I was very sad upon hearing that Frank Ephraim, author of Escape to Manila, passed away on Sunday, August 27. He was laid to rest yesterday, in Washington, D.C. Farewell, Frank: we never got to meet again, as we thought we would.
He’d been diagnosed with a brain tumor earlier this year; he’d hoped to reach the expected birth of a granddaughter in September. Last year, the President conferred the Order of Lakandula, rank of Komandante, on him, a distinction he valued greatly. The Philippines honored him for his scholarship and dedication in telling the story of Jews like himself, who found refuge in Manila. Among the fruits of his research was information that helped complete a database of the 1,318 individuals who received visas to the Philippines.
Today is another cause for remembrance. Mike Tan reminds us it’s also the International Day of the Disappeared.
And it’s the birth anniversary of President Ramon Magsaysay today tomorrow. Under normal circumstances, a proclamation would have been issued by now, kicking off a Ramon Magsaysay Centennial Year, since next year marks the centennial of his birth (and the fiftieth anniversary of his death). But no such executive issuance has been made.
The Philippines Free Press blog has several articles on Magsysay, from his being named Man of the Year for 1951, the story of the Nacionalista Party convention that proclaimed him the party’s candidate, his colossal popularity, and his first day in office, to the manner in which Magsaysay distinguished between personal and official expenses, the support he enjoyed from different groups, and attacks from his critics as well as his final hours: all make for an engrossing story. Amando Doronila ponders what might have been, had Magsaysay been reelected in 1957.
Honored with the Magsaysay Award today are Eggie Duran Apostol and Antonio Meleto, together with Gawad Kalinga, among other Asian laureates for 2006.
Listen to the original, and most famous, version of the Mambo Magsaysay. The campaign song, composed and with lyrics by Raul Manglapus, was revived during the Edsa Revolution.
Listen to Mambo Magsaysay in Ilocano. Magsaysay’s fellow Ilocano, President Quirino, called the Mambo craze “a national calamity” (I discovered this, to my delight, in the liner notes of a Perez Prado album).
In the news: Much ado about what Comelec will do next. The official version’s rosy. On TV, Comelec spokesman explains what to expect.
Raul Lambino, after allegedly forged signatures are pointed out, says its all a plot. Says signatures collected based on official lists of voters provided by local officials -but I think what may happen is a doctrine lawyers call “fruits of the poisoned tree.” Davao signatures found to be unverified. Mike Velarde gets ornery with the President.
House of Representatives gets the Senate treatment. Not once, but twice. Administration stalwart Rep. Cuenco is furious.
M/T Solar captain: I tried to save fuel so went through bad weather; seems he was inexperienced with tanker-driving;
Melo Commission to finish work before May, 2007. Inquirer editorial suggests NBI and state prosecutor’s office officials withdraw. Palparan to be replaced with “tourism booster.”
Bolante claims to have more than a boo-boo.
Palace rejects overseas decision on NAIA-3. Possible Palace vs. Piatco showdown on Friday. Palace lawyers scramble on retroactive order that ticked off oilmen.
Spectacularly ill-conceived: government bans Estrada documentary that otherwise, no one would have bothered to watch. Recall Jove Francisco’s account of Diosdado Macapagal’s politically-disastrous ban of the Marcos biopic. (And please, what are those figures about “hits” for the online presence of the documentary? They sound as fishy as the Legion’s!)
Telephone cable theft takes place in Davao. I think there’s a story here. There have been similar epidemics of telephone cable theft in Quezon City and other places. Copper wire at a premium for sale to China?
Watch Dirty Dancing with Gloria, a CENPEG production.
Students will continue viewing Pluto as a planet, for now.
Slate remembers Hurricane Katrina, as does Vanity Fair.
In the punditocracy, my Arab News column for this week is GMA Expert at Manipulating Events So That Plausibility Remains.
Manuel Buencamino says the House had an Alice in Wonderland time during impeachment. He’s too kind: I can’t imagine administration stalwarts getting through a reading of “Jabberwocky.”
