In his blog, Jove Francisco gave an outstanding behind-the-scenes account of the State of the Nation Address, as well as a critique from the invaluable point of view of someone who has covered the President throughout her stay in office. He also gives a sneak peek into the proposed national budget, which (again) the President didn’t submit to Congress on the day of her speech (unlike her predecessors). To be sure, press releases were issued outlining the proposed budget; and news reports indicate that the President has approved the budget to be submitted. However, the proposed budget won’t actually be submitted to the House until August 22, which is two days before the deadline set by law.
Yesterday, on Twink Macaraig’s show, I suggested that the President’s consistent failure (or more properly, refusal to conform with tradition, much as of course she complies with the deadlines imposed by law) to submit her proposed budget after making her speech, reflects her approach to the presidency and her attitude towards building the Congressional alliances necessary to get things done. As I’ve said in the past, agenda-setting is one of the biggest powers of any president. The State of the National Address sets the agenda, both for Congress and the public. But the proposed budget is, in terms of the House at least, the only agenda that matters.
The House has the exclusive power of the purse; even the Senate can only wait for the General Appropriations Act crafted by the House, before it can, in turn, propose further amendments and revisions (if the House dilly-dallies, the Senate gets blamed for a late passage of the budget). Since the President, however, submits a proposed budget, the deliberations of Congress is essentially circumscribed by the chief executive’s proposals. At the end of the whole thing is the President’s ability to veto legislation, including whatever General Appropriations Act the Congress passes.
Now, to return to my point on the significance of the President’s not submitting her proposed budget after she delivers her Sona.
I told Twink there can only be two reasons. The first would be, inefficiency when it comes to what President Marcos used to call “complete staff work.” The proposed budget hasn’t been submitted on time, because the required work wasn’t done on time, which would indicate inefficiency in the executive branch. To give the President and the bureaucracy the benefit of the doubt, I am inclined to assume that isn’t the reason.
The other reason, then, I proposed, must be a tactical one. The President, who always lavishes a lot of time and attention on patronage-related projects which other presidents weren’t inclined to dwell on, views her Sona as a kind of appetizer. It’s a way of dangling projects before her supporters (and potential allies even from opposition circles) without actually committing to them right away. By delaying the submission of the proposed budget, the President has additional time to accomodate allies and punish enemies. It is much easier for the House to approve a presidential proposal, than it is to strike it out. A president’s budget proposal sets the parameters, which is why previous presidents actively involved the House in the formulation of the budget. Presidents have also always maintained an office in Congress, to nurse the budget and their other pet legislation through the legislative mill.
Thing is, past presidents were not tentative about budget proposals, the way the current President is. Being tentative suits her fine, and illustrates how she believes everything is negotiable, and it suggests how tentatively, too, she views her office and its powers. Now to be sure, the process more or less works, for her. I told Twink that the President is like a gardener, fussing over hundreds of little potted plants in a greenhouse; all that fussing produces results. It’s not how her predecessors would have done it (the Speaker, for one, was supposed to do that fussing), but it’s the way the President likes to attend to matters.
It shows, too, how slovenly Congress has become: and additionally, how spoiled the House has become. If everything, always, is negotiable, then there isn’t an incentive to produce results, and on time. The end result is that to muster a quorum to consider the budget, “incentives” have to be applied, and the same, for all we know, may apply to committees charged with deliberating on the budget, too. A far cry from the days when a president created momentum two ways, through the Sona and the submission of the proposed budget, simultaneously, a proposal, incidentally, that already went through the consensus-building process prior to submission.
Anyway, outside of the President’s partisan political constituency, her other major constituency, businessmen, have been muted in their response. See The Unlawyer’s summary of business’ reactions.
Mongster’s Nest provides a thorough critique of his own, of the Sona. Iniibig ko ang Pilipinas! wonders what the fuss was about.
In the blogosphere, I enjoyed this entry very much, in the blog of Jae Fever. There is a kind of fulfillment from a sense of philosophical detachment. Much as we more often than not disagree, faithful readers like Rego and Bencard (and even occasional visitors like Benign0) do make a vital point when they ask, what’s all the hubbub about, and, with all the attention focused on the President, the deeper problems won’t vanish, even if she vanished, and whether she goes sooner or later, what will those who are itching to replace her hope to achieve? AKOMISO answers, very well, I think, these questions, even as he points out the flaws in such questions.
