At the coffee shop where I routinely get my morning fix, customers mill around the counter in a way that often makes it difficult to distinguish those who are (a) in the process of ordering and paying, or (2) waiting for a concluded order to be served. So it is a normal and routine courtesy to politely ask: “Where do I get in line?”. The remarkable thing here is that even where a queue is not readily apparent, one actually exists. Each person just makes a mental note of who came first — and the collective outcome simply comes together in a natural way.
Even where there is a physically obvious queue, such as in a supermarket with multiple checkout counters, the kind of decency that is all but alien to the Filipino mind routinely manifests itself here. Once while waiting in line for my turn to pay for a trolley full of groceries, a cashier showed up and opened a previously closed checkout counter adjacent to the one I was lined up in. The person behind me politely told me he was jumping onto that counter and invited me to go ahead of him seeing that I was, in fact and quite obviously, ahead of him in the queue we were presently in. I thanked him and we both went for the newly-opened counter. In the broader scheme of things, both of us saved a bit of time — in a way that was fair to both of us.
In the above examples, a simple criterion applies to becoming a functional member of this collective — each one only need remember his place in the queue.
There are many other examples of systems where general order and/or harmony emerges from a shared sense of basic courtesy amongst their participants. The above two examples illustrate systems that are simple enough so much so that it is easy to see the causal link between the outcome observed and the behaviour of individual elements within the system. In those examples, the courteous behaviour individually applied by the system participants clearly resulted in a harmonious or orderly outcome overall.
More complex systems are the same in principle — individual behaviours that follow a set of shared, albeit more complex set of rules, result in a collective outcome. The only difference is that the causal links become less readily observed as the comlexity of a system increases. The term emergent property or outcome is usually used to describe such phenomena that “mysteriously” arise from complex systems. The mind, for example, is an emergent property of the human brain — a phenomenon that is an outcome of extremely complex interactions amongst the billions of individual elements (e.g. individual neurons) within the brain. Somehow, a thinking mind happens and is kept functional as a result of those billions of massively-networked neurons firing electrical impulses at one another every single second throughout the entire life of a person.
Yet neurons by themselves are no more complex than any other cell in the body. Examining a single neuron will not in any way give us any insight on how a brain produces a mind. In the same way, the behavioural drivers of an individual person are pretty much useless when trying to predict the overall behaviour of the society in which he lives.
Following this line of reasoning, the foundation of civic culture in the Philippines can be seen as residing in the way ordinary individual Filipino citizens regard one another. If there is a general respect and trust for one another, as the thinking goes, it indicates that most individuals see themselves as having a general collective personal stake in society at large, and the overall collective in theory goes on to mature into a harmonious and prosperous society.
But what do we see in Filipino society?
Systems whose effectiveness rely on basic trust and decency often fail.
Democracy is one such system that in theory relies on the wisdom of the collective. In practice, though, it merely relies on the wisdom of the majority. There’s a big difference between the two. When we say “collective” we usually mean a collection of elements that can be regarded as a unit. On the other hand, “majority” merely refers to a section or subset of such a collection of elements.
In my simple coffee shop example, the order observed amongst the waiting customers is possible because they behave as a collective. Each customer’s individual sense of place in the queue, makes the system work. Without this shared sense of individual place, arguments or jostling may take place, and some customers may simply leave.
To generalise this observation, if the set of individual rules that makes collective behaviour possible is not shared among all elements of a system, the behaviour of the system becomes less predictable, less consistent, less rational, or at worst, utterly chaotic. Instability in such systems happen even if the majority of customers upheld the rules as long as even a minority exists that doesn’t.
Think now of a system where the majority do not behave in accordance with rules that by design are pre-requisite to an outcome expected of said system.
What is the expected outcome of “democracy” as a system of governance applied to Philippine society?
Think of this question in light of the obvious reality that the vast majority of Filipinos do not see their role in a democratic system in the same way that you and I do. It puts into proper perspective this “bewilderment” at the behaviour of, say, a House of Representatives whose members are elected by popular vote doing things perceived to be “not in the interests of their constituents”. Why be so “shocked” and “disappointed” by such an outcome? Maybe it is because we expect a body constituted by members that are products of The Vote to do the right thing year after year after year. This expectation is underpinned by a doozy of an assumption — that the Rule –or the choices — of the Majority is right.
Unfortunately the majority IS NOT necessarily the same as the collective. Specifically, the collective interests are NOT necessarily the interests perceived by the majority.
Our ability as a people to behave as a collective will not come from political solutions. It will not come from new systems of governance, nor will it come from any new “leaders” or even “heroes” stepping up to the plate. Our ability to behave as a collective — as a UNIT — will come only from deep within the fabric of our character as a people and from a shared sense of what it means to be an individual that belongs.
We have a long LONG way to go, for even in the simple task of defining what The Filipino stands for, we merely shrink back, shake our heads, and tell one another, bahala na.
============
Join us on Facebook!
Popularity: 4% [?]
The truth cannot be more painful than this.
The consesus that proletariatists take is that the average Filipino is preoccupied with eking a living out of meager opportunities, and thus it’s not their fault.
Once more, I would posit that those who are too busy thinking about their stomachs than the future of the country should not then be burdened to the task of “choosing” their leaders via election, but I will only be harshly rebuked as being an “elitist ass”.
My mind, being feeble as it is, does not have the capacity to find a better way to solve this conundrum. I wonder if there is any, in the first place.
jon: why not assume that the poor votes consistently with their perception of their interests? in the same way that cvj and BrianB believes that Gokongwei and Lucio Tan care less about the poor and that they vote for their interest, why not extend the same courtesy and believe that the very hungry care less about the middle-class and that the poor vote for their interest?
surely, you cannot believe that the poor will sacrifice their interests for the benefit of Primer, Ping Lacson or Congressman Binay, do you?
Because I believe that rampant vote buying is a very harsh reality, especially in the countryside?
Clearly, exchanging votes for anywhere between PHP500 to PHP4000, is in the best interest of these people.
Kasi Jon, utak mo pang-business. Hindi naman business ang pagboboto. Basic principle yan ng isang demokrasya. Para naring sinabi mong walang karapatang pantao ang isang full retard dahil IQ nya ang katumbas lang ng IQ ng unggoy.
Kelan ba bumoto ng tama ang may kaya. Noong Edsa 2 puro may kaya ang nandoon. Pin-walang bisa nila ang boto ng masa. Eto ang resulta. Maganda ba?
mas maganda kaya kung hindi nabuking si erap? ano kaya ang lagay ng bansa at the end of his term, huh brianb?
Yun ba ang issue? Yung 2001 nga ba?
Hindi ba ang issue eh ang pagnanakaw ni GMA ng boto noong 2004?
Nun bang 2004, sigurado kang si Gloria ang binoto ng mga may kaya?
just like i said waay back.. its the “instant noodles syndrome” that is our biggest problem..
we have to deal with our fundamental flaws first before we can claim that we have the moral authority to impose opinions on issues. Napaka two-faced kasi natin, frequently practicing double-standard.
until i see the time when people stop making “singit,” when people voluntary give their seats to women and the elderly, when drivers and passengers stop at the proper place, when motorists follow traffic lights, when pedestrians cross at the right place and at the right time, when people find no need of fixers. there will be no end to this cycle of bad governance.
values cannot be imposed top-down, its bottom-up.
so if we find our leaders deplorable, we are actually looking at and condemning ourselves.