Bong Austero on blogging and media, and he plugs some of his favorite blogs.
Interesting discussion arising from Mexico’s close election:
Mexico’s crisis is the ideal time to consider new variants of presidentialism. One alternative, called “parliamentarized presidentialism,” retains direct presidential elections, which many societies still demand. If a candidate emerges with at least 50.1 percent of the popular vote, he or she is declared president. In these circumstances, the model functions as classic presidentialism (even if it does not produce legislative majorities).
If, however, no candidate receives 50.1 percent of the popular vote, the elected legislature chooses the president, who thus would begin his term with a legislative majority.
Unlike a directly elected president in classic presidentialism, such a legislatively produced president could be voted out by a “constructive vote of no confidence,” leaving incumbents subject to “coalition requiring” and “coalition sustaining” incentives.
Of course, there is no guarantee that such a system would bring greater democratic stability to countries like Mexico, but it would provide many more mechanisms to resolve crises than are currently available. There is much more thinking to be done. Now is the time to do it.
Note that they don’t suggest abolishing the presidential system; they are interested in making it work better. This is what the Indonesians did when they established run-off elections for the presidency, a change I advocate adopting here at home.
Gwynn Dyer on China’s Communist myth. Conspiracy theories on Thaksin assassination plot.
In the blogosphere, Newsstand thinks the petering out of anti-Jueteng efforts is a sign elections are certain.
JJ Disini believes the President will be looked upon well in retrospect, for insisting the political crisis be resolved within constitutional parameters. He may have a point, but I think it’s the public -overwhelmingly hostile, to my mind, to transitional regimes or military-backed solutions- that was most emphatic.
My Liberal Times compares and contrasts online and traditional media: online wins hands down, he says. Bryanton Post on a journalist’s confab.
The Philippine Experience uncovers an impostor.
Torn & Frayed admires people willing to decline awards. Now What, Cat? points to Fil-Am wins in the Emmy awards.
Belmont Club on the pros and cons of an American presence in Iraq.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, documentary, impeachment, journalism, Magsaysay, media, military, people’s initiative, philippines, politics, president
Thats another problem Anna, because you and ilk has deluded yourselves to have the monopoly of training the politicians and focus only one faction of the politicians. There are people who doesn’t side with any faction and poke their gun to anybody on either side who doesn’t behave as expected…. Take for example Teddy Boy Locsin, he side for impeaching teh president during the first impeachment and the so called opposition love him so much for that. Then voted against teh second impeachment and presto he was quickly relegated to the shameless list by the opposition. I am having an impression that the you wanted your so called opposition to dictate the standards of our politics. Anyone who doesn’t toe your line fail to meet the standards and should then be sent to your training camp.
Rego, Teddy Boy Locsin’s vote means he sided with the President. He was relegated to the ‘shameless list’ by the oppposition precisely because of his stand on that issue. Isn’t this what we want, to be issue (not personality) based? Anyway, sayang siya. For all that learning he could do no better than Pontius Pilate.
the issue, cvj, is wether the second impeachment is sufficient in substance and teddy boy, clavel martinez and the rest believed that it is not. and run against your line.
you and your ilk just hated anything that favor mrs arroyo to any extent no matter how reasonable that particular action is. Now That is where you became personality oriented and reactive . And never an issue oriented or proactive people.
Now here is another problem, you confuses your “training standard for politics” with favoring or not favoring Mrs Arroyo.
And you just would not setle for any WIN-WIN resolution of any issues. You opted so well to go for a WIN-LOSS, that you WIN and Mrs Arroyo LOST. But of course Mrs Arroyo would not want to loss either , she wanted to win too. That is is how we arrive to this political mess. Each faction desperately wanted to win and and beat their opponent.
How about a paradigm shift and everybody going for a WIN- WIN. ????????????????????????
