333 thoughts on “Intervention for the Prosecution: Why the BJE-MOA is an impeachable offense”

1. justice league,

   “DID YOU GET THAT FROM ME?”

   YES FROM YOU

   “You are the one insisting on that issue when my actual claim is that –

   “They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. Beyond a 6 month term, other discouraged workers are NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED.” ”

   my goodness. let me remind you of the history of our discussion –

   you claimed that govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs. your basis? that NSCB resolution, which turns out to be just a redefinition of “unemployed” for survey purposes

   (you even cited PCIJ to support your assertion!)

   then i took issue with that, saying that you cannot use that NSCB resolution in supporting a view of increase in employment due to a redefinition of unemployed.

   thats why i was asking for another NSCB info on employment which includes UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED because if there is such that would be conclusive (and supportive of your assertion) because again, you can’t use that earlier NSCB resolution to claim something on job creation!

   to simplify –

   you are wrong in saying govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs by mere redefinition of unemployed using as proof that NSCB resolution

   you said

   “Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.
   November 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm “

2. Anthony Scalia,

   “my goodness. let me remind you of the history of our discussion –

   you claimed that govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs. your basis? that NSCB resolution, which turns out to be just a redefinition of “unemployed” for survey purposes”

   Yes and all of those jobs were MADE OF THIN AIR! Since I was doing that based on memory; I even tried to be conservative!

   EVERYONE OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS GENERATED OVERNIGHT WERE MADE OF THIN AIR!

   You really expected those jobs to be concrete?

   “(you even cited PCIJ to support your assertion!)”

   I told you about its IMPACT as based on PCIJ.

   And that is now supported by the matrix I got from NSCB.

   “then i took issue with that, saying that you cannot use that NSCB resolution in supporting a view of increase in employment due to a redefinition of unemployed.”

   Why don’t you do your own math then and see if the employment RATE doesn’t go up with that redefinition as the workforce gets trimmed?

   “thats why i was asking for another NSCB info on employment which includes UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED because if there is such that would be conclusive (and supportive of your assertion) because again, you can’t use that earlier NSCB resolution to claim something on job creation!”

   Be it though even that I have only produced a redefinition of unemployment; your “patchworking” is worse than you can possibly accuse me of as what you really got so far is UNEMPLOYED > 6 months = NOT CONSIDERED EMPLOYED which still standby to and not your UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED.

   “you are wrong in saying govt was able to WHIFF OUT OF THIN AIR hundreds of thousands of jobs by mere redefinition of unemployed using as proof that NSCB resolution”

   See above!

3. Oooopppsss.

   It should be

   Be it though even that I have only produced a redefinition of unemployment; your “patchworking” is worse than you can possibly accuse me of as what you really got so far is UNEMPLOYED > 6 months = NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED which I still standby to and not your UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED.

4. justice league,

   may i remind you that to back up your earlier assertion:

   “Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.
   November 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm “

   you cited that NSCB resolution. thats where you discovered the ‘Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs’ that were ‘generated overnight.’ in a mere redefinition of ‘unemployed’

   turns out that the NSCB resolution is just a mere redefinition, without actual figures on the new ‘unemployed’

   lets go back to your earlier assertion my friend:

   “in 2004…. Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.”

   and your latest

   “EVERYONE OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS GENERATED OVERNIGHT WERE MADE OF THIN AIR!”

   where did you get those? from that NSCB resolution? i don’t see figures there my friend

   can you give the exact figure? okay rounded off to the nearest hundred. and where did you get that figure? what study, what survey, what year etc.

   “And that is now supported by the matrix I got from NSCB.”

   are you referring to that NSCB resolution on the mere redefinition of unemployed? is that a matrix already to you? again, i don’t see the numbers there my friend

   “Why don’t you do your own math then and see if the employment RATE doesn’t go up with that redefinition as the workforce gets trimmed?”

   whoa hold it right there mi amigo. YOU ARE THE ONE ASSERTING THAT.

   so are you saying that you’re just assuming the employment rate went up because the number of unemployed was reduced because of a redefinition of unemployment? that that was the result of the WHIFFING OUT OF THIN AIR?

   im already helping you out to rebut me successfully:

   1. cite an NSCB figure on the employed
   2. dig deeper and check if the numbers on the employed include “those left out in the latest survey on the redefined ‘unemployed’ ”

   and/or

   1. cite the latest NSCB survey on the unemployed using the new definition of unemployed
   2. get the figure on the unemployed
   3. cite any govt spin on a “trimmed” unemployed population

5. justice league,

   sorry i forgot the latest NSCB link you cited, that could be the matrix you are referring to.

   anyway, on this matrix:

   it only says that 1.024M jobless people were excluded from the number of unemployed.

   but it does not categorically say that these 1.024M can now be regarded as employed!

   it does not support your claim:

   “I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.”
   November 18th, 2008 at 2:35 am

   did the NSCB ever say “its safe to say that those left out of unemployment stats can be deemed employed already”?

6. justice league, are you being stubborn, or are you just dense? your statements really implied that the government made it appear that jobs have been created. it was not the case.

7. grd,

   justice league cited a new NSCB link:

   http://www.nscb.gov.ph/announce/ForTheRecord/06June2006_unemployment.asp

   which states that 1.024M were excluded from the number of unemployed Pinoys.

   thats all it says – how many were excluded fromt he number of unemployed pinoys

   it does not say that these 1.024M can now be deemed employed

   thats the trouble with JLA’s approach. he quickly assumed that since 1.024M were excluded from the unemployed, 1.024M jobs were created!

   he said

   “I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.”
   November 18th, 2008 at 2:35 am

   actually you may not have to apologize to JLA. because if you will read that latest NSCB link, the excluded 1.024M actually came from those unemployed > 6 months. the NSCB had to explain why the 1.024M were excluded

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

   — with garci tapes, gma herself apologized for calling a comelec official during the election period…” i am sorry”…sorry din but she violated a law and should have been at least disqualified and the rightful winner sitting in malacanang be it fernando poe or the vice president winner!

9. “but knowing how bright the boys of the ‘united” opposition are and how such brightness helped their kick-gloria-out operations for the past 8 years, i don’t see that taking place. a PBA team getting an Olympic gold is easier to visualize”

   –maybe when the USA sends a team composed of the relatives of gma, hence mga unano, then RP will win an olympic gold, and because the rest of other basketball teams drank or ate something made from china!

10. “–maybe when the USA sends a team composed of the relatives of gma, hence mga unano, then RP will win an olympic gold, and because the rest of other basketball teams drank or ate something made from china!”

    talo pa rin ang RP 5 sa Yao Ming-led China. he and his teammates already drank and ate something from China all their lives!

11. Istambay,

    You wrote: “– with garci tapes, gma herself apologized for calling a comelec official during the election period…” i am sorry”…sorry din but she violated a law and should have been at least disqualified and the rightful winner sitting in malacanang be it fernando poe or the vice president winner!”