Why should we give our seats to women?
Are you implying that they’re weak?
im not looking at it that way
but from my observation, most men are more suited for standing.
i’d rather we give up our seats to old people.
Hear, hear, GabbyD!
Well, women always wanted “equality”. Now they got it. :D
i agree, women always crying for equality so why give them the seat? just give it to the women when shes carrying a baby in her womb or to the elders
Using 1946 as a reference point for the beginning sovereignty, the Philippines is a 63 year old state with a democratic form of government.
Using a comparable benchmark that uses an older democratic state’s history, i.e. the US, 63 years after its independence from King George, the identity that we now know as “American” was not fully defined yet – - the American civil war was yet to happen; Texas, New Mexico, and California had yet to join the Union as these were still Mexican territories to be ceded after the US-Mexican War from 1846 to 1848. The various amendments to the US constitution had yet to be written.
With that comparison in mind, it is quite understandable that there is no shared sense of belonging that transcends regional cultures except the possession of a Philippine passport, primarily for the reason that the Philippines is a young and immature democracy – a teenager in search of identity.
I am not inclined to take offense or be embarassed that as yet the Filipino identity remains undefined.
As technology allows more voices to be heard in this never ending journey of the Filipino pscyche, my naivete looks at this as an opportunity presented to our generation – at this moment in history, perhaps, to define what the Filipino stands for, if it is undefined, or; to redefine/ re-imagine/ re-engineer the Filipino identity if the existing definition leaves much to be desired.
funny, a few weeks ago i asked our ‘kasambahay’ to change the channel from her favorite soap opera to ANC to watch the news about the impending automation of the 2010 election.
She balked at me for watching the news and said that even if it will be automated there will still be vote-buying. and i asked her, how does one actually sell a vote, then she replied, “i don’t know.” then she indignantly went on to say that it is certain that there will be cheating, then i asked how, the she replied, “i don’t know.” i then asked her whether she has experienced these things on the previous election, her answer was no.
I was like c’mon how can she strongly condemn a system when she does not actually know or have not actually experienced the things she so condemn.
are they getting their news from soap operas?
True , a shared sense of belonging is the basic principle of teamwork. But to create a culture of teamwork and to make a shared sense of belonging to happen, the executives of this country
must communicate the clear expectation that teamwork and a “sense of belonging” are expected in public service. The main reason why public service participants cannot provide a sense of belonging to their team , it is because their leaders failed to define the team they wanted to build. The whole organization has failed the people.
In the broadest sense, a shared sense of belonging , is a result of feeling part of something larger than yourself. It has a lot to do with your understanding of the mission and the objectives of this country.
What is clearly our mission and objectives as a whole ? Has it been comunicated clearly to the ordinary Juan dela Cruz? Does Juan de la cruz understand that his cooperation is a part of the mission? Does Juan dela cruz understand why the mission and objectives were created in the first place? Is Juan de la cruz able to define the importance of his accomplishment to the overall success of this country? How can he when he cannot even feed his own family?
And how can Juan Dela Cruz participate in an honest way and to feel a shared sense of belonging when his vote is bought? Who’s objectives and what department is responsible for that mission alone? How can this department work as a team to allow the people to feel a shared sense of belonging? Did this department achieve the desired result? The answer is NO…
So why talk about the failure of juan de la cruz to participate when there are paid individuals ( expected to perform as their legal duties) to organize a culture of teamwork?
put another way, an atrophied civic sense, if that civic sense ever existed at all. personally i think that civic sense sort of exists, in the broadest sense, but parochialism trumps it most times. the behavior of congressmen is best understood in this manner. they are responsive and even accountable in a parochial sense, except of course as the sort of transition officials who mediate between the purely local and the national, the local trumps the national, too. many of the congressmen have nothing to apologize for in the sense that for a population whose biggest costs are food and rent, the government is essential to provide a leg up particularly in the case of jobs or education, since there are still many lines of work where connections trumps ability, or, a surfeit of able people being available, connections will determine who among the many otherwise qualified get the scarce jobs; and since whatever income comes in is mainly consumed in spending for food and shelter, who will provide the economic injection necessary to pay for education? hence the focus of many politicians on scholarships and the use of the pork barrel for that.
the electorate however, does have a sense of its preferences, in national terms, and vents disapproval with congressmen who buck the national consensus; but in a sense it’s asking too much to ask an electorate dependent on patronage to bite the hand that feeds it. the electorate compensates by venting its spleen on purely national candidates who also have less of a means to induce obedience -a congressman and his family spends a lot of time policing the electorate and everyone knows everyone, so speaking out is an imprudent thing to do, particularly in the case of congressmen-warlords- but outside of the specific bailiwick of say, a senator, people can shoot their mouths off and vote accordingly.
this leads to the frustration congressmen have with the present system, hence their desire to abolish the senate and even the presidency. precisely because their constituents know them so well, and they are intertwined in the patronage relationships that become deeply personal ones, it is difficult for them to break out into the national scene. those that do, often do so at the price of alienating their local constituencies, the sniping at chiz escudero for putting on airs, not caring enough about his province, etc. is very typical and probably not so much an untruth, as simply a reflection of the difficulties involved in reconciling a parochial local political mentality with a broader national one.
national officials, however, also have an ambivalent relationship with the local officials that mirrors the relationship the electorate has, locally, with their officials. they must attend to local officials but every local official thinks only of their specific needs and hardly ever from even a regional, much less national, perspective. in the past the only sort-of-solution to this was the expectation that no province or region would experience most favored status for more than a term or two, with the regular reshuffling of national positions and now, term limits -but term limits has an effect in that it encourages going-for-broke because one has to provide for the favored localities long enough to tide the politician over until the term limit expires.
anyway, going back to the frustrations of local politicians, while marcos systematically dismantled the old parties, he never dismantled the old local networks and they’ve continued to thrive, except their affiliations outside the local level are now ever-changing (the stability of the old local networks was so entrenched prior to martial law that you will hear people reminisce of sari-sari stores, for example, that only catered to nacionalista locals, refusing to serve or give credit to liberal townmates who anyway patronized the liberal-affiliated sari-sari store, etc. and the ghost of this still exists in some provinces where the old NP or LP still have bailiwicks). but even there, the usefulness of the local networks have been reduced by innovations such as dagdag-bawas, which makes the local infrastructure of watchers, ward leaders, etc. irrelevant and an unecessary expense (and we have to take into consideration that part of our fondness for democracy and regular elections is precisely the regular boost this gives to the economy); so the central focus of these networks turns increasingly inward, but their growth is limited; even as they refine control over bailiwicks, the bosses are big frogs in little ponds. the answer has been, to keep atomizing constituencies in response to the sort of dead-end situation this creates. so ever-multiplying provinces, shrinking ponds for the big frogs who are of course themselves multiplying at an unsustainable rate just like the rest of the population.
there are trends that take generations to develop; so when rogelio dela rosa turned senator after being a matinee idol, the two party system and the way each party refereed the rise of leaders through the ranks staggered on until marcos abolished the whole thing; it even made a brief comeback simply out of a residual momentum right after edsa; but demographics caught up with the politicians and the public, constrained by the warlordism of the marcos years, fell head over heels in love with people who courted and flattered them with song and dance instead of the blowhard speeches of the pros. All the more the pros found themselves uncompetitive nationally and all the more they tried to cook up ways to eliminate the electorate as a national phenomenon.