Rego, just like the rest of the 172 anti-impeachment representatives, Locsin hid behind the rules to justify his decision. The reason i liken him to Pontius Pilate is that he said that this matter should be decided during the 2007 local elections – a convenient cop-out when we consider that he is one of those who has been called upon to make a decision on the issue at hand. In other words, he tried to justify his actions by washing his hands off the matter. On something this grave, i expected more from him in terms of discerning priorities. Sadly, he was not able to step up to the demands of the situation.
In your other posts, you say you value vigilance. However, when people choose to exercise that vigilance, you criticize them for not adopting a ‘win-win’ approach. Even you admit that Arroyo really cheated. By the nature of the offense, someone (in this case the people who voted – all of them) already lost. They were cheated out of their right to make a decision. How would you apply ‘win-win’ in this case when the starting position is already ‘win-lose’? What you are advocating is expedient compromise on the integrity of the electoral exercise – a matter that is far too valuable to give away in return for someone like Arroyo.
cvj, cvj, there will will always be rules in everything and anything. if you dont want to follow the rules then what will happen??????
here’s is another problem, you and your ilk associated vigilance with being rabid anti arroyo!
a win-win aproach is not anchored on anything. if you really wanted to pursue you just have to go for it!!!!!!
cvj, cvj, there will will always be rules in everything and anything. if you dont want to follow the rules then what will happen??????
here’s is another problem, you and your ilk associated vigilance with being rabid anti arroyo!
a win-win aproach is not anchored on anything. if you really wanted to pursue it you just have to go for it!!!!!!
Rego, yes there are rules but there are no hard and fast rules. No system is so self-contained that we can just let it make the decisions for us. There are those who clearly see that Arroyo and her allies are using the rules of procedure to hide what they did and circumvent the substance of democracy. Look at it this way. I was pro-Arroyo. If i was personality oriented, i would have stuck it out with her but i no longer do because i have to consider the issues that go beyond her and the original reasons for my support. And what’s your beef about being ‘rabid’? Sometimes you have to consider what is being said rather than on how it is being said. I think you put too much emphasis on a veneer of decorum and the appearance of harmony rather than the heart of the issue. Any scenario with Arroyo staying in power is not ‘win-win’.
cvj, cvj,…
teddy boy locsin, clavel martinez, these are maverick and principled politicians who was never a pro arroyo but who voted according their principles. the issue is not about hard and fast rules. Pls dont complicate it. The issue is wether the second impeachment is sufficient in substance. If you and your ilk are not really personality oriented, then the focus of discussion in any fora that you participated should have been the substance of the impeachment not on listing and delisting your morality list with personalities who toe you line or not.
Again dito tama is Bong doon sa sinulat nya, That for you and your ilk its always ” if you are not with us then you are not our freind, at sinabi ko rin sa yo dati pa “that you are playing the deadly game of “the enemy of my enmy is my freind”
Changing personalities doesn’t make you a non personality oreinted person. As it is, you just changed personalities.
Of course there is WIN-WIN even if mrs Arroyo is in power. You and your ilk just refuse to use it because it will favor Mrs Arroyo in some ways. You will just not settle on anything less but a total and absolute WIN and a completely humiliating LOSS for Mrs Aroyo. But of course Mrs Aroyo would just not take it sitting down, she has to defend herself and fight too. Thats natural instinct for any body who is being attacked.
Such is the very unfortunate situation country today because of heavy partisan paolitics. With the two faction so consumed with WIN-LOSS or LOSS-WIN, its just become a LOSS-LOSS for everybody. Again, Bong is right in his closing statement with that few paragraphs that he wrote. “No there is no winners in this contest only temporary respite.”
Indeed , THERE WILL NEVER be winners for as long as both side continue to be consumed with the WIN-LOSS attitude and strategies.
