San Luis, the new Marcoleta?

328 thoughts on “San Luis, the new Marcoleta?”

1. Who is Lailow?

2. cvj, since when is there no right to hold an opinion? who abolished it, you? have you heard of freedom of thought in a democracy?

   if its someone’s opinion that you don’t agree, your non-agreement is also an opinion. how can one not have an opinion while you can?

   i can believe what i want to believe about you (which is an opinion) and there’s nothing in hell you can do about it, unless i publicize it and it constitutes an actionable defamation.

   karah, bibeth, and harry. i find myself agreeing to most of your points of view. i think i have expressed similar opinions in this blog and have to defend them against the likes of abe, mlq3, djb, mb, shaman, cvj, mbw and a few others. btw, karah, i have faced the same problems dealing with cvj’s unorthodox method of argumentation. he’s persistent, but he’s o.k. glad you came around, guys.

3. bencard, as i was trying to explain to Karah, there is no such thing as a right to an opinion. what is mistaken for the right to an opinion is actually the right to free speech. btw, thanks for the good word.

4. cvj,

   I take that the number of people for a “Singapore” like Philippines has increased to 7, with the addition of Bencard, Vic, and Pete. Ironic, since your the one in Singapore right now. Its not so bad, everytime I go there I can’t help but envy what I see. Anyway, I’ll be there in November, I hope to see you there, I’ll treat you to beer at “Hooters” there’s one in Clark Quay.

5. karah, bibeth, harry

   Guys take it easy on cvj, he’s out there away from his native land, sometimes it’s a lonely experience. Probably explains why he’s blogging most of the time (hehehe). His reluctance to give away some freedoms may yet be justifiable as he is experiencing Singapore first hand and it seems that not all the people there are happy about it.

   Pete,

   Inasmuch as I am willing to give up some of my freedoms as long as its applicable to everyone, I still have a little bit of reservation. Its something we have to be careful about, you know the saying “be careful what you wish for?” Putting too much power on the “implementors”
   is a bit scary at this time. I know how it feels to have the power over somebody, it misleads you to believe you are “god” sometimes, some people don’t know how to handle it hence the abuses.

   On the topic of these military adventurists, in the context of the premise that “we are a government of laws” and the military institution itself has clearly defined rules of conduct, they knew what they were going into. Regardless of their intentions (whether they were political or not) they still crossed the line and there are no excuses. They know that they have to face the consequences, this is nothing new to them. I only ask you and those who would readily “lop off their heads” to be compassionate, at least give them the benefit of the doubt, understand that these are young men, they acted on what they believed in and are facing the consequences. Your heart should also go to to their families and friends who are suffering right now. Please be more compassionate, these are not cold blooded killers or rapists…

6. It is not surprising that the debate between Hobbesian “Levithian” and Lockes “Treatise on Civil Govenment” is now raging in most of the developing world. However limited in scope it must now be broadened based on todays standards on contracts, property rights inequality and on the effects on the environement.

   Someone once wrote that democracy is the only political system that allows its own demise. Once again it is a matter of equilibrium. Nothing can bring it to that state as much as letting the markets operate freelly allowing the forces of greed and fear independent interplay.

   The ability to produce weapons of mass destructions have now been equally distributed to all different races. The danger lies in the fact that closed societies or societies that have brutally oppressed its minorities have always produced the crazies. (The source of most militant fundamentalist Muslims come from the most closed Islamic societies or other societies)

   Industrial warfare makes mass war irrational. The privatization of violence and limited warfare is a normal course. Al Qaeda, Blackwater and other NGO’s are involved in the business of warfare. There are more private contractors in Iraq than there are soldiers from the U.S.

   There is no doubt that state players fund Al Qaeda and other terrorist orgs. Here in the Philippines there is no doubt that U.S. funds and private funds are used to fund black ops. using private (retired military and police) players vs. leftists and perceived enemies to the state.

   Bog Mike and GMA took over the country with severely damaged institutions after Erap. Then Chief Justice Davide and justice Panganiban presided over the dismembering of the Constituion. They effectively led the SC and legislated and adjudicated a new format for constitutionally removing a President outside of Congress or a Constituional Convention.
   The military and the Supreme Court were damaged and the military establishment shifted loyalties to the person instead of to the law. The joint chiefs of staff of the country and the chief of the national police committed treason vs. the constituion on which the republic stands. The Philippines reverted to the Hobbesian “Levithian” form of government.

