but my disagreement with your statement is when you equate the 1.024m to fictitious jobs.

So what I’m asking you, where is the 1.024m you claim as fictitious jobs shown in the matrix that you linked? You have to justify that. I already showed you the figures; under the old or new definition, Employment figure is the same – 32.384m.

The new definition simply reduced the labor force by excluding those 1.204m (as not meeting the new criteria) but the matrix never showed Employment rate went up because more jobs were generated.

Bert on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 10:54 pm 



you are right, grd, your favorite comic superheroes are really invincibles, that’s why I can’t keep myself from reading them and be amused.

Geo on Thu, 20th Nov 2008 11:08 pm 



And once again, I don’t think the purpose is to deceive.

1. The method now being used is common throughout the world.

2. In the last several years, the government has adapted many of it’s metrics to the latest int’l practices.

3. Official statistics typically refer to the old system or recalculate past figures using the new methodology.

4. In the countries that use this metric which includes “discouraged”, applications and parameters vary. But basically, this category includes those who, for example, went back to school, had kids, took early retirement, are staying at home to help, are being a criminal or junkie, whatever.

It’s amazing how innocuous bureaucratic adjustments become indicators of evil.

Yeah, all this data juggling is a sinister plot which will end with dictatorship. Sheesh.

grd on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 12:04 am 



geo, i’m giving concession. i’m focusing on one argument only.

mindanaoan on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 12:52 am 



justice league,

in the old or new criterion, government ENCOURAGEment doesn’t matter. what matters is if he or she is looking for work. discouragement is an excuse, but after six months of being unemployed and still not looking for work, he’s not a discouraged worker but a bum we’re dealing with and should not be counted in the labor force.

it’s not the government that wants to paint a better picture. it’s you who want to paint a worse picture.

grd on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 1:43 am 



bert,

i actually prefer discussing about our comic superheroes. but i got dragged into the path of our two main characters here.

anyway, let’s have a break.

Dodong este Dagohoy in the States

It was the first day of school in Washington, DC & a new student named Dagohoy, the son of a Filipino immigrant, entered the fourth grade. The teacher began,

“Let’s review some American history, class. Who said
‘Give me liberty or give me death?’”

She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Dagohoy’s who had his hand up,

“Patrick Henry, 1775.”

“Very good,” said the teacher.
“Who said ‘Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth?’”

Again, no response except from Dagohoy:
“Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, 1863,” he said.

The teacher snaps at the class, “Class, you should be ashamed, Dagohoy who is new to our country knows more about our history than you do.”

She hears a loud whisper from the back:
“Screw the Filipinos.”

“Who said that?” she demanded.

Dagohoy put his hand up.
“General John Pershing, Manila , 1896.”

At that point, Jack, another student says,
“I’m going to puke.”

The teacher glares and asks,
“All right! Now who said that?”

Again Dagohoy answers,
“George Bush, Sr. to the Japanese Prime Minister
during the state dinner, Tokyo , 1991.”

Now furious, another student yells,
“Oh yeah? Suck this!”

Dagohoy jumps out of his chair waving his hand and shouts to the teacher at the top of his voice,

“Bill Clinton to Monica Lewinsky, the Oval Office, 1997!!”

Someone shouts,
“You little shit if you say anything else, I’ll kill you.”

Dagohoy yells, “Congressman Gary Condit to Chandra Levy, Washington , D.C. , 2001!”

The teacher faints.

“I’m outta here!”
mutters one student as he sidles to the door.

“President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Baguio City , December 30, 2002!!” Dagohoy responds.

As the class gathers around her on the floor, someone says,

“Oh shit, now we’re really in big trouble!”

“Saddam Hussein, on the Iraq invasion, Baghdad , May 2003!” Dagohoy bellowed.

“Now, I really have to run,”
Jack mutters, heading for the exit,

“Gloria Macapagal Arroyo again, Pampanga, October 4, 2003!!!” Dagohoy shouts triumphantly jumping with glee.

Then a burly African-American boy grabbed Dagohoy and strangled him, about to give a fistful to a frightened Dagohoy. Then an Asian boy stood up and shouted,

“Hey easy on him. I’M A FILIPINO!”

Dagohoy then blurted out before he got socked out,

“Fernando Poe, Jr. Manila , January 2004!!!”

justice league on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 11:40 am 



mindanaoan :

“in the old or new criterion, government ENCOURAGEment doesn’t matter. what matters is if he or she is looking for work. discouragement is an excuse, but after six months of being unemployed and still not looking for work, he’s not a discouraged worker but a bum we’re dealing with and should not be counted in the labor force.

it’s not the government that wants to paint a better picture. it’s you who want to paint a worse picture.”

So you’re back for more.

Very well.

You yourself can gauge the quality of your issue once you’ve answered the question below.

We all know that people in prison are being taught livelihood projects.

So the question is DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE IN PRISON SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO LOOK FOR JOBS ONCE THEY RETURN TO SOCIETY?