at the heart of the yearning of congressmen for a government in which they not only constitute the only chamber of the legislature, but can hold executive power as well, is the resentment over the way what they have invested in -and more than that, what they consider the time-honored, relatively stable, orderly hierarchy of the local- can simply be vetoed by their own electorates combining with others and running amok with their freedom, which is beyond the control of the police or even the influence of elders, family, etc. surely it’s deeply offensive to them to see them putting in what they consider hard work dealing with the electorate’s woes -from coffins, to false teeth, to maternity confinements and high school and college education, plus ditches, basketball courts, sanitation- the non-stop cultivation of relationships with voters as individuals, as families, as members of the local groups of worthies like the KofC, the Masons, the Rotary, Kiwanis never mind the bishop, the Iglesia head, the PNP and AFP brass -and for all of it to be swept aside by some guy who happens to be able to appeal to the electorate as a singer, or actor, or crusading lawyer or peddler of advice on health, and who then has to be gingerly courted by the pros. the national officials like the president, who gives importance to local officials are perhaps a vanishing breed; which is why the president is genuinely respected or at least valued by local officials; in contrast is the vice-president who is viewed, from what i hear, at least, with near-resentment by local officials who resent his skeptical attitude towards them and his standoffish behavior (they need him, he seems to bluntly telegraph to them, more than he needs them; even if true no one likes to be reminded of that).
as if this isn’t complicated enough, there are other changes going on, perhaps foremost among them the maintenance of small-town expectations in a nation bursting at the seams. even our attitudes to the president as an official who can be expected “to do justice to every man,” dates to a time when the entire population of the philippines equalled the present-day population of metro manila now; when manila itself had the population of what, present-day cebu city proper? yet even the genteel expectations of political behavior in cebu city are being eroded there, if what i hear is accurate. also the expectations of personal relationships and longstanding ties being an incentive to some sort of mutual tolerance and cooperation is being eroded by the internal migration that’s as remarkable, and it seems to me, much more overlooked, as the external migration that’s so impacted the local and the national political scene. the old ward leaders die off; their children get out of politics; the old networks begin to fray at the edges as new immigrants flock to areas where the old expectations no longer apply, and seeing their networks fraying, and the new electorate being in some ways bolder and more brash, quick to change allegiances, the local pros then have to consider either bowing out or resorting to more extreme measures to stay in power and things escalate and all these escalations cost money, which increasingly tinier provincial and municipal units simply lack the domestic economy to produce.
sooner or later, a more participatory political counter-culture will square off with patronage politics.
more and more spontaneous activities of indignation are turning into avenues for creating and/or expanding social networks independent of the traditional social structures. from the brief flashes of mobs in EDSA to mini-EDSAs evolving into independent social networks with a capacity for collaboration, synchronization, and mobilization on matters of social importance.
as technology allows the siren call for accountability to filter towards a wider audience, that a tipping point will be reached and gain traction is no longer a question of possibility but one of timing. something’s gotta give – as the voter demographic changes with the entry of newly minted more educated, more outward looking, more technologically adept youth voters, the electorate’s behavior will morph from one that is transaction-based towards one that is more inclined to pursue a value proposition.
these are interesting times.
You know what will make things interesting again? If Erap gets elected president. :D
Benny,
It is obvious that that is an event you *eagerly* await. :P
so the choice now is really between a patronage-based (old timer-type, local based) and a personality-based (dela rosa-type, popularity measured) politics.
it seems to me we’re between a rock and a hard place.
mlq3 how do you classify the robredo type?
what coffeeshop is this? is it a small business or chain?
Jon,
Indeed!
Remembering the Erap presidency fills me with nostalgia. It was all the “Erap Resign” websites that sprouted all over the Web that inspired the creation of Get Real Philippines. Note that this was a time when Geocities was the most popular free platform for creating a Web presence (you had to know basic HTML to use it too!). Blogs weren’t a household name yet at the time.
More importantly the Erap era forced the first wave of serious broad-based self-reflection (and often self-loathing) among Pinoys (at least those with Net access). Then there was Edsa 2, an event that marked the beginning of the end of the status of Edsa “Revolutions” and “People Power” as meaningful concepts in the national psyche (they degenerated to mere ocho-ocho concepts). Those concepts unfortunately continued to live on in the delusions of a handful of “experts” for a few more years though. ;)
The tragedy of Edsa 2 is that it cut short what would’ve been a wondrous demonstration of the power of the tyranny of the masses in a country where democracy was implemented straight out of a shrinkwrapped box delivered by Uncle Sam.
It also put into power a President that would be a catalyst for the creation of an entire new class of sustained oxymoronism in the Philippine “national debate”:
- an allegedly criminal administration (and I’m referring to the manner by which it siezed power) that because of the manner of its birth went on to become Edsa-”revolution”-proof; and,
- an administration hastily legitimised by the judiciary at birth and then absolved of a cheating accusation several years later by a Congress of authorised representatives of the people.
I can’t wait for the sequel! :D
Indeed, amusing, but you can eagerly await it all you can — we who are here can’t look forward to it.
It makes me wonder how a De Castro presidency will differ from an Estrada one, and how they will measure up against each other, if indeed there will be elections next year.
I wouldn’t worry too much about WHO is president in whatever year, Jon. If you recall this article, I presented a challenge to everyone to PROVE that there is a causal link between who is sitting in Malacanang and the overall prospects for prosperity of the Philippines.
There was no convincing response. ;)
There was but you chose to ignore because you don’t want to be wrong.
Damn, in fact you posed that very same question to me. Touche.
I’ll just go on ahead with my business then. I hope it doesn’t affect tourism too much. :P
mlq3 (referring to your earlier comment), I think some civic sense does exist. Jeepney passengers for example (even the one’s who are just “sabit”) pay their fares even when not prompted.
I think much of the “lack of civic sense” we observe stems from systems, conventions, and protocols that were artificially applied (i.e. did not organically evolve) in and therefore alient to our society.
A couple of examples:
:D A Democracy that relies on accountability to be effective, for example, consistently fails when applied to a society where there is no ethic of personal accountability to begin with.
:D A culture that evolved in an environment where the climate is generally the same (hot and humid) all year round has no concept of forward-planning (such as storing food for the winter seasons).
I’m not sure if there’s indeed a correlation.
Has anybody made a study regarding the number of tropical countries that are, indeed, 3rd world?
i’ve encountered this before, most if not all the countries in the tropics are 3rd world countries. i cant give you a precise study since the last time i have encountered this theory is in college. a short virtual check on a map might help substantiate the claim though. :)
Benigno,
“I thanked him and we both went for the newly-opened counter.” You used “for” instead of “to”; there is probably something there.
The person behind you was truly gracious in inviting you to go ahead of him with both of you going “for” the newly opened counter.
But as I read your example, it would be safe to think that you were not the second in line in the original queue. Obviously there would be at least 2 people ahead of you in the original line; the one already being served in the counter, the one next in line, and then others or at least you.
That makes you at best, the 3rd in line if not even farther along it.
Because if you were already the 2nd to be served, it doesn’t seem practical to the one behind you to invite you to go ahead of him and with him following you to the other counter.
If you were 2nd and he was 3rd in the original queue, if you went for the new counter and he didn’t follow; that makes you 1st in the new counter and him 2nd in the original counter.
