Are we?

There’s a poignant article by the late Teodoro M. Locsin, which is as close to a meditation on freedom and resistance as I’ve ever read by that great writer.

Taking his cue from Ninoy Aquino’s famous statement, “The Filipino is worth dying for,” Locsin asks, “Is He?” And he proceeds to catalog the frustration, the sense of futility, the isolation oppositionists felt as a society gloated -even exulted- in the blessings of living under a dictatorship. And Locsin asks -as intelligent people asked, at that time- are a people so stupid that they would avidly embrace dictatorship, worth fighting, even dying, for? As Locsin wrote, still bitter a decade after the event he recounted,

There was no demonstrations of any consequence for years and years. While the Opposition dwindled into insignificance – except the Communist rebels in the hills’ business boomed. With borrowed money much of which the dictatorship stole. National economic growth rose with national foreign debt. The future of the Filipino people was morgaged more and more to foreign banks greedy for interest on their Arab deposits. The children will have to pay, but the parents did not care. The dictatorship was riding high on the back of the Filipino people and they did not feel the weight.

When Ninoy, in ultimate defiance and despair, went on a hunger strike, Masses were held for him in St. Joseph’s Church in Greenhills. A hundred or two showed up. An American Jesuit, Reuter, and a Filipino, Olanguer, said Mass for Ninoy, witnesses to his cause. The currently most conspicuous member of the order busied himself with teaching constitutional law and judicial resignation to Marcos’s “revolutionary” government. A banker showed up. No other demonstration for what Ninoy was slowly, painfully, straving himself to restore: the rule of law, not the rule of one man.

Read the whole essay, its aching bitterness, its skepticism about the capacity of the human condition to even acknowledge, much less comprehend, the isolated cases of goodness people demonstrate.

News today:

Solicitor-General asks Supreme Court to lay off cases questioning Proclamation 1017. Deficit drops by 5 billion and GMA praises GMA. Fr. Intengan gives Palace propagandists a hot beef injection. Congressmen are scurrying to collect each other’s autographs for the big dance.

Emil Jurado defends the President with the same slavish enthusiasm he used to defend Ferdinand Marcos. His column observes,

Let’s take the case of the ANC “breaking news” coverage of the Feb. 26 standoff of Marines at Fort Bonifacio, a very critical and incendiary internal Marine problem that could have resulted in a bloody showdown.

I watched the ABS-CBN coverage, and I must say, as somebody who has gone full circle in print, radio and television, that the ANC coverage could have ignited an already inflammatory situation when Marine Col. Ariel Querubin called for people power after his commandant was being relieved. The questions were leading with so much conjectures and speculations.

Yes, there was a need for people to know what was happening. But, the situation at Fort Bonifacio presented a clear and present danger if bloodshed. And this was made worse with politicians and anti-GMA elements getting into the act “bastardizing” people power and even prayers.

This is what I mean that media should draw the line in the name of press freedom and right of the people to information, not at the expense of national security and interests. In the first place, broadcast media are covered by standards precisely mentioned in their franchise, and as a member of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas, ABS-CBN has to abide by KBP Code of Conduct and Standards.

I have to wonder though how Torn & Frayed (who described the ANC coverage as “exemplary”) and Jurado could have seen the same thing so differently. Anyway, Jurado then goes on to say,

I have some comment over the inciting to sedition charges filed against The Daily Tribune publisher-columnist Ninez Cacho-Olivares and columnists Ike Señeres and Herman Tiu Laurel, who are crying “harassment” against the Arroyo administration. If you can dish it out, you should be able to take it.

Olivares, Señeres and Laurel may not realize it, but the filing of the inciting to sedition charges against them has its beneficial and salutary effects since it draws the line how far press freedom can go.

It’s actually good for media as a whole since press and expression are so sacrosanct freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. But, the question that needs answer is: How far can this freedom go?

I remember telling a colleague when this news broke, that one of the things I can never forgive the President for doing, is reducing media to having to rally around and defend a bigot like Herman Tiu Laurel. But there you have it.

Tony Abaya says the government was correct in many ways, but wrong in others, and suggests the government may be able to look forward to a self-coup come July. Yes, folks, the autogolpe idea is still in play.