    For once, I agree with you. The Garci tapes never did (and never could) prove cheating. (Menawhile, the PET recount demonstrated that massive, systematic cheating did not occur).

    That’s the part that mlq3 and many others have trouble coming to grips with — GMA did not cheat in the elections. Despite the evidence, mlq3 et al have created mass-fantasies that many enjoy revelling in.

    The reality is that the opposition — if they truly wanted to do things right and not just manufacture a “people power” — should have pursued that angle. GMA’s admission about talking with an election official is a clear offense.

12. I think the reason many govs remove some unemployed from their lists is because they wish to differentiate between those looking for work and those who aren’t. Why?

    I think it’s because of the existence of “unemployed” like criminals, lazy hangers-on, those raising/tending children (including men), those who don’t want to work (for whatever reason)), etc.

    Isn’t all of this also tied-in with some countries’ welfare programs? You need to prove you are looking for work in order to get benefits, no?

13. mlq3,

    You wrote: “geo, there’s a reason i became a columnist and not a novelist. i will leave the novel-writing to you, it’s beyond my ken.”

    Sir, you are a columnist…but only in the sense that you have a column, a blog and a tv show in which you can say anything you want and peddle it as truth.

    The fact is that you have used your considerable knowlwdge of history and an excellent command of the english language and have become a propagandist.

    How can I call this a “fact”? A) Your rejection of known facts — which contradict your story line, B) Your insistence on your interpretations — even though there is scant evidence to support such claims, and B) Your ever-expanding lists of “facts” which are use to prove new “facts”.

    I’m just glad that you are now openly political and partisan (the impeachment MOA insertion thingy), rather than pretending to be intellectually driven and “open” (“The Explainer” or you allowing various points of view in your blog).

    No sir, you are a very good novelist. You have helped spin a hug fantastical tale which many still believe.

    I request you take a look at today’s Sassy Lawyer column, http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=connieVeneracion_nov18_2008.

    “The currently acceptable paradigm of political belief” is what I read in here, in this blog.

14. oops…

    In my last post, towards the end, that should have been:

    “C) Your ever-expanding lists of UNPROVEN “facts” which are use to prove new CONCOCTED “facts”.”

15. actually you may not have to apologize to JLA. because if you will read that latest NSCB link, the excluded 1.024M actually came from those unemployed > 6 months. the NSCB had to explain why the 1.024M were excluded… anthony scalia

    anthony, the new matrix cited by justice league is similar with the old one I cited from Dr. Habito. that was what I’m saying also about those UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS, excluded from the Unemployed but not necessarily added to the Employed.

    Re UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED – going through all the posts again, I agree with you. Justice league indeed made that assertion (indirectly) on his/her earlier comments like the one below:

    they pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!

    Whiffed out of thin air! MAGIC!

    I’m sure if the Government comes up with a new definition to use, ie. like instead of 6 months the period is shortened to 2 months or so; millions of jobs are going to be magically lopped off that 10 million jobs you stated.”
    justice league November 16th, 2008 at 2:24 am

    ==============================

    yes initially i thought (1) (2) and (3) were not cumulative… anthony scalia

    i take it that you’re agreeable now to justice league and saxnviolins’ interpretation of the new definition of HSBC (November 17th, 2008 at 2:38 am) which I also find to be correct.

16. geo, you can go back to my writing since 1994, i have never said a columnist ought not to be partisan, in fact opinion is precisely what it is, opinion. and furthermore, a columnist is required to take sides. “objectivity” while in itself something admirable, when a fetish is the refuge of scoundrels.

    it’s interesting to me that partisanship to you is recourse to our institution and their systems and not the call i made in 2005 for the president to resign, or our going to the supreme court in 2006 over charter change. or that your definition of selectivity is to insist everything i assert is a fabrication or wrong while not considering for yourself, what you demand of me: you insist i consider the president is pure as driven snow, that this is all a misunderstanding, while refusing to consider what you demand of me: well, what if i’m right?

    you see it leaves us where i’ve always said we were: on opposite sides of the fence.

17. here both sides of the fence are claiming they have the facts, hence the truth. however, it cannot be denied that the legal avenues of presenting the truth are not always considered facts as they can be twisted and discarded due to technicalities.

    it is up to us common tao to use our common sense ( and not emotions) to sort out the web of lies our politicians spun.

    in these times i cannot believe just take the word of any politician as the truth but use my God given common sense. if we are searching or looking for the truth/fact as required by the legal sense then the way politics in the philippines is going we will never find it.

18. mindanaoan :

    “justice league, are you being stubborn, or are you just dense?”

    Neither as of yet. More like unbelievably tolerant.

    Anthony Scalia,

    “it only says that 1.024M jobless people were excluded from the number of unemployed.
    but it does not categorically say that these 1.024M can now be regarded as employed!”

    But I never regarded them as EMPLOYED.

    What I meant to say was that there were 1.024M FICTITIOUS jobs. And I don’t regard people with such fictitious jobs as employed.

    My statement of “Literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were generated overnight.” was later clarified by the “whiff it OUT OF THIN AIR.”

    If you looked up what “out of thin air” means, you should have realized that those jobs were FICTITIOUS.

    And the fictitious nature of those jobs was backed up when you asked me “so you’ll agree that the next move is, the actual creation of jobs?” and I answered “If “ACTUAL CREATION” is the operative phrase; of course; I’m for it.”

    “did the NSCB ever say “its safe to say that those left out of unemployment stats can be deemed employed already”

    No, but then I didn’t deem them employed either.

    Do you actually have a categorical statement from me that I claim that those people are employed or are you just relying from “patchworking”?

    As early as Nov. 16, 2:24 AM, I related my interpretation of the NSCB criteria followed by a clarification at 2:47 AM with the clarification stating that “They pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. Beyond a 6 month term, other discouraged workers are not considered unemployed!”

    Removing the discouraged tag, what can be inferred from that is “UNEMPLOYED > 6 months = NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED”.

    Yet instead of exhorting me to prove that claim (which I can); you came up some TWENTY HOURS LATER with YOUR OWN DISTORTED interpretation/counter-interpretation of the NSCB criteria and you are trying to pass it on to me as if it is my interpretation.

    The first sign of something like “if the person is still unemployed for more than 6 months he is deemed employed already” CAME FROM YOUR POST on Nov. 16, 9:52 PM with the actual sentence being “The NSCB IS NOT saying that if the person is still unemployed for more than 6 months he is deemed employed already.”

    You then refined it into “UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED” and tried to PASS IT OFF as my interpretation of the NSCB criteria and then insisted on me to prove it.

    After I tried to correct your reading of the NSCB criteria on Nov 16, 10:07 PM, you started to insist on me to prove YOUR interpretation/counter-interpretation at 10:59 PM.