Technorati Tags: House of Representatives, Philippines Free Press, politics, president, Senate
I just woke up from a dream that seemed very real.
The dollar has just collapsed and every country was stumbling after each other to sell off their dollar reserves in exchange for euros. worldwide, countries were at military alert as the world saw it’s lone superpower destroyed on the inside, with lootings and lawlessness such as what happened in New Orleans (after Katrina) happening everywhere in the US.
amidst all these, I saw myself laughing crazily. i had just brought my family to the US, intending to migrate there when these all happened. and the irony didn’t escape me. to run away from the Phils into this. suffice to say, I went mad in that dream of mine.
I woke up feeling really, really disturbed.
They say when one always sees greener pastures elsewhere, one doesn’t realize that what he sees as greener for himself may be seen by others as something else. it put me into thinking: is our country really far worse than those in 1st world status?
yes, we may be poor economically, but you can’t say that abt our sense of happiness. life and times were much easier when everything was simple.
A fast-paced way of life where everyone is making money sure sounds wonderful, but where does one take time to enjoy all that when all one does is make more money?
Great piece Manolo! Hugely informative.
From where she shit…este…sit, gloria can tell you, an uncertain president* is always as tentative as she needs to be.
—–
*owing to a question on her legitimacy
Thanks for that AKOMISO links. but after reading a few paragraph, looks I dont think its answer much bencards and my concerns about the Gloria haters…more reraction later pag uwi. (Medyo late na ako papasok eh).
This paragraph caught my attention early . (I havent read much the rest yet. But it actually applies more to Bencards adversaries…
“There is actually a label for this kind of argument where you try to turn the tables on your opponent by asking him or her to own up to what they say and tell everyone what they would do in the situation. It’s not exactly non sequitur or ad hominem so pardon if the label escapes me right now. As an argument, it is a desperate maneuver, a cop out. It is designed specifically to hush the opponent by attacking his character albeit indirectly. And when you look at it, it is rather illogical in form and immaterial to the debate. Illogical because I am not in the same position as the person in question, and therefore immaterial because your attacking me doesn’t weaken my argument. Don’t shoot the messenger, as they say.
rego,
Maybe you will understand better if you read the paragraph again.
Gloria Arroyo just signed a law trivializing national holidays.
Henceforth, the date of Philippine independence will be “it depends.†The same holds true for National Heroes Day, Ninoy Aquino Day, Bonifacio Day, Rizal Day, and Labor Day.
Under RA 9492, national holidays will become movable feasts celebrated on the nearest Monday… because long weekends, according to Exsec Ermita, are good for “family bondingâ€Â… and patriotism is not?
Religious holidays, however, will continue to be observed on their original dates… because you can’t call a Monday, Good Friday…
and Santa Claus won’t make an extra trip just to please us.
Rego, the fallacy that AKOMISO refers to is ‘Tu Quoque’ (tagalog: ‘balik sa iyo’) which i suppose makes what you just said above (at July 25th, 2007 8:36 pm) a double Tu Quoque or ‘Two Quoque’ (corny – he he).
Akomismo-Sir Martz,
This is NOT necessarily applicable in all situations but one way to show that the action of someone is wrong is by pointing out what action is right (which in most cases would be pointing to another direction. Of course adding the reason why its right would be a great boost also.)
manuelbuencamino:not that it matters to you, but never have i been in total agreement with you as much as i am now. and i don’t even believe in santa claus.
On the topic Negotiating the Budget, members of the lower house can now expect heftier patronage money. With the dominance of people who are more likely to convict GMA in the upper house due to the May 2007 elections, there is greater reason to secure the loyalties of the congressmen in the Gabby Claudio way.
Rom,
What, no Santa Claus?
But I just saw one of his elves at the Batasan last Monday… telling the entire country who was naughty and who was nice!
“Under RA 9492, national holidays will become movable feasts celebrated on the nearest Monday… because long weekends, according to Exsec Ermita, are good for “family bondingâ€Â… and patriotism is not?
so manuel, that makes it a philippine it-depend-thence day, huh?
kudos to a bogus president for promoting bogus holidays!