In the blogosphere, Philippine Commentary asks lawyers to analyze official documents. Speaking of lawyers, Punzi questions the authority of the National Telecommunications Commission to issue the circulars it has sent out.

Focus on the Supreme Court: Disini comes out blog hibernation, and tackles how the Supreme Court might sidestep some of the more explosive issues surrounding the proclamation of a state of national emergency. OFW in Hong Kong hopes the Supremes will dazzle the country. Kumintang says it’s all about conscience.

Fried Neurons is irked. He objects to the phrase “inciting to sedition.” He says it should be “inciting sedition.” My own view is that the Penal Code provisions are colonial, outmoded, and should be thoroughly revised by Congress.

Alternation 101, apparently, is oppositionist, but blames media.

Concerns of a Bystander has grim forecasts for the future. Red’s Herring says we are in a state of war. Tambayan ni Paeng discusses apathy, and how a taxi driver’s prepared to join rallies -once he meets his daily quota.

Overseas, interesting entries about the Thai PM’s political troubles. Never Trust a Hippy compares the Thai and Italian PM’s -and points to media’s emergence as a force even stronger than the state. The World of Fat4 defends the Thai PM. Meanderings has a good roundup on the situation. Keeping the red flag flying is an intriguing article on an economist critical of Thaksin.

In what might emerge as a regular epistolary department, some Rotarians send an open letter to fellow Rotary member Joc-Joc Bolante (emphasis as in the e-mail original):


Dear PDG Bolante,

Over the past 100 years, Rotary International has been been involved in humanitarian work dealing with various socio-civic advocacies such as poverty and hunger, illiteracy, violence, and environmental degradation. As a result of this humanitarian work done throughout the century, the name Rotary has become synonymous with the words “volunteerism”, “socio-civic consciousness”,  “humanitarian work”, and “leadership.”

The one constant theme that defines Rotary from all other socio-civic organizations is its commitment to service, as contained in the Rotary motto “service above self.” This service is defined by the high ethical standards embodied in the 4-way Rotary test: truth, fairness, goodwill, and benefit to all.

It was because of these lofty ideals and values that we young Rotarians chose to become Rotarians. In doing so, we made a solemn commitment to uphold these ideals and values, and to protect all that Rotary stands for.

Our Club was chartered a few weeks after you wrote your Vision for The Philippine Rotary; and your patriotic essay was one of the early reading materials that affirmed us and our hopes as a new club during the first conferences that we attended for planning our activities. You ended that visions statement with a strong if “we as Rotarians shall move toward a coalition of forces to bring back the basic principles and tenets of Rotary into action”…the answer lies in our hands as Rotarians. It therefore pains us that you, a long-time Rotarian, a Past District Governor of Rotary District 3830 in the Philippines and now an esteemed Director of the Rotary International – have been allegedly involved in the controversy surrounding the “anomalous” disbursement of the Department of Agriculture Fertilizer Fund which was allegedly used to peddle influence and buy votes to ensure the election of a Presidency that is now accused of massive cheating.

You were given the opportunity to express the truth in scheduled senate hearings, but you chose instead to have your time available for ROTARY MATTERS SUCH AS THE ROTARY INSTITUTE more than national interest. ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR GESTURES ARE – _EXPRESSION OF THE FOUR WAY TEST?

We, your fellow Rotarians, expect nothing less from you as one with such a lofty vision statement. The answer to the controversy surrounding the fertilizer fund of the Department of Agriculture lies in your hands. We have watched and waited for you to reveal what needs to be revealed for several months in disappointment. Your refusal to reveal the truth is, to us, irresponsible and cowardly. We believe that such a position has prejudiced not just Rotary but the entire Filipino people. Know, as we know, that your silence adds to our people’s suspicion and paranoia in the present administration. See, as we see, your accountability in this social unrest we have reached and whatever socio-economic/political divisions our country will face in the future. May you find no blood in your hands should violence erupt in our precarious state now.