Grd,

One more time then.

32.384m + NOTHING = ______________

Anthony Scalia,

Since Grd and Mindanaoan came back with issues; your concerns will be dealt with tonight.

mindanaoan on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 1:19 pm 



justice league,

we are discussing the definition of unemployment to use in gathering statistics. what the government should do with the unemployed, or with people in prison, is so far off-topic.

anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 3:34 pm 



grd,

there’s a 21st century version of “Screw the Filipinos” -

by benignO, dodong, supremo, whenever each one posts here

justice league on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 2:28 am 



GEO,

Your posts were not addressed to anyone so I skipped it. But I finally noticed that it may have been addressed to me.

I actually have no problem with the “availability” issue but more on the 6 months term on the “discouraged”.

Much of that has been discussed with Mindanaoan.

SO ALL OF MY POSTS FOR MINDANAOAN on Nov. 20, 3:48 PM, Nov 21, 11:40 AM, and including the one in here ARE NOW ALL ADDRESSED TO YOU.

Would you care to respond?

Mindanaoan,

“we are discussing the DEFINITION of unemployment TO USE in GATHERING STATISTICS. what the government SHOULD DO with the unemployed, or with people in prison, is so FAR OFF-TOPIC.

THAT IS FALSE!

Because it will have a bearing on the statistics itself.

And the statistics:

“The yearly observance aims to promote, enhance and instill awareness in the public about the need for statistics.
Statistics TELL decision-makers on where the country is, the rate it is proceeding, and whether targets are being met, Fusilero said.
Statistics HELP policy makers DRAFT THE RIGHT POLICIES in response to real problems, he said. “

“NSO commissioner leads Serbilis launch”
//www.pia.gov.ph/default.asp?m=12&sec=reader&rp=1&fi=p040917.htm&no=6&date=09/17/2004

Now that I have addressed that concern, will you now be answering the previous question?

Anthony Scalia,

“And your throat is not clear yet. MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET A SECOND OPINION.”- justice league

already did. clear enough to record the vocals for an 18-song rock album. death metal pa!

So the first consultation wasn’t really right. You needed a second opinion. See how taking my advice is good for you?

“yehey! pour out the champagne! naka jackpot si JLA! bilis, where’s the media?! JLA put one over the great anthony scalia!”

GREAT ANTHONY SCALIA?

I believe that’s called DELUSION OF GRANDEUR!

Seems you need a 3rd consultation. This time with a psychiatrist!

“And so HOW ARE CLAIMS 1), 2), and 3) CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER?”- justice league

“ehem.”

Oh man that’s bad. So your second consultation was no good after all. You should ask for your money back.

“again – i asked you specifically who are the capitalists who openly demanded “gloria resign” and once you supplied that, i will respond to your query “do i respect the JCOs?” since i said “the only opposition i respect is Satur et al”
then you gave proof that certain capitalists openly demanded gloria resign. since you supplied that info already, i was ready to answer your query “do i respect the JCOs” and i answered – yes”

“di ba i just answered your query – yes i respect the JCO. so i just ‘extricated myself’”

No! You FLIP FLOPPED ALREADY.

From only one group of opposition that you truly respect; NOW YOU RESPECT 2 groups of the opposition.

The group of Satur and Casiño and now the group of the capitalists who openly demanded PGMA to resign.

“nabutata na _ _ _ kasi ako in the past”

You are obviously re-experiencing it all over again.

“tsk tsk tsk tsk thats the effect of seeing 1.024 million jobs”

“actually they are cringing at the thought of your arguments on the whiffing out of 1.024 million jobs”

“no problem with that. the problem is you concluded the creation of 1.024M jobs out of thin air, which is not the point of the studies you are citing”

“oh yes. sorry but i can’t say the same thing with you. because of your insistence on seeing 1.024 million jobs created from you must have read it less than twice”

“are you kidding? in the first place- YOU ARE WRONG. YOU KEEP ON INSISTING ON THE 1.024M JOBS CREATED OF OUT A REDEFINED ‘UNEMPLOYED’”

“just focus on our main issue my friend”

“ill just stick with what you said:”

ALL OF THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED BY MY RESPONSE TO GRD on Nov. 20, 8 AM and Nov 21, 11:40 AM.

Yes. Let’s leave it to readers to evaluate ALL ARGUMENTS!

“ahem.”
That’s it. You need an ENT SPECIALIST.

“sorry i can’t say the same of you – you don’t have any allies.”

That is not true. Someone claims “purpose of the new definition is to manipulate the stats and make it appear that the Employment rate went up”.

But no doubt Mindanaoan will continue to show his/her support for you by coming back for more.

“****FALLS FROM SEAT****”

And now you might have to see an orthopedic too as well as undergo x-rays, etc….

“***yawn***”

Now that is serious. Did you hit your head on the floor or something?