MB, as a matter of fact, RA 9492 says that, for movable holidays, the President will issue a proclamation six months prior to the holiday concerned fixing the specific date to be declared as a non-working day. So, Maundy Thursday and Good Friday may yet fall on a Monday and a Tuesday, respectively.
well after reading the comments in akomiso blog, looks like akomiso entry is actually directed to ROM and/ or Bencard…And rom and bencard has posted their well thought and sensible comments and rebuttals on their blog. And I find akomiso’s reply as very cool. I actually enjoy reading their level headed exchanges.
I just dont why manolo attributed that entry to me.
All of us are messengers here. so I dont think we, on the other side, are not the only one only guilty of turning the tables and cop-outs. I believe its the Gloria haters who is more into it than us. Look, from the very start (when we dont toe the line of the anti gloria), we were easilly branded as GMA apologist, Luli’s internet brigade, malacanang paid hack and numerous other tags….
Rego: All of us are messengers here. so I dont think we, on the other side, are not the only one only guilty of turning the tables and cop-outs.
If Im not mistaken, that’s the first time you admitted that you are on the other side, Rego. Well done. Good to choose a side.
rego said “I just dont why manolo attributed that entry to me.”
Susmaryosep! Read what mlq3 wrote VERY CAREFULLY.
Rego, in this matter, i don’t think you’re on the same level of the discussion as AKOMISO. He is referring to a specific type of fallacy while you are complaining about name-calling in general, which could be a valid point, but is a separate issue altogether.
manuelbuencamino:that was not santa’s elf, man. north pole elves are graceful creatures, not dumpy, buck-toothed, and gratingly nasal critters.
Last time I looked, it was AKOMISMO, not AKOMISO.
Supremo, you re right. It the was not really attributed to me.
And CVJ, you are right too. ( geez what is happening to me?)
well jeg. I dont agree most of the times with manolo and the rest of anti glorias. So I believe should be on the other side.
GMA’s Carrot and Stick
Carrot – Budget
Stick – Human Security Act
Movable holidays are used here in Hong Kong. The dates remain the same but the celebration and holiday (meaning no work) is done on a Monday. It’s like celebrating your wedding anniversary on a more convenient date but remembering the correct date properly.
It’s no problem for me, but I guess not to many too. So those in power can “legislate” and practice it until the time comes that a law is made to make it illegal to move celebration of holidays! I believe it’s not the date that matters, but the “spirit” of the celebration.
Shaman, you’re right it’s AKOMISMO (and not the ingredient in that Japanese soup).
But the problem with observing a movable holiday like Good Friday on a Monday is that there are religious rites to be observed. If you make Good Friday a working day, people won’t be able to participate in these rites, unless, of course, they take a leave. And I don’t think the Church will be willing to observe Good Friday on a Monday. It would be absurd. Same with Eid ul Fitr.
The law should have made exception of religious holidays outright, instead of making them subject to a proclamation.
Another complication from RA 9492.
December 30, 2007, Rizal Day, is a Sunday. December 31, 2007 is another non-working day. January 1, 2008 is of course New Year’s Day. If the holiday for 12/30/07 is moved to Monday, will the holiday for 12/31/07 be moved to Tuesday and the holiday for 1/1/08 to Wednesday?
I don’t know why this Administration has to tinker with the holiday calendar. Just so it can leave a “legacy”? To me, it’s lunacy.
Shaman, the law stipulates that religious holidays’ celebration remains on the dates they are celebrated. National holidays are the ones to be affected (that’s why the “nationalistic” in our midst are against it.)
Shaman,
But Dec. 31 isn’t really a holiday as I know it.
Anyway, moving a holiday to a Monday makes more sense than what PGMA practices of moving to either Monday or Friday because a lot of companies work on Saturdays (in rotating personnel shifts).
Jon, maybe we are reading from different texts of the law. Nowhere in my copy (downloaded from the Office of the Press Secretary web site) is the word “religious” mentioned, nor the provision that you cited.
The holidays and special days enumerated in the law are all national in character.
Justice League, December 31 is not a regular holiday but a special day, just like All Saints Day.