    And your attempt to PASS THAT OFF was OVERKILL on Nov. 17, 6:20 PM when you stated in your post statements like

    “that was your basis in saying “UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED thats my issue with you”,

    “particularly, my issue with you is – does that NSCB resolution expressly declare: UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED”,

    “look again – my issue with you is your insistence that: UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED”,

    “sorry but your case scenario is speculative. it wont help resolve our issue UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED”

    ETC…………………….

    (It looks like a strawman tactic on your part more and more)

    Now regarding that HIGHER EMPLOYMENT RATE based on the NEW definition of unemployment; you can see the impact of the new definition in the PHILIPPINE LABOR FORCE SURVEY January 2006
    //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2006/lf0601tx.html

    In that survey, they utilized the new definition pegging the unemployment at 2,840,000 with the rate at 8.1%.

    The employment rate thus was 91.9%.

    However at the bottom before the technical notes; they posted the unemployment based on the old criteria and the unemployment rate was 10.7%.

    So if the OLD criteria was used, the employment rate would only be 89.3% instead of the higher 91.9%.

    And that is categorical proof that the new criteria leads to a higher employment rate!

    Now regarding that respect for JCOs; I have a categorical statement from you that you stated “there’s only one opposition group I truly respect – the likes of Satur and Casiño. because i am assured that these people are really after the nation’s interests”.

    And then you asked me “as for “i don’t respect the JCO”? did i really say that?”

    So for the likes of Ramon del Rosario Jr,, Jose L. Cuisia Jr., etc… who are capitalists. Who are not Satur and Casino but create jobs and are very vocal on being opposition.

    Do you respect members of the opposition like them?

    Since you asked me last time to begin my reply with a particular issue, CAN YOU RETURN THE FAVOR AND START YOUR REPLY with the issue regarding your respect for the JCOs?

    Grd,
    “Re UNEMPLOYED > 6 MONTHS = EMPLOYED – going through all the posts again, I agree with you. Justice league indeed made that assertion (indirectly) on his/her earlier comments like the one below:”

    Can you please clarify how I asserted that and please use also any pertinent parts from the 2:47 AM clarification?

19. grd,

    yes i agree to the comment of saxnviolins on November 17th, 2008 at 2:38 am

    (1) (2) and (3) are cumulative.

20. justice league,

    “More like unbelievably tolerant.”

    just like me! lets drink to that my friend!

    pero you skipped mindanaoan’s other comment – “your statements really implied that the government made it appear that jobs have been created. it was not the case.”

    “Now regarding that respect for JCOs; I have a categorical statement from you that you stated “there’s only one opposition group I truly respect – the likes of Satur and Casiño. because i am assured that these people are really after the nation’s interests”.

    And then you asked me “as for “i don’t respect the JCO”? did i really say that?”

    So for the likes of Ramon del Rosario Jr,, Jose L. Cuisia Jr., etc… who are capitalists. Who are not Satur and Casino but create jobs and are very vocal on being opposition.

    Do you respect members of the opposition like them?”

    ahem. TO BEGIN WITH, when did Ramon Del Rosario, Jose Cuisia etc. and the other capitalists ever become vocal parrots of “patalsikin na now na”?

    businessmen being known critics of the sitting president is nothing new. but openly calling for a sitting president’s resignation or removal? i haven’t heard such coming out from the lips of the capitalists. not even Oscar Lopez of Meralco said that in the open

    just because of their membership in the MBC? just because MBC funded that interfaith rally? just because they did not oppose that interfaith rally?

    IIRC, that interfaith rally is more for “the truth to come out” supporting the ZTE hearings. no “patalsikin na now na.” and I remember clearly that according to my friends who attended that rally, all those present there felt betrayed when suddenly Adel Tamano and other members of that bumbling stupid group called ‘united opposition’ appeared and started talking on stage! that interfaith rally was supposed to be nonpartisan!

    so even assuming the MBC endorsed that rally, it did so with the understanding that it would be nonpartisan!

    you are forgetting how i defined the opposition I completely loathe (to say it mildly):

    now who is the opposition – those who call themselves the ‘united opposition.’ those good-for-nothing-beyond-anti-gloria, its-our-turn, worse-than-gloria, self-righteous, pompous, no-better-than-Mike-Arroyo politicians
    (November 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am)

    by the way, all descriptions are cumulative

    Satur et al never considered themselves members of the UNO. nor are they of the “kami naman” mindset

    The capitalists are not members of the UNO. all the more they do not have the “kami naman” mindset

    my introduction of the use of JCO is more of an accommodation to you, using your line of argument, your own terms. since you are insisting that the capitalists are also opposition.

    my statement:

    “The Ayalas and the Lopezes may be opposition at heart, but their main pre-occupation is still business.” (November 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am)

    is not an agreement to your insistence that they are opposition!

    because their main pre-occupation is still business, they are hardly of the “kami naman” variety.

    please don’t forget my correct description of the opposition.

    so name one or some ‘JCO’ who openly said “patalsikin na now na” and not some vague motherhood statements like “we need a change in leadership” or something to that effect, then i’ll answer your query if i respect them also like Satur et al.

    “Since you asked me last time to begin my reply with a particular issue, CAN YOU RETURN THE FAVOR AND START YOUR REPLY with the issue regarding your respect for the JCOs?”

    see above.

21. justice league :

    “Now regarding that HIGHER EMPLOYMENT RATE based on the NEW definition of unemployment; you can see the impact of the new definition in the PHILIPPINE LABOR FORCE SURVEY January 2006
    //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2006/lf0601tx.html

    In that survey, they utilized the new definition pegging the unemployment at 2,840,000 with the rate at 8.1%.

    The employment rate thus was 91.9%.

    However at the bottom before the technical notes; they posted the unemployment based on the old criteria and the unemployment rate was 10.7%.

    So if the OLD criteria was used, the employment rate would only be 89.3% instead of the higher 91.9%.

    And that is categorical proof that the new criteria leads to a higher employment rate!”

    ——————————————————————————

    you should have cited than census link from the onset

    you will agree, that latest link is more definitive than the two NSCB links you first cited

    but don’t hold your breath:

    1. that same study acknowledged a different figure if the old definition is used. said differently, the presence of that disclaimer puts to rest allegations of manipulation by that study

    2. that study came up with employment figures by actual count of employed people, not simply by deducting the 8.1 from 100. that study was able to account for the 91.9 employed by industry and by job category

    thanks for the census link. appreciate the effort

    would you have the latest study by the census dept on the same matter?

22. mlq3,

    Fine, you are an opinionated columnist. To be honest, my pet peeve with you has more to do with how you have previously presented yourself and certain topics on The Explainer. In those instances, it seemed you were acting neutrally analytical, while careful attention could discern the partisan spin. Much like Ricky, Pinky and Pia on ANC. Or like many “straight” reported articles in PDI which are definitely NOT supposed to be partisan.