I believe sleepiness after head injury might indicate brain trauma. And now you might need to see a neurologist or even a neurosurgeon as well. You are the kind of person feared by HMOs.

“so….what’s….wrong….with….that”

Because I’m not contesting the actual employment figures of actual employee count.

“if you will notice, your proof of “capitalist-oppositionists” is limited to the 71 who signed the manifesto. Cuisia and Purisima are not owners. Only Garrucho and Del Rosario are owners.”

That is now irrelevant. Based on your post on Nov. 19, 9:36 AM, you only asked me to “name one or some ‘JCO’”.

AND NOW YOU HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED 2.

This was more of a battle of ideas than it was an exchange. I thought you belonged to a certain profession. It is obvious now that you do not. People of such profession DO NOT ASK the kind of questions or DO NOT ASK to be provided with certain kinds of proof like you did. People of such profession look for them themselves and do not ask for such WHEN THEY KNOW SUCH EXISTS.

“and you, you have been exhibiting that same mindset that prevented Hitler from discovering the incoming invasion of Normandy!”

That is false. Hitler did not have the kind of evidence that I have.

Well unless Grd, Mindanaoan, and Geo come and raise issues; I will be moving on now.

justice league on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 2:55 am 



Correction:

This was more of a battle of ideas than it was an exchange. I thought you belonged to a certain profession. It is obvious now that you do not. People of such profession DO NOT ASK the kind of questions or DO NOT ASK to be provided with certain kinds of proof like you did. People of such profession look for them themselves and do not ask THE OTHER SIDE to produce such WHEN THEY KNOW SUCH EXISTS.

grd on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 3:53 am 



“32.384m + NOTHING = ______________” justice

Justice,

your formula is very wrong. the NOTHING that we are disputing is not equal to zero. In fact it has a value of 1.024m and should never be added in the Employed stats.

the correct formula for NOTHING can be derived from the complete Labor Force Survey for 2006.

here’s the complete Summary.

Jan. 2006 Labor Force Survey (using the new definition for unemployment)

1) 55.248m = 15 years old and over
2) 35,224m = Labor force
3) 32.384m = Employed
4) 2.840m = Unemployed

If you will analyze it, your NOTHING is way up there. it’s now part of the BIG NOTHING (my own term).

and what is BIG NOTHING?

BIG NOTHING = Unfit for work, people in prison, Ofw’s(?), UNEMPLOYED > 6MTHS)

formula: BIG NOTHING = item 1 – item 2 = 20.024m

of course our discussions will be irrelevant now if you say,

“Because I’m not contesting the actual employment figures of actual employee count.” justice league

then it’s all about your perception and according to your own interpretation of the stats. but isn’t our argument about dissecting the facts and figures here?

mindanaoan on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 4:08 am 



justice league, specifically, we are arguing whether the government is justified in using a time frame as a window for declassifying discouraged workers from the labor force, or if it is just whiffing jobs out of thin air. please note that the discouraged worker concept comes from the ILO, and that the ILO definition doesnt even have a time frame. so, tell me, how can our policy affect the international definition? if you believe it is whiffing jobs out of thin air, should you blame our government, or the ILO?

anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 7:55 am 



justice league :

“So the first consultation wasn’t really right.”

no it was. remember, the first consultation was on my over-all health.

“You needed a second opinion.”

no not really. the diagnosis for the throat came afterwards. i didn’t really need your reminder. but thanks anyway for the concern

“See how taking my advice is good for you?”

give yourself a round of applause

“GREAT ANTHONY SCALIA?”
I believe that’s called DELUSION OF GRANDEUR!”

no its not. by just reading your reaction on the JCO, you sounded like you JUST BEAT THE MAN

if were i not that great, you wouldn’t use, no , stress “BAD MOVE” “BLINDSIDED AGAIN” etc.

before our discussion, i felt i was just small stuff. but you, you just affirmed my true worth! THANKS JLA!

“Seems you need a 3rd consultation. This time with a psychiatrist!”

oh yes. because trying to further discuss your creation of 1.024 million jobs is dangerously hazardous to my mental heath

“Oh man that’s bad. So your second consultation was no good after all. You should ask for your money back.”

that time i almost choked because i came cross your claims on the 1.024 million jobs again. hence the ehem

“No! You FLIP FLOPPED ALREADY.”

pursuing your insistence on that – so what’s wrong with that?

and you can only use FLIP FLOP on me if i suddenly joined the anti gloria school

“From only one group of opposition that you truly respect; NOW YOU RESPECT 2 groups of the opposition.”

so what’s wrong with that?

“The group of Satur and Casiño and now the group of the capitalists who openly demanded PGMA to resign.”

ehem again. please be reminded who are those capitalists who openly demanded gloria’s removal. the fingers of your right hand are more in number!

“You are obviously re-experiencing it all over again.”

oh yes! Thanks to your reactions! The French call that deja vu right?

“Yes. Let’s leave it to readers to evaluate ALL ARGUMENTS!”

let me borrow one of your phrases – BAD MOVE!