Cvj,
Martin stated that:
(There is actually a label for this kind of argument where you try to turn the tables on your opponent by asking him or her to own up to what they say and tell everyone “WHAT THEY WOULD DO IN THE SITUATION”. It’s called tu quoque (thanks to commenter cvj!) and is somehow a combination of a non sequitur and an ad hominem fallacy. As an argument, it is a desperate maneuver, a cop out. It is designed specifically to hush the opponent by attacking his character albeit indirectly. And when you look at it, it is rather illogical in form and immaterial to the debate. Illogical because I am not in the same position as the person in question, and therefore immaterial because your attacking me doesn’t weaken my argument. Don’t shoot the messenger, as they say.)
I think Martin is expanding the definition of “tu quoque” from the source that he is quoting it from.
All examples in the quoted source were in a past sense like “admits he stole”, “successfully sued”, and “also said airplanes fly” while part of his dissertation in the emphasized part is in a present or even future sense.
Shaman,
Since Dec. 31 is not a regular holiday, there is the option that it can be declared or NOT be declared as a non-working day.
JL, Dec. 31 is a special day and a special day is always a non-working day. The distinction between a regular holiday and a special day stems from the way they are treated when it comes to paying holiday pay. When an employee is required to work on a special day, he gets holiday pay provided he has been present on the immediately preceding working day. But when an employee is required to work on a regular holiday, he gets holiday pay whether or not he has been present on the immediately preceding working day.
Justice League, you’re referring to the wikipedia entry? I don’t think the temporal dimension is a distinguishing feature of that fallacy. Sir Martin’s other reference (the article by Julian Baggini) cites examples that are neutral with regards to time.
Shaman, did you see any religious holiday that was marked to be moved to a Monday? (You are right to say that there was no classification and no use of the word “religious”).
I think that there is a misunderstanding of the word “movable date”. I believe it just says that during the year, it can fall on a different “date” not “day”. There are only three of them (Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Eidul Fitr), they change “date” every year unlike Christmas for example that always falls on the 25th of December.
You’re right, Jon, I misunderstood. Thanks.
Shaman,
The administrative code that is sought to be amended reads:
Chapter 7
REGULAR HOLIDAYS AND NATIONWIDE SPECIAL DAYS
Sec. 26. Regular Holidays and Nationwide Special Days. – (1) Unless otherwise modified by law, order or proclamation, the following regular holidays and special days shall be observed in this country:
(A) Regular Holidays
New Year’s Day – January 1
Maundy Thursday – Movable date
Good Friday – Movable date
Araw ng Kagitingan (Bataan – April 9 and Corregidor Day)
Labor Day – May 1
Independence Day – June 12
National Heroes Day – Last Sunday of August
Bonifacio Day – November 30
Christmas Day – December 25
Rizal Day – December 30
(B) Nationwide Special Days
All Saints Day – November 1
Last Day of the Year – December 31
——–
A proclamation doesn’t require the rigors that a law must pass through. So a simple proclamation can easily modify the days. I do understand your point on Dec. 31 but I’m saying the option is there and an easy option at that. Unfortunately, what I stated seems to be applicable not only to special days but to all of them.
Going back in time, there was once a non-working date of July 4 called Filipino-American Friendship day. I don’t know if a law repealed that or a proclamation did but what I’m certain is that its not in the list of 1987.
Cvj,
I’m pressed for time so I’ll just get back to you on that.
Cvj,
Yes I was referring to the Wikipedia entry which Martin himself was referring from. But against Julian Baggini’s article; my previous post regarding past, present, and future sense would not apply.
But having read Baggini’s article, somehow I am not convinced of his main point or its relation to Martin’s article.
Baggini’s article points to the Onnagata’s reason of keeping their monopoly in their trade in the Kabuki theatre.
He pointed to Richard Eyre’s statement of
“The onnagata [male actors in the kabuki theatre who play female roles] justify their perpetual monopoly by saying they believe that women are too close to femininity to capture its essence…â€Â
(Baggini chose to omit “by which they mean its essence to men.†so I’m omitting it too)
Which he rebuts with
“The reasoning of the onnagata is a striking example of privilege being given a pseudo-rational gloss. The problem with their justification for excluding women from the kabuki theatre is that the principle they appeal to, if true, seems also entail that men should not portray men. If “women are too close to femininity to capture its essence†why aren’t men too close to masculinity to capture its essence? That would require that men played women and women played men, not that men should play all roles.â€Â
However, Baggini points out that the argument above is actually a “tu quoque†when he stated
“Although that might seem straightforward, this kind of objection has to be treated with extreme caution. It is of the general type “tu quoqueâ€Â: you’re another. This argumentative move works by showing that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. In this case, the reason the onnagata give against women playing women applies equally to male onnagata playing men.â€Â
(Ahh, the onnagata are supposed to be males playing females. I don’t know what males playing males are but I’m just playing along here)
And he gave 2 reasons for this.