Rego, i don’t quite understand how you determine whether someone is ‘personality oriented’ or ‘issue oriented’. when you assert that ‘teddy boy locsin, clavel martinez…are maverick and principled politicians‘, aren’t you also making a personality assessment? They may have all the qualities you say they possess but what i take exception to is their decision and its implications. To me, that’s being issue oriented. As for my withdrawal of support for Mrs Arroyo, all along i’ve thought that i was just being consistent on the issue of cheating, now you tell me that i’m guilty of ‘changing personalities’. That’s news to me because i am not aware of transferring my support to some other personality.
In case you haven’t noticed, the opposition has been trying to get to the substance of the impeachment but Arroyo and her allies are not cooperating in this regard, which brings us back to the issue of the rules and the purposes they serve. I’m not complicating matters when i say that deciding which set of rules take precedence is often necessary. In this instance, House rules were prioritized over the principles of democracy. You and Bong somehow always try to make this matter about you, but the ones we should be concerned with are the people who have been cheated. The real deadly game is for us to allow this injustice to fester as it sets a precedent that further undermines the democratic system.
You have made a choice of lifestyle, Paeng. I respect that. I surmise it didn’t come about naturally, since it developed from talking to taxi drivers, among others. Not everyone has the opportunity to have their eyes opened and, perhaps, not everyone would be willing to adapt in the same way while they still have other choices.
Incidentally, hvrds said:
“The ADB came out with report recently that the country will not be able to solve its unemployment problems by depending on call centers and inflows from foreign workers. The report stated that we have to go through the evolutionary process of agricultural and thence industrial development.”
We call ourselves an agricultural country but that is a misnomer. We always had the soils, the resources and the technology to be a top agricultural producer. But we never had the will or the inclination. Today, our principal agricultural crops are rice, corn, coconuts and sugar cane. The same key crops over a hundred years ago. Yes, feudalism extends even to our archaic agricultural structure.
Greed and political expediency caused us to exploit agriculture (and consequently, the rural sector). Half-hearted and short-sighted policies from an indifferent and distant government have only contributed to the drift in agriculture. Instead of nurturing agriculture so it would bloom and create prosperity and well-being in the countryside, government stifled it with onerous levies and politically self-serving price controls.
Our Asian neighbors, such as Malaysia and Thailand, encouraged and developed agriculture. Instead of exploiting and taxing the farmers, they subsidized, developed infrastructures and extended credit to the countryside. These policies bore fruit when incomes improved in the rural areas and the farmers, besides being food producers, became consumers of all types of goods. This gave impetus to industrial production and, consequently, created more jobs and more wealth. Today, while agriculture remains vital to these economies, it has assumed a small percentage of the total.
As emilie points out above:
“The size of any market in this country is very very low compared to our neighbors.â€Â
We have to uplift our rural areas in order to increase consumption and, consequently, the size of the market. This will spur more industries and services and, ultimately, create more jobs.
It is a fact that we are among the lowest per capita consumers of most products, save for softdrinks, where we are said to be among top. Maybe that is why John Gokongwei said that, as far as he can remember, the only thriving industries we created are Coca-Cola and real estate. Well, Gokongwei may have forgotten about San Miguel. But, then, what does it say on that beer bottle? Since 1890? That was more than a hundred years ago, so it probably doesn’t count. Gokongwei may have a point, after all.
Cvj, cvj,
pause a little and really reflect on what you are doing. …
you will never be issue oriented at all for as long as you focus too much on Mrs Aroyo. You will always be in the look-out for her movement ofetn wondering what she is up to. And you seek self gratification and validation from the like minded .that is why you consider the people who doesn’t toe your line and go with your convictions and plan of actions your enemy.
You are counter dependently guided by Mrs Aroyos actions and you based your decisions on what will thwarth her,or your enemies.
Your judegement is narrow and distorted and you become so defensive, overreactive, and opten paranoid of Mrs Aroyo and your enemies.
Consequently, you develop a weak power, coming from your anger, envy, resentment, and vengeance. A negative energy that shrivels and destroys leaving energy for little else.
rego, so, concretely, what would you suggest.