   Big Mike and GMA are now taking it to its logical process. Loyalty to the First Couple takes precedence over the rule of law.

   Loyalty to the First Couple can be exchanged for currency. Almost all of the strategic institutions of state are loaded with their puppets and they get to load it up with more. They have the power over the treasury and create at will wealth for the loyalists.

7. Ramrod, i’ve never been to Hooters so i’m looking forward to your arrival.

8. ramrod, i think you got it upside down. it’s not cvj who is
   “reluctant” to give up some freedom, rather it’s him who want to deny us the freedom to have an opinion. i think he is having an overdose of singapore, or he just doesn’t understand the concept of liberty in a democracy. which one is it, cvj?

9. ramrod,

   my reply to you re adventurists has gone ‘disaperisado’ an involuntary disapearance victim.

   re your point re putting too much power in the hands of ‘implementors’ is vague, can you be specific if you are replying to a suggestion that somebody had put forward?

10. ramrod,

    ramrod:”I only ask you and those who would readily “lop off their heads” to be compassionate, at least give them the benefit of the doubt, understand that these are young men, they acted on what they believed in and are facing the consequences. Your heart should also go to to their families and friends who are suffering right now. Please be more compassionate,”

    I posted at ellen t’s blog, the first thread on trillanes running for senator,January 21st, 2007:

    “I was against the Oakwood experiment by the Magadalos which Trillanes led. The armed maneuver was a political mistake. Resignation en-masse, a hunger strike and a call for civil disobedience, imho, could have had a better chance. But they put their lives on the line for us. Their families have suffered so much. In this election we unite with them and their families in this fight for Truth and Justice.”

11. “re your point re putting too much power in the hands of ‘implementors’ is vague, can you be specific if you are replying to a suggestion that somebody had put forward?”- pete

    I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear on this. Karah, Harry, Bibeth, and I were discussing the viability of following the “Singapore” model as an alternative form of government for the Philippines. All of us were willing to give up certain “freedoms.” Someone commented “I’d rather lose mine and make sure that the cops and military lose their right to deprive others the right to life.” I thought it was you, it was Vic. My bad, I only noticed you and the others.

    Thank you for your comment in Ellen’s blog Jan 21, 2007. At least someone sees this issue without prejudgment. As for Trillanes, I started doubting him when he joined up with Estrada. But then again, without knowing him, talking or him, that would be unfair. As I am ignorant to most political issues, I will welcome your “take” on this.

    I bought the book “Closer Than Brothers” by Alfred McCoy as suggested by MLQ3. It’s about two PMA classes ’40 and ’71, very insightful, its only now that I began to understand certain aspects of my youth that I could never reconcile…

12. “ramrod, i think you got it upside down. it’s not cvj who is
    “reluctant” to give up some freedom, rather it’s him who want to deny us the freedom to have an opinion. i think he is having an overdose of singapore, or he just doesn’t understand the concept of liberty in a democracy. which one is it, cvj?”- bencard

    Nah. I think he’s just “pulling karah’s leg.”

13. ramrod,

    thanks for the reply,

    looks like a big fight is on between GMA and JdV.

14. “Nah, I think he’s just “pulling karah’s leg.” ramrod.

    i don’t think so, not cvj. he would not put himself on record unless he could defend his point of view. btw, why don’t you let the man speak for himself?

15. “bencard, as i was trying to explain to Karah, there is no such thing as a right to an opinion. what is mistaken for the right to an opinion is actually the right to free speech. “- cvj

    The way I see it here, he’s playing with semantics, how can you divorce “free speech” from “opinion?” When you air out this opinion you have to use your faculties of speech. We can ask him about it but…

16. pete,

    GMA and JDV fight. Looks to me like powder puff girl versus yoda. This may turn out to be very interesting as the fight deepens we might be at the receiving end of some revelations.

17. ramrod, then why are you making excuses for him? “We can ask him about it but…”. but what?