As fellow Rotarians and as fellow Filipinos who care deeply about our country, we urge you then to step up to the challenge as you challenged every Rotarian in your vision statement. Do the right thing with no further delay and make that vision a shining moment in our lives as it becomes a mission accomplished by a heroic Rotarian. We beseech you to come forward and speak the truth, instead of skulking in the shadows. Do what is right and what is fair and beneficial to all.

We are at a critical juncture of our nation’s history, and what you choose to do or not do will forever be etched in the memory of young Rotarians such as ourselves. WE CHOOSE NOT TO FORGET! Let it not be said that we did not do our responsibility to care for the Rotary and our country when the power to speak up and do something were in our hands. Let it likewise not be said that we have been betrayed by our elders by directly violating the very first principle of Rotary–speaking and living out the TRUTH.

As one of our leading Statesmen, Jovito Salonga, said…”You can only unite a country based on TRUTH and JUSTICE. You cannot expect unity when there is no TRUTH “…

We await the truth to come from you!


Members of the Rotary Club of Mapasan
(the first ever club in the Rotary World organized by TRF Scholars Alumni)

Floro Francisco – President 2005-2006

Jun Bernad – Charter President

Sed Candelaria – Past President 2004-2005

Del Domingo – Past President 2003-2004

Oscar Bautista – Vice President and President Elect
Cristy Fuentes – Secretary

Miel Reyes – President Nominee 2007

Gina Resultan – President Nominee 2008
Irene Besido-Garcia,
Belay Ambrosio,
Nanah Herce,
Vibien de Guzman,
Mari Blardony,
Iya Santiago
Susan Bautista

Dennis Maximo

Mike Magpily

To close up today’s blog roundup:

World Famous in the Philippines points out the era of telegraphy is dead.

Paolo rants about podcasts. In his first podcast.

Poor Jove is grappling with being the last Filipino left in the Philippines -among his group of friends.

And latest to link: thank you to Trix Unmixed

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Manuel L. Quezon III.

79 thoughts on “Are we?

  1. all i’m saying not until someone comes forward to admit to an elligal wire tap tape can anyone get the ball rolling, not until that happens or will ever happen it’s like holding on a useless tape.a tape w/ so many version, mother of all tapes, grandmother etcc……the children….
    i like that line – those searching for the truth will be quenched -.
    they can also die of thrist squezzing the stone thinking they will get somewhere w/ it.
    like i said the tapes where brought out for other reasons.

  2. Jon Mariano,

    The lack of intellectual analysis re the tapes has been very disturbing (to me, at least). Instead, we get smart people repeatedly spewing one theoretical line as if it’s gospel. Too many of those smart people have been openly espousing a political position for a long time…one which happens to neatly fit with their “analysis” of the “truth” behind those tapes. Why don’t we individuals step back and do our own thinking?

    Keep asking those questions, Jon. Try answering them without resorting to that one line of thought. Open your mind; lay out the different possible theories (even ones which seem a bit too conspiratorial or initially too “out of the box”) and try your best to see how much you can make each theory make some sense. Perhaps you’d find (if you stay detached from your own or anyone else’s biases) that there are a few — not just one — theories which make a good amount of sense and which fit other known/circumstantial facts.

    And please don’t accuse me of being pro-GMA because I ask that people open their minds; I’m pro-analysis. In fact, just ignore me; just do your own intellectual exercise with complete disregard for the anti, pro and indifferent political positions that are dominating today’s thought waves.

    There’s no room for politics while performing intellectual analysis.

    So…you asked: who might get hurt? Good start. Why aren’t the original tapes not out in the open? Who has them? How did they get them? Who made them in the first place? Why? Was the wiretapper ordered to do so? By whom? Or was it just for cash? Cash from who?

    Look deeper, wider. What other wiretapping has been known…or is suspected of being performed? By whom? For what purpose? With who’s permisssion or by who’s orders?

    What’s the difference between various wiretapping methodologies? How is each method actually carried out? What are the inherent problems of each method? How is each method uncovered, preempted or countered by a potential/actual victim? What are the tell-tale signatures of each different method?

    In my opinion, the above questions are just the tip of the iceberg; just the beginning of a thorough analysis.

    Why haven’t any of the players…from all sides of the political spectrum…performed such an analysis? The only time I saw any faint wisp of investigation/questioning, the “expert witness” didn’t even know the difference between GPS and GSM.