Oh Manolo, I already did made suggestions earlier in my replies. Lets go for the WIN-WIN strategies and attitude. One Voice which I believed you are a member has put it so well. Its just too bad that the group allowed itself to be entangled with Sigar ng Bayan.
And also I really really feel and believe that Bong Austero has articulated soooooooo well what should be better done. From that very first open letter alone, ther is already a lot worth considering.
Its just too bad that people on your side just ignore it as just a few paragraphs!
I dont know the “pro bloggers” like you are doing it, with that here here and here” .. to link one blog entry to another. So I have to cut and paste some of his sugestions.
Some of them are:
From his blog entry ” Harmonizing Discordant Voices” June 26,2006. He said:
THERE are at least three main challenges facing One Voice, the new citizens group initially composed of respected Filipinos who have come together to craft a five-point proposal to take the country out of the current political impasse.
The first challenge is getting heard loudly and clearly above the din and dynamics of the current political melee, particularly as the run-up towards the second impeachment brings to a boil. This early, the message of the group, precisely perhaps because of its more sober tone, runs the risk of being drowned out by the more insistent and more confrontational stance of the other messages out there. It doesn’t help, of course, that in our country today, controversy and hysterics get more attention and media airtime.
The adversarial positions being taken up by those advocating that the President be kicked out of office now as a nonnegotiable precondition for anything else, on one hand, and by those advocating Charter Change through the people’s initiative, on the other, seem to be presenting far more enticing (though not necessarily wiser) talking points.
The second challenge is convincing more and more Filipinos that their advocacy is far more desirable and ultimately, a more viable alternative that will usher the country out of the current political impasse. I have always maintained that the nonparticipation of most Filipinos in the raging national debate is not necessarily reflective of collective apathy, but more as a kind of protest over the limited, and largely “exclusive†(and often exasperating) menu of options being peddled out there.
There is widespread cynicism and distrust pervading today, and in a highly polarized environment, I believe that many choose to take the less contentious point of viewâ€â€the one that offers a more direct lifeline to stability and security. Of course, this does not sit well with those who have cloaked themselves with the conviction of the moral and intellectual right. On many occasions, embracing the less contentious point of view has been ridiculed as weak and unpatriotic, giving the impression that nationalism has become an absolute concept, which has been franchised exclusively by particular groups. Unfortunately, this has only alienated people even more rather than drawn them into their cause.
Third, and as a logical consequence because the group is pushing for consensus, it will have to perform a major balancing act of accommodating the diversity of opinions and prescriptions out there.
Regretfully, one sector that One Voice has seemingly automatically marginalized is the group pushing for the people’s initiative. I personally do not agree with what that group is advocating (i.e., the specific points of what needs to be revised or amended in the Constitution), but I think there is space in the current political debate for recognition of various means to attain change. A people’s initiative is simply another way of empowering the citizenry and when we come down to it, it is as valid as say, people power, or for that matter, the coming together of the citizens that compose One Voice. They are variants of the same political animal.
But I understand that some items of the five-point proposal being pushed by One Voice are contingent on the defeat of some of the advocacy points of the people’s initiative. I also understand that the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution is potentially flawed although this has not been decided on with finality by the appropriate constitutional bodies. My point simply is that seeking consensus requires a more win-win perspective that does away with putting one perspective to advance another. After all, both groups purport to be in search of the same elusive thing: change.
One Voice also makes a compelling case on the need to craft a social agenda now, and on the imperative need to hold elections in 2007 as an indirect referendum on whether the President should be allowed to serve her full term, among others.
I agree that there is a need to craft a social agenda that focuses on the “common good†now. I have said this before in my blog (www.bongaustero.blogspot.com) and in that open letter that gave me my 10 minutes of infamy, but I will say it again here despite the risk of being ridiculed all over again by some quarters. People are sick and tired of the screaming and whining contest. It is time to bring the discussion to the level of what is the common good. It is time to look inside ourselves and come to terms with the fact that whatever we say or do, we are in the same boat together. We have differences in opinions and points of views but this should not deflect from the fact that this does not necessarily mean we are against each other.