If he followed you to the new counter, that makes you first and him 2nd in the new counter. So the best he’ll get is being second in line either way. With the first in line in the original queue already being able to deposit groceries on the counter and both of you exerting time and effort just to get to the new counter (even if adjacent); that would make sense if BOTH of you came farther back from the original queue.
So definitely there was someone else ahead of you who was not being served yet.
Did you bother to offer the one ahead of you the same thing that the guy behind you offered you? Maybe he’ll/she’ll accept your offer or not. But the question remains, did you offer?
i like your analysis JL!
if B0 was the second in line, the only reason why moving to another line is that the first person had extraordinarily many items to process, while B0 and his new friend had relatively little. (so total time spent by everyone is minimized)
perhaps this is the reason… is it B0?
if B0 was the third (or further), then a good reason NOT to invite the person#2 is coz person2 has alot of items too (for the same minimization reason). perhaps this is the reason too, B0, assuming you were 3rd or further in this example…
i too asked a question about the coffee place. the cashier counter is typically different from the place where they dispense the drinks (this is for say, starbucks, etc).
after you’ve paid, lines are irrelevant, coz all they’ll do is call out your name. so there’s no need for a line at this stage…
Simple, Mr. justice league. The guy in front of me was already next in line to be served. So it wouldn’t have made any difference to him either way.
I’d then be served immediately at the newly-opened counter, and the one behind me would be next-to-be served, just like the one ahead of me at the original queue.
Everyone wins.
Trust you two to sweat the small stuff. :D
ah, so i was right! there was a guy in front that had just started to unload (or is still unloading) his items…
in that case, whats certain is that the guy who offered that you go first is definitely a nice guy.
he gave up the chance to be first, even though it was his idea to do so! very sweet of him/her.
i don’t know if he was “fair” to him, but he was definitely generous to you! :)
from the perspective of society, the distribution of the benefits doesnt matter. meaning, it doesnt matter if he jumps or you do — as long as someone takes advantage of the open cashier, society benefits.
unless, in your mind, SOCIETY’s SENSE of BELONGING == B0′s waiting time :)
You got it GabbyD.
As I said nga, everyone wins — even if as individuals we at one time or another had to forego a disporportionate advantage.
Benigno,
So I was right when I said that “That makes you at best, the 3rd in line if not even farther along it.”
Whether it made any difference to him or not is not the point of the issue. It is whether you offered or not to extend to him what the guy behind you offered to you.
But given the way you answered the first time, everyone already knows the answer to that.
GabbyD,
Cheers.
The bigger point is that he was in line, he waited for his turn – like everyone else.
He didn’t have to put up with people who don’t form lines, people who don’t even ask where the line is, or people who just barge in and pull of a “hindi nyo ba ako kilala” crap.
actually, lines in RP are very civilized and courteous.
actually, lines in RP are very civilized and courteous.
I wouldn’t make that generalization – that there are lines :lol:
Tsk tsk, JL. Why would I offer something to a person who is sure to find no advantage in what I offer?
But I understand where you’re coming from. It’s kind of like this uniquely-Pinoy compulsion to make that token remark “kain” when you are in the middle of a meal and someone comes along.
You can’t help but make nonsensical offers because that’s what Pinoys do — act nonsensically. :D
Since we are into “sweating the small stuff” let me introduce a little wrinkle. Of value maybe only to insiders in grocery chains and most other retailers (like banks) or service industries in the US is the commonly recognized concept that “three is a crowd”.
One huge grocery chain even made this an ongoing promotion to highlight its supposedly superior service. It went like this. Since three is a crowd we guarantee that we will open another cash register when we see 3 people in line. And indeed the 3rd person in line is then motioned to move to the newly opened register. Obviously, since he has created a crowd. And 2 is not. And if there are 4 in line, then 3 and 4 are picked.
Simple Math, really.
But, suppose there are no more unopened registers to accommodate more crowds?
The equation then turns for clients to a game of patient waiting in queue.
Having worked in the hotel/hospitality industry, serving a glass of champagne while waiting in line worked as a solution. Though one incurred the possibility of having to deal with ornery tipsy clients in the longer lines. HiHiHi.
i disagree that its small stuff!
service delivery is very important and eminently practical!
as amadeo avers, its probably the only way for business to differentiate themselves, considering that product innovation itself is very expensive.
from the consumer’s perspective, it’ll give them a better experience using the service or good.
if you’ve ever bought anything, or used a service — these these things are important to you
Of course, customer service is paramount especially in industries selling similar products/services.
But I do refer to “sweating the small stuff” when we have to split hairs about who should be served first in the new line. Look, folks, the retailers have already established the “protocol” and an alert cashier will typically put you in your place if you disregard this protocol.
Unfortunately, in the current milieu in the old homeland, absent a line ( or the “take a number” protocol) the shortest distance between point A to B is not a straight line, but to push or edge out the people in front of you. Holds true in offices, in the streets, on traffic, or what have you.
And its not that there are no protocols, it is usually the absence of “enforcers”. So I become my own citizen enforcer – I honk when my path of travel is violated; I show vocal disgust when edged out of my proper place, etc. These responses do elicit responses, though not necessarily leading to immediate corrective action – yet.
But I am hopeful. Trying to instill civic sense, one person at a time, I think.
Benigno,
I’m not surprised that you don’t get it. I always knew you weren’t as brilliant as you claim to be.
First- you offer because you are supposed to be gracious which everyone obviously knows now that you are not.
Second- there is an advantage to him as from being second in line; he becomes the one immediately to be served already. So from 2nd, he already becomes first.
What would be nonsensical is if you would follow him to the new queue wherein in either case you would be 2nd in line.
But the fact remains; you didn’t offer it!
Grasping at straws, Mr. justice league? :D
I agree with JL here. The guy behind BO has the advantage whether BO said yes or no. The guy is actually NEGOTIATING and BO who has no clue as usual.
If BO said NO then that guy becones first in the next line and avoids a confrontation with BO.
If BO said YES then that guy immediately becomes second in line which is better than being fourth in line in the old queue.
Another scenario is if BO has a lot of stuff and getting rid of him in the old queue will save a lot of time for everyone.
If BO said YES then that guy will probably stay in the old line.
If BO said NO then that guy moves and becomes first in the new line.
It’s simple really BO.
First, there is an unspoken rule – “first come, first served”. you don’t have to be gracious to observe that – you can be muted, loud, jovial, cranky, drowsy, snooty, silent – just observe the rule.
And everyone observes who came first in the queue. If a lane opens, opportunity goes to who came first.
It’s just like an intersection with a 4-way or all-way STOP sign, given four cars, the first car who stops, is the first car to go. Nobody asks anymore.
Unlike in the Philippines, TRAFFIC JAM!!!
It happens all the time. Those who want to correct grammar in others turn out being corrected by yet better ones. So what part in the vicious series must benign found himself in?
If only I ordinarily enjoyed a piece even if it were only the play of words, I could have asked a question or two. But it is not within my power to read virtually the same theme in everything.
A guideline I try to follow (but often fail to do) is to keep it as simple as possible.
Stop playing with words — succint is the way to go.
I think you meant “So what part in the vicious series must benign find himself in?”, Primer.
- :D
It’ simple really. One word means one, two words mean two, three words mean three. In short, more meanings would proportionately mean more sense.
Oh, that word ‘sense’ is certainly volatile.
What the hell does that mean?