    Here we are 9 months after the tapes surfaced and there continues to be a lot of extremely pertinent issues and questions which haven’t been touched/asked. Not good.

    A real “search for truth” starts with analysis, no?

  3. lynda, are you aware that the lopezes supported marcos as against supporting macapagal then. because they where so ambitious. look what happend to them. marcos screwed them.they where greedy but marcos was more greedy.
    if you look at the history of siete.they grew from rugs to riches.they have the upper hand because they are not tainted w/ politics & that makes a world of difference.
    funny, inq & siete have a web site together.
    but siete delivers the news like when one reads the philstar where you get accurate balanced news.
    insted, abs news is like reading inq..
    lynda, i don’t need idols.
    i don’t need to judge & demonize to prove my point.
    throughout the time that i have been blogging i have always been consistent.
    i’m not even into popularity games.
    i would like to beleave that i’m resoning out of the box.

  4. Geo, the last time I encountered an argument along the lines of “There’s no room for politics while performing intellectual analysis,” it was reading a book by a Concentration Camp inmate who was drafted to be Josef Mengele’s assistant. Scary.

    You keep asking for the net to be cast far and wide ignoring all the other fishermen out there, and the wriggling contents of their catches.

  5. joselu, you’re more than entitled to your views on the star, etc. as a reader and viewer, and to pointing out the lopezes like so much of the country supported marcos in 65 and 69. but you either don’t know, or choose to overlook, the involvement of enrile, imelda marcos, and marcos himself in the takeover of channel 7 from the stuart family that established the station, or the ongoing legal wrangling since then over who really has the alleged marcos shares in the network.

  6. Sorry to come back just as this lively thread is suffering rigor mortis, but I do want to say how much I agree with A de Brux’s point about the irony of the Arroyo administration complaining about sensational reporting. The more I think about it, the more outrageous this claim is. Who is first to appear beside the corpse of a criminal suspect, looking either (i) grim (this is evil and I am her to stamp it out), or (ii) triumphant (see, I stamped it out!)? I have never seen a national leader so eager to pander to her countrymen’s basest instincts through the tabloids than the current president of the Philippines.

    In this context, I’m very glad Jon Mariano pointed out the Acsa Ramirez case. Surely no one who really looked at the way the Macapagal-Arroyo government handled that incident could possibly think these people are fit to govern. I have seen 10-year-old schoolchildren behave with more decency and dignity.

  7. mlq3 wrote:

    “Geo, the last time I encountered an argument along the lines of “There’s no room for politics while performing intellectual analysis,” it was reading a book by a Concentration Camp inmate who was drafted to be Josef Mengele’s assistant. Scary.”

    ***Goodness, mlq3, what a response. A call for further investigation and analysis can somehow be equated with genocide? That’s the best you can come up with???
    mlq3 also wrote:

    “You keep asking for the net to be cast far and wide ignoring all the other fishermen out there, and the wriggling contents of their catches.”

    ***A much better attempt to ridicule the notion of using one’s mind to try to understand a murky, complex situation.

    Nonetheless, both comments completely ignore the issues I raised. Rather disappointing.

  8. i’m glad you’re disappointed geo. there has to come a point when those piously pleading for the deck chairs on the titanic to be rearranged for aesthetic effect, have to be firmly told the iceberg’s already been struck. you can do a post mortem later if you wish.

  9. manolo, i understand where your loyalties are.i also understand that it’s not nice to bite the hands that feed you.
    in a way your credibility & objectivity will suffer because it is a fact that the lopezes in the past have made wrong moves & they continue to push their weight around.they where so obsessed to be “king makers” that it was them who got screwed at the end.
    about enrile, imelda having a hand in siete.i have my doubts.because everything imelda touches turns ugly.if there where really big people behind can you explain that it was only in these last couple of years that they have grown?how is it possible that a station grow from rugs to riches & bloom only in these last couple of years when there are big people behind it? you seem to forget that it was freddie garcia that gave it a direction then. if it’s true what you come such a story has not come out yet in our reckless society.
    in the martial law years siete w/ tina monzon palma & jose mari velez where the source of credibility.
    i won’t be surprised if you dig-up something just like you did on the arroyo hasiendas in deffence of santa cory.siete is having problems opening it’s stocks to the market because the 3 families that substantialy control it are still working out a formula so that they don’t get diliuted & lose managment because it seems that they are doing a good job.
    don’t get we wrong.i’m just being objective.something that you can’t be cause you can’t talk bad about your masters.
    it’s funny that you are there judging others while you are imperfect too.