First, he claims that
(very often the alleged lack of consistency on which the move depends may require some establishing. In the case of the onnagata, for example, it is arguable that I haven’t yet shown that the principle can in fact be turned against them. I have not, for example, considered the possibility that the onnagata have some “good reasons†for thinking that women are closer to femininity than men are to masculinity. If that were the case, there would indeed be a reason why women shouldn’t play women which doesn’t apply to men playing men.)
Yet Baggini did not enumerate what these possible “good reasons†are. And if ever there were good reasons; it should be coming from the onnagata or the onnagata defenders and not Baggini.
Second, he claims that tu quoque
“is not a means of identifying which principles and arguments are actually wrong. Let us say, for example, that we are satisfied that the onnagata are guilty of inconsistency. Does that mean that they are wrong to say that women are too close to femininity to capture its essence, or does it simply mean that they are right, but that they should also accept that men are too close to masculinity to capture its essence?â€Â
I would rather have glimpsed at the arguments and counter arguments arising from the so called tu quoque above to see which principles are wrong. Baggini did not wait for any answer from the onnagata side even though he was open to the idea that the onnagata would be inconsistent. And from whatever inconsistency can be revealed, further clarification can be sought.
Side A (Onnagata) – “We believe women are too close to femininity to capture its essence.â€Â
(The Onnagata raises 2 ideas which they are bound to – 1) Women are too close to femininity and that 2) this closeness to femininity is a hindrance to capture the so called essence of femininity itself.)
Side B (Counter Onnagata)- “If women are too close to femininity to capture its essence why aren’t men too close to masculinity to capture its essence?â€Â
Side A actually has to prove a number of ideas from that question or from the issues that will arise from the answer to that question. Some of which are 1) That men are or aren’t too close to masculinity 2) But if they are; why is this not a hindrance to capture the essence of masculinity? 3) If men are not too close to masculinity, how do they capture the essence of masculinity? 4) Eventually the question of why too much closeness to femininity is a hindrance to capture its essence, among other possible questions.
I believe the questions could have softened the position of the Onnagata. (As a bonus, I have accepted the Onnagata line that women are too close to femininity in the same way that Baggini thinks of it)
Anyway, I’m a little puzzled why Baggini didn’t consider that “too much closeness to femininity as NOT a hindrance to capture the essence of femininity†could be arrived at.
And Baggini somewhere in the middle adds that
“Nonetheless, the tu quoque move does at least force us to confront the apparent inconsistency. The onnagata, if they are at all interested in defending their practices rationally, would either have to accept the inconsistency or explain why it is not an inconsistency after all. Either way, we are taken closer to the heart of the issue.â€Â
(So the “tu quoque” as a fallacy has benefit after all.)
BTW, I was able to view a Time article titled
Kabuki or Not Kabuki, That Is the Question
By PETER NEVILLE-HADLEY Monday, Sep. 17, 2001
“Part of the fun of watching Western classics such as 42nd Street is observing how Japanese portray foreigners…….The five troupes of the Takarazuka Grand Theater company, opposite the Imperial Hotel, have a staggering repertoire–from West Side Story to Hamlet–and perform their own dramatizations of Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls and Tolstoy’s War and Peace. The male leads are romantic and clean-cut, strong yet sensitive, not least because they are PLAYED BY WOMEN. The mobs of female fans that crowd the stage door after the show bear witness to how poorly Japanese men apparently measure up to this ideal……. Call the Tourist Information Center on (81-3) 3201-3331 for a full rundown of what’s playing where.â€Â
Women playing male leads in kabuki? What the heck is going on?
++++++++++++
Back when we were discussing the government plan to bring in foreign physicians; you were in favor of the plan while I was partly against it.