    Wow, it seems you have a mistrust of “objectivity”! But non-partisan analysts and historians do (or attempt to do) just that. That’s their “fetish”, but I don’t think they are scoundrels.

    Yes, I think that the institutions and systems are purposefully non-partisan. It’s the players within the poliitcal arena who are partisan. So yes — your call for resignation and your opposition to Cha-Cha are partisan (and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that), while I consider my call for respecting the systems and institutions to be non-partisan (remember, I also don’t approve of the Erap ouster…despite my partisan dislike of him).

    No, I don’t think everything you assert must be false. Nor have I ever asked you to consider GMA to be as pure as the driven snow. I don’t see her as anything but human…which means she has the capacity for good and for evil.

    The situation here, though, is that she is also the President. She is a critical part of the system; not just a stand-alone human. This makes rendering any judgements about her more sensitive than usual. One needs to remain as objective as possible, as the institution of her office is a pillar of this country’s democratic system.

    So I asked you to go back to the beginning and to look at the charges of electoral fraud…to look at that with a clean slate. That doesn’t mean I want you to accept any point of view (yet), but just to step back for a minute. You can do that, can’t you? After all, this is the first step during an intellectual analysis, isn’t it — to discern the known from the unknown?

    What we know is that edited copies surfaced with bits and pieces of recorded conversations. The original tapes have never surfaced, rendering the copied ones as legally immaterial. But that means that there’s no proof one way or the other.

    Of more import is the polls taken repeatedly before the voting and during exit from the voting stations. It was pretty much all the same — a ~1m vote victory for GMA. But again, this is not hard proof. It’s possible that they were all wrong.

    The best way to evaluate the validity is, then, to actually open up ballot boxes. And that’s what the Supreme Court did. And they found no evidence of massive, systematic cheating.

    The likely, scientifically-valid, factually-supported conclusion is: GMA didn’t cheat. That’s what the hard evidence says.

    By saying that, I don’t automatically become a blind GMA lover; I do not automatically fall on the “other” side of those who are anti-GMA (i.e. the pro-GMA side)…I AM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THOSE WHO CLAIM GMA CHEATED (i.e. the go-by-the-evidence-especially-in-such-a-sensitive-case side).

    This is a hard thing for some screechers (bert, dodong, istampay, for ex) to understand. My guess is because they stopped listening, thinking and analysing a long time ago…it’s all emotional fury. But that’s OK, they admittedly reject facts and evidence and have formed their opinions based on some inherent grasp of the Truth which they possess.

    I would expect you to be better than that, mlq3. Moreso that you can have an effect on the general population, who is looking towards the media for getting an accurate presentation of the issues and facts.

    Alas, you are only a spinmeister. So I can now only hope that you keep first telling the public that you are very partisan before you say anything.

    (BTW, I often try to walk through a new “controversy” by first taking one extreme position and then repeating the process from the other extreme’s viewpoint. I then actually look at the concrete evidence. So, yes — I have often put myself in your shoes and have wondered “what if they are right?”)

23. I think the story is that the RP gov changed its methodologies for a variety of economic metrics. This was done, I understand, as part of a movement towards global standardizations in accounting, both private and public.

    When releasing new data — using new methodologies — they have often still reported what the figures would be if using the old measurements and/or comparing them with previous figures, modified via the new methodologies. This isn’t unique to (un)employment figures.

24. “This is a hard thing for some screechers (bert, dodong, istampay, for ex) to understand. My guess is because they stopped listening, thinking and analysing a long time ago…it’s all emotional fury. But that’s OK, they admittedly reject facts and evidence and have formed their opinions based on some inherent grasp of the Truth which they possess.”-Geo

    Oh really now, Geo, you are the great thinker and analyzer then? You are not selective in your objective to analyze, are you?

    GMA won the election fair and square, you said. Try figuring out why election results in some parts of Mindanao showed Chavit the top vote-getter with some opposition senators doing fairly well then after a few days the final results counted by Abalos’ comelec showed all GMA senators winning, opposition zero, and Chavit nowhere in sight? Do you mean they did it for the senators but not for GMA?

    You don’t beleive that? If yes, then you are a believer in magic so how now can I argue with you?

    Do you remember who is/was Dimasidsing? He is/was a human being. Now not anymore. You want some facts, go get his birth certificate…or better yet his death certificate. But no, you don’t want that kind of fact, you only chose what you want, of course. Yes?

25. Geo,

    Dimasidsing, as you know, was the election officer who was trying to hold on to his copy of the true election results.

26. Bert,

    You just proved my point.

    Regarding the national Presidential elections, your analysis is based on hearsay, unrelated events and inanity.

    Look, the fact is that the PET actually opened the ballot boxes and looked at the VP (and Prez) votes in the areas where Loren Legarda said there was cheating. The court ruled that there were no meaningful anomalies.

    On the one hand, the hard evidence demonstrates no cheating.

    On the other hand, the edited copies of adulterated snippets of conversations, the accusing fingers of trapos with much to gain and the imaginations of opinionated media “reporters”, all demonstrate cheating.

    This isn’t magic, bert. You figure out which position is based on opinion and which is based on facts…..

27. Bert,

    “GMA won the election fair and square, you said. Try figuring out why election results in some parts of Mindanao showed Chavit the top vote-getter with some opposition senators doing fairly well then after a few days the final results counted by Abalos’ comelec showed all GMA senators winning, opposition zero, and Chavit nowhere in sight? Do you mean they did it for the senators but not for GMA?”

    did chavit run in 2004?

    the mere fact of cheating is not enough. you must show that the cheating changed the outcome.

    even if Dimasidsing came out with the “true election results” it wont change the outcome

    teka wait. by the way, how did you know in the first place that the one Dimasidsing holds is the true one, not false one?

    bro. eddie may scream that he was cheated, and there could be some basis for that, but it won’t change the outcome in his favor.

    like it or not, our old election laws provide that no protest will be entertained if the protest won’t change the result

    the protests of Loren and FPJ are puro pa-pogi, pa-awa effect, wishing a new people power would be ignited.

    pero wala rin people power. turns out if the votes Loren disputes are counted in her favor, talo pa rin sya.

    and FPJ (bless his soul) died pa.

    mga ungas kasi ang mga nagunguna sa remove-gloria movement, ang ‘united’ opposition. akala nila the majority would support them with another people power.

    kaya they got the shock of their lives! inuna pa kasi ang people power kaysa paghandaan mabuti ang impeachment

28. geo, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but again, the explainer is my view, and my interpretation. again the studious non-partisanship you demand is suitable for a reporter, which i have never been; but all my pieces are opinion pieces and my commentaries are commentaries under my byline, with my affiliations and advocacies certainly well known to the public viewing and reading them.

    in history my personal belief and this is not unique, is that there is no objective history, there are differences in interpretation, the process of looking back is by its nature subjective since not everything by way of facts and events can be comprehended.

    we have gone down the road of the 2004 elections before. but the permanent fork in the road for us is that from the start my belief the president must go was based on what she did -and didn’t do- in 2005. after that you and i are just going around in circles with each other.