“That’s it. You need an ENT SPECIALIST.”

i had to ehem because i almost choked just reading your comment

“That is not true. Someone claims “purpose of the new definition is to manipulate the stats and make it appear that the Employment rate went up”.”

oh? are you sure about that?

“But no doubt Mindanaoan will continue to show his/her support for you by coming back for more.”

oh yes! he sure will!

“And now you might have to see an orthopedic too as well as undergo x-rays, etc….”

oo nga eh. dahil sa yo owwwww

“Now that is serious. Did you hit your head on the floor or something?”

sa chair lang

“I believe sleepiness after head injury might indicate brain trauma.”

but brain trauma is no obstacle to an extensive discussion. you just showed that

“And now you might need to see a neurologist or even a neurosurgeon as well. You are the kind of person feared by HMOs.”

excuuuuzzzz me puh-leeeaaasssseee. i can pay in cash

(saka consultation lang naman di ba?)

“Because I’m not contesting the actual employment figures of actual employee count.”

oh really? yet you still insist on the creation of 1.024 million jobs from thin air!

“That is now irrelevant.”

nice way of skirting the issue. thanks for the lesson.

“AND NOW YOU HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED 2.”

OH MY. BIG DEAL.

“This was more of a battle of ideas than it was an exchange. I thought you belonged to a certain profession. It is obvious now that you do not. People of such profession DO NOT ASK the kind of questions or DO NOT ASK to be provided with certain kinds of proof like you did. People of such profession look for them themselves and do not ask for such WHEN THEY KNOW SUCH EXISTS.”

ano kamo?

whatever that is, i can take that. obviously you are not in my profession. i can understand where you are coming from. someone light years away from my profession

“That is false. Hitler did not have the kind of evidence that I have.”

according to you

“Well unless Grd, Mindanaoan, and Geo come and raise issues; I will be moving on now.”

about time

anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 8:09 am 



Justice League,

Correction:

This was more of a battle of ideas than it was an exchange. I thought you belonged to a certain profession. It is obvious now that you do not. People of such profession DO NOT ASK the kind of questions or DO NOT ASK to be provided with certain kinds of proof like you did. People of such profession look for them themselves and do not ask THE OTHER SIDE to produce such WHEN THEY KNOW SUCH EXISTS.
————————————————————————-

again, obvious nga. you’re not in my profession. understandable

you know what my friend, if you were in my profession, and you presented your arguments the way you did, i don’t have to present a rebuttal. i’ll just do what i did -point out that you just failed to prove your argument, using your own facts!

justice league on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 10:13 am 



Mindanaoan,

“justice league, specifically, we are arguing whether the government is justified in using a time frame as a window for declassifying discouraged workers from the labor force, or if it is just whiffing jobs out of thin air. please note that the discouraged worker concept comes from the ILO, and that the ILO definition doesnt even have a time frame. so, tell me, how can our policy affect the international definition? if you believe it is whiffing jobs out of thin air, should you blame our government, or the ILO?”

Our policy doesn’t affect the international definition.

But the ILO also provides for relaxation of the seeking-work criterion, and this is what the Philippines has adopted ever since.

The ILO criteria is (a) without work; (b) currently available for work; and (c) seeking work.

So we even have something it doesn’t; and that is OR NOT SEEKING WORK …………………………

Can you imagine what would happen if we simply do away with the NOT SEEKING WORK provision and totally follow the ILO criteria?

Those fitting in the NOT SEEKING WORK provision will be written off the labor force immediately.

So if you satisfy 1 and 2 but you are (b) awaiting results of previous job applications; (c) have a temporary illness/disability; (d) affected by bad weather; or (e) waiting for rehire/job recall; you are immediately cut from the labor force.

Simply adopting the ILO criteria will not automatically include the (b) awaiting results of previous job applications and (e) waiting for rehire/job recall to those seeking work because they are specifically included in the NOT SEEKING WORK provision.

And the new criteria has an impact on how the “discouraged” are likely going to be treated. And it is in the previous discussions we had.

SO YES! I BLAME THE GOVERNMENT.

Are you going to answer that previous question now?

Grd,

If you are referring to the 1.024m as persons; then those persons are real and you are correct in that they are now included in your BIG NOTHING.

But you were asking about the 1.024m FICTITIOUS JOBS. And that had a value of ZERO.

You can add zero anywhere and it wouldn’t make a difference in the final count. So I dramatized a point by the adding the value of the fictitious jobs to the REAL jobs held by those considered employed.

“then it’s all about your perception and according to your own interpretation of the stats. but isn’t our argument about dissecting the facts and figures here?”

Again, you were asking about the fictitious jobs and not specifically about the persons who got cut from the labor force because of the new definition.

And again, I’m not contesting the actual employment figures of actual employee count.

And I stated that “I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with NOTHING”- did I interpret that wrong?