“If you can come up with a proposal that would address the labor shortage of medical professionals in some other way, i’d be willing to consider it. Otherwise, i see this twin approach of importing foreign doctors and encouraging local doctors to stay via medical tourism as the most viable alternative.â€Â
You said that to me a month ago. So in essence you were asking me what I would do if I was in a situation of having a position in government to alleviate the problem.
But I have never considered that as tu quoque (WTH, I didn’t even know what tu quoque meant at the time.)
You requested for my proposals and I gave about 2-3 proposals.
But take a look now at how Martin is interpreting tu quoque.
-And from my posts about Manny Pacquiao, Gawad Kalinga and even GMA’s SONA yesterday, the comment that always captures my attention are those that tell me, “Why don’t you do better?â€Â
-And while my post about GMA’s SONA yesterday is rather new and there has been a couple of people who challenged me in MLQ3’s blog, the counter-argument is all too familiar. If I don’t buy into GMA’s sweeping vision, he said, perhaps “I should propose my ownâ€Â. One person even went farther to ask me who am I to speak for the people.
(“I should propose my ownâ€Â- that reads a lot like the proposals you requested from me and Martin here is treating that line of questioning as tu quoque.)
-There is actually a label for this kind of argument where you try to turn the tables on your opponent by asking him or her to own up to what they say and tell everyone “what they would do in the situationâ€Â. It’s called tu quoque (thanks to commenter cvj!) and is somehow a combination of a non sequitur and an ad hominem fallacy.
Before Martin got hold of the idea of “tu quoque”; Martin was supposed to plainly answer his “detractors’†question of what he can do better.
This is evidenced by his statement of
“Nonetheless, the original insight of “A Different Dharma†is a response to all those who challenge me about what I can do better than the Pacman, Tony Meloto, or GMA. My response? I teach. So, I apologize if I’ve never stepped in a boxing ring; I’m too busy with the four walls of the classroom. I apologize if I don’t have time to commit to GK; I work hard each day to form men and women of commitment to our country. I apologize if I can’t give a sweeping vision like GMA; I’m busy making these students’ dreams possible and hopefully one of them can give us a sweeping vision one day.â€Â
So instead of a direct answer; Martin ends up with a dissertation on what seems to be his own interpretation of “tu quoque”.
I am in no way blaming you for whatever interpretation Martin ends up with tu quoque but what I’m trying to state is that it seems he is expanding its interpretation or definition whatever it actually be.
justice league et al.,
you got me jumpstarted on a project i’ve been advocating since i was still working at the palace: an inventory of national holidays (commemorative and others), past and present.
http://mlq3.wikispaces.com/officialcalendar
if anyone wants to lend a helping hand, i’d be much obliged. let me know.
Manolo,
I got this from bibingkadotcom which was from the Philippine History Group Of Los Angeles
MALACAÑANG
RESIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE PHILIPPINES
MANILA
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
PROCLAMATION NO. 28
DECLARING JUNE 12 AS PHILIPPINE
INDEPENDENCE DAY
WHEREAS, the establishment of the Philippine Republic by the Revolutionary Government under General Emilio Aguinaldo on June 12, 1898, marked our people’s declaration and exercise of their right to self-determination, liberty and independence;
WHEREAS, such a historic and inspiring action was a legitimate assertion by the Filipino nation of their natural and inalienable claim to freedom and independence, which is an inherent right of every people not dependent upon the will and discretion of another; and
WHEREAS, the transcendental importance of the event demands that it be observed throughout the land with fitting ceremonies to the end that it will be cherished forever in the hearts of the Filipino people and inspire them and posterity to greater dedication and endeavor for the welfare of the country and the well-being of man-kind;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL, President of the Philippines by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 30 of the Revised Administrative Code, do hereby declare Tuesday, June 12, 1962, as a special public holiday throughout the Philippines in commemoration of our people’s declaration of their inherent and inalienable right to freedom and independence.
I urge all national, provincial, city and municipal officials throughout the country to make arrangements in their respective localities for the appropriate celebration of the occasion as Philippine Independence Day.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed.
Done in the City of Manila, this 12th day of May, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred sixty-two, and of the Independence of the Philippines, the sixteenth.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL
President of the Philippines
By the President:
(Sgd.) AMELITO R. MUTUC
Executive Secretary
————
So it was actually a proclamation that reclaimed June 12 as Independence day for us.