If we can agree on a collective social agenda, then our disagreements can be made more civil and sensible. I truly think that what is tragic today is this preoccupation with short-term goals that divide us (such as how to give GMA the boot) rather than on larger goals that can serve as rallying points. The problems of this country are bigger and larger than keeping GMA in power or not, but yes, the social agenda should not preclude the possibility of a possible peaceful transition of power through democratic ways.
I believe that it is truly time for ordinary Filipinos to take the discussion and the crafting of the solution out of the hands of the politicians. This brings us to the contentious issue of impeaching the President, which is still a democratic option. But regardless of who files the impeachment complaint, the reality is that the impeachment process is a highly partisan and political process. We can rant about this until we are all blue in the face, but it is a numbers game that is beyond the control of the ordinary citizenry.
Thus, making the 2007 elections as an indirect referendum does present itself as a tempting, more realistic alternative. This is conditioned, of course, on the assumption that safeguards towards ensuring that the 2007 elections can be kept honest and clean can be put in place before then. This is possible of course if we put our hearts and collective energy into it.
And Manolo,
Personally, believed that they way people react to any issue that crop up is also very very important! Because I firmly believe that the our country will be shaped not by what the leaders do or not do but how the citizens react to any issues.
Contrary to what cvj is claiming, that i take things personally , I just believe that there were so many good ideas and actions that come out from the current and very long political debate. It just need to be taken with the right attitude. And with the right reactions from the people, I believe it will be a huge help for the country to move forward.
So dont expect me to come up with new ideas. I believe there is not much need for that. I will just be here in this wonderful world of blogspehere to enlighten something on developing a productive reactions to our nations problem. I am doing this in good faith and with pure intentions, And I leave it to the bloggers especially the one that caught my attention on how they would take it.
So I am not really being personal about it, I just feel that that is one of the positive ways that i can help on overcoming our countries problem and help our country to move forward somehow.
I personally think that the suggestions rego forwarded here but taken from Bong Austero’s line of reasoning doesn’t really make a lot of sense. I would summarize it as something like, “because booting Gloria Arroyo out of office will not solve our problems, let’s look for other solutions. Meanwhile, let everything be as they are.”
It is a choice, and the likes of rego love it. I personally don’t.
The way things are going, the people running our institutions are thinking only the good and welfare of the people (in malacanang). So before they do anything they will be considering if their actions are for the benefit of the people (in malacanang).
hey jon,,
siguro dapat malinaw kung ano ba talaga ang pinapipilian nating choices. Baka naman iba naman yung pinapipilian mo sa pinapipilian ng One Voice, ni Bong at iba naman ang sa akin.
The options that we defined for ourselves to choose from , I believe is subjective and really depends on our values and principles. So there is really no way for us to judge the choices of each other. We cant even compare our choices unless the options that we defined are the same…..
For example, some of the options I defined for myself are these:
1. Arroyo cheating or Election cheating as a whole…
2. Morality or Effectiveness…
3. Be issue oriented or personality oriented….
4. Shoudl I focus on my Circle of concern ( e.g Arroyo Cheating, unresponsive leadesr and politicians), my circle of influence ( thing that I can really do and deliver results)
5. Be reactive or be proactive..
I believe to ang nag papahaba nga walang katapusang political debate na eto. Everybody just joined the debate without even clarfying first for himself what really is the issue being debated.
Or it could also be the other way around, bokyo, that indeed they are trying very hard to do something for the people out side malacanang. Again subjective uli eto and really depends on our values and principles.
Rego,
The big picture is for the betterment of the nation, that is in line with your comment #66. How do we go about it is the bone of contention as everybody has his own way of doing things. If we take the 5 specific points you raised above, each person will again view things differently with some agreeing on one or two. When we present our views, we’re glad if there are many who concur, but when they disagree, then we sit back and analyze if we or they are wrong according to our values and principles (here we agree again).