I suggest everyone here to read “Elements of Style” by Strunk & White:
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth-William-Strunk/dp/020530902X
I am beginning to arrive at the conclusion that Primer writes in the manner he was taught in his high school and college. The Dominicans do teach weird sometimes.
no way, upn. i thought the guy CLAIMED he attended u.p. he even used it as a mailing address. he also failed to deny that he is a lawyer (he is not in the list of ibp members)when brianb called him one, and kept on making judgment against my professional competence and skills as a lawyer (even though he was never my client, peer, or even an acquaintance)
A problem that bothers me and hope someone answers. Is the emergence of non-patrimonial political parties Bayan, Akbayan etc. a way for the proletariat to get into politics. Bypassing the necessary political favors you have to go through before you can get into position?
You don’t want them waging armed struggle do you?
I believe that armed struggle is useful only when no other recourse is available. However, since our country IS myopically democratic it is best we exploit whatever avenue for reform and change we can get. WHEN the time comes when this farce of a democracy is financially exhausted then ARMED REVOLution is the best solution. Until then we will have to settle with non-parochial organizations like BAYAN MUNA and Akbayan. FYI Akbayan is part of the system and factionally opposite BAYAN.
Side-topic, but still along the theme of “…a shared sense of belonging”.
The Philippines Supreme Court on Tuesday submitted six names for consideration by the Judicial and Bar Council for the two vacancies in the 15-seat high court.
including the name of Court of Appeals Judge Remedios Salazar-Fernando.
Judge Remedios Fernando was one of the 3 judges who ruled for acquittal of US Marine Corporal Smith.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090602-208482/Supreme-Court-submits-6-names-to-JBC
i don’t know why benigno talks about a “democratic system “. You mean Philippine democractic system that does not protect the “weak” from the “strong”.
The Philippines has a democratic form of government. However, one component needed for democracy to work is a participatory political/civic culture – and that’s what it boils down to – there is NONE.
Check out mlq3′s very long explanation to support and clarify his case.
when people cannot feel a sense of belonging at individual level, it can also be interpreted that that person is insecure and lacking self esteem? but how does one improve self esteem to become participatory in economic sense? is it not thru hardwork and reward? but what is hardwork if there’s no opportunity such as employment and empowerment? therefore , to encourage participation there must be reward not penalty of hardships and poverty.
the democratic system that we currently have has never worked for majority. it boils down to managing the country. The overall vision and mission of this country was never communicated clearly by the many leaders in the past and present.The result is a third world country and the most corrupt. That’s a fact.
Arden:
I blogged on Philippine Political Culture – http://filipinovoices.com/philippine-political-culture-circa-2009 – thus the one-liner.
leytenian:
there are people who need to belong. and there are people who don’t need to belong.
the need to belong is an evolutionary adaptation that ensures the individual’s survival by sticking with the herd – for protection, for sources of food among others.
the sense of belonging, within the context of a nation, will take some time as the Philippines is a very young state that has a democratic form of government. it is further complicated by the diverse regional and ethnic groupings.
however, there is a sense of belonging to the respective regional/tribal/ethnic as Bicolano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Chabacano, Cebuano, Ilocano, Boholano, Ilonggo, Maranao, Tausug, Tagalog, Maguindanao, Yakan, Kaagan, Manobo, Tiboli, Aeta, Ifugao, – all with distinct dialects and cultures.
To a certain extent these groupings are like the nation city-states of ancient Greece – you had Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Thebes, Argos, Delphi, Mykenae, Olympia. The difference is that, all these city-states had a common language – Greek.
A closer parallel though is the Balkans – a melting pot of ethnicities and cultures that have been scattered geographically, but which seek to reconvene again. Recent history has shown the fate of artifically contrived states like USSR, Czechoslovakia, or the Malayan Federation – a more comprehensive list is available here – http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/List_of_extinct_states_-_Modern_states/id/1665749
It is interesting to note that the Sultanate of Sulu is recognized as a state that existed earlier than the Philippines (1789-1940).
Given the divergent views in diverse knowledge, attitude, and practices in each regional grouping it will take some time for cohesion to develop – obviously, the Philippines, appears to be an Asian micro-Balkan. Whether cohesion will develop remains to be seen given the stronger centrifugal forces in play.
It has never worked for the majority, because the majority does not understand nor has it made any serious attempt to understand how it is supposed to work.
A cursory browsing of the headlines shows that majority are still using the same tired old criteria for selecting leaders. In which case, don’t expect much difference between the incoming and outgoing officials.
liam, robredo is interesting and the way forward between the logjam you pointed out between obsolete patronage and paternalism and charismatic populism, it points to something this free press editorial pointed out as far back as the early 1950s:
http://www.quezon.ph/familyinfo/politics-means-to-an-end-philippines-free-press-editorial-august-29-1953/
the rule of law is supposed to replace the era of charisma. this has been my response to the usual demands for “delicadeza” -like virginity, once lost, delicadeza is impossible to regain, and it’s been gone for over a generation; you might even be able to date the exact moment delicadeza died -when emmanuel pelaez said he would not stoop to bribing delegates to win the np convention from marcos in 1965. definitely, it’s last gasp was when the man who represented the good things in traditional politicians, amang rodriquez, reportedly died of a broken heart when he realized he could not prevent marcos’ seizing the senate presidency and thereby being one step away from becoming president of the country.
anyway what robredo has established are systems; systems that make for everyone knowing where they fit in the government’s mechanisms for consulting prior to decisions, then implementing them, using every modern tool available to officials and the electorate alike. the closest analogy i can point to is wikipedia, where by all means there are those with authority but also, steps in place for fruitful collaboration. grace padaca for her part has demonstrated, it seems, even to her enemies, the mutual advantages of reasonable cooperation; on the other hand, still in indignant prophet and charismatic zealot mode, among ed has spectacularly failed to actually govern in pampanga.
ironically much of robredo’s success probably stems from his personality -placid, soothing, not particularly confrontational, collaborative. it’s quite a feat that he can step down, take a break after reaching the maximum number of terms, and then be comfortably reelected. he has survived the palace’s efforts to oust him. but he has not made a great impact on neighboring areas although something interesting is going on in elray villafuerte’s antagonistic relationship with his father.
but anyway, we tend to hear of robredo’s achievements but even his fans are stumped on what to do next. i remember asking one of his consultants, if robredo were to die today, would the systems he;s put in place survive him? the consultant said no, it might take another decade or so before the systems would outlast the man. that was four years ago; two more terms to go, then.
where these pockets of change also seem stumped, is in spreading best practices; in many ways possibly because each locality is really too idiosyncratic and what works for robredo will not work anywhere else in the country. i have a hunch it’s actually taking place more often and in more places than we suspect, even if highly limited (maybe in some cities or provinces, specific offices have built functioning relationships and collaboration with the citizenry, with fellow bureaucrats, etc.). to return to randy david’s analysis, he believes we are going through the gotterdamerung of the old order, and as they become increasingly more desperate, and increasingly lose the fight, up close they seem more entrenched and irremovable as ever; but to take a longer view, the tide has or is about to, turn.
i do think that there was momentum in the direction of more reasonable, collaborative government, but that this momentum was stopped dead in its tracks when the hyatt 10 misread the situation and tried to force the president’s hand; what is going on, now, is whether there remains a chance for that momentum to come back, or reaction steps in.
that is my dilemma with robredo, although we see him as someone who represents new era politics, his success still stems largely from him being himself. technically, still personality-based. its life span is limited and his system may be undone by his successors. like what they said about Alexander the great, his empire may have been the largest in ancient times, but it did not survive him after his death.
the problem is how are we going to perpetuate the good or preferable systems/mechanisms (particularly on how to decide policies) that were put in place by people like jesse robredo?
further compounding the problem of perpetuating meaningful change is another problem: values cannot be imposed top-down or from the top since, as benign0 puts it, there is a fundamental flaw in the psyche of the Filipino people, which i think can be best illustrated by the failure of Marcos’ grand experiment on “Bagong Lipunan” or “New Society”. values cannot be successfully imposed from below or from the grassroots either, as best illustrated in cooperatives who often fail as the organization expands due to management issues and the difficulty of communicating ideas to new members aside from the limited capacity of the founders to work full time for the coop.
now i think what we need is a marriage of the organizational capability of the top and the zeal, responsiveness, and idealism of the bottom.