Anthony Scalia,

“no it was. remember, the first consultation was on my over-all health.”

But your first consultation was supposed to be about your throat.

“no not really. the diagnosis for the throat came afterwards. i didn’t really need your reminder. but thanks anyway for the concern”

So the doctor gave you an assessment on your over-all health and the diagnosis for the throat came afterwards.

“no its not.”

Yes it is.

“by just reading your reaction on the JCO, you sounded like you JUST BEAT THE MAN
if were i not that great, you wouldn’t use, no , stress “BAD MOVE” “BLINDSIDED AGAIN” etc.”

Nope, could have used that on anyone.

Just because I thought you belonged to a particular profession doesn’t mean I thought of you as “great”.

“before our discussion, i felt i was just small stuff. but you, you just affirmed my true worth! THANKS JLA!”

Don’t let me keep you away from accepting your first feeling. Your true worth is that if this was a debate on stage; you’d be hounded by your allies off it.

“oh yes. because trying to further discuss your creation of 1.024 million jobs is dangerously hazardous to my mental heath”

that time i almost choked because i came cross your claims on the 1.024 million jobs again.”

“oh really? yet you still insist on the creation of 1.024 million jobs from thin air!”

Those jobs are again properly addressed by my discussion with Grd. If that is too hard for you mental health then you should consider rest.

so what’s wrong with that?

Nothing as long as you admit it.

“and you can only use FLIP FLOP on me if i suddenly joined the anti gloria school”

No, because you already flip flopped.

“From only one group of opposition that you truly respect; NOW YOU RESPECT 2 groups of the opposition.”- justice league

so what’s wrong with that?

Nothing really EXCEPT that your REASON for respecting one group can’t be used as YOUR basis for respecting the other.

You even frequently stressed on the REASON why you respect the Satur and Casino group as the only one opposition group that you respect. Are you using THAT SAME REASON for respecting the group of the capitalists who openly demanded PGMA to resign?

“ehem again. please be reminded who are those capitalists who openly demanded gloria’s removal. the fingers of your right hand are more in number!”

Irrelevant. You only need to respect one of those capitalists to put in doubt your basis for respecting members of the opposition.

“oh yes! Thanks to your reactions! The French call that deja vu right?”

And déjà vu is a SELF EXPERIENCE. So you are experiencing it all over again on yourself.

“Yes. Let’s leave it to readers to evaluate ALL ARGUMENTS!”- justice league
“let me borrow one of your phrases – BAD MOVE!”

NOPE!

“That is not true. Someone claims “purpose of the new definition is to manipulate the stats and make it appear that the Employment rate went up”.”- justice league

oh? are you sure about that?

I wanted to leave Grd out of this so I didn’t include a name. But if you have doubts; ask Grd.

“But no doubt Mindanaoan will continue to show his/her support for you by coming back for more.”- justice league
oh yes! he sure will!

And so he did and he will no doubt continue that.

“sa chair lang”

“but brain trauma is no obstacle to an extensive discussion. you just showed that”

And now you can’t distinguish who has the problem. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HIT THE CHAIR, right?

“excuuuuzzzz me puh-leeeaaasssseee. i can pay in cash”

Good for you. But don’t you want an x-ray or something?

“you know what my friend, if you were in my profession, and you presented your arguments the way you did, i don’t have to present a rebuttal. i’ll just do what i did -point out that you just failed to prove your argument, using your own facts!”

And how is that supposed to apply to your REASONING on respecting 2 groups of the opposition now?

Geo,

The new post for Mindanaoan is addressed to you too as well as the previous ones.

Well unless Grd, Mindanaoan, and Geo come and raise issues; I will be moving on now

Geo on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:02 am 



Justice,

Sure, I’d like to take you up on your suggestion. Problem is: I have no idea what you are trying to argue anymore.

So far, you’ve been wrong about the whole (un)employment issue on about every topic. What’s left that you need explained/clarified?

mindanaoan on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:06 am 



justice league, the government criterion is more generous to your argument than the ILO one, and you still blame the government?

“Our policy doesn’t affect the international definition.” so why should i entertain your irrelevant question?

you should be moving on now. go on, beat it!

anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 1:47 pm 



justice league

***Michael Jackson’s ‘Beat It’ playing in the background”***

“But your first consultation was supposed to be about your throat.”

no, for the entire body

“So the doctor gave you an assessment on your over-all health and the diagnosis for the throat came afterwards.”

yes, he said the info on the throat was to follow

“Yes it is.”

no it is not

“Nope, could have used that on anyone.”

yeah right

“Just because I thought you belonged to a particular profession doesn’t mean I thought of you as “great”.”

asus, that’s not my premise for the “great” tag my friend.

“Don’t let me keep you away from accepting your first feeling. Your true worth is that if this was a debate on stage; you’d be hounded by your allies off it.”

tsk tsk tsk denial king. no, really i should thank you for bringing out my true worth.

if i were larry bird, you’re michael cooper

“Those jobs are again properly addressed by my discussion with Grd. If that is too hard for you mental health then you should consider rest.”

oh yes! im really resting now. thank you

“Nothing as long as you admit it.”