I can’t find what proclamation or law declared July 4 as Philippine-American friendship day but I’m quite sure that it was still during the Marcos years that it got relegated to the background.
Ahh… “relegated to the background” meaning it was no longer celebrated as it used to be.
justice league, dm had to use his power to transfer holidays, as president, to move independence day from july 4 to june 12. he kept doing so, every year, until congress finally passed legislation making the change of date permanent. he had to lobby congress, since his original reason for the change was out of pique (veteran’s benefits legislation hadn’t passed the u.s. congress). the designation of july 4 as republic day dates to the time congress approved the new independence day.
i’m still trying to find the actual executive issuances that set july 4 as fil-am friendship day, my understanding is that the designation took place under marcos. quirino, in 1949 had set it on november 15.
mlq3, to criticize the president for not submitting her proposed budget immediately after her sona is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel. whether or not it’s traditional, it’s not legally required as you pointed out. the deadline date set by law, unless unmet by her, could not and should not be used by the house and senate alike as an excuse for not passing a budget bill on time, and to dump the blame on her.
the timing of the president’s submission has not been the reason for the non-passage or delayed passage of the budget in the past. the record shows that it was the senate who was always the culprit, giving it much lower priority than scandal-mongering “in aid of legislation” kuno. maybe this time, with villar directing its course in the senate, things will be different for a change (as he had shown last year).
the record size of the budget, and the need for much increased expenditure (partly due to balooning population (88.7 million and counting) would naturally require a little bit of fussing, don’t you think?
Manolo,
Ok.
Justice League, I don’t think it is fair to criticize Baggini for not soliciting and making more space available for the views of real life Onnagata because his article focuses more on explaining a logical fallacy rather than on matters dealing with the kabuki theatre itself. The basic structure of Baggini’s article is:
1. The Onnagata give a rationale for male-monopoly on female roles in Kabuki.
2. Baggini gives a response that reveals a possible inconsistency in the Onnagata’s logic when applied to male actors playing male roles.
3. Beggini explains why his own response is a logical fallacy. Along the way, he also says, as you have rightly point out, that there is some good that might come out of such a fallacy after all.
The insidiousness of tu quoque can be glimpsed from the way you preferred to structure the interaction between Side A (the Onnagatas) and Side B (Baggini’s position). You enumerated four points that needed to be proven by Side A:
Actually, the only valid question that Side A needs to prove is point #4. #1 to #3 are distractions in the sense that it deals with the rationale of male actors playing male roles, rather than the main topic of male actors playing female roles. Even if they go through all the trouble addressing #1 to #3 and it is shown that female actors can better portray male roles, we still have not answered the original question about the validity of restricting female roles to male actors.
In the same way, Sir Martin’s own vision is beside the point when addressing Gloria Arroyo’s own [attempt at a] vision.
On the potential good that Tu Quoque can bring about that Baggini mentions and you emphasize, i don’t think there is disagreement among us. I have commented on AKOMISMO’s blog that Jesus Christ also used a Tu Quoque argument when he told the crowd who was about to stone the adultress ‘Let he who has no sin cast the first stone’. His statement was logically flawed, but still morally compelling enough to save a life. Of course, the validity of that type of moral challenge depends on the situation as well as the speaker since not all of us have the moral authority of Jesus Christ.
Cvj,
How are you going to detect any inconsistencies (if there are indeed any) in the Onnagata’s stand if the Onnagata needs to prove only one point?
(Alright, just in case the problem is with the points that I raised; what points will you be raising?)
“In the same way, Sir Martin’s own vision is beside the point when addressing Gloria Arroyo’s own [attempt at a] vision.”
Going back to our discussion on the foreign physicians; I presented pertinent constitutional provisions/laws that will be transgressed/unfulfilled by the government plan. I think you eventually considered that the government proposal was within an “unfair” arrangement.
But still you asked for my own proposals.
If Sir Martin’s own vision is beside the point when addressing Gloria Arroyo’s own [attempt at a] vision; shouldn’t my own proposals be besides the point also when I was addressing the government plan? If mine are; why ask for them?
Now regarding Christ and the aborted stoning of the adulteress; I understand the moral challenge but I feel that it is not logically flawed.