But take for example your point #1. Arroyo cheating or as a whole. What is the best way to achieve our end purpose which is the betterment of our nation? I personally believe that cheaters should be punished (we go back again to the Garci tapes, the new ones regarding Colcol and Rasalan, etc. as points of discussion). That’s the principle. Any time is a good time to start living with that principle as our society (or any society for that matter) cannot really function properly if cheaters are rewarded. So I cannot really agree when somebody says “everybody cheated but forget about it, we move on.”. The implication is we will catch the cheats next time around.
This point has been discussed in so many fora and everybody has expressed their opinions. Whoever gathers the biggest voice, usually gets what they want. So if you and Bong Austero represents the majority, then what you’re advocating will be the way (for now) to go. However, those of different minds will continue to nurture their ideas and wait for their time when their voice is stronger.
Rego,
Those are largely false choices you have defined for yourself.
1. Arroyo cheating or Election cheating as a whole – As Jon has explained above, the two are not mutually exclusive. A full investigation ‘how’ Arroyo cheated would help reveal how cheating at the highest levels general take place. It’s practical value would be to identify who are the parties involved (e.g. Comelece, local government, military) and would allow these institutions to clean house before the next elections. In this way, it contributes to helping eliminate cheating as a whole. Also, while eliminating ‘election cheating as a whole’ is a worthy goal, it does not address the immediate issue of the President’s legitimacy or don’t you think this is an issue?
2. Morality or Effectiveness – I suppose you’re referring to the morality of Arroyo’s removal versus the her continuing ‘effectiveness’ if she remains in power. Even assuming that Arroyo is ‘effective’ (which given her legitimacy problem is also in question) this is a shortsighted trade-off. Stripping our political system of its moral basis is dangerous as Manolo has explained in his speech to the Rotary:
‘when the middle class and the rich either abandon, or are stripped, of all pretenses to public and private decency, you have a truly dangerous situation. No one is left with any moral authority over anyone else; what once served to keep everything cozy and looking good, proves as rotten and corrupt as those once considered moral, political, and social inferiors. So who has any incentive to worship anything except power and wealth? Why should anyone help or believe anyone else?‘
By condoning Arroyo’s cheating, do you want to be complicit in this process – replacing morality with power and wealth?
3. Issue oriented or personality oriented – As shown in previous comments, we have incompatible definitions so nothing more can be said on this.
4. Circle of Concern vs. Circle of Influence – It is a given that as individuals, our circle of influence on matters of public concern is miniscule, as it should be. That is why collective action like One Voice, BlacknWhite or other groups like it, is needed. Once we decide on the right thing to do, then people need to act collectively. In the first place, the issue of election cheating means that even the miniscule ‘circle of influence’ of the individual voter has been violated. This should be restored.
5. Reactive or proactive – I suppose that you are implying that being ‘proactive’ is superior to being ‘reactive’. That’s not always the case. If someone in front of you suffers a heart attack, it is not the right time to lecture about CPR in the interest of saving future heart attack victims. It is common sense to attend to the immediate situation first. As it is, you are using being proactive as an excuse for not reacting to the issue in front of you.
Jon
Before we continue this discussion, I believe its really important that we are alined from which we are coming from. Do we have the same definition of principles and values. To me this two are different things. To me principles are fundamental laws making it an objectiev reality and values are ethics or standards and therfore a subjective reality. If we focus on principles there no is we cannot agree. But if we wnat to be values centered, dyan talaga mag kakagulo tayo. Dahil nga subjective ang value eh.
In your reply, the betterment of the nation is the principle( The principle of growth) while going after gloria and what to do with her after she cheated is values. Again subjective eto and highly divisisve kasi iba iba naman talaga ang values natin and the tendency is for people of the same or those who share values to group together.
Principles are like territories while values are like maps going to territories. Being fundamental you can never go against prinicples pero sa values pwede.