***FALLS FROM SEAT AGAIN***

then…why…are…you…making…an…issue…out ..of…a…supposed…flip flop…on…my…part (owww)

you…were…like…a…senator…who…just…got…Bolante…
to..admit…gloria’s…hand…in…the… 728M (owww)

“No, because you already flip flopped.”

that’s not flip flop.

“Nothing really EXCEPT that your REASON for respecting one group can’t be used as YOUR basis for respecting the other.”

of course!

“You even frequently stressed on the REASON why you respect the Satur and Casino group as the only one opposition group that you respect. Are you using THAT SAME REASON for respecting the group of the capitalists who openly demanded PGMA to resign?”

already answered

“Irrelevant.”

oh no that word again

“You only need to respect one of those capitalists to put in doubt your basis for respecting members of the opposition.”

no my friend

“And déjà vu is a SELF EXPERIENCE. So you are experiencing it all over again on yourself.”

that’s right. without your reaction, that would not have come out.

hey i admitted it to you di ba? that “nabutata din ako in the past”?

“NOPE!”

denial king

“And now you can’t distinguish who has the problem. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HIT THE CHAIR, right?”

but i recovered right away. thanks to a Logan-like power

“Good for you. But don’t you want an x-ray or something?”

if the doctor says so

“And how is that supposed to apply to your REASONING on respecting 2 groups of the opposition now?”

haay naku. really obvious that you are not in my profession!

in my profession, one can change how he looks at reality up to some point in time, and as long as he can back up this new look at reality

besides, in your immortal words, “Nothing as long as you admit it.”

i respect 2 opposition groups. so?

wait let me borrow a word from NSCB – i just redefined the “opposition people” i respect

Give it up my friend. The allies have landed in Normandy.

Here comes the cavalry!

Sa akin pa lang butata ka na. How much more with the far-more-better allies?

justice league on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 8:58 pm 



Well sooner or later someone’s going to cite the Philippine Constitution on this.

justice league on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 1:45 am 



Anthony Scalia,

“asus, that’s not my premise for the “great” tag my friend.”

That was just an addendum.

“no, really i should thank you for bringing out my true worth.”

And you’re going to show that true worth by the amount of help you can extend to your allies, right?

And I don’t think you ever gave out your reason for respecting the JCOs. Some criminal syndicates have legitimate businesses that provide jobs too so that can’t be the reason.

“How much more with the far-more-better allies?”

No doubt they’ll be able to defend their stand on the criteria as ranged against the Constitution. But you’ll undoubtedly help them.

Geo,

“So far, you’ve been wrong about the whole (un)employment issue on about every topic. What’s left that you need explained/clarified?”

That’s debatable.

“Sure, I’d like to take you up on your suggestion. Problem is: I have no idea what you are trying to argue anymore.”

Then how about stacking the criteria against the Constitution? How does it measure?

Mindanaoan,

“the government criterion is more generous to your argument than the ILO one, and you still blame the government?”

Yes. Because the ILO is not answerable to our Constitution. But our government is.

Our policy doesn’t affect the international definition. Neither would our Constitution affect the international definition.

But at the end of the day, the policies, rules, laws, etc… of this land must conform to the Philippine Constitution.

Article II- Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY through POLICIES that provide adequate social services, PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life FOR ALL.
It should be obvious that the FOR ALL applies to all from provide adequate social services onwards.

So its …. Through policies that provide adequate social services for all

PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL

A rising standard of living for all

And an improved quality of life for all.

Article XIII Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT and equality of employment opportunities FOR ALL.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.

Same applies there.

But compared to the similar provision in the 1973 Constitution which states:

Section 9. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relation between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration.

The framers of the Constitution deliberately inserted FOR ALL in the present Constitution.

The DEFINITION of unemployment TO USE in GATHERING STATISTICS will have a bearing on the statistics itself.

“The yearly observance aims to promote, enhance and instill awareness in the public about the need for statistics.
Statistics TELL decision-makers on where the country is, the rate it is proceeding, and whether targets are being met, Fusilero said.
Statistics HELP policy makers DRAFT THE RIGHT POLICIES in response to real problems, he said. “

The new criteria at it is now runs counter to the wish of the Constitution for the State to promote full employment for all.

The very idea that a group of the “discouraged” are going to be cut from the labor force is not aligned with Constitution.

Since they have disappeared from the labor force, how can the State promote full employment for them?

The criteria itself serves as a disincentive for the State to lure the discouraged back to the labor force unless their jobs are assured.

Unless their jobs assured, these people once they seek jobs and fail to get one will bloat the labor force for the unemployed; bringing down the employment rate and raising the unemployment rate. Not a rosy picture.