Political parties were supposed to fulfill this function but in our experience, it is only in the aspect of election machinery where parties have succeeded. In the 80s, NGOs tried to fill the vacuum, but as they are now, they only work best in lobbying and representing their particular interests. Interestingly, in the latter part of the 90s, Civil Society tried to take the role, but at the rate that things are going, it seems Civil Society could only work best as fiscalizers.
now it seems i’m getting close, but who’s left? do we need to create another Estate?
benigno, yes, you echo jared diamond’s explaination in guns, germs and steel, why the west had the latter two while say, the tribes in papua new guinea never developed anything beyond hunting-gathering. except in his case his example was the time and effort it takes to strip bark and gather, what is it, tapioca, which leaves little time for anything else. westerners on the other hand, esp. after importing potatoes from the new world, couldn’t just drink and hump all winter long; they started plotting world domination and a place to have winter vacations.
i don’t know if i’d point to democracy = accountability. democracy is the rule of the majority is the standard definition and perhaps the way most would understand it, with that majority reconstituted at regular intervals. democracy besides this regular referendum procedure is also about the manner in which different parties or interest groups grapple with each other and resolve the allocation and use of common resources; and in a sense your advocacy of “well, you elected them,” is extremely traditional, and proof, actually, of how in one aspect our precolonial norms have merged very well with those of representative democracy as they evolved in the west during the enlightenment.
accountability does exist in our society but it is more along the lines of taboos and the shame that accrues from violating social conventions. and there is the concept the west understands as possession being 9/10 of the law; there’s a remarkable passage by the historian ruby paredes you can find here:
http://mlq3.tumblr.com/post/114145779/i-know-filipinos-who-have-actually-voted
which point to a cultural (and not filipino-specific, but broadly southeast asian) attitude where accountability is exacted by means of the loss of power, but that while power is held, whoever has the gold or the authority makes the rules:
http://mlq3.tumblr.com/post/114145779/i-know-filipinos-who-have-actually-voted
and you could go on to slice and dice this to see if this is the residue of people today being descended from people who had to duck and cover as the warrior-chiefs duked it out, and would have to accomodate themselves to each new regime, and even before the spanish and americans our ancestors had to contend with the elimination of the hindu culture of the rulers and its replacement by that of islam; and that had barely put in place a brunei aristocracy when the spanish came along and so forth.
the point here is that at the point where western, specifically anglo-saxon style democracy started to be instituted, terminating the stillborn experiment with franco-spanish models, it took on and was practiced no better and no worse than say, louisiana during the same period and the britain of the corrupt pocket boroughs that didn’t get reformed until the mid to late 19th century. now what the americans did unleash was something entirely new, which was a middle class, and that middle class drank the american cool aid so avidly it began to systematically dismantle the controls on the popular enthusiasms of the people put in place by a wary upper class that practiced american-style politics but recalled and still was culturally attuned to rizal’s warnings that a society not instructed in civics would become irresponsible and uncontrollable, and that the rulers would find it easier to pander to the mob than to try to govern in an enlightened manner.
and there are specifics that are signposts of this slide to chaos: again, the elimination of bloc voting, which destroyed the institutional edge of parties; the artificial, because premature, elimination of the one party state and its replacement with a two party system when there weren’t enough political pros within the establishment to really make for a permanent and principled two-party divide; and the introduction of a new colonial mentality in the form of bolshevism then maoism which directly challenged the whole evolutionary framework of western democracy. not to mention effects of the war, socially and in terms of infrastructure.
accountabilty in this case cannot be exacted if the mechanisms aren’t in place; the rules do not encourage the viability of parties, which could control individual politicians; this is as much from the design of politicians not wanting to be held accountable, as it is the naivitee of people like the framers of the present constitution, who didnt think through the applicability of a multiparty system in a society used to a strong presidency and with a nationally-elected senate, etc.there are no positive reinforcements for good behavior, only an endless series of ten commandments which are moral prescriptions but not political rules that can work.
on the other hand, there are cases where naked self-interest, regardless of the previously existing culture, can lead to changes in that culture. a good example is how people started queing for buses after you migrated to australia. it took some pretty rough handling but people pretty much do it; they actually do it for the MRT, but the stations are designed so badly, people spill out into the streets, and the platforms are badly designed too, so people have increasingly regressed into elbowing their way through, particularly women who have proven every bit as fearless in this regard as their south korean grandma counterparts; and when in singapore there actually seems a little more jaywalking there than in, say, makati.
but what is missing here is a functional system that grants incentives for good behavior and not just endless punishments for infractions so detailed, they invite people to cleverly think up ways to avoid being precisely covered; that’s not a filipino weakness, that’s human nature.
it all boils down to a seeming mastery by filipinos of the old cliche, “when in rome, do as the romans do”. much observations have been made about filipinos’ generally exemplary behavior as inhabitants of foreign lands. thus, patiently waiting for their turn in a queue, observing basic road courtesy, trimming their lawns and keeping their neighborhood clean like everybody else, paying taxes unquestioningly, being good and loyal employees, obeying laws and avoiding crimes, among other things, come almost naturally. bring them back “home” and, with some exceptions, they generally backslide to their old ways – business as usual.
i think the “hiya” and “gaya-gaya” traits dominate the pinoy psyche especially in situations involving foreigners, whether individually or as a community. it seems that “what others might say” is a monumental concern for us and largely govern our general behavioral patterns. in contrast, it seems that within our group, it’s not as important to us because we know what to expect from each other – the ruthless and shameless gets the prize.
to be honest mlq, i don’t understand much of this:
1) “which point to a cultural (and not filipino-specific, but broadly southeast asian) attitude where accountability is exacted by means of the loss of power, but that while power is held, whoever has the gold or the authority makes the rules:”
in what sense is this southeast asian? accountability is ALWAYS exacted by a loss of power. thats how people are held accountable for their actions — if someone can’t do whatever they want, that is by definition a loss of power….
2)”the point here is that at the point where western, specifically anglo-saxon style democracy started to be instituted, terminating the stillborn experiment with franco-spanish models, it took on and was practiced no better and no worse than say, louisiana during the same period and the britain of the corrupt pocket boroughs that didn’t get reformed until the mid to late 19th century.”
are you talking about the americans? the americans brought this? there was an experiment with franco-spanish models?(what?) but the spaniards didn’t set up democratic institutions at all, so what are you talking about?