29. Bert,

    Yes, I’m aware of some of the shenanigans which go on. I am not arguing that there was no cheating at all, nor was I talking about anything but the Prez/VP elections. I realize there is still some dirty business out there.

    I am not trying to defend Abalos, Comelec, Chavit or even Gloria. I am saying that we should be very careful about what we consider to be “The Truth”.

    Opinions and groupthink do not formulate facts; they formulate perceptions. These perceptions can sometimes be unsupportable by the hard facts on hand. Mistaken perceptions can lead to unhelpful actions.

    In any event, the constitution, laws and institutions are made to ignore and overide the various opinions and perceptions that exist. The Truth is a non-entity; the facts and the laws (yes, including their technicalities) are what count.

    Not because I say so, but because that’s how modern democracies work…..

30. mlq3,

    You certainly have a right to do all those things. And there is certainly nothing wrong with you airing your opinions.

    That said, the term “Explainer” indicates a tutorial role, no? And you often write the introductions (and whatever else) for some ANC shows which are supposed to be “reporting” pieces, not op eds, right?

    Many readers/viewers are also not necessarily aware of your extremely partisan views, so I’m not so sure your audiences understand that you are conveying opinions…never mind them knowing that some of those opinions are based on previous opinions (which, when repeated enough, sound like facts).

    But you have a problem with proven facts and evidence. Many in the anti-GMA camp do, apparently. Laws are considered to be “technicalities”, courts are corrupt (except when rulings are favorable) and evidence is manufactured. Meanwhile, the LACK of facts to support a position doesn’t render that position doubtful.

    Yes, historical analyses get harder as more time passes by and/or because various participants record the events according to their desired image.

    But the results of the PET (and the weakness of the Garci Tapes) are clear. There’s no need for much objectivity with that; these are objective, hard facts.

    Which is why, I guess, you have now agreed that there was no massive cheating by Gloria.

    So let’s move on with the story. You say that the next problem was that she said she was sorry for talking with an official, denied cheating, but never got her hands on the tapes or found any way to prove her innocence. Is that right?

    Therefore, she lost the people’s confidence and should have resigned right then and there, correct? And because she didn’t, that’s why you were therefore against her. Is that right so far?

31. “did chavit run in 2004?” anthony scalia

    hehe. I think bert already got confused. he’s mixing 2004 & 2008 election already. 🙂

32. I meant the 2004 & 2007 elections.

    Dimasidsing was allegedly killed due to the 2007 mid-term election and not the 2004 pres election.

    wrong argument for bert.

33. Anthony Scalia

    “lets drink to that”

    Wish I could but I rarely do.

    Your arguments are getting shallower and your hole is getting deeper. You should consider ending this.

    “ahem.”

    You should see a doctor already.

    I don’t want to dignify that “vocal parrot” thing but you do ask a lot of questions you don’t seem to know the answers to.

    And you’re asking about Ramon Del Rosario, Jose Cuisia, etc.!

    BAD MOVE!

    Maybe you’d like to read this //www.pcij.org/blog/?p=2186

    Oh yes its from PCIJ.

    And if you doubt how Ramon Del Rosario Jr. interprets that Manifesto; you might want to read this

    “Hyatt 10 resurfaces, asks Cabinet to quit”
    //www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_feb18_2008

    And don’t think that the story ends with just the cabinet.

    “pero you skipped mindanaoan’s other comment – “your statements really implied that the government made it appear that jobs have been created. it was not the case.””

    I gave Mindanaoan enough credit to have the mental skills to realize what was implied by my statements if he/she re-reads all the posts.

    You obviously don’t think he/she deserves the same credit.

    But if Mindanaoan wants to receive any of what you got and getting; he/she can always ask for it him/herself.

    “you should have cited than census link from the onset”

    Oh so all of a sudden it’s my fault. You should have done your own homework.

    “1. that same study acknowledged a different figure if the old definition is used. said differently, the presence of that disclaimer puts to rest allegations of manipulation by that study”

    So what now if I claim that the “manipulation” was done when the NSCB criteria was changed in the first place?

    “2. that study came up with employment figures by actual count of employed people, not simply by deducting the 8.1 from 100. that study was able to account for the 91.9 employed by industry and by job category”

    I believe that is irrelevant. I’m sure members of the opposition who create and even maintain jobs did their own share to account for the actual count of employed people.

    “thanks for the census link. appreciate the effort.’

    You’re welcome.

    “would you have the latest study by the census dept on the same matter?”

    Don’t know exactly what you want but you might want to read this //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2007/lf0701tx.html

    But I think they did away with the old criteria altogether for that. And the bottom table might interest you. Seems data is derived from old census.

34. “ So let’s look at that NSCB matrix for January 2006.
    Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.

    Total unemployed persons by the new definition was 2,840,000.

    The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.” Justice league

    justice, what exactly do you mean with your above statement? you have claimed that the 1.024m was fictitious jobs. that’s not correct. you have to take note that either you use the new or the old definitions of unemployment, you will still come up with approx. 32.384million jobs as per the link you’ve provided. so where are the fictitious jobs of 1.024m?

    what was achieved (or manipulated) w/ the new definition of unemployment was the the rate of employment (increased) / unemployment (decreased) because the total labor force was reduced by 1.024m (that is from 36.248m to 35.224m).

    that’s why i am saying that saxnviolins was correct in both of his interpretations about the new definition. the govt simply reduced the labor force but no jobs out of thin air were generated.

    to prove my point:

    under the new definition:
    labor force = 35.224m
    emploment = 32.384m (91.9%)
    unemployment = 2.840m (8.1%)

    under the old definition:
    labor force = 36.248m
    emploment = 32.384m (89.3%)
    unemployment = 3.864m (10.7%)

35. Grd,

    “so where are the fictitious jobs of 1.024m?”

    They are nowhere. Those jobs are fictitious after all.

    Basically, those fictitious jobs are “NOTHING” and this “NOTHING” was practically powerful enough to be used as a justification for the removal of several people from being considered as “UNEMPLOYED”.

    I don’t know if it is applicable to all the instances wherein I referred to “such jobs” but you can try to replace that term with the “NOTHING” term.

    I’ll try to do it to your ENTIRE last post.

    So here it goes-

    ““ So let’s look at that NSCB matrix for January 2006.
    Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.

    Total unemployed persons by the new definition was 2,840,000.