It would be more in favor for a government wanting more to look good rather than fulfill the Charter to leave them as they are. Discouraged!

But criminal activities for gain are not legitimate jobs. But once caught and sent to prison, the government in turn teaches them livelihood projects. They are encouraged by the government to seek work upon re-entering society.

It’s as if it would be better for “discouraged” people to turn to a life crime.

Any thoughts on the matter from you three?

FilipinoWhiteBloggers on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 12:43 pm 



We at Filipino White Bloggers Group are advocates of PEACE. We condemn any acts that agitate fellow Filipinos to be violent against each other.

anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 2:53 pm 



justice league :

“And you’re going to show that true worth by the amount of help you can extend to your allies, right?”

no need. i don’t need to help them. besides, they are much better than me, so they’ll do well on their own, they don’t need me

“And I don’t think you ever gave out your reason for respecting the JCOs.”

i did. they create jobs. your idols the ‘united opposition’ vaporize jobs

“Some criminal syndicates have legitimate businesses that provide jobs too so that can’t be the reason.”

i don’t know

“No doubt they’ll be able to defend their stand on the criteria as ranged against the Constitution. But you’ll undoubtedly help them.”

i don’t have to.

justice league on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 2:57 pm 



Anthony Scalia,

AND YOUR TRUE WORTH IS NOW EXPOSED!

justice league on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 3:09 pm 



Anthony Scalia,

I gave you your chance for a more graceful exit.

You should have taken it.

anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 5:32 pm 



justice league,

***Michael Jackson’s Beat It playing in the background***

again – i know the feeling ng nabutata.

i empathize with you

***sound of Eddie Van Halen’s guitar solo in “Beat It”***

justice league on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 7:16 pm 



Anthony Scalia,

“again – i know the feeling ng nabutata.”

That is quite OBVIOUS!

A lawyer; even a dumb one wouldn’t make the kind of mistakes you made.

Well, unless Geo and Mindanaoan decide to come back to defend their stand; I’ll be moving on.

anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 8:05 pm 



justice league :

“A lawyer; even a dumb one wouldn’t make the kind of mistakes you made.”

again. for the nth time – obviously you’re not a lawyer!

“Well, unless Geo and Mindanaoan decide to come back to defend their stand; I’ll be moving on.”

again – for the nth time, its about time

mindanaoan on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 8:10 pm 



justice league, you are confused. the discouraged workers not counted as unemployed will not get lost from the statistics. it will decrease the unemployment rate but at the same time decrease the labor participation ratio. the criteria in fact gives better labor statistics, and hence lead to better policymaking.

justice league on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 8:35 pm 



Mindanaoan,

“you are confused. the discouraged workers not counted as unemployed will not get lost from the statistics. it will decrease the unemployment rate but at the same time decrease the labor participation ratio. the criteria in fact gives better labor statistics, and hence lead to better policymaking.”

Nope.

You are the one confused.

Either that or you are trying to replicate Scalia’s strawman tactic.

You are confusing getting lost FROM THE LABOR FORCE (which I claim) as getting lost from STATISTICS (which you claim that I claim).

And the Constitution still doesn’t back you up.

Well since you can’t defend your stand against the Constitution; only Geo’s return is relevant now.

justice league on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 8:43 pm 



Oooppsss.

May have misread your claim but you are still not defending your stand against the Constitution.

mindanaoan on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 8:49 pm 



justice league, i was being generous. it’s illogical to think someone can be cut off from the labor force just by not being counted as unemployed!

sorry, but like geo, i don’t understand what you are arguing anymore. you’re all over the place!

justice league on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 9:42 pm 



Mindanaoan,

“i was being generous. it’s illogical to think someone can be cut off from the labor force just by not being counted as unemployed!”

You’re definitely confused now.

Grd actually used a matrix often and you likely didn’t read his/her posts.

He/she actually made a good representation of the matrix on his/her Nov. 22, 3:53 am.

And it came from

//www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2006/lf0601tx.html

The labor force is ONLY COMPOSED OF THE EMPLOYED + THE UNEMPLOYED.

If you are considered as neither, you are not in the labor force.

There is a difference of 1.024m persons between using the old and the new criteria.

Try to find out where they went.

Unless of course you are equating NOT being counted as unemployed = being counted as employed.

And that was Anthony Scalia’s strawman tactic.

“sorry, but like geo, i don’t understand what you are arguing anymore. you’re all over the place!”

Why don’t you try the Constitutional stance of the criteria.

BTW, weren’t you the one who implied that definition of unemployment to use in gathering statistics was far off topic from what the government should do (policymaking)?

You seem to have had a change of heart.

BUT STILL NO DEFENSE OF YOUR STAND FOR THE CRITERIA AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

Unless you do so, only Geo’s return matters.

Geo on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 9:53 pm 



Can you state, in one sentence, what you are arguing?