18. cvj, ramrod, check this out:

    “However, there’s no such thing as the right to an opinion. Instead, anyone who holds an opinion is duty-bound to justify it.” cvj, 10/8, 1:57 am.

19. for those who are following the little exchanges in this and the “free burma” threads in this blog concerning military discipline and “adventurism”, here’s a recent article which i find interesting:

    Dissent on The Front

    Are there consequences for soldiers who write publicly, and prominently, against the war? Eight are finding out. “We have failed on every promise,” wrote seven 82nd Airborne paratroopers in a stark dispatch from Baghdad that was the lead Sunday op-ed in the New York Times Aug. 19. Superiors at Fort Bragg were surprised – but not professors at Marquette, where Sp. Buddhika Jayamaha, whose name led the op-ed, had studied. One, Barrett McCormick, said he e-mailed with “BJ” recently. He was very curious about what was going to happen,” he says. “No one knows what the repercussions will be.”

    There might not be any. Army policies permit soldiers to write or blog as long as they don’t compromise operational security (e.g., troop locations) or challenge civilian leadership. Until it is established that they violated any regulations, they will not be punished just for their views,” said Army spokesman Maj. Tom Earnhardt.

    The future is murkier for Pvt. Scott Beauchamp, whose shocking tales in The New Republic – including a soldier wearing a fragment of a child’s skull – were disputed by bloggers, notably at The Weekly Standard. The influential magazine, which in 1998 was hurt badly by a writer’s serial fabrications, said in two editor’s notes it had re-reported Beauchamp’s work and stood by it, except for one error: one anecdote took place in Kuwait, not Iraq.

    But the editors have had no contact with Beauchamp in weeks, and efforts to corroborate his work have stalled. His wife, Elspeth Reeve, a fact checker at the magazine, said his laptop and cell phone had been confiscated; that he is permitted to speak only to her, his mother and a lawyer; and tha some calls are supervised. But the Army said Beauchamp has no restrictions on his communications. (Attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.)

    The New Republic is waiting to talk to Beauchamp, leaving its critics unchallenged. “It’s maddening,” says editor Franklin Foe. How long can an editor ask readers to wait? “It’s important to try to be thorough…If it takes time, there’s nothing we can do about it.” Army spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl said its inquiry is ongoing at the unit level. Beauchamp cannot be punished for his views, but he faces the possibility of administrative, or noncriminal, charge if the Army determines he lied in his writings.
    Nick Summers and Catharine Skipp
    Newsweek, 9/3/2007

20. Bencard is right. I wasn’t pulling Karah’s leg. The distinction between the right to free speech and the right to an opinion is not mere semantics. Karah’s right to free speech means that no one has the right to silence her because that would infringe on her right. In short, her right to free speech gives rise to our duty not to silence her.

    In contrast, there is no corresponding duty to agree with (or even listen to) her opinion. Anyone is free to agree, disagree, or disregard anyone else’s opinion. It is the person who puts forward an opinion who is duty bound to justify or defend it using facts, logic or an appeal to values. Hiding behind the ‘right to an opinion’ does not qualify as a valid defense.

21. cvj,

    Good luck telling that to karah, the feisty “annie” of cyberspace.

22. i’ll hold my peace this time. i wouldn’t spoil it for karah for anything in the world.

23. Suggested reading for Karah et. al.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_entitled_to_my_opinion

24. For the above, enter the entire URL string.

25. Sorry, bad link above. Try this instead (just add “http” in front):

    “en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion”

26. “I’m entitled to my opinion or I have a right to my opinion is a common declaration in rhetoric or debate that can be made in an attempt to persuade others to hold the opinion. When asserted for this reason, the statement exemplifies an informal logical fallacy of the type red herring. Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether an opinion is true or false. To assert the existence of the right is a failure to assert any justification for the opinion.

    It can sometimes be an instance of the formal fallacy of equivocation when any of the various concepts of ‘a right’ – legal rights, natural rights or entitlement are confused.”

    cvj,

    All this rhetorical mumbo jumbo is as alien to me as Mandarin or French. Please write in English, us salesmen can’t keep up. hehehe

27. Ramrod, here’s an additional link. Hope it’s clearer.

    http://articles.wallstraits.net/articles/1376

28. Ramrod, posted another link…will have to wait for Manolo’s approval.

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