    The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with NOTHING.” Justice league

    justice, what exactly do you mean with your above statement? you have claimed that the 1.024m was NOTHING. that’s not correct. you have to take note that either you use the new or the old definitions of unemployment, you will still come up with approx. 32.384million jobs as per the link you’ve provided. so where are NOTHING?

    what was achieved (or manipulated) w/ the new definition of unemployment was the the rate of employment (increased) / unemployment (decreased) because the total labor force was reduced by 1.024m (that is from 36.248m to 35.224m).

    that’s why i am saying that saxnviolins was correct in both of his interpretations about the new definition. the govt simply reduced the labor force but NOTHING generated.”

    If you answered my case scenario, you would likely have ended up with a 16 year old who was NOT CONSIDERED UNEMPLOYED and whose job is NOTHING.

    “Of course those are no match to when the government redefined those who are employed and unemployed in 2004. Literally NOTHING was generated overnight.”

36. justice league :

    “Wish I could but I rarely do.”

    okay fresh distilled drinking water na lang

    “Your arguments are getting shallower and your hole is getting deeper. You should consider ending this.”

    it takes one to know one my friend

    sorry but i don’t know what a shallow argument is.

    “You should see a doctor already.”

    i just did. healthy enough to finish a triathlon

    “I don’t want to dignify that “vocal parrot” thing but you do ask a lot of questions you don’t seem to know the answers to.”

    okay, that’s your decision.

    ——————————————————————————-
    “And you’re asking about Ramon Del Rosario, Jose Cuisia, etc.!
    BAD MOVE!”
    Maybe you’d like to read this //www.pcij.org/blog/?p=2186
    Oh yes its from PCIJ.
    And if you doubt how Ramon Del Rosario Jr. interprets that Manifesto; you might want to read this
    “Hyatt 10 resurfaces, asks Cabinet to quit”
    //www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_feb18_2008
    And don’t think that the story ends with just the cabinet.
    —————————————————————————–

    my friend, don’t you realize that you were only able to show that the capitalists you mentioned openly wanted gloria to go WHICH WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR FROM YOU?

    on November 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am I asked you:

    so name one or some ‘JCO’ who openly said “patalsikin na now na” and not some vague motherhood statements like “we need a change in leadership” or something to that effect, then i’ll answer your query if i respect them also like Satur et al.

    NOW THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN (FINALLY) THAT THOSE CAPITALISTS HAVE OPENLY CALLED FOR GLORIA’S REMOVAL, THEN I CAN ALREADY RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION –

    DO I RESPECT THESE CAPITALISTS WHO OPENLY DEMAND GLORIA’S REMOVAL? – yes

    sorry if i doused cold water in your celebration

    “I gave Mindanaoan enough credit to have the mental skills to realize what was implied by my statements if he/she re-reads all the posts.”

    oh yes he had read them already. thats why he wrote that.

    “You obviously don’t think he/she deserves the same
    credit.”

    “But if Mindanaoan wants to receive any of what you got and getting; he/she can always ask for it him/herself.”

    ???????????

    “Oh so all of a sudden it’s my fault.”

    oh yes it is!

    “You should have done your own homework”

    my friend, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE ASSERTION.
    turns out you have been insisting on something without basis

    “So what now if I claim that the “manipulation” was done when the NSCB criteria was changed in the first place?”

    a look at that same NSCB info does not show an intent to get the reader to believe something else

    “I believe that is irrelevant. I’m sure members of the opposition who create and even maintain jobs did their own share to account for the actual count of employed people.”

    my friend, employment data are not arrived at by simply deducting the number of unemployed Pinoys from the total workforce

    “Don’t know exactly what you want but you might want to read this //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2007/lf0701tx.html”

    thank you

    “But I think they did away with the old criteria altogether for that. And the bottom table might interest you. Seems data is derived from old census.”

    noted

37. justice league,

    should be “turns out initially you have been insisting on something without basis”

38. justice league, you should show why the old method is better than the new one to make a valid claim that the government just made it appear it had generated jobs. if your only problem with the new method is that it gives a better figure for the government, then your argument is bunk.

39. ““did chavit run in 2004?” anthony scalia

    “hehe. I think bert already got confused. he’s mixing 2004 & 2008 election already.”-grd

    hehehe, guys, now I got you, nahilong-talilong ko kayo, heheh.

    the operative statement is: “Do you mean they can do it for the senators but not for GMA?”

    hehehehehe.

40. Geo is sharper than the both of you, hehehe.

    ayan, Geo, ha, that’s a compliment again, heheh.

41. and, grd, there’s no 2008 senatorial election. too confused?

    heheh.

42. bert,

    grd made the correction at November 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

43. mindanaoan :

    “justice league, you should show why the old method is better than the new one to make a valid claim that the government just made it appear it had generated jobs. if your only problem with the new method is that it gives a better figure for the government, then your argument is bunk.”

    So you do want to get some.

    I thought you could have figured that one on your own but very well.

    First, it’s easier for the public to remember a “91.9% employment rate” than for them to remember that it only represents that there are only 32,384,000 persons who are actually employed.

    Second and worse part deals with the DISCOURAGED who have not looked for a job in the last 6 months.

    In the old criteria, I don’t think it matters if they were ENCOURAGED by the government to look for jobs because the labor force number would have stayed the same.

    If the government encouraged them to look for jobs and they FAILED, I believe that they still would have been counted in the labor force.

    If the government did no such encouragement and they did not look for jobs, I believe that they still would have been counted in the labor force.

    Now consider the new criteria, what would happen if the government encouraged these people to look for jobs and these people FAILED to get one?

    Can I leave it at that or do I have to SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU?

    Anthony Scalia,

    “okay fresh distilled drinking water na lang.”

    Absolute and AquaSoft would have been nice. Unfortunately my tolerance does have its limit.

    “sorry but i don’t know what a shallow argument is.”

    No wonder you keep coming out with them.

    “i just did. healthy enough to finish a triathlon”

    And your throat is not clear yet. Maybe you should get a second opinion.

    “my friend, don’t you realize that you were only able to show that the capitalists you mentioned openly wanted gloria to go WHICH WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR FROM YOU?”

    And now you got BLINSIDED! AGAIN!

    1)- “DO I RESPECT THESE CAPITALISTS WHO OPENLY DEMAND GLORIA’S REMOVAL? – yes”

    2)- “you can say that the capitalists like the Ayalas and Lopezes pursue self-interest ahead of national interests. but as they pursue their self-interest they create jobs and business opportunities for suppliers along the way”

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

    And so HOW ARE CLAIMS 1), 2), and 3) CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER?

    “sorry if i doused cold water in your celebration”

    You should use that cold water for your strawman. IT’S STILL BURNING IN YOUR FACE!

    “You should have done your own homework”- justice league

    “my friend, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE ASSERTION. turns out INITIALLY you have been insisting on something without basis.”

    And your decision NOT to do your own homework is why you are getting blindsided.

    Your “allies” should cringe at that thought.