    sorry manolo, i had to send this twice cuz i’m not sure the first one passed

  10. Speaking from the point of view of somebody who will never be able to find by himself the truth regarding the Garci Tapes, I am not making any conclusions. But as reasonable as I can be, and as honest as I can be to myself, I cannot just forget and move on. I will move on (with life), but continue looking, and waiting for the truth to come out. It’s that important to me.

    Geo, if you need a deeper analysis to be convinced that dastardly acts has been committed re 2004 presidential elections, that’s your choice. How many souls you can influence to think the way you do is another issue altogether.

    Re the points at comment #44. Given those basic facts, it’s also good for us (including Geo) to analyze the reactions people made. We can ask further questions:
    1. Why did Bunye present those two versions of the CDs? That act was definitely trying to do something.
    2. Why did Gloria Arroyo say sorry, but in an ambiguous way? Up to this day, she remains dodgy about it.
    3. What really happened to Vidal Doble, Sammy Ong?

    The acts that beg these questions to be answered; in our society, are acts of “guilty” men(of course, not proven). Why did they do those acts? We may never know the answers “acceptable” to most of us. It is very sad if that happens because if indeed malicious acts were than, those responsible will not be punished. On the other hand, if there was really nothing happened, those whose names were tainted will not be able clear their name.

  11. jon, pls. tell me who in the world would ever admit to a piece of evidence illegaly obtained & to w/c no one in a million years will ever admit too.
    ong is hidding cause he very well knows that he is laible to the can only continue hidding cause the effect he wished would happen did not happen.he was not able to fool the majority.
    about noble, why don’t we just ask the military about him.
    a piece of evidence whoes only purpose is to corner a person,not to mention divide the people & saw doubt.
    why don’t you also ask who would profit from the demolition job on pgma?why not think harder & think about motives?why not think harder yet why nobody is owning up to the tapes?
    it’s like i went to your house to set it on fire & i dissapear in the shadows.while you are there accusing all your guest of setting your house on fire.
    pgma will naturaly be dodgy about & we can’t force her to admit to something that won’t stand in court.
    it seems to me bunye was trying to prempt the tapes.the only thing is that it was a well planned conspiracy that tapes where properly distributed already.
    remember the congress report also mentione about a conspiracy.but who cares what they say cause it’s not what certain people want to hear.
    that’s our problem, we have made up our minds & we are just sugar-coating it w/ fancy words & quotes from other people.but down below there is not logic or reason that we will ever accpet.
    i would like to beleave that we are showing strenght & character. but it seems we are far from the mark.
    jon, sorry to say, but your asking always the same question & never seem to move on from #1 as if your waiting for an answer that will agree w/ your fillings if you want the truth but your selecting the truth that will agree w/ your fillings.

  12. Joselu, do you know who deep throat of the Nixon fame was? He was so super secret, yet in the end he allowed himself to be known.

    Have you read the Graphic Magazine regarding the admission of First Gent Arroyo? Why did he talk about their plans for the 2001 EDSA?

    You see, the truth has its own way of being known. Maybe not now, but it ultimately does. I’m quite sure that the truth regarding the Garci tapes will be known in the future.

  13. You’re a man of contradictions Joselu.

    In your comment regarding Bunye’s two CDs you said “it seems to me bunye was trying to prempt the tapes.the only thing is that it was a well planned conspiracy that tapes where properly distributed already.”

    Don’t you see anything wrong with what you just said? Don’t you ask yourself why did they substitute Ruado’s voice with that of the person that sounds like Garci?