3) ” now what the americans did unleash was something entirely new, which was a middle class, and that middle class drank the american cool aid so avidly it began to systematically dismantle the controls on the popular enthusiasms of the people put in place by a wary upper class that practiced american-style politics but recalled and still was culturally attuned to rizal’s warnings that a society not instructed in civics would become irresponsible and uncontrollable, and that the rulers would find it easier to pander to the mob than to try to govern in an enlightened manner.”
so the middle class dismantled the controls on “popular enthusiams”… is is a popular enthusiasm? do you mean to contrast this as a lack of knowledge of civics.
you are blaming the middle class for the leader’s pandering? huh? you are blaming the middle class for “slide to chaos: again, the elimination of bloc voting, which destroyed the institutional edge of parties; the artificial, because premature, elimination of the one party state and its replacement with a two party system ”
how did they do all these things you accuse them of?
man, my history must be off!
benign0, your analysis is flawed.
Why is it that when Filipinos go abroad they know what to do at coffeeshops and restaurants. Of coure, except on Filipino establishments.
Why O Why?
“there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.
No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power:
you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion;
you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise;
you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.
Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.”
- BHO, POTUS
bong,
yeah you are now pro-poor. LOL .. i’m glad
Obama Al-Azhar Cairo
Bencard/MLQ3,
(Re: your last comments)
I think I put a label on that concept before — driven by hiya. Our civic sensibilities are motivated more by the fear of losing face than by a drive to achieve a rewarding outcome. We are focused on preventing negative outcomes while shying away from initiatives to acquire new outcomes.
Jared Diamond, also added some geographical factors such as the size of a landmass (which allowed more diverse contact with other tribes/civilisations) which facilitated increased sharing/cross-polination of ideas and technologies. So in that regard, island-bound people were disadvantaged because of their isolation.
However, the orientation of landmasses were also a factor. He argued that the latitudinal orientation of Eurasia favoured dynamic migration and long-distance trading behaviours (which drove technological enhancements and innovations in warfare). The longtitudinal orientation of the Americas on the other hand (if I recall right, because of climate-related barriers) discouraged this amongst its native inhabitants and resulted in a slower rate of technological progress there.
I think dynamism in human contact also resulted in the spread of lots of diseases in Eurasia but the positive outcome was more robust immune systems amongst the survivors of those outbreaks. So when the first Eurasian explorers arrived in what were to become the colonies, the diseases they carried killed inhabitants who, for generations, were not exposed to these germs.
Democracy is still a kind of a colonial solution regime that evolved in an alien culture and force-fed into a culture ill-equipped to get the best out of it. Our gaya-gaya approach resulted in all the trappings set up (the institutions whose spirit the Average Pinoy Schmoe can bareley grasp) but none of the true appreciation of its essence taken onboard into a collective psyche — one that is devoid of the intellectual tools (such as critical evaluation, thesis/anti-thesis/resolution approaches to debate, clear and structured approaches to thinking, etc.) to acquire and sustainably embed new knowledge efficiently.
It’s the same psychology involved when you see a model wearing a style of clothing and then buy it for yourself without realising that you don’t have the bone structure to look good in it. Fashion victims kung baga.
Maybe Pinoy Society is a sad victim of this fashion called democratic governance. We like the look on the mannquin but lack the backbone to look good in it ourselves.
Benigno,
Your reply is so lacking in substance that it merits no further response than what you are getting in this post.
GabbyD,
Benigno and I had a discussion on the “small stuff” a long way back already (about a year ago). Back then he referred to it as the “small-minded world of the nitty gritty”
You might want to check on http://www.quezon.ph/2008/03/31/primer-on-the-neri-case-updated/ for his post on 2nd Apr 2008 2:23 pm, I responded to him with my 2nd Apr 2008 10:18 pm.
BongV,
I think Benigno actually implies that already when he said “I thanked him and we both went for the newly-opened counter.”
He used the word “for” instead of the word “to” which tends to imply a matter of urgency.
It’s as if both of them raced towards the newly opened counter against others who were not privy to their own agreement. There could have been another queue on the opposite side of Benigno’s line with the newly opened counter directly between and others from that queue would have proceeded also to the newly opened counter.
Or simply that others from the back of the original queue could have beaten both of them to being ahead in line in the newly opened counter. If that should be the case; I believe it is wrong for Benigno to present their private agreement as being the pervading “culture” in Australia.
Supremo,
Cheers.
There could have been another queue on the opposite side of Benigno’s line with the newly opened counter directly between and others from that queue would have proceeded also to the newly opened counter.
Could have, but there wasn’t.
BongV,
Benigno likes to trumpet a Japanese manufacturing engineers advice of “Do it right the first time”.
If he wanted to say that there was NOT “another queue on the opposite side of Benigno’s line with the newly opened counter directly between and others from that queue would have proceeded also to the newly opened counter” he could have said so himself immediately the first time he was able.
But he didn’t.
Benigno said that I made 3 assumptions, but none of them regards the idea of another queue as I described. So definitely he didn’t deny that there was actually one.
Do you think costumers in another queue as I described won’t do the same thing like Benigno and the guy behind him did (with a private agreement between them not being an issue) like going to the newly opened counter? Of course they would.
As such, even the 1st and 3rd assumptions would be true in that case; if someone or several from that other queue beat the both of them to the head of the counter, Benigno and the guy who followed him might not be in a better ranking or even be in a worse one. (Remember, he didn’t deny that there was another queue)
He even got the 2nd assumption wrong; the only agreement was that Benigno go head of the guy behind him and I made no assumption that there was an agreement to race against others. But others can go ahead of Benigno since they are not privy to their agreement.
But with Benigno NOT denying that there was indeed another queue ………. what makes you say that there wasn’t? Were you there?
JL
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others)
Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered. The default holds – there is no other queue.
BongV,
If you are going to go Latin, at least make sure it can’t be used against you within the same thread!
http://filipinovoices.com/a-shared-sense-of-belonging/comment-page-1#comment-65019
“Using a comparable benchmark that uses an older democratic state’s history, i.e. the US, 63 years after its independence from King George, the identity that we now know as “American” was not fully defined yet – - the American civil war was yet to happen; Texas, New Mexico, and California had yet to join the Union as these were still Mexican territories to be ceded after the US-Mexican War from 1846 to 1848. The various amendments to the US constitution had yet to be written.”
Are you sure that list of yours is complete?
JL:
There is a difference in comparing a speculation against a fact versus comparing a fact with another fact. :)
it’s the tiny difference which separates a benchmark from a an academic discussion ;)
BongV,
Given that Benigno didn’t deny it when he had the chance when he happens to believe in “do it right the first time”; are you speculating that there was none or are you saying that it is a fact that there was none.
If you are going to say that it is a fact that there was none; GO AHEAD AND PROVE IT!
Benigno never even claimed if there was a costumer behind the guy who was behind him. Can you claim that it is a fact that there was no person behind the guy who was behind Benigno?
Benigno claimed that there were multiple counters, we know that at least 2 counters were open when the one adjacent to his queue opened. Can you claim that in that supermarket; only 2 counters are actually open at that time?
JL:
I’m saying do not invent facts when none is given.
Benigno claimed that there were multiple counters, we know that at least 2 counters were open when the one adjacent to his queue opened. Can you claim that in that supermarket; only 2 counters are actually open at that time?
he uses the world multiple – you do not have information to make a determination that there are two, three, four, five or six counters – or twenty counters.
sure thing, you can claim that in that supermarket; only 2 counters are actually open at that time – i can even claim there’s only one – claims are a dime a dozen, what’s the biggie?
BongV,
Maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror for that one.