    And that is a disservice to whatever cause you decide to stand for as well as a disrespect to your “allies”.

    “a look at that same NSCB info does not show an intent to get the reader to believe something else”

    Intent is no longer relevant. It’s because they have to do it to follow the new criteria. But what still remains is that there is a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate with the new criteria than they would have been with the old one.

    “my friend, employment data are not arrived at by simply deducting the number of unemployed Pinoys from the total workforce”

    Again that is irrelevant. Because your issue is with the employment figures by actual count of employed people. And included in the actual count are those contributed by members of the opposition who create and maintain jobs and who want PGMA to go.

    “???????????”

    Well what you got is:

    You got exposed as someone who would bastardize your adversary’s position on an issue and then try to pass it off as your adversary’s own.

    You got exposed as someone terribly lacking reading skills. No one is perfect. We ALL make mistakes. But Saxnviolins and I tried several times to correct how you were reading the NSCB criteria. You claimed that you were reading it right.

    Surely you read it SEVERAL times.

    In the end you accepted that Saxnviolins was right and you were wrong. Whether you accepted or not that I was right is irrelevant. What is undisputed is that you have a drastic problem in reading skills.

    If you can’t extricate yourself on the issue of capitalist opposition members who create jobs and call for PGMA’s resignation, then you been exposed as someone inconsistent with yourself.

    You are exposed as irresponsible in defending your cause. Because it is brought not by inability but because you choose not to do your homework.

    Well unless Grd and Mindanaon have something else to say, I guess I would be moving on now,

    BTW,

    I love the AVENGERS also.

    But you have been exhibiting the same mindset that the Avengers displayed that prevented Ash from helping them against the zombie threat. So they got zombified which sent their MARVEL (alternate) universe straight to the dung heap.

44. ,

    “Absolute and AquaSoft would have been nice. Unfortunately my tolerance does have its limit.”

    ok then its those brands na lang

    “No wonder you keep coming out with them.”

    again – it takes one to know one.

    “And your throat is not clear yet. Maybe you should get a second opinion.”

    already did. clear enough to record the vocals for an 18-song rock album. death metal pa!

    “And now you got BLINSIDED! AGAIN!”

    yehey! pour out the champagne! naka jackpot si JLA! bilis, where’s the media?! JLA put one over the great anthony scalia! (even if the effect is like a mosquito biting a turtle’s shell)

    “And so HOW ARE CLAIMS 1), 2), and 3) CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER?”

    ehem.

    again – i asked you specifically who are the capitalists who openly demanded “gloria resign” and once you supplied that, i will respond to your query “do i respect the JCOs?” since i said “the only opposition i respect is Satur et al”

    then you gave proof that certain capitalists openly demanded gloria resign. since you supplied that info already, i was ready to answer your query “do i respect the JCOs” and i answered – yes

    look my friend. you asked a question, i gave the answer.

    don’t worry my friend. i understand where you’re coming from.

    ganyan talaga ang nabubutata

    nabutata na rin kasi ako in the past, and i did the very same things you are doing now, trying to find a loophole

    “You should use that cold water for your strawman. IT’S STILL BURNING IN YOUR FACE!”

    tsk tsk tsk tsk thats the effect of seeing 1.024 million jobs – you’re seeing things my friend

    “And your decision NOT to do your own homework is why you are getting blindsided.”

    oooh. i hope you realized that your approach is – you make an assertion without any bases, then just let the contrarians dispute it with bases. galeng mo man

    “Your “allies” should cringe at that thought.”

    actually they are cringing at the thought of your arguments on the whiffing out of 1.024 million jobs

    sorry i can’t say the same of you – you don’t have any allies.

    your sole ally saxnviolins suddenly became quiet

    “And that is a disservice to whatever cause you decide to stand for as well as a disrespect to your “allies”.”

    according to you

    “Intent is no longer relevant.”

    OH REALLY? only your interpretation matters for sure, eh?

    “It’s because they have to do it to follow the new criteria. But what still remains is that there is a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate with the new criteria than they would have been with the old one.”

    no problem with that. the problem is you concluded the creation of 1.024M jobs out of thin air, which is not the point of the studies you are citing

    “Again that is irrelevant.”

    WHAAAAAATTTTTTTT?????????

    “Because your issue is with the employment figures by actual count of employed people.”

    ****FALLS FROM SEAT****

    so….what’s….wrong….with….that….?….(owwww)

    “And included in the actual count are those contributed by members of the opposition who create and maintain jobs and who want PGMA to go.”

    ***yawn***

    if you will notice, your proof of “capitalist-oppositionists” is limited to the 71 who signed the manifesto. Cuisia and Purisima are not owners. Only Garrucho and Del Rosario are owners.

    and the number of jobs they create? modest, but important nonetheless. oo nga pala, no matter how miniscule compared to the jobs created by call centers or construction of infrastructure, they are still creating jobs, which mean a lot to the previously-unemployed Pinoys holding them now.

    “Well what you got is:
    You got exposed as someone who would bastardize your adversary’s position on an issue and then try to pass it off as your adversary’s own.”

    its because the adversary still refuses to recognize his own position!

    “You got exposed as someone terribly lacking reading skills.”

    takes one to know one mi amigo.

    for me you read well.

    “No one is perfect.”

    true

    “We ALL make mistakes.”

    true

    ” But Saxnviolins and I tried several times to correct how you were reading the NSCB criteria. You claimed that you were reading it right.”

    ahem. the rightness of your reading is limited to the following:

    a. (1) (2) and (3) are cumulative
    b. with the new redefinition, there will be unemployed who will be left out of the count, and who are these people – those unemployed > 6 months

    i admitted that i initially thought (1) (2) and (3) are not cumulative

    “Surely you read it SEVERAL times.”

    oh yes. sorry but i can’t say the same thing with you. because of your insistence on seeing 1.024 million jobs created from you must have read it less than twice

    “In the end you accepted that Saxnviolins was right and you were wrong.”

    only on the cumulative nature of (1) (2) (3)

    “Whether you accepted or not that I was right is irrelevant.”

    are you kidding? in the first place- YOU ARE WRONG. YOU KEEP ON INSISTING ON THE 1.024M JOBS CREATED OF OUT A REDEFINED ‘UNEMPLOYED’

    “What is undisputed is that you have a drastic problem in reading skills.”

    ows, talaga? takes one to know one. ikaw talaga, nandadamay ka pa ng ibang tao.

    another manifestation ng isang nabutata.

    just focus on our main issue my friend –

    ____________________________________________
    hey pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!

    Whiffed out of thin air! MAGIC!