Don’t ask me a question or refer to another entry…just tell me what you think is right/wrong about this/that.

mindanaoan on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 10:22 pm 



justice league,

by lost FROM THE LABOR FORCE as against getting lost from STATISTICS i thought you mean, cut off from the labor force, not really available for work, which is illogical.

Try to find out where they went.

like i said, they will show up in the decrease of the participation ratio.

You seem to have had a change of heart.

BUT STILL NO DEFENSE OF YOUR STAND FOR THE CRITERIA AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

you were not paying attention. i said, the criteria gives better statistics (policymakers will notice the falling participation ratio, rather than the constant unemployment rate). better statistics leads to better policy. how is that not aligned with the constitution?

sorry, but i don’t find the discussion interesting anymore.

gtg.

justice league on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 10:26 pm 



Geo,

Very well.

I believe that the criteria doesn’t fulfill the wishes of the Constitution THAT THE STATE PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL THAT WILL FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY!

You may read further below if you wish that statement to be clarified.

Like i said, I believed the availability issue was valid.

But since I can’t find any data on how many will be cut by using either the availability and the 6 month term for cutting off those who did not look for jobs; I was forced to use the TOTAL cut from the labor force by using the new criteria as against the old criteria.

As indicated in the 2006 matrix; 1.024m persons were cut off from what would have been considered as unemployed if the old criteria was still used.

And hence those 1.024m persons are no longer in the labor force.

I shall copy paste now pertinent issues from a previous post so it will be easier for you to read without referring to the old ones and add further issues as I believe important.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –

But at the end of the day, the policies, rules, laws, etc… of this land must conform to the Philippine Constitution.

Article II- Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY through POLICIES that provide adequate social services, PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life FOR ALL.
It should be obvious that the FOR ALL applies to all from provide adequate social services onwards.

So its …. Through policies that provide adequate social services for all

PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL

A rising standard of living for all

And an improved quality of life for all.

Article XIII Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT and equality of employment opportunities FOR ALL.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.

Same applies there.

But compared to the similar provision in the 1973 Constitution which states:

Section 9. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relation between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration.

The framers of the Constitution deliberately inserted FOR ALL in the present Constitution.

The provision that includes the issue of full employment is even issued TWICE in the present Constitution while it is issued only once in the 1973 Constitution.

And that’s because then Commissioner and future CJ Hilario Davide jr. lobbied that the provision not only be in the state policies but also in the ARTICLE XIII SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS because of its importance.

Apparently the framers believed his view.

The DEFINITION of unemployment TO USE in GATHERING STATISTICS will have a bearing on the statistics itself.

“The yearly observance aims to promote, enhance and instill awareness in the public about the need for statistics.
Statistics TELL decision-makers on where the country is, the rate it is proceeding, and whether targets are being met, Fusilero said.
Statistics HELP policy makers DRAFT THE RIGHT POLICIES in response to real problems, he said. “

The new criteria at it is now runs counter to the wish of the Constitution for the State to promote full employment for all.

The very idea that a group of the “discouraged” are going to be cut from the labor force is not aligned with Constitution.

Since they have disappeared from the labor force, how can the State promote full employment for them?

The criteria itself serves as a disincentive for the State to lure the discouraged back to the labor force unless their jobs are assured.

Unless their jobs assured, these people once they seek jobs and fail to get one will bloat the labor force for the unemployed; bringing down the employment rate and raising the unemployment rate. Not a rosy picture.

It would be more in favor for a government wanting more to look good rather than fulfill the Charter to leave them as they are. Discouraged!

But criminal activities for gain are not legitimate jobs. But once caught and sent to prison, the government in turn teaches them livelihood projects. They are encouraged by the government to seek work upon re-entering society.

It’s as if it would be better for “discouraged” people to turn to a life crime.

justice league on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:31 am 



Mindanaoan,

Obviously this will be just for information exchange.

April 2005 was the start of the implementation of the new criteria.

So I linked the labor force survey matrix.

April

2005- //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2005/lf0502tx.html

2007- //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2007/lf0702tx.html

in that link was already a comparison for the 2006 rates.

2008- //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2008/lf0802tx.html

Based on the matrices indicated; the labor participation rate from 2005-2008 have been

64.8% – 64.8% – 64.5% – 63.2%

Well the Labor participation rate was indeed falling.

And whatever policy you claim would arise out of policymakers noticing a falling Labor participation doesn’t seem to work.

justice league on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 7:01 am 



Mindanaoan,

And yes, those cut off led to a decrease in the labor participation rate.

But policymakers don’t seem to care about it as based on the April surveys for 4 consecutive years.

khris on Mon, 8th Dec 2008 6:50 pm 



i havent really check this blog in a long time got tired of explaining to these people why impeaching pgma now is not the best thing to do.

this discussion is like converting a catholic to atheism and vice versa. kung sino ung catholic and atheist well up to you guys.

i just think that we all agree that the people trying to oust pgma are no better than her.

and when those people successfully ousted pgma then basically they will just go back to square 0.

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.