My statements have qualifiers like:
-It’s as if
-There could have been
-could have
-If that should be the case
-as I described
-in that case
and with all of that; I never ended up saying that there was.
You are the one who said in a definite manner that there wasn’t. Aren’t you the one who is inventing a fact when none is given?
“sure thing, you can claim that in that supermarket; only 2 counters are actually open at that time – i can even claim there’s only one – claims are a dime a dozen, what’s the biggie?”
Prove your claim that there is only one counter open at that time!
I can make any claim – and I can be wrong – given that you don’t have enough facts to make a determination – the point being, that with limited facts, it is a USELESS exercise to speculate.
moreover, the discussion is about culture, and a sense of belonging – and the overall context is quite clear.
now if you want to indulge, go ahead – while you are at it – include fermions, quarks, leptons, bosons, hadrons, including pink unicorns, santa claus, tooth fairy – any irrelvance you can claim – suit yourself dude.
BongV,
Actually I do have enough facts to disprove your claim that there was only one counter open at the time.
There was the counter where the original queue was lined at and the new counter where Benigno eventually paid for his goods. That makes 2 which certainly disproves your claim of one.
You speculated yourself so whatever good reason you can give for doing so can be mine too.
He provided an example to prove his claim on culture so that same example should be also open to scrutiny.
by all means – two… so are you happy now?
yeah, your scrutiny of the one or two counter question made me conclude that that whether it is one or two counters, a group of people will still line up (akin been to the black saturday shopping events – people snake through shelve alleys starting from the entrance to the cashier’s desk) .
i can imagine another group of people, lagay to security guard to get ahead, lagay to cashier to get ahead, call the manager to get ahead, call the supervisor to get ahead, make a scene to get ahead.
so, one, two, three counters… who cares, kilala ko ang manager. – group A
so, one, two, three counters… who cares, I am ordering from the net, for pickup at the store (very short line) or have it delivered to my door – group B
;)
Suit yourself, Mr. justice league. After all, you reap what you sow. :D
Benigno,
And what you are reaping right now in this blog and Manolo’s back then is proof of what you’ve sown a long time ago.
Nope. I meant that if you sow small, you reap small; thus:
Here are the assumptions you make in that small way that you read into what I wrote:
:D My use of the phrase “went for” you interpret as an intention to “race” to sieze an advantage;
:D that a “priv[ate] agreement” between myself and the guy behind me was made to do so; and,
:D that siezing said advantage was a “matter of urgency”.
My my. You not only read into the use of a small preposition, you build up an argument based on a set of assumptions that you came up with out of nowhere on top of that reading into.
And all that for what is really just a matter of a few minutes additional or less time spent on a grocery queue.
I’ve met small minds before and the small thinking that comes with them, but I must say yours set a new standard that will surely add mightily to our society’s Heritage of Smallness.
Congratulations, dude. :D
Benigno,
You mean like the comment on Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”?
benigno,
That is right, the word should be find instead of found.
I am sure about one thing here my friend. Did you also notice that what we input into the comment box is not exactly what comes out as soon as we press the ‘submit comment’?
That is the reason for that and that should not insinuate poor grasp of the English language. Sure you can pretend this ‘strange errors’ are part of the imperfections of digital tech.
jon,
Until it reflects on every blog you post, I don’t think you have any business referring to any prescribed book since if you yourself cannot communicate in excellent English, what business do you have pretending that you do?
gabby,
Don’t even waste time now with mlq3 who wrote a ‘long distance answer’ to even the most simplest question you ask. After all, Old Media pays on a ‘per column inch’ basis. So what’s the beef?
to that folk who is a pittance,
Can anyone point to a case of self-contradiction on how concepts in sociology have been discussed out of context? I got flat 1.0s in my two courses in sociology not to say courses in psychology and social philosophy – in saying this.
I think you meant, “Sure you can pretend these ’strange errors’ are part of the imperfections of digital tech”, Primer. :D
one thing about digital tech – GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.
now the poor chap is blaming his computer. i must say, this one really has nerve – lots of nerve, a pygmy trying to play basketball with the big boys.
“fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice shame on me”.
Can anyone point to a case of self-contradiction on how concepts in sociology have been discussed out of context? I got flat 1.0s in my two courses in sociology not to say courses in psychology and social philosophy – in saying this.
Primer:
Careful of the credentials route – the 1.0 handed out by your professor might be a 75 in other institutions and will not be credited – or the professor may have given points to those who follow him on the misguided path. 1.0 is not an assurance.
hey, primer, why can’t we just accept grammatical correction graciously, especially if its given courteously…
So in this one, most simplest should be just the word ‘simplest’. I suspect there is a virus of sort when we post what we have written.
gabby:
1. it is southeast asian in the context that ruby paredes identified it, see link.
2. malolos was an experiment in franco-spanish political models; the terminal point of this was the showdown in the first philippine assembly between the revolutionary veterans of malolos who wanted to adopt the rules of the spanish cortes, the same model theyd adopted for malolos, and the younger generation who wanted to adopt the rules of the us congress. the us congress rules won and this determined the trend towards us style govermment as the preference even of the political class.
3. what the middle class types did, in my view, was ignore the conservatism and control the upper class politicians tried to institute, and systematically remove what had been put in place as kinds of “brakes” on popular enthusiasms. for example, bloc voting was a brake on the power of celebrities or popularity on an individual level, because it gave a positive reinforcement for campaigning as a party slate, but with its elimination, there is no incentive both for candidates or electorate to think in terms of slates, much less parties, it’s every candidate for himself.
1) i think she said it was widespread in southeast asia, not that it was a (broadly) southeast asian trait.
my point is that it isn’t an exclusively southeast asian trait — its widespread…
its semantics, and it confused me.
2) about US rules… — i’m not sure what we would expect here.
Spain was falling, and the US was the shining example for former colonies that wanted to rule themselves, having fought (and won) their own war of independence.
Spain never gifted us with institutions like a congress, so we were never attached to the spanish system.
it would have been VERY different, had the spanish established these institutions directly! (ala Britain)
this is one example of how Spain was a bad colonizer (see Daron Acemoglu’s Johnson, and Robinson’s work on colonialization and development)
3) my post-war history is weak, so i can’t contribute much here. but i was surprised at your characterization of a politically active middle class that went tearing down norms! i thought the philippine middle class was much more passive than that.
however, i must say: wasn’t Erap the first example of such a problem? that is, the problem of popularity on the personal level as the main determinant?
Ramos, while popular, was vetted according to the traditional channels, was he not?
i can see how Aquino fits your idea; but this was a special time — after the revolution it was important to tie it closely to ninoy, so laurel accepted the VP position.
anyway, (3) is a major topic beyond the scope of a comment. i need to read up on this to convince myself…
thanks!
Yea, you’re right there benigno, these rather than this (this being singular). Typo errors – happens in every comment.
But for those with heads bigger than an elephant, no pity, dude. Okay lang naman kasi his comments have already been effectively isolated. Siya lang nakakaintindi ng pinag gagawa niyang kalokohan.
Kultado na utak ng abogadong yan. Kahit maliit na typo, sinasakyan pa, ano ka ba naman, pare?
gabby,
In any event, we don’t have an editor in chief here unless you volunteer to do the work.
Besides, you’re not much of an editor, either. Typographical errors are different from grammatical errors, bore that in mind.
i didn’t say anything about editors.
all i said was, if someone corrects someone else, and if its correct and given courteously, then just accept and move on.
tama ba?