John Chapter 8
4: They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5: Now MOSES IN THE LAW commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6: This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8: And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9: And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10: When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11: She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Jeremiah chapter 31
31: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33: But this shall be the COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL; After those days, saith the LORD, I WILL PUT MY LAW in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34: And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will FORGIVE their iniquity, and I will REMEMBER THEIR SIN NO MORE.
The verses in Jeremiah are but one of many that proclaims that the “law of Moses” was going to be revised. I am under the assumption that
Oh Jeez.
Pushed the button by mistake.
Comment still in progress.
The verses in Jeremiah are but one of many that proclaims that the “law of Moses†was going to be revised. I am under the assumption that the revision was being undertaken by Christ at the time.
The adulteress was to be stoned under a different law which Christ was revising I imagine at that point and was having a retroactive effect on the adulteress’ case. The woman was brought to him by those involved supposedly because of his MORAL authority and not for any government authority he had (otherwise they’d brought her to the Romans or someone like Herod) and his statement was in the context of the new moral law that he was preaching.
Justice League, sorry for the delay as i have limited network access. The line of reasoning that you suggested assumes that you can make an inductive leap from points 1 to 3 to disproving the Onnagata’s stand which i don’t think is the case.
Regarding our previous discussion on the physicians, merely citing the presence of constitutional provisions does not address the issue because it could be that those provisions are wrong, counterproductive or out of date. That’s why i asked you (in earnest, not rhetorically) for your own alternatives on how to address the shortage of physicians without resorting to importing them from abroad. In brainstorming for solutions, the presence or absence of a provision in the Constitution (or any law) is totally beside the point (except perhaps as a constraint that must be observed).
Sir Martin’s own vision is beside the point because he is not the occupant of Malacanang and what we are criticising is the current occupants lack of vision. On the other hand, you and i were not pretending to be anything other than ourselves when we were exchanging ideas on how best to address the labor shortage in medical professionals. So the requisite condition for Tu Quoque (that you believe i’m guilty of) i.e. “showing that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it” – does not apply.
As i remember, you (and UPn Student) proposed to tap the unemployed physicians who are supposed to be abundant in the cities for redeployment into the provinces. I accepted that because i think that is a genuine alternative worth exploring if it turns out that the skillsets and numbers match, and the physicians are willing to make the move.
Regarding the bible episode, the adultress broke the law and Moses specified the punishment. The case is supposed to be open and shut. Jesus’ line of reasoning is similar in form to those who want to let off Gloria Arroyo’s cheating because ‘everybody cheats anyway’. The distinction lies in the context and its underlying moral implications. And if you refer back to what i wrote above, i believe you’ll see that we’re actually saying the same thing. I remember Priscilla Almeda saying those exact same lines (‘He who has no sin…’) during the Senate Hearing back in 2001 and it just did not have the same effect.
Cvj,
Well we’ll most likely have different lines of reasoning into finding out the validity of the Onnagata stand.
Someone else might want to prove it but foremost is to clarify the issues involved. But I am quite interested in how you’d handle it.
Laws are much easier to amend. Granted that the Constitutional provisions are wrong, counterproductive or out of date, we still have to contend with those provisions that as you stated must be observed. Whatever proposals we come up with in this case, we have to consider the Constitution unless we are just engaging in very light conversation. (Well I guess unless we are planning to revolt also.)
I remember a scene from Apollo 13. Gary Sinese was planning what the Astronauts can do in their spaceship. One staff member gave him a flashlight or something. Gary Sinese asked “Do they have this onboard?” When the answer was negative, he said “Then don’t give this to me.”
With regards to Martin’s own vision; Martin has grown convinced that “When people ask me about what I can do, it’s not really to discover what I can but to reveal what I can’t.” So it is immaterial to Martin whether he is the occupant of this or that or as himself. Quite lucky of him then in this case. Seems every similar reasoning to him will now be tu quoque.
BTW, I stated that I never considered our old discussion as tu quoque on your part.
With regards to the Bible; like I implied, the moral law was drastically being revised by Christ. The same cannot be said about the law on “cheating”.
But good that you brought up UPN’s ideas. It was only on review that I got to read his other issues which by that time; the issue was too old.
Cvj,
If Sen. Trillanes’ lawyers point out that the DOJ or the government allows detainee Misuari to do this and that but won’t allow Sen. Trillanes to do something similar; would that be Tu Quoque?