Now para sa akin para hindi tayo nagkakagulo, I d rather focus on principle or be principle centered.
Yang ginagawa nyo of going after gloria at all cost is values. Maganda rin naman yan kasi papunta rin yan doon sa objective reality or principles of nation’s growth. In priniciple, I dont havea problem with that. but that is not my value eh. So I can just sincerely wish you goodluck for that.
Ang source nag pinagkakaguluhan natin is when one group who share values becomes so insistent or even forcing their values on another group who have different values or doesn’t share the same values. Dyan tayo nag kakagulo!!!
What I would suggest is that for everyone or all groups to be priniciple centered. And for as long as all other groups are going to the same principle, hayaan na…..It woudl even be better for each group to share their learnings on their route going to the same territory, the betterment of the nation.
cvj,
your opening statement is really horrible that Im having a hard time deciding on wether to engage on dicussion with or not. eto yung lagi nating pinagtatalunan lalo na doon sa pinpoint out on why we are taking offense on the way buencamino wrote. kasi yung opening paragraph are really designe are really very negative, name calling, judgemental, insults ….
But you did raised some points that I woudl love to talk about. later na siguro after I come home from work. I just have to go to work right now. And maybe by the time, I have gone overwith my negatiev feeling towards your opening statements.
Or maybe you can just read along with my reply to jon and I will just try to mention some important points that you raised along the way.
Rego, if you took offense to my opening statement, then i apologize as it was meant to be an objective introduction to the rest of my comment, not as an insult or namecalling.
Rego, we agree on our definitions of principle and values.
Please tell me if this is a principle or not: Cheating is unacceptable and cheaters should be punished.
To me it is guiding principle.
Jon,
Cheating is not fundamental so it can never be principle. Its a values. Thieves just like every body has values too.
Honesty is a Principle. And Gloria has seriously violated that and look what she got as consequences.!!!! You cannot just go against a principle! You’ll just break against your self against it.
Punishing a cheater is a value. Fairness is principle.
Ok then, let’s discuss using your own definitions.
Do you mean that Gloria violated the principle of Honesty because she cheated? What then should be done about it?
First, I believe that much of the responsibility and the consequences will be on Gloria than on the nation or the people. I agree with Bong Austero when she said that “Gloria may be able to finish her term, solve all the problem of the nation, turn out to be a great president but i doubt if she will be able to live down that black scar on her reputation as ( or for me the stigma of) someone who was caught cheating in an elections.”
Unless she do something to correct it, she will continue to suffer. Hide it, cover it up, evade from it… and she will even continue to suffer more. And even worst she will be violating another principle, the principle of Integrity.
Integrity and honesty is a very important principle. There is just no way that you can break these principles because Honesty and integrity create the foundation of trust which is essential to cooperation and long term personal and interpersonal growth or in Glorias case her leadership.
If I were her I could have just resignend, NO IFS, NO BUTS. RESIGN! If she do that then she back on tract to the living principle of Honesty and Integrity.
Unfortunately, I am not her and we just dont have the same values. And I just cannot forced my values into her.
So my choice is to prosecute her. And our Constitution defined that process to be Impeachment. I am very much a pro impeachment, Jon. and I personaly feel bad that that is not happening.
So what will I do with my frustrations?????
Now here is where I have to exercize my FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Should I be proactive or reactive???. And I chose to be proactive. That is why I dont want to dwell on who voted for or against the recent impeachment. Id rather dwell on why and how they arrive to such a vote. And the decent expalantion I got from congressmen that I trusted and believed was that there was insufficiency in substance. That is the issue! Then I will focus more on the issue. Why and how come it was never sufficient in substance????Learn diligently from the errors and prevent and avoid the same errors in the next impeachment.
We seem to have the same goals, yet we differ on our priorities and some preferences (values).
You also dwelled on principles but you seem to forget that out of these principles, laws are made. And we need to follow the laws, and punish those who break them. I’ll try to remember the points we discussed here and use them the next points we will discuss.