  14. yes jon, because they new in the last min. that it was a way they where playing self defence.i don’t know what can be so contradictory to i said already, it was a well planned thing that the authors of the tapes positioned themselves was a well planned they tried to use the ruado card & it did not work.
    but it still does not answer if anyone will ever admit to the tape.
    jon, it’s like holding a useless item of no legal i always say it’s just for division & doubt.ask any lawyer how far all these arguments will go w/o hiting a wall since no one will ever admit to them anyway.

  15. yes jon, i watched the documentary on national it’s another addition to your wish list that such a deep throat really exsist.until that happens we are all in the dark.
    the graphic magazine thing i have not there a web site i can check out for that.
    yes we will know more in the future.but in the present we must not let it distruct us from moving on.
    we have serious problems to solve & find solutions for.lets stop using those same problems for other ends.

  16. now again we are back to square one- the tape that started this mess.

    Ewan bakit mahirap ba na intindihin na boses ni gloria yung nasa tape.

    joselu, sinasabi mo “a piece of evidence whose purpose is to corner a person, to devide the people…” you know if the tape doesn’t really tell somthing, bakit matatakot ka na merong ma co-corner?

    kung hindi guilty si gloria, coming out with the spliced “gary tape” was not really necessary. You ask for openness of mind but you won’t open your mind and make a logical expalnation on the actuation of Bunye coming out with two tapes.

    Diyos ko! Ginoo.

  17. Thanks fencesitter, that is exactly my point: Joselu’s mind is closed.

    To him, it’s okay to falsify the voices (by using Ruado’s voice) to defend Malacanang’s version. To him, Bunye did not lie (remember Bunye said the Ruado voice as the real one?). He clearly tried to coverup! Kasi sabi niya ang opposition daw ang gumawa noong “doctored” CD, which turned out to be the copy of the ones from Mr. Ong!

    To him, the truth is “the tapes are just there to bring down Gloria and divide the Filipino”.

    Joselu, you’re not searching for the truth, and there’s a really big problem with your logic and sense of justice. Gising!

  18. fencesitter, maybe we are being over simplistic about something really very complicated.
    we obviously see something from one point of view.
    pgma sees things from another point of view.
    from what i can imagine at very high levels of power & a power struggle things are not always as simple as we simple mortal imagine it.
    it also shows if they where able to make doctor the tape so are others capable to make doctor the tape that at the end who will relly know what is the real one from the fake one.above all why don’t the authors of the tape ever come forward & why do they continue to hide in the shadows.enjoying the sight of people argueing w/ each other.they must be having fun seeing what a good job they did.
    fencesitter, sadly, at times things are not always logical,maybe it’s best to ask bunye on why he did what he did.
    personaly, due to the confussion of the situation & the lack of so much information, i would not make any conclussions giving value to a tape that is very questionable.i would not even use it as a bases to pass judgment.
    actually because my mind is open, i’m not making any conclussion about the tape.i’m asking why those ah’s did it? i’m asking, what are their motives? i’m asking why did they not release it during the canvassing that it would have helped it because they did not want fpj to profit from it?so if it’s not fpj that would profit from it, then who?
    because i have an open mind i’m asking question to understand what value to give the tapes.
    in a way what bunye did becomes secondary because he was not the object of the attack of the tape.
    jon, like i said in the past. i did not allow myself to be controled by the tape from the start.i have always seen it as a divisive act that leads to nowhere.
    remember that the truth is relative.what could be so difficult & problematic for some can be very simple & understandable for others.
    the truth is not something we find outside of is something we have inside us.expressed through strenght in character & self confidence. it’s a certain kind of yabang that makes us strong not be be carried away by the winds & noises.
    bottom line, you have to figure it out yourself by thinking very hard & being strong.
    anyone who tells you what the truth is is fooling you.

  19. “in a way what bunye did becomes secondary because he was not the object of the attack of the tape”

    That’s an open mind? Whoa! That’s serious denial Joselu. There’s nothing wrong with that? It was not some kind of coverup?