    I’m sure if the Government comes up with a new definition to use, ie. like instead of 6 months the period is shortened to 2 months or so; millions of jobs are going to be magically lopped off that 10 million jobs you stated.”
    justice league November 16th, 2008 at 2:24 am
    __________________________________________

    “If you can’t extricate yourself on the issue of capitalist opposition members who create jobs and call for PGMA’s resignation, then you been exposed as someone inconsistent with yourself.”

    inconsistent? paano? butata ka lang kasi

    di ba i just answered your query – yes i respect the JCO. so i just ‘extricated myself’

    pero kawawa ka naman. i won’t rob you of the joy of perceiving an inconsistency on my part. fine with me. tuloy mo lang yan

    “You are exposed as irresponsible in defending your cause. Because it is brought not by inability but because you choose not to do your homework.”

    tsk tsk tsk. butata ka lang. nandadamay ka pa

    you’re losing it my friend.

    say all you want. bring out all the ad hominems

    ill just stick with what you said:
    ____________________________________________
    hey pegged a 6 month term for discouraged workers to be considered unemployed. After that 6 months term, the discouraged workers are no longer considered unemployed!

    Whiffed out of thin air! MAGIC!

    I’m sure if the Government comes up with a new definition to use, ie. like instead of 6 months the period is shortened to 2 months or so; millions of jobs are going to be magically lopped off that 10 million jobs you stated.”
    justice league November 16th, 2008 at 2:24 am
    __________________________________________

    and

    ____________________________________________
    Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.
    Total unemployed persons by the new definition was
    2,840,000.
    The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.
    November 18th, 2008 at 2:35 am
    _____________________________________________

    and leave it to the readers to evaluate your arguments

    “Well unless Grd and Mindanaon have something else to say, I guess I would be moving on now,”

    about time

    “I love the AVENGERS also.”

    noted

    “But you have been exhibiting the same mindset that the Avengers displayed that prevented Ash from helping them against the zombie threat. So they got zombified which sent their MARVEL (alternate) universe straight to the dung heap.”

    and you, you have been exhibiting that same mindset that prevented Hitler from discovering the incoming invasion of Normandy!

45. interesting . 🙂

    justice, one more time.

    “ So let’s look at that NSCB matrix for January 2006.

    Total unemployed persons by the old definition was 3,864,000.

    Total unemployed persons by the new definition was 2,840,000.

    The difference being 1.024 million persons. I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with jobs made from thin air.”
    Justice league

    “so where are the fictitious jobs of 1.024m?” grd

    They are nowhere. Those jobs are fictitious after all. justice league

    Justice, remember it was you not I or Anthony who made a claim about the 1.024m fictitious jobs (made from thin air). My problem w/ your above statement is that you’re equating the 1.024m to fictitious jobs rather than saying those numbers were not counted or excluded from the labor force under the new criteria for Unemployment. I agree that the purpose of the new definition is to manipulate the stats and make it appear that the Employment rate went up but my disagreement with your statement is when you equate the 1.024m to fictitious jobs.

    So what I’m asking you, where is the 1.024m you claim as fictitious jobs shown in the matrix that you linked? You have to justify that. I already showed you the figures; under the old or new definition, Employment figure is the same – 32.384m.

    The new definition simply reduced the labor force by excluding those 1.204m (as not meeting the new criteria) but the matrix never showed Employment rate went up because more jobs were generated.

46. you are right, grd, your favorite comic superheroes are really invincibles, that’s why I can’t keep myself from reading them and be amused.

47. And once again, I don’t think the purpose is to deceive.

    1. The method now being used is common throughout the world.

    2. In the last several years, the government has adapted many of it’s metrics to the latest int’l practices.

    3. Official statistics typically refer to the old system or recalculate past figures using the new methodology.

    4. In the countries that use this metric which includes “discouraged”, applications and parameters vary. But basically, this category includes those who, for example, went back to school, had kids, took early retirement, are staying at home to help, are being a criminal or junkie, whatever.

    It’s amazing how innocuous bureaucratic adjustments become indicators of evil.

    Yeah, all this data juggling is a sinister plot which will end with dictatorship. Sheesh.

48. geo, i’m giving concession. i’m focusing on one argument only. 🙂

49. justice league,

    in the old or new criterion, government ENCOURAGEment doesn’t matter. what matters is if he or she is looking for work. discouragement is an excuse, but after six months of being unemployed and still not looking for work, he’s not a discouraged worker but a bum we’re dealing with and should not be counted in the labor force.

    it’s not the government that wants to paint a better picture. it’s you who want to paint a worse picture.

50. bert,

    i actually prefer discussing about our comic superheroes. but i got dragged into the path of our two main characters here. 🙂

    anyway, let’s have a break.

    Dodong este Dagohoy in the States

    It was the first day of school in Washington, DC & a new student named Dagohoy, the son of a Filipino immigrant, entered the fourth grade. The teacher began,

    “Let’s review some American history, class. Who said
    ‘Give me liberty or give me death?'”

    She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Dagohoy’s who had his hand up,

    “Patrick Henry, 1775.”

    “Very good,” said the teacher.
    “Who said ‘Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth?'”

    Again, no response except from Dagohoy:
    “Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, 1863,” he said.

    The teacher snaps at the class, “Class, you should be ashamed, Dagohoy who is new to our country knows more about our history than you do.”

    She hears a loud whisper from the back:
    “Screw the Filipinos.”

    “Who said that?” she demanded.

    Dagohoy put his hand up.
    “General John Pershing, Manila , 1896.”

    At that point, Jack, another student says,
    “I’m going to puke.”

    The teacher glares and asks,
    “All right! Now who said that?”

    Again Dagohoy answers,
    “George Bush, Sr. to the Japanese Prime Minister
    during the state dinner, Tokyo , 1991.”

    Now furious, another student yells,
    “Oh yeah? Suck this!”

    Dagohoy jumps out of his chair waving his hand and shouts to the teacher at the top of his voice,

    “Bill Clinton to Monica Lewinsky, the Oval Office, 1997!!”

    Someone shouts,
    “You little shit if you say anything else, I’ll kill you.”

    Dagohoy yells, “Congressman Gary Condit to Chandra Levy, Washington , D.C. , 2001!”

    The teacher faints.

    “I’m outta here!”
    mutters one student as he sidles to the door.

    “President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Baguio City , December 30, 2002!!” Dagohoy responds.

    As the class gathers around her on the floor, someone says,

    “Oh shit, now we’re really in big trouble!”

    “Saddam Hussein, on the Iraq invasion, Baghdad , May 2003!” Dagohoy bellowed.

    “Now, I really have to run,”
    Jack mutters, heading for the exit,

    “Gloria Macapagal Arroyo again, Pampanga, October 4, 2003!!!” Dagohoy shouts triumphantly jumping with glee.

    Then a burly African-American boy grabbed Dagohoy and strangled him, about to give a fistful to a frightened Dagohoy. Then an Asian boy stood up and shouted,

    “Hey easy on him. I’M A FILIPINO!”

    Dagohoy then blurted out before he got socked out,

    “Fernando Poe, Jr. Manila , January 2004!!!”

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