  20. jon, denial is knowing you have to face something & you can’t get yourself to face it.
    denail is a refusal to accept’s when you hope aginst hope & just continue to wish for things to happen.
    maybe in this case it’s you who is not facing the fact that an elligaly obtained evidence will never stand in court.
    maybe your running away from the fact that until there is a warm body who admits to the tape & submits the original all you have is an “empty bag”.you probably think that you know & are so convinced of something & would hope that others see it your way too.
    our difference is that your completely sold to the tapes whereus the majority are not.
    i have nothing to deny cause long ago i have recognized the facts of the case.
    like what i have always said, all it has is destructive value.
    i’m at peace but i don’t see you being at peace.
    the tape is something that is begging for answers.starting from who did it, the motive behind it.until you have no clear answer to those question all you are left holding is an nothing.
    jon, how can there be a cover up when those victimized by the tapes even if they would like to charge someone have no someone to charge.
    cover up is when there is an actual suspect & is being protected.
    in this case.who is protecting who?who is covering-up who?
    is gloria covering-up the military or is the military covering-up gloria.

    i would like to beleave an open mind will never accept something in the first place already elligal “lock stock & barrel”.
    an opene mind would think hard first & exsamin things before making any conclussion.
    how can you use the term “open mind” when your mind has accepted the tape as it is w/o asking questions.and if ever you ask question your more concerned about a bunye then the ah’s behind the tapes.
    my position is not until i see a warm body who admits to the crime & if ever we will ever see the original of the tapes that are proven to be authentic.then & only then will i take it seriosly.
    why the fuzz about if bunye holds the key to something so crucial.
    jon, you guys who are sold to the tape seem to be doing a “hard sell”.
    maybe it’s you who are in denail cause your not dealing w/ things better then you are capable off.

  21. Joselu, check out your dictionary. Denial means the following things:
    1. The act of refusing to comply (as with a request)
    2. The act of asserting that something alleged is not true
    3. (psychiatry) a defense mechanism that denies painful thoughts
    4. Renunciation of your own interests in favor of the interests of others
    5. A defendant’s answer or plea denying the truth of the charges against him

    I think #3 applies to you. It pains you to accept that something bad was committed by Bunye when he presented those two CDs. It just proves to me that your mind is selective, and denies things that do not conform to what you think.

    You have accepted that the tapes are : at #39 “i have said it in the past that those tapes where meant to ruin reputations, confuse & divide was ment to tickle peoples curiosity & fears. what if the tuth was that there are ah’s in the shadows manipulating our thoughts, using our weakneses, keeping us confussed, dividing us & weakening our institions, exploiting our problems to achive their own ends.” How close a mind can you have?

    As for me, I haven’t accepted everything that is on the recordings. I’m waiting for an explanation what transpired during those times that brought about those recordings. That’s an open mind!

  22. jon like i have always said i’m just being objective.i won’t argue w/ you about what you think is sacrosant truth(sorry about the spelling).
    if i had any pain, it would be the pain that why do some people lose their peace for things that have no constructive value.
    jon, are not we all waiting for an explanation, but in the mean time life has to go on
    as time goes on those tapes will be more doubted yet.
    our dictionary means are not far apart naman.
    you just happend to look for something more appropreate to get back at me heheheh.
    the ruado tapes where made by the administration.only goes to show that it’s not anything complicated to do tapes.
    how about this theory:
    some people where demanding some things that pgma would not give or they knew that she would push charter change w/c would put many people out of business so they decided to do the mother of all demolition jobs on her.maybe it’s not dificult to understand that our politics is dirty & filled w/ so many interest to protect & certian groups will do anything to get what they want.
    i don’t get your comment on the #39 thing. how can that be being a closed mind.are you telling me that is completely out of the questio?
    the thing about being selective swings both ways.i know that he was preemting the epose’ of the tapes, what’s wrong w/ that?what deeper meaning do you see in that?

  23. Bunye lied big time! He had a hand in making the Ruado tape, so why did he present it as the original? The obvious answer is to protect his boss. And you say there’s nothing wrong with that? If you do, then there’s something wrong with you!

    As for your comment in #39, you’re not presenting it as a theory, you’re presenting it as the “truth”, as if there’s no other explanation to it!

    As for your new theory, I say that you’re willing to accept a convoluted one rather than a simpler theory that “it was really Gloria actually talking to Garcillano”.

    Your position is untenable Joselu.

Leave